Slashdot Mirror
Should You Vote?
George Bush's suggestion last week that the Net can turn a child's heart dark and murderous sparked a ton of comments and e-mail, much of it about whether people will vote in the presidential election or stay home. Frankly, I was surprised at the level of interest from the tech world -- including the many passionate pleas to vote. This is one of those conversations that ought to move beyond e-mail and into the open. A number said statements like Bush's -- and other Luddite, exploit-parental-fears posturing by Gore, Cheney and Lieberman about violence, "cultural pollution" and other dangers emanating from TV, Hollywood, the Net, and gaming -- were inspiring them to participate. Others said they would sit out the election to protest a process that seems irrelevant. So far, I haven't found my candidate. But if you've decided to vote and care to say why, here's your chance. People are definitely listening.
Stop the cycle of creepo/morons in the white house. Vote for whoever is running on the Nazi party ticket, vote green praty, vote american communist party, anything.
The system is corrupt; most people don't even vote anymore. The monied Republican and Democratic elite want to scare their respective constiutencies: yahoos and old people. They can be controlled. The disaffected majority has limited choices: Buchanan and Nader. Nader is passionate and intellectual and is addressing the issues of middle class power (or lack thereof). Sure, it's a protest vote but if Nader can score more than 5%, then the Green Party will get matching funds next time. Perhaps then at least one of the political parites will be reformed and present a real alternative to middle class voters.
Librarians know everything! Vote Librarian!
Oh and Bush likes to kill people too.
So why Gore? Well, we have 2 choices. Gore. Bush. Not Buchannan, not Nader. Neither of them can win. There are more effective ways to protest than by voting 3rd party. So vote for the best choice between Bush and Gore, and then go help the Green party in local areas where they have a shot, or try to get Green ideas implemented in the currect Government. That is, unless you want the next THREE supreme court judges to be very very conservative. ("Abortion?? Murder. The internet? The devil's toy. Books?????)
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush, referring to one of his critics.
http://www.lp.org These guys had a frigging key cracking time at distributed before any other party even TALKED about the internet.
In many countries in the world the head of state (or their party, or whatever) is/are elected by preferential voting. That is, you get a list of candidates, and you order them by preference. The candidate who gets the least first preferences is eliminated, and their votes distributed to the second preferences. Then the remaining candidate with the least first preferences (or inherited first preferences) is eliminated and their votes distributed, and so on, until there is only one canididate/party left (the winner). This is what encourages people to vote for third party candidates. Imagine: you could vote Nader 1 Gore 2 Bush 3 That way Nader would get 15% of the vote, and Bush would be kept out of the White House. As for "a vote for the lesser of two evils being a vote for evil", that seems a very confused sentiment. A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to reduce the amount of evil in the expected outcome. Personally, I would vote for Nader in a preferential voting system, but I'll be voting for Gore this time around. I mean, say I give you a choice of poking yourself with a 1 inch needle or with an 8 inch needle - would you just say, "I don't care, you decide"?
That's not really possible in some areas. The way I understand it, in Indiana, for a write in vote to be valid, teh peron you write in has to be an officially announced write in candidate. Which seems awfully stupid to me. It eliminates the protest vote in that if you write in, say your own name, it won't even be counted.
I know I speak form a good number of Brits, Canadians, Germans, Japanese, Little African Nationites who dont have enough to eat when I say this:
Who gives a flying fuck what you Americans do. Most of us couldnt care less who your president is since you've already demonstrated an ignorant disregard for your good leaders (Clinton) and a revolting level of idolatry for your sub moron figureheads (Reagan.) Thank god Nader will never win; that man is too useful to be reduced to a shell of his former self.
It doesnt matter who you elect, you're all fucking idiots who get dumber with every passing election. The United States is the laughing stock of every enlightened nation on earth. And please dont reply that other countries are jealous - some of those other countries compete very effectively with your economic might despite having only a fraction of 1% of your resources. Fuck, some of them play your American asses like yoyos. We arent jealous of shit, you pompous windbags.
What people would give Bush - a known coke head without the wits to prepare for a debate, the fucking progeny of a murderous cia head - a ten point lead in the polls. What people would would consider voting for someone like Albert Gore - a man who's only job in life has been to seek office. What the fuck does he know about the people he seeks to represent? Those two fucking losers are bigger royalty than Charles and Diana. They represent fuck all if you're not a corporate fat cat.
You're morons. Take away hollywood (please) and you wouldnt have two dimes to rub together. America is a nation of trolls.
Go ahead, mark me as a flaming troll. God forbid someone should read this.
For those who think that a vote for a third party is wasted..just look to Canada. Dissatisfaction with the status quo has created two major political parties in the last decade. The foremost, the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Canadian reform party, it merges right-wing populism, social conservatism with economic libertarianism) is the party I belong to. It went from NOTHING to the Official opposition (party holding the second most seats in the house of commons) in the course of less than 10 years. Another party, the Bloc Quebecois went from nothing to official opposition (it is at present the third largest party in the house) almost overnight. In the process, an old party, the Progresive Conservatives were nearly destroyed and the Liberals have had to change thier policies in response. We also have a genuine social democratic party called the New Democratic Party (for you americans out there it is similar to a more socialist green party) that has greatly influenced our electoral politics, at times rising to the holder of the balance of power when our government holds a simple majority of seats in parliament. The Canadian Alliance is genuinely right wing, whilst the NDP is genuinely left wing with the other parties being rather like the republicans and democrats..holders of the middle ground. he lesson here is that those votes DO make a difference. You CAN change things by voting for a third party.
I agree. I was trying to get folks that wanted to vote "none of the above" to write in John McCain.
Reason? To "shake up the system", since he is no longer a candidate, his getting a block of votes would attract media attention. The point being that our present method of selecting presidental candidates sucks.
I also feel that John McCain is a better choice than the two mainstream candidates.
(Feel free to moderate this to the bottom, as this was the general reaction on usenet when I made this suggestion)
Nader is the son of Lebanese immigrants. Last I heard, Lebanon was not in northern Europe.
And while it is true that he is Ivy-league educated, he sought a law degree so that he could fight against percieved injustices, not because his parents (and their political party) told him that he couldn't be president unless he did.
His attacks on the safety record of the automobile industry began the year after he graduated from Harvard Law School. Three years prior to that, he graduated magna cum laude from Princeton.
In the future, please do a little research before you go lumping Gore, Bush, and Nader in the same class. Not even close.
Finally, I implore people, PLEASE, go out and vote for ANYONE BUT BUSH OR GORE!!! That's the only way your vote will mean ANYTHING. Vote for Nader, Brown, Hagelin, or that Nazi Buchanan if you want to, but JUST VOTE!
DCMA, Carnivore, and litigious culture have not been imposed on your country with one hundredth the brutality of colonialism
:)
Hate to point this out, but the US has regularly killed innocent civilians for decades, except that most Americans wouldn't know coz they are semi-literate about foreign policy.
Do you think anybody gives a shit about carnivore and the US govt. reading someone's email? The US was one of the few countries (including libya and iraq) that opposed the landmine ban. It had death squads killing civilians in Guatemala, which has been well documented.
Recently, there was a proposal to close down the School of the Americas , a US military academy that has trained south american dictactorships, including skills such as torture.
You yanks lap up the propaganda fodder your govt. feeds you, which isn't that difficult, since half of you can't spot countries on the world map. Go USA!
I hope this doesn't mean that you won't vote. Don't forget that there are many local races that you should be watching. While you're there, you may as well vote for President too..
--
Ski-U-Mah!
My problem with Libertarians (not libertarians) is that they seem to want the government to exert less control over businesses. While that could be good for the corner mom & pop shop, I think it is bad when we're talking about big businesses and corporations.
When it comes to the socialist programs such as Social Security and health coverage for all, I guess I probably can't defend my position on that to you. I think it's important to have these programs, though their importance may go down if the minimum wage is increased to a livable wage.
I bet I believe in many of the personal liberties that you do. However, I think we must go through a transition period, where we build up the health and wealth of the population, while reducing the overarching impact of corporate interests. Once we find a good balance in the incomes of our citizens and reduce the levels of poverty in this country, I think we will find that the social programs can be taken away. It may take 50 years, which is one of those things that pisses people off.
I heard Winona LaDuke speak last month. She says that her tribe has an old saying about making decisions. ``Do not think of the impact on yourself, but of the impact on people seven generations from now.''
Okay, so 50 years isn't seven generations, but you get the idea. (or maybe I should be getting your idea.. I dunno..)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
I understand the problem when you have many, many candidates. In that case, I think I'd advocate a limited Borda count where you only rank, say, six candidates out of twelve or something. The problem with that is that the media may then only report on six candidates, neglecting half of the people who are running (though that's better than what we get today...)
It might be a worthwhile exercise to grab some of your friends or coworkers and run a small poll. Get a list of the candidates running in your state, and try a few different methods. Have the people you gathered voice their opinions about how they felt about each method (after seeing who won).
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Does the STV system only drop the bottom candidate, or does it drop bottom candidates over and over again? For example, you have four candidates, then the 4th is removed, then the third, and then you find the winner from the last two?
Just curious..
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Hey Dave..
;-)
Well, you can always write in somebody that you think would do a good job. I wonder how many votes Ventura will get
Anyway, in addition to the top seven candidates that are on the ballot in enough states to possibly win, there are two more people running in Minnesota. IIRC, there's somebody from the Socialist Workers party, and another person that probably just filled out the paperwork on a lark (an `official' write-in candidate, as he/she didn't get enough signatures to actually be on the ballot).
Not that I think I'd vote for either of them, but hey...
I really got interested in the alternative voting methods as well. It would be interesting too see what would happen if a state somewhere voted for it's Electoral College members in that fashion.
Of the two alternatives I saw, approval vote and Borda count, I think I like Borda count the best. I find it hard to believe that approval voting would be a whole lot different than what we already have, but that's just my opinion.
As the article said, all voting methods can fail in some way. Borda appears to be the most fault-tolerant (though it does carry the requirement that you have to actually have some moderately well-formed opinions of each of the candidates, which would require much more even media coverage).
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Democracy doesn't work. It was tried throughout history, most notably in Greece, and it doesn't work- it's 'bread and circuses' and the dominant faction stomps all over everyone else, making it not much different from fascism. Read Federalist #10- this is hardly news.
America is not a democracy- it is a republic. THAT is why I'm voting for Nader.
I happen to be so extremely concerned with corporatism issues that choosing Nader is completely obvious- whatever his other concerns, it's plain that he entirely shares my distrust and alarm with what corporations are doing. That is reason enough to vote for him a thousand times over, since the Dems and Reps are both entirely bought, and Harry Browne is wildly in favor of turning over _all_ power to corporations and dropping any and all government counterbalances (something I find absolutely shocking. Ever heard of fiduciary duty, Harry? Why is it these huge powerful entities do not fall under your definition of 'government' themselves? They control what we do, utterly- more than the regular government.)
But that's as may be- my point is that the USA is a republic by design. The electoral college is the way it is for a reason- a state can back a different candidate and not merely be submerged in a nationwide counting of the votes- at that point politics has to deal with the different guy. In addition, a high turnout (like 5-10%?) for a third party candidate _proves it's a republic- anyone in politics must contend with what that means, it is an open admission that there's a really big voting bloc that are so concerned with some issue or other that they will act on it and be identified as a strong faction of their own.
I think people _should_ vote for Harry Browne (God help us if he wins! Linux can kiss its ass goodbye in the face of 'Halloween Document 2K- Since No Law Exists') if the guy seriously echoes their prime concerns- "Make government smaller!" is a perfectly legitimate agenda. By the same token people _should_ vote for Nader if they are even half concerned about corporatism- that's probably the one area where he'd have a significant effect, as the President is not King and doesn't make all the rules himself. People need to not vote for Gore _or_ Bush unless they are really, seriously, intelligently voting _for_ those people: I personally don't see why anybody would do this but then I'm a Nader guy and if I thought Gore or Bush were any sort of sensible choice I'd _vote_ for them instead of noisily joining an anticorporate faction too large to ignore.
As a final note, I am stunned that Katz is not already beating the drum for Nader. Read your own articles, Jon, then read some Nader interviews. Don't you realise this guy is the spearhead for your own pet issue? It's astonishing that you wouldn't know this already. Read what he has to say. If you wanted action against corporate abuses you only have one choice (plus, at least in Vermont, the Progressive party on a local level) You don't _have_ any other choices and not voting is not a choice because it is a vote for 'either Gore or Bush will be fine', and that's not true from the progressive perspective.
Pyramid scheme and Ponzi scheme are essentially the same thing, the way I understand it. One's just named in dishonor of the guy who started it.
Not at all, the amendments are a part of the Constitution. In fact, many of our current government's greatest trespasses have been against the amendments - the 10th in particular. The amendment process is a good idea; it allows for necessary changes from time to time. Amendments would be necessary, for example, to do virtually anything Mr. Nader advocates, and they are the proper method for doing so. Executive orders and ordinary legislation are not. The especially good thing about amendments is that 3/4 of the state legislatures must ratify them before they take effect - much less likely to happen then, say, 268 power-hungry fools isolated in Washington and accountable to nobody deciding on their own that something is a good idea even though the Supreme Law of the Land specifically prohibits it.
Have you actually read his stance on this issue? I don't think you have. Mr. Browne acknowledges that the federal government has no say in what you may do with your body. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion, therefore it is a state or local issue, to be decided by individuals much more accessible to you than himself or anyone else in Washington. Likewise, the federal government is not authorized to fund any non-military medical facility. So, yes, he would fight for elimination of such funding, regardless of whether the facility provides abortions.
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess
Thank God. It's nothing but a pyramid scheme anyway.
when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay.
Then I suppose that, with lower overhead, the social security scheme must be paying out a lot more than a private investment account would for the same investment. Oops, wrong. By about an order of magnitude. 500 bucks a month isn't enough for even a poor person to live on. It's half the poverty level. It's chicken feed. And for this, we bankrupt our nation's productive citizens? Yeesh.
He is competely against universal healthcare, which most wealthy nations are handing out like flyers
The Constitution doesn't authorize a scheme like this. If that doesn't interest you, just look at the waiting lists for medical care in such nations, and how many of their wealthier citizens end up just going to the US for health care.
I hope no one voting for Browne is getting federal grants and loans for college, cause it ain't going to be there much longer.
I'm sure some reasonable plan will be put in place for the existing loans to be repaid under the same terms they were made. Don't think the feds will just call in the entire amount. And, although I'm sounding like a broken record, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to make such loans.
I'm going for Nader because he want's the federal government to work especially with publically funding elections
Not in the Constitution.
establishing a living wage
Not in the Constitution.
providing universal healthcare to 80-100 mil uninsured Americans
Not in the Constitution. And so, I suppose, those who have worked to get themselves into a position where they do have insurance will just have to eat that $10k a year, huh? "Too bad for you, you're successful. Not only will you have to pay for your own insurance, but you'll also have to pay for those who couldn't be bothered to provide it for themselves. Ain't America great?"
He also plans to establish a 'none of the above' options in elections so people like Katz and company don't sit out but voice their protest and force another election if no one gets a decent majority.
This is a state issue. My state already has such an option. Why doesn't Mr. Nader's?
Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there
Well, that's not me by a long shot. I would change that a little: "Browne is great if you'd like a chance to be wealthy at some point in your life."
Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Yes, I can clearly see on Mr. Browne's web site that he is in favor of maintaining the income tax on the poor and abolishing it for the rich. Oh wait, that's wrong; he actually argues for abolishing it for everyone. Sorry, it looks like you're wrong. Sure, the rich wouldn't pay any federal income or sales taxes, but neither would anyone else. A scam? Hardly. That honor goes to social security, the most successful scam in recorded history.
If Mr. Browne's plans were implemented, you could still be 100% satisfied with government. Any or all of the following could happen:
Regardless, you can still have what you want. The key is that I can too. Nice how that works out, isn't it?
If you don't feel you have time to understand the canidates and what they stand for, then please don't vote. Those who vote without thinking about the issues are risking that they vote for someone who would do a bad job in office. Those who understand the issues (Not nessicarly all, but enough that understanding more/others wouldn't change their choice) should vote.
Remember the goal is for the best canidate to win. If you don't know who the best canidate is why vote. If you think you do, then you should help out those who can't be bothered to vote by voting for the right person.
In other words, I've spent a lot of time looking over various canidates, and I know who will get my Presidental vote (Howard Phillips), but am still considering senate and represenitives on national and state levels. Please get out of my way if you havn't put as much thought into the process lest you vote for the wrong person.
If you disagree with me politically and vote for someone else, that is fine with me. If you don't know anything about the canidates and vote for someone else, I have a problem with that.
I for one am convinced that crime and antisocial behaviour in general can in very many cases be led back to the way the parents raised the person in question. And crime affects us all in some way.
I've seen many different ways to raise children. I've seen Some rotten parents, and some good ones. I've seen rotten kids, and I've seen good kids. However the corolation is not as strong as you lead us to think. There is some mind you, but I've seen wonderful parents turn out rotten kids, and I've seen rotten parents turn out good kids. I can't think of a reason for either, but I've seen it.
Yes parents should take responsibility for their children and raise them right, but there are very few who are doing such a bad job of raising their kids that I would advocate taking their kids away.
OTOH, there are many parents who are raising their kids in a way I disagree with. Thing like religion, Spanking, other punishment, family activities, day care, allowances, TV, curfews, dating, etc. are all things I've seen parents handle in a way different from me. Some are too strict, others are not strict enough, but then I turn to the next point, and suddently the positions have changed. I know that if I ever have kids people will say exactly the same thing about me.
So yes parents have a role in keeping kids out of trouble. But how much goverment should impose... I'm not willing to commit to that.
Tried in in the primaries, if there are no marks on the voting card the machine won't accept the ballot.
Note that you don't have to vote for all open positions, and I presume you could vote for a write in canidate.
Granted the Libratarians are for smaller less intrusive goverment, but the constitution party is also for similear things. There are major diffeences, but they are differences allowed (They would say required in some cases) by the constitution.
The constitution party (if it has a majority in congress and the presidency, otherwise they just end up having to compromise like everyone else) would make goverment smaller then it is.
The major partys lie about their opponants all the time, please keep third partys clean of this - at least as much as we can.
Direct democracy sucks. What we actually need (even more than campaign finance reform) is a new way of enumerating the votes. After reading some materials on the statistics of voting, I've been convinced that a slightly more complicated system such as a "Borda Count" would let the best candidate shine through regardless of party boundaries.
/. ID is lower than the real Bruce Perens'.
It works something like this... Each voter ranks the candidates according to preference. First place gets a certain number of points, second gets a little less, and so on. Then each candidate's points are totaled and the winner takes it.
One potentially amusing situation was highlighted: Say all the republicans rank Bush first and Gore last and the democrats do the opposite. In that situation, the second place candidates are more likely to win. We'd wind up with Nader or Browne, whom a lot of people think are a better choice than Bush or Gore anyway, but won't vote for them because of the percieved unlikelyhood that they'll win.
The real Threed's
--Threed
What you're suggesting is to remove the top two choices by letting the two "sub-majorities" cancel each other out (perhaps with one having a slight edge over the other). That's kinda contrary to the whole point of having an election.
/. ID is lower than the real Bruce Perens'.
What we're trying to do in an election is arrive at a concensus. A Borda Count does a better job at selecting the candidate that everyone could live with because it lets every voter give their complete opinion on every candidate.
(I was going to give some examples, but using actual candidates' names and the logic used by the typical party member would come off looking a bit flamish.)
The math in a Borda Count isn't so bad. Each first place vote earns a candidate n votes, second place n-1, and so on, n being the number of candidates. The points are tallied, the winner is clear.
I don't know whether the Borda Count would eliminate the need to vote indirectly. Democracy is pretty screwed up, especially when a popular vote is used. How much of that is the democratic process and how much is the popular vote, I dunno. The US is a Republic, and probably ought to stay that way for the time being.
The real Threed's
--Threed
However, at least here, they are treated as secondary by the local media that I've yet to see them mentioned in the paper which I read daily. I know from NPR that there's a congressional seat up, but that's in a different county than I'm in.
It could be that there aren't that many issues up vote here, and since I recently moved, I can't say much on the local politic scene beyond the strong republican bent. So hopefully, the papers will have local issue sections or I'll get something in the mail so that I'm better informed.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Of course it can, and that's a good thing. Where else do you think we're going to get the next generation of System Administrators?
... and remember, opposition parties *do* have roles to play, and they *can* influence what the government does. A party with a large minority of votes will have some influence on the country's direction. A party with a small minority will be pissing in the wind. Just because the party you vote for doesn't get power, doesn't mean your vote was wasted.
--
I don't know about US votes, but here in the UK there is the concept of a spoilt ballot: a voting slip which has not been correctly filled out.
Spoilt ballots get counted, and they are included in the announcement after the count.
I always vote, and I always find a canditate to vote for (usually the Labour candidate, although I was once strongly tempted to vote for Plaid Cymru's Cynog Davis, since he is an excellent constituency MP).
However, I have spoken to several UK citizens (*cough* - subjects) who never vote because they feel the whole thing is a sham / all politicians are as bad as each other / etc.
My feeling is that if you really have moral objections to all candidates, you *should* get up and spoil your ballot. Sure, your protest vote will get lumped in with the illiterates and idiots who just couldn't figure out how to draw an X in a box, but a high number of spoilt ballots *will* send out a message. It's better than being lumped in statistically with those too bone-idle to get off their arse and walk to the polling station.
--
When corporations are no longer defended by the government, laws, etc, etc, they will be unable to pressure citizens into buying their product, etc, etc.
Do NOT presume to tell me what I can and can't do.. If it doesn't affect you, then go away.
As long as a child is part of a woman's body, then it belongs to her, and she can do with it as she likes.. That's my opinion.. If it offends you, then don't get an abortion. Don't tell other people what they should do.
If you don't have the intelligence to realize that failing to vote is the stupidest form of protest ever, then please don't vote.
On the other hand, Mr. Katz seems to think that the whole electoral process would be improved dramatically if a larger percent of the population voted, and that is simply not the case. Everyone votes in Peru (or pays a fine), and it doesn't stop them from electing some amazingly inept and corrupt politicians. At the very least our current system weeds out the most politically incompetent citizens. It takes a modicum of dedication and intelligence to register to vote, to know where the polls are, and to know when the election is. If voting were any easier we would get more completely uninformed people voting, and that would be bad. Right now even the voters that I disagree with politically at least had the good sense to realize that their vote counts. That counts for something.
The media machine, of which Mr. Katz is a part, doesn't see it that way, however. Theywould like to have more control over elections, and the easiest people to sway are the types of people that don't currently vote. Media people would love it if more sheeple got out and voted.
As Libertarians keep trying to tell people (see The World's Smallest Political Quiz), limiting views to Left vs. Right is completely wrong.
Browne is neither Left nor Right, he is Libertarian.
OpenSourcerers
I consider Bush's advocation of all libraries receiving federal funds being forced to install internet filters to be the bad-crazy kind of nuts.
What has Gore said that puts him in that category in your mind?
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
The libraries are there as a public service.
They are not owned by the government, they are owned by us. The citizens. If we don't stand up and say no, we don't want demonstrably flawed censorware blocking what information can be accessed at a library, who will?
At least Gore's idea offers us some choice.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Minor point. I know it's in fashion to go over everything Jon Katz says with a fine-toothed comb, but in this case Katz wasn't making any assertion - simply reporting what people had written to him in a remarkably concise post.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Most abortions aren't killing children - they are killing fetuses or embryos. The level of complexity is very different.
Heck the Pill and fertility clinics kill countless embryos.
Nevertheless I applaud your libertarian commitment to supporting a right you find distasteful.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
From a libertarian standpoint it's clear enough.
The girlfriend wished to have a child. The man invaded her body to prevent this.
This is assault, and damage to property.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
If you don't like either candidate for President, so what? Forget about them (vote 3rd part), and vote in a race that may have a more direct impact on your daily lives, such as city council, state legislature, school board, sheriff, US Senate and House of Rep., etc.
-- Viva FreeBSD --
well, hopefully someone else will read this, since i don't have the automatic +1 bonus that everyone else here seems to.
two things here. first of all, where can i find out about the local races? anyone know. i haven't seen much coverage of them in the papers (then again i never read the papers all that closely) as many people have said, i'm likely to make a much bigger difference in the local votes, but i really don't know anything about the candidates. i registered to vote where i am going to college (chicago) because i plan to continue to live here after i graduate, but i have never followed the political climate here much.
as for the presidential race. well, for all i've thought about it, the only thing i've decided so far is that i won't vote for gore. so here's the rundown on what i think:
bush: i've always considered myslef a republican, although this will be the first election i will be voting in. part of that probably had to do with an extremely conservative upbringing. i've lost a lot of faith in the republican party over the last four years, but i still tend to identify more closely with the republicans than with the democrats. anyway, the only thing that i really dislike about bush is the republican ties to big business. i favor bush's position on the estate tax (despite david brin's social engineering rant), i like the idea of education reform (although i don't particularly like vouchers, even though i went to a private school), etc. about the only thing gore has going for him are better positions regarding health care and prescription drug benefits, but in either of those two cases, gore's behind nader (imo). so if it weren't for big business, i'd vote bush.
browne: while i applaud the libertarian ideal, and i like a ot of his views, he's also kinda scary. while i am a strong opponent of gun control, his solution is extreme: repeal all federal gun laws. excuse me, i kinda like the fact that convicted felons are not allowed to own a firearm and that fully automatic weapons cannot be owned without a special permit. likewise, his position regarding the environment: sell of government lands because private owners will be better stewards of land they have a vested interest in. his argument is convincing; the vast majority of all serious pollution is done by corporate stewards of privately owned land. but what does this mean for national parks? is browne going to sell off yellowstone and the grand canyon as well? can you imagine how much a developer would pay for yellowstone to build condos for billionaires? his argument is that interest groups that care about the environment enough will buy some of these areas of land in order to protect it, but how much money do these groups have compared to the value of the land?
which brings us to nader. to quote brin: "gadzooks!!'. this guys scary. seriously. about the only thing he's got going for him is his privacy policy and his stance opposing large corporations. i think i disagree with him on just about every other issue. except for the issues about which he doesn't say anything at all, which is a lot of them. he seems to be running entirely on his economic platform and ignoring just about everything else. actually i guess i can't say i disagree with him on everything. his health care reformideas sound good. i'm not sure i agree that weneed national health care, but if we're going to have a health care system, it might as well be done right.
so that leaves me with this. if i'm going to vote for a major party candidate, i'd much rather vote for bush. i have a feeling that this would do no good whatsoever. i haven't seen the polls lately, but considering chicago's reputation for being democratic, i'd guess gore has a pretty strong hold on the electoral vote in illionois. if i decide to vote for a third party candidate, i have a choice between opposing big government and opposing big business. while i dislike big government on principle, right now i consider big business to be a bigger threat to my personal freedom. if either bush or browne had nader's personal privacy stance as part of their platform, they'd get my vote. even more so if they had his attitude about consumer protection (although that's a bit much to ask, especially from bush). anyway, my big beef with browne is that he needs to realize that our society has changed a fair amount since the constitution was wrtten, and the federal government needs to have some central authority, as there are things in our society that cannot be effectively left to the states. i think he's right that the government has gotten way to big, (and i like the idea of no income tax...) but he wants to make it way too small.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Anyway, vote Monty Burns for Preseident.
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
All across the country, many other things will be on the ballot. Members of your local school board, your city council, township board, county commission, etc. Statewide offices such as state senators, governors, secretaries of state, and governors are also on the ballot many places.
Perhaps you do think that the Presidential race doesn't involve you. Maybe you're right; maybe not. Your local race does involve you. Will your roads be will paved? Will your city be kept clean? Will your children (or YOU) be well educated? Will your water be kept clean and your environment healthy? These are important questions and are decided in a large part on a local or a state level. There are also races for the US Senate all over, which are also quite important.
I am frequently annoyed that people ignore these important local races and focus solely on the Presidency. This year's Presidential race is important; but it's also important that your local drinking water is clean and local students have access to excellent education.
It was called Heaven's Belt. It was about this crew of people that had built a starship to come from their planet to establish economic and social ties with the system called Heaven's Belt. When the people got there, there was no starsystem of prosperity- only squabbling peoples fighting over the scraps their civil war had left of a system of nothing but asteroids and gas giants. There was this group of asteroids that was the home of one of the more advanced groups- the Demarchy.
The Demarchy was a true democracy- more appropriately a mobocracy. It was quite nasty to deal with. Unless we're all sensible, mature, individuals without any of the BS we seem to drag about through our lives, we can't be trusted with a true democracy. The majority will invariably opress the minority- it's happened time and time again throughout history. Why, in the name of God, would you think that it'd be different now?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I just think Bush is most likely to fight for our freedoms,... complete, and unabridged.
He's honest allright. And he's the man who states there ought to be limits to freedoms. Good luck!
Re: Nader's politics Bluebomber wrote:
They called it Communism.
You can call it any word you like. I agree with Nader and will vote my conscience. I can't stomach the Democrat and Republican parties corruption any longer. You want to vote Browne? I commend you for making a choice based on philosophy and principle. I do the same and choose Nader.
right, free markets. yeah. what's so free about a market in which microsoft and ticketmaster can do whatever the hell they want with their monopoly power? or a market where the auto industry can continue to create and market gas guzzling automobiles (now with exploding tires, get yours today!) and say "to hell with the environment, to hell with people's safety, we need to increase our profit margins." A free market where companies can move all of their labor to third world countries and exploit the hard working indiginous peoples of...wherever. Freedom or capitalism, you can't have it both ways. The Libertarians would be telling you to vote for Nader if they weren't all rich.
---
---
we stand in life at midnight, we are always on the threshold of a new dawn.
Voting is something everyone should do. When I hear someone complaining about taxes or some silly supreme court ruling affecting free speech, I simply ask them if they voted.
If they say no, then what right do they have to complain about issues? Obviously they didnt care enough to go out and voice their opinion, therefore their post-election complaints don't really need to be heard.
Voting is something that needs to be done by everyone who can. Sure, you may not like the two candidates that you have to vote for, but thats what primaries are for. Its the way the system works, its the way its worked for a few hundred years, and by all standards it works well considering this nation has... about 300,000,000 people in it or so (rough guesstimate). If you don't vote for an elected official, who are you to complain about issues you dont like later on? You had your chance to affect the outcome during the election...
Just my $0.02.
--
Dave Brooks (db@amorphous.org)
http://www.amorphous.org
In fact, I could easily imagine a Borda count voting system making the problem worse.
The problem, of course, is that people don't vote their real feelings, they vote to maximize the chance of their vote "making a difference", to try and influence the outcome of the election. When everybody does this, the total outcome can be something completely undesired.
You still have that problem with Borda voting. If there are five candidates running, and you prefer A to B to C to D to E, but C and D are leading in the polls immediately before the election. Under our current system, you'd avoid "throwing away your vote" by voting for C instead of A. If we used Borda voting, then do you want to vote your conscience, A-B-C-D-E? No! You want to vote C-A-B-E-D, and put as large a spread between C and D as your vote will allow you.
Under approval voting, you would vote approval for A, B, and C, and disapproval for D and E. There aren't any funny game theory tricks that would let you increase your vote's effectiveness at the expense of the accuracy of it's ordering. Of course, the total accuracy of the vote is questionable; you might "approve" of D as president, just not as much as A, B, or C. But at least the rankings would be more accurate than today.
And of course, this is all based on the idea that people try to maximise the effectiveness of their vote, which isn't true. If that were the case, then we'd all be lying to the pollsters right up until the exit polls, so that third party candidates had a greater chance. The 10% of the population who might prefer Nader to Gore, but absolutely hate Bush, for instance, would tell pollsters they were voting for Nader, then vote for Gore anyway unless Nader had a higher poll standing on election day (in which case all the people who prefer Gore to Nader, but don't want Bush to be elected, would tell pollsters they were voting for Gore, but vote for Bush anyway).
I believe that we should all vote, but I dont believe that I have an obligation to choose the candidate I dislike the least. I dont think I'll be showing up for this election, not because Im disinterested or apathetic, but because Im honestly appalled by the selection of candidates. It almost seems as if the process of choosing candidates is designed to weed out the people who would be good at the job.
I started with nothing and I still have most of it.
Me neither.
I cannot imagine voting for either Gore or Bush. That would indeed be wasting my vote.
Instead I am voting for the only honest man in the race; Harry Browne.
Dog is my co-pilot.
pronoblem
Yes, vote for the control freak who wants you to trust him implicitly to give you more goverment control, and since he created the internet, more rules and regulation to make your life better. Regardless of the fact you may not want his version of life forced uppon you.
Didn't anyone else seem to be hearing that gore wishes to be in control of everything, and that he will fix it all, with magic money that we wont have to pay for.
Well face it...if you are making more than $60k a year, you don't fit in his middle class, so your f*cked with the rest of us. And by chance what if you did manage to make it rich, now you become his enemy and should pay even more money to the govt because you have more of it.
I'm not rich, but one day would like to be, and if that miracle was to happen I wouldn't want to be screwed by the govt every time I turned around.
Bush may not be the brightest on the block, but he seems bright enough to want very intellegent people around him. Most ceo's are not the brightest in their company, but that doesn't stop them from doing well.
I'm all for cutting govt, not people, but control. Gore wants to cut people and increase control. So all of you complaining about how our freedom is being taken away peice by piece, gore will take even more...trust him, he knows it all.
I'll vote for the dumber one, since he picked a vice president smarter than him, he will probably have a whole cabinet smarter than him. Lack of intellegence can be compensated for, control freeks need a shrink.
As for his comment on the internet turning the kids hearts dark, I took it as the hate sites that the kids were going to. Not the internet in general. Give him a break, he doesn't understand computers and internet, but if he gets people who do to give him advice its better than him thinking he knows what he's talking about on his own.
Your choice.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
While I'll be the first to condemn all the crap coming out of the media, the answer obviously lies not in eradicating Hollywood, the Internet, or video games, but in eliminating the demand. If you want society to change, change the heart and soul of the citizenry by logical and passionate moral argument--NOT government action.
My first Presidential election. I've voted in local and Senate races before, but I was protesting 4 years ago. After doing some learning, I decided that not voting was not helping. It seems to me, that not voting just tells the government we want more of the same since we aren't even willing to get off our butts and go check a box or whatever method your area uses.
;) The point is, yes, we as American citizens CAN change things in the government. But it's HARD WORK. Something not many Americans are willing to do anymore. If it's harder than pissing and moaning on /. it doesn't get done.
Thing is, I can't vote Republican or Democrat because I can't tell the difference. And both of them will just make government bigger, while I want to see it shrink. Thus the debates were worthless to me. I almost fell asleap durring the highlights on the news!
So who to vote for? For me, Libertarian. They are closest to my views. Wasted vote? I think not. If I were not voting LP I wouldn't be voting at all. Now THAT'S a wasted vote. Personally, I see voting for BushGore as a wasted vote. I don't believe in them, and the vast majority of people I talk to don't believe in them. Voting for someone you don't believe in is a waste.
A LOT of people I know are not voting this year but have simmiliar views to me. They just don't see the point of the "lesser of two evils" anymore. I say fine, so don't vote for them. If you aren't going to vote anyway, why not vote for the 3rd party that is closest to your views? In the grand scheme of things it can't be any worse than not voting at all. If all the non voters out there that agree with me would go vote Libertarian, we would win. By a landslide.
The supreme court. So what. Justices have been known to surprise presidents. We can deal with the court later. For now we need to fix the Legislative and Executive branches. They make the laws, the Judicial just enforces them. How's this for a soultion to Geek problems: Elect Libertarians. They are against crypto controls, crap like the DMCA, and many other things that effect us. Get the law repealed in Congress and the court no longer matters!
As for the Electoral College. Yes, they can vote against the popular vote in many cases. However, if the popular vote elects a Libertarian and they vote for someone else, there would be hell to pay. I smell a lawsuit. Or impeachment. Or just plain voting the bastards out. I would personally donate time and money to getting any of the above done. I would even run against them in the next election myself. Something I'm considering anyway.
If you want change, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING!!!! Go vote, if you like Bush or Gore, fine vote for them. If you don't, find a 3rd party to vote for. There are plenty to chose from. I don't care WHO you vote for, but go vote. Get active, get the word out, fight for change. If you don't, then stop your bitching and get out of the way so the rest of us can.
Everyone I know is voting for candidates based on their stances on a variety of issues. I know a lot of people, for example, who are voting Gore because of their concerns about abortion or gay rights. Most of the people I know who support Bush do so because they believe he's got more integrity than Gore, or because they like his tax plan.
Nader's core issue, though, is that the process that we use to hash out all the other issues is corrupt. I believe him. If you believe him, it's very hard not to put this up at the top of the issue list. And if you do that, I don't think there's anyone but Nader you can support.
Our government is, among other things, a machine that people can use to resolve conflicts peacefully and reasonably. If that functionality goes down, lots of other stuff that depends on it is going to break as well.
Think about some of the stories we've read here. Sun's McNealy saying, "You have no privacy, deal with it." The guy from Sony records talking about how they'll fight to the death to preserve their chokehold on music distribution, even if they have to control the network itself. AT&T talking about how they feel that since they deliver people to e-commerce sites, they ought to get a cut.
Time and time again, the interests of citizens and consumers are going up against the interests of corporations, and the citizens are coming out on the short end of the deal. The Democrats are only marginally better than the Republicans. Horrible concentrations of power have been allowed to accumulate under the current administration. And incredibly unethical stock market scams have been tolerated because the bubble was valuable politcally. And I don't have to remind anyone here what's been allowed to go on with intellectual property rights. Who benefits from intellectual property rights? People or corporations?
Let me ask slashdotters what I believe is our core issue: is it a sweatshop if the work is intellectually interesting? Why do you think that companie are relucatant to hire people in their 30's? How do you think your boss would react if you had kids, and were serious about leaving at 5p to spend time with them?
I don't think that these problems pop up because the individuals in the parties are bad. I think it happens because the process is corrupt, and money drives it. And I don't think that electing people who are sympathetic to certain categories of people (techies, working class people, feminists, or whatever) is going to give any kind of long term results.
We need to fix the machine. We need to restore integrity to the process of debate. We need to prevent monopolists from grabbing more power than they already have.
Nader will not win. He would not be a good president if he did. He is too strident and inflexible -- a president has to be able to compromise. But Nader can put these issues on the map. He's the only one who's trying. If you vote for Nader, it will go on the tally, and the bigger the tally is the more likely it is that a real party will take them seriously.
How much chance does the little guy on ICANN have to make change? Did you sit out of that process anyway? If you believe that grass roots participation in the ICANN process is important, don't you believe that grass roots participation ought to be a general principle for government in general? Who's behind that?
Vote Nader.
Sure, government will restrict our freedom less in a libertarian world, but who will fill that power gap left, when the government has less influence over the people?
CORPORATIONS!
Replace Gov't censorship with corporate censorship. Do you really want Walmart decides what CDs should be widely available? They are the number 1 seller of CDs already. So now, the only way we can influence those that control our lives the most (corporations) is by being smart consumers.
Pretty much libertarianism replaces the vote as a mean of change with the almighty $$$Dollar$$$, which means the rich still will have the greatest say.
And this is why I'm voting for Nader
There was a civil rights activist during the 60's (I can't remember his name so please forgive me) what was big on getting minorities to vote. He once said, "If you don't vote you don't count." I agree with that. You forefit your right to complain or dislike anything about an administration if you do not participate in it's election, either for or against.
That is all.
If voting could change anything, it would be illegal...........
Just remember who actually runs this country - it's not the people we elect, at least on a national level. We're "given" the opportunity to vote every once in a while to at least have the sense of making a difference, but believe me, if the masses could actually wrest power from those who have it simply by voting, well, we'd quickly lose our right.
So go out and vote nationally, but make sure that you actually are informed of your local issues, ones that can make a difference to you and your community.
And if you want real change, it has to start from below, from your neighborhood. You can never expect or hope for real progress from those in power.
So, yeah, I'm voting for what I believe in nationally. I know it won't make an inkling of a difference in the outcome (most likely a Gore victory) but at least I will have kept my conscience.
Vote Socialist
Wow, it all comes down to money and materialism with you. How noble, really.
You sound like some kind of objectivist. Go home and whack off to sexy pictures of Ayn Rand, won't you? Thanks.
Have you ever stopped and thought where we would be without money and materialism?
Sure, I've got one great example of what can happen when money and materialism don't matter, and when cooperation outweighs competition: Free Software
Sure, It's limited in scope, but it does show what people can do in an "alternative" society.
I suggest you go read up an your Marx if you think the Free Software movement is anything but communism
Your ancesters fought to free us from tyranny. Which is EXACTLY what we have now. Bought and paid for by large corporations. In an election where the choices are Time Warner, Nike, IBM, Westinghouse. I don't see much choice. I won't be voting. I prefer to revolt.
Do you have the time or inclination to understand, in detail, every piece of IT-related legislation that goes before the legislature of the various jurisdictions you live in? I doubt it - and that's in an area of policy where you presumably have some interest and expertise. Now, consider the thousands of other pieces of legislation that pass before those bodies in the course of a year. Can you be expected to understand, even cursorily, more than a few of them without devoting your life to the job?
While direct democracy sounds appealing, it just wouldn't work. Citizen-initiated referenda, like that used in California, might be a reasonable compromise between your desire to directly influence policy and the impracticality of directly voting on *every* issue to come before a legislature.
Would some Californians care to comment on how well the citizen-initiated referenda have worked there? Has it produced better government? Has it resulted in stupid pieces of populism getting approved? Have Californians voted simultaneously for lower taxes, higher expenditure, and disallowing the government from borrowing money or other such idiocies?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Even if you don't like either the democrats or the republicans, there's still a choice. I'm not just talking about the Libertarian, although thats definately who I think should be elected.
What makes me so angry is when people express an interest in the Libertarian party's principals, stating "Yeah, I believe those things, this is what I want", then turn around and vote for Bush because they hate Gore, but think they are wasting their vote if they choose Libertarian. You are only wasting your vote if you don't vote for who you truly believe in, whoever that may be. Not voting at all is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils, because your are not only NOT counting your vote for the person who you want to represent you, but you are also giving the status quo ammunition. You have no right to complain if you didn't vote. Voting for someone who ends up losing is better than not voting at all, as long as you voted your heart.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Wrong, dead wrong. The reason why third parties aren't viable is because the electoral system makes it impossible to have a say re Bush vs Gore if you want to vote for a third party.
If you want a system where third parties are viable at all, you need preferential voting ( instant runoffs )
His point is there's nothing with being non-white, female, and educated at a public school, besides the fact that most probably you will never get to run for president representing a major party.
You've got a chicken and egg problem. Everyone will polarise at the last minute because they want to be able to decide which of the leading parties wins. Because of this, the small parties are unable to get sufficient momentum.
My point is that with the current ( flawed ) electoral system, it's almost impossible for small parties to go anywhere. The US electoral system is two party by design.
maybe Gore will get better at lying w/ experience - I feel like we need at least an intelligent person in office, rather than a flag waving simpleton - but hopefully he won't think he's so much smarter than everyone else that he won't get caught trying to get away with something embarrasing, like Clinton was, or get himself into a position where you can't admit or deny it (to this day, Clinton's defense aginst disbarment for lying under oath depends on a twisted, tortured definition of 'sex' that does NOT include 'oral genital contact').
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Find a candidate you like and vote for him... if you don't like either of the two major contenders, find another candidate you like. It doesn't matter if they're a "fringe" candidate -- hell, write in Joe Walsh if you have to -- just get out there and vote for somebody. The dark horses may not win but if other people feel the same way you do, then guess what: suddenly your guy may not be a fringe candidate anymore. He might become a viable candidate for the next election (it's not always just about this year). Just get out there and cast a vote.
--Jim
Being an avid supporter of environmental causes as well as a geek, I have plenty of reasons to both vote, and to vote for Gore/Liebermann. I do not like the anti-Hollywood/anti-'Net stance Gore and, in particular, Liebermann sometimes take. I am find Mr Liebermann's criticism of the Walt Disney Company particularly distasteful. However, I find no evidence that Bush/Cheney are any better on these points.
While Bush says he can be trusted and will "get things done", clearly the former is an untestable claim and the latter could be achieved in the narrow sense by passing a lot of bad legislation. I also find Carl Pope and Paul Rauber's argument that with Bush, Republicans could have a lock on three houses of government to be a compelling reason to work for some "diversity" in the branches.
As for folks who feel the process is compromised beyond participation, I believe the quote from Norman Mailer ( The Deer Park ) is appropriate to our national situation:
Jan Theodore Galkowski, (Oo) http://www.smalltalkidiom.net/ MySQL,PHP,ETL,SQL,MinGW C, and plucking the Web
Here's the original article:
http://www.tompaine.com/opinio n/2 000/09/29/7.html
Not sure who originally compiled this info but I thought it would be useful to those out there who are on the fence about whether to vote for Nader or Gore.
-----
To make the numbers case is Steve Cobble, a Nader supporter but one who, as an advisor for Jesse Jackson and many others, has earned a reputation as one of the most acute analysts of voter patterns and the arcane machinations of the political system. Cobble broke down the numbers in an article for TomPaine.com, and came to this conclusion:
"Except for a very small number of states, progressives have a free vote. They can vote their conscience for Ralph Nader, and help him get the 5 percent he needs to build a new fourth party. In at least two-thirds of the country, and perhaps as many as nine states out of ten, a vote for Ralph Nader is not a vote for George Bush. It's really a vote for Ralph Nader."
Here is Cobble's run down, state by state:
(1) Safe for Bush (17 states): Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming.
In these states, every progressive can vote for Nader knowing that they are not endangering the Supreme Court in any way.
(2) Leaning toward Bush (7 states): Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire.
Same basic rule -- in these states, progressives can vote for Ralph safe in the knowledge that none of these states are absolutely necessary to build a winning electoral coalition for Gore.
(3) Safe for Gore (15 states): California, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia, Vermont.
In these states, progressives can not only vote safely for Nader, they can each recruit one or two other friends to vote for Ralph, secure in the knowledge that George Bush has given up (or will give up in early October) on winning these electoral votes.
(4) Leaning toward Gore (7 states): Delaware, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin.
These states are likely to end up in Gore's column, unless he badly blows the debates. If they do maintain his current lead, then progressives are secure in voting for Nader.
(5) Toss-up (5 states): Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio.
In these five swing states, the Ivins Rule applies most strongly -- check the state polls right before election day, then make your judgment.
Browne is the best choice of the disaffected majority. All the good social freedoms of the left, and all the good fiscal freedoms of the right. Harry Browne wants you to be free, doesn't take FEC money because it's wrong, not because he doesn't qualify, and is a generally nice guy.
Read the Green platform before you vote for Nader. Maximum wage. Nationalization of large companies. Government representatives on the boards of the other corporations.
"Watermelon Ralph Nader. Green on the outside, Red in the middle."
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...Harry Browne...
The following conditions have convinced me not to vote: If no candidate accurately represents your views If no candidate represents my views significantly better than any other candidate If you really believe historical precedence that half of what they say they will do they won't do anyway
Ah, but there's the rub. The idea that no candidate represents your view (or at least comes close), is absurd. In addition to those two white guys who argue on TV in different colored ties, there are also, Browne (Libertarian), Nader (Commu^H^H^H^H^HGreen), Buchanan (Fasc^H^H^H^HReform), Hagelin (Natural Law/Other Reform), and Phillips (Constitution). And those are just the ones on enough state ballots to have a chance of winning. There are also about 300 other candidates (see Dark Horse 2000 for a list) who are seriously wacky, who you could write in.
If you play the game by the rules the Man hands you, of course you lose. What did you expect. Electoral politics these days is crafted to keep people at home. With a smaller base, that's less people to pander to.
Vote for somebody. My preference is Browne (http://www.harrybrowne.org), but vote for anybody who doesn't stand for the status quo.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...passionate...
By the way, I'm moving to Maryland next month. :)
;)
I hate to break it to you, but that's just out of the frying pan and into the fire, when it comes to percentages of Democrats.
If you're interested in getting involved with the Maryland Libertarian Party, drop me an email. We're not as big as the Republicans, but we aren't sell-outs either, and you can still effect some real change from outside the duopoly.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...Marylander...
and as far as third party candidates go, its just a protest vote. they're not going to capture 1% of the vote so who cares.
You know, with the number of people in 1992 who said, in exit polls, that they "would have voted for Perot if it wasn't a 'wasted vote'", Perot could have won that election, or at least come in second.
I can't make you vote, but unless everyone stops listening to people that say that the third party movement is never going to get anywhere, and start voting for third parties, it's not. Get off your lazy ass, and stop being such a punk. Defeatism helps nobody.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...vote for Browne...
My leanings are more Libertarian than anything else, but the party is run by impractical idealists. They keep shooting for the moon (the Presidency) without making a serious attempt to build a base at the local and state levels. Even if by some miracle Harry Browne managed to get himself elected, he'd be facing a Congress comprising nothing but the opposition, each and every one of whom would have his destruction as the main objective. That's no way to get your agenda passed. If Libertarians want to get their ideas adopted, they should be getting themselves elected to school boards, county commissioner, city attorney, state senator, etc. before taking a shot at the higher jobs. So, the next best party to promote my beliefs at the higher office levels are Republicans, flawed and usually spineless as they are.
In a word, bullshit. Sure, the national party aims for the Presidency, but we have the best grassroots organization of any third party. Period. More office holders, more members, more candidates, more activists. We are getting elected to school boards, county commissioners, mayor, and state legislatures. We are organized and active in every state.
I apologize if your experience has been otherwise, but, as a local activist myself, I've seen the grassroots, and it's powerful. Don't compromise your principles.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...Libertarian...
Go ahead -- read the Green Party Platform and you'll find nothing about a Maximum wage or the nationalization of large companines. Those are NOT what the Green Party stands for.
My apologies. Silly me, I had associated the statements of the party's candidate with the party.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...still voting for Browne...
Which Green party was that again? I get them so confused sometimes...
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...no Ralph no...
I admit, I was confused. I had entered http://www.greenparty.org into my web browser, found the Green Party USA's web site, and read their platform. In that platform, it calls for a maximum wage and the nationalization of large corporations.
;)
I should have realized that I wanted http://www.gp.org, the Association of State Green Parties. Their platform is more moderate.
Of course Nader/LaDuke don't fully agree with either, so that's a little bit confusing.
Silly me, my bad.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...almost as fractious as the Reform Party...
If the polls are to be believed, Minnesota is actually a swing state this year. Last poll published by the Minneapolis Star Tribune showed Bush in the lead with a 44% vote compaired to Gore's 41%. The poll supposedly had a 3% margin of error.
I agree however that people should vote their conscience. And if you don't know who to vote for then maybe you shouldn't vote. It is better to not vote than risk putting someone in office who does not agree with your ideals.
yep.. vote Gore.. and have at least another four years of a maternalistic welfare state. (don't forget who started all of the changes to get the economy where it is today .. yes, it was Reagan and Bush). Clinton and Gore didn't do a damn thing but ride some coattails. (and yeah.. Greenspan was put into office before Clinton).
.. VOTE!)
Vote Bush! (but most of all
I will be voting for Harry Browne. He is right on just about every single issue. Long ago I vowed to myself to never vote for a candidate out of dislike. Since then I have never voted for a winner. Actually, I have never voted for a winning politician, period, other than possibly a few know-nothing votes when I was 18.
Note that voting, for any candidate, is a terrible waste of time for practically anyone reading this. It will take me at least 10 minutes to vote, and probably more. I could sell that 10 minutes for ~$10 on the open market; probably more. There is no way that my infinitesimal effect on the election will bring me $10 in benefits.
That is not to say that the result of the election will not affect me much more than $10: Bush, for me (and practically everyone reading this) is the "better" candidate. His election would be worth hundreds or thousands to most of us -- assuming that the election of either main candidate would result in the congress doing what the candidate advocates with the "surplus". However, the chance that any one of us will be the deciding vote in the election is practically zero, maybe 1/1000000. Even $10000 in tax relief (more than most of us would get), times 1/1000000 would be a 1 cent estimated value for me in voting for Bush. That's not worth it.
(Actually, living in Maryland my effect on the presidential election will be exactly zero, by anyone's account. But never mind that.)
No, the reason I vote is not self interest per se, but societal standing. It may be irrational or foolish, but many, many people in this society are impressed by voting. Since the cost is low, I choose to actually vote rather than lie about it. This gives me the moral standing to complain. Liberals (meaning socialists, not the old meaning) are impressed when you tell them that you vote every time, and lose every time.
Gore's stand on the enviorment is laudable, but rather too extreme for my point of view.
That's okay -- he's mostly talk, and has actually done very little of what he promised.
-jon
Vote Bush!
Bush may think the Internet is dangerous, but at least he doesn't think he invented it.
The main issue as I see it is that Bush wants less government control essentially.. A smaller government means less rules/regulations and interference in our society!!
Bush may think the internet is dangerous for children, but is he going to regulate it with the government?? Hah! Good luck. Gore, on the other hand, may very well try if public opinion would sway enough... although neither of them would probably have much luck- at least we wouldn't be paying for it under Bush!
And just think of all the other areas Gore wants to get the government in.. I'd rather depend on my own means than the government!
First, Ralph Nader will not become president. Just like Ross Perot, he has some excellent ideas, but he will simply not be elected. Take some of Ross Perot's ideas in the 92 election - He wanted to create jobs, and pay down the national debt. The current administration has done that! Change takes a long time, and if the current administrations' philosophies can contine, we will see even more change.
Take college for example. Now you can deduct the interest on your taxes. Not to mention the fact, that we can now borrow more money for college than before. This gives students who are under privileged - READ: Not part of the elite 1%!! - more of a chance to better themselves. This all came together as a result of the current administration.
How about the Telco breakup? Look what that has done to competition, and long distance rates. I was able to cut my phone costs in 1/2!! You can credit that to the current administartion!
Microsoft: everyone knows they are a monopoly, and the current administration decided enough was enough. We can also credit Ralph Nader for this. I think, but don't quote me, that Microsoft contributes to the Republican party. Even though I'm using Win95 to post this, I really don't have much of a choice at work, however that is finally changing with Linux.
With a Republican administrartion our country will be headed back towrads that silly idea of "trickle down" economics. It does not work! We already learned that! Why would we want to break something that seems to be working?
Please vote for Al Gore - he is the only candidate that will continue our prosperity, and give all Americans a chance at realizing their potential - regardless of race, gender, economic status, etc. etc...
Wow, I'd hope people usually get a little self-conscious when they become this cynical.
Not interested in the Good, the True, or the Just, just trying to make somebody's (Bush's) life more difficult?
Is life so dark? You're making my life more difficult too. Not yet, but when you start up a revolution to overthrow the corrupt government, my life's going to suck! Or rather, when your kids fight against the system of checks and balances for direct democracy or something equally horrendous.
I'm not voting for Bush. I am voting (the Austrailian Ballot System means I don't have to tell you I'm voting for Nader) for somebody whom I would like to see in office, and Mr Bush, Mr Gore, Mr Browne understand that I'm doing my civic duty. And I know that my vote doesn't `count' from the system's point of view.
I knew that before you pointed it out. My vote counts for me. I'm not doing this for my country, but for myself. I guess you've convinced me to support civic republicanism, because I would like to believe that our system, while not perfect, is worth working with. My vote won't get me what I want, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't still try to achieve the Good, the True, and the Just.
If we didn't try to achieve these ideals, what are we to attempt to achieve? Better to aim high and fall short than aim low and hit the depressing mark.
Um hello there is Nader out there
g iveaway.html
... is it just me or the choice is obvious
http://www.votenader.org/issues.html
he is pro-privacy
"Our fundamental rights are threatened by new information technologies, and by the buying and selling of personal information," Nader wrote the Democratic and Republican candidates. "Personal information about Americans is routinely collected and abused by government agencies, and by corporations for private gain."
for more about his stand on this issuse
http://votenader.org/press/0001008privacy.html
he has come out against NSI calling it cooperate welfare
http://votenader.org/press/Corporate/corporate2
come on people
no comment on
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Clinton/Gore is the reason that the economy is doing well. The economy is doing well because...it does that sometimes, and Greenspan hasn't made any huge mistakes as the chairman of the Fed.
Just my .02
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If you don't like the process, work within it to change it. People don't vote - ostensibly out of protest, but largely due to indifference. When the economy hits people in the wallet they become less apathetic and choose to take part. Since the economy is doing well, fewer people are motivated to vote. That is quite sad.
We are so affluent and self-centered as a society that we have forgotten our roots. People died for the right to establish a government of the people by the people, for the people. You might not like this organizational structure, but the beauty of it is that it can be changed, and without bloodshed.
It is awe inspiring to see the inaguration of a president from a different party than the incumbent. In most countries when an "opposing" leader is installed it comes when the head of the incumbnet is removed from his neck.
Our government has lots of problems. There's definitely a disconnect between the political process and the everyman. Warts and all, it's the best thing out there from an governmental organizational structure.
If you have the right to vote, exercise it! Don't make the sacrifices of previous generations be in vain.
It's up to you. Are you willing to take a stand?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Well it certainly doesn't vote!...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
It also sends the message that the 3% of "undecided" the candidates are fighting over is nothing compared to the 25% of people who physically could have voted for them but didn't. If you physically go to a ballot box, you're the single most important target they'll have for the next election.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Both of the major parties today used to be "third parties". They became major parties in a time when the electoral college/congress was FAR, FAR less responsive to the average citizen's complaints than today. It takes time and many elections, but they're not idiots -- they go whichever way the wind is blowing because they know the only other option is finding a new job...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The reverse is true as well -- I think it's unfortunate that european governments have taken such a voluntary back-seat to the US on a lot of issues.
The european microsoft investigation, the AOL/Time-Warner merger, etc -- these are things that Europe could most definitely help with, but for some strange reason they keep saying "well, the US is looking into it, so we'll just follow them".
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
woohoo!
just so you know, some freak dyke you don't know in california is very happy that some straight woman in vermont that she doesn't know is very happy to see that you support civil unions
and besides, california passed proposition 22 (the 'Just in case you didn't already get it, you may absolutely positively not get married to your girlfriend and if you do get married in another state we're just gonna ignore it, so there. nyah' proposition) last year. I don't know how cali got such a liberal rep, but there you go. Tell that to the next person who gives you *that* stupid response.
This is true -- but even in very liberal places (i.e. Santa Cruz, where I live) the conservative influence is clear -- even more so than some places that are not considered as liberal (olympia washington comes to mind)
I think perhaps a generation ago Cali was very liberal, but it's fallen behind...at least, that's the only thing I can figure...
If you're unsure how to vote, take the World's Smallest Political Quiz.
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
It may help you decide.
You can... vote for them all and it will have the exact same result.
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
Really? Then explain the recession of the 80s. Explain the rapid growth on Wall St. in the past decade. Explain why interest rates for mortgages are about half what they were in the early 80s. (OK, these last two are tied together... but still important.)
I have to argue with *always* done right.
Eric
Odd, I counted up the last century, and the breakdown is 52 years with Republican president and 48 with a Democratic president. (Deomcrats won the election in 1912, '16, '32, '36, '40, '44, '48, '60, '64, '76, '92, and '96; obviously Republicans won the other 13 times.) Looks like it's as even as it can get.
I hardly call that "most of the century."
And really, how much do you think the success/failure of the US has to do with the President? The US Congress has FAR more domestic power than a single figurehead. As commander-in-chief, the Pres has power over the military, but we haven't had a civil war in 135 years, so that hasn't been a domestic concern lately.
IMO, it doesn't matter which bobbing-head-doll we elect President. I'm far more concerned about Congressional (Senate and HoRep) elections.
Eric
Through the magic of Absentee ballots I have already voted. The reason I voted was that I really felt that the two canditates whom people look to as being the only two REAL options are both appalling to me, and I voted for a the candiate(from a third party) whom I feel most represents my views. Many people have told me I "wasted" my vote, but if enough people "wasted" their votes perhaps the system would change to allow a vote for a decent candidate not to be seen as a "waste". This person is supposed to represent me and I can't say that I want either Gush or Bore to represent me.
Did anyone notice how short this article was? For a "part three" especially. Is this some sort of record?
Damn straight, fuck the environment! What has it done for us lately?
I am 25, born and raised in the U.S. but have never voted, probably for the same reason many of my peers haven't. Frankly, I don't want to vote for either of the 2 major party candidates, but I will vote this year. I have realized, as I believe many others have, that if you don't vote, you forfeit your right to bitch about how things turn out in your own country.
I still don't like either of the candidates presented to me basically 24/7 on all major networks. They are both different sides of the same basic viewpoint. No new ideas, no shattering beliefs, just arguments over how much of the population of the US is 1%, really? who cares?
I have no real political agenda, or any specific viewpoint that can be categorized by a 'party', but my 'agenda' is basically what I think everyone's should be. Live and let live. I received an email today that brought up a very good idea, and I figure this is as good a place as any to give it some attention. Slashdot is a voice unto its own...
Subject: Third Party Coalition------------between Hagelin & Nader, etc., ----------------THE KIDS WILL HELP
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:35:41 +0200
Add Addresses
Friends and Beloveds,
PLEASE "CATCH THIS VISION!"
This is important!! Please read and forward it to everyone immediately!! Thanks!!
Question??
Are there some "activists" INSIDERS in the USA that can get busy and get both
Ralph Nader and John Hagelin--to sit down and work out a "last-ditch" friendly, powerful "coalition party" NOW--in the last week or so of this election??
I personaly feel that both John Hagelin and Ralph Nader are "big enough" in their hearts,
souls and minds to SEE THE GREATER PICTURE--and to respond from their "heart of hearts"
center (where God dwells within us)!! Love for our country IS THE ANSWER...
In my opinion--when these two outstanding candidates--will sit down--and genuinely, soul-fully
trancend the personal desire to be the US President--(responding to the greater soul
desire) in knowing through uniting parties or "forces"--they will actually be able to TURN-THE-TABLES on the MEDIA--and cause a sudden ON-RUSH OF ENOUGH NEW VOTERS--so that either one of them could (would) win this election!! I repeat----SO THAT EITHER ONE OF THEM--can(will) win this election!!
Once seated together--they can "draw straws, toss dice" or self-lessly offer the Presidency
to the other one--(who is obviously also so very qualified as an honest Presidential candidate!!)
This tinmely, needed ACT of brotherly unity WOULD MAKE NEWS-- WORLDWIDE--and would certainly create a NEW REVOLUTION in political thinking and most of all--could, ( would) break the age-old hold of the now FALSE representative (sold-out) Republican/Democrat two-party system in our USA!!
This new SACRED allegiance could seat either Nader or Hagelin--and seal their destiny as our shining new USA President...
Look what the Czechs did!
We can do it too!!
The other magnificent candidate could run as Vice President--or have a choice of some active
role in the new Presidential Cabinet!!
THIS CAN BE DONE!!
Some of the other smaller independent parties might quickly "catch the vision" and join
in our sudden rousing, jubilant, yet peaceful, world-changing revolution!!
The "kids" of all ages would help!!
This would also spark a genuine grass-roots movement for non-voters to
vote again--AND THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD would move to get their
mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends to vote for this New Powerful
Coaltion...
Ralph and John can give the coalition party a new name--like FREEDOM-LIBERTY PARTY
or any coalition name of their choice!!
Please pass this email along and along--until this message gets into the hands of both of these
fine human souls...and an "eleventh hour" DIVINELY INSPIRED Presidential coalition is
then swiftly formed!!
WE CAN DO IT!! So be it--and so it is!! "
Once I thought I was wrong...I was mistaken.
If caring about my children makes me a Luddite, then I am proud to be a Luddite. I refuse to accept, however, that one must live the Amish life to raise kids.
I am a little curious why caring about my children is a position worthy of ridicule. I understand (speaking from an American view) precisely what the First Amendment guarantees and believe in it absolutely. Part of caring about my children is caring that they have a free and vital world to grow into. Part of caring about my children is not giving a damn what people call me when I am looking out for them.
As to voting? Those of you who don't care or want to vote? Please don't. After all, you don't like the candidates, and none of them speak to the thing you care about (would that be loud music and beer?). Who know? Maybe in the next election, they'll spend all of their time campaigning to the people who don't bother to vote.
Right?
Goddamnit! Every country that was/is a major power has had a phase of Colonialism.
It's time to the US to have one too! You other countries take and take from us...our TV shows, our Movies, our Music, our Socialist and Privacy-Reducing initiatives (although we are still learning at your feet).
It's time to take back! Time to steal a page from YOUR recent history!
Heh.
Blar.
My karma drops arbirarily if I find more than 20% of the posts I am called on to meta-moderate "unfair"? That's shit! Does my karma go up if I moderate more than 80% of the posts fair?
The moderation/meta-moderation thing needs to be re-thought. The endless-addition of 'features' is not producing a consistent logical system.
I mean, what if the moderators kept moding up obvious flamebait and troll posts? I would be penalized for marking those unfair.
And while I rant, fair/unfair is a poor choice of words. How about approprate/innaproprate?(sp)
Blar.
True, especially in local contests like that one, and also primary votes, etc. Local elections are frequently decided by very small margins, since the turnout is small. I've done some election results reporting, and also seen lots of the details on an election where my father was a candidate. I have seen cases where the election hung, literally, on a single vote.
I'm looking, I'm looking....
Anybody besides these two yahoo's (pun intended). I'm ready for Ross Perot to get back in it. Nader didn't make it on the ballot in my state.
When is Jesse Ventura's term up in MN?
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
I was under the impression that the Federal Government existed to do things of NATIONWIDE scope. The only library that fits that description is the Library of Congress. But then, I also believe that the 10th Amendment means EXACTLY what it says. . .
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.
Jello Biafra for President!
Free Mumia Abu Jamal!
The problem with the "Waste Your Vote" debate is that while it may be the only way to send a message that you support a third party, you are indeed wasing your vote.
All states are winner-take-all in the Electoral College, so even if Ralph or Pat got one third of a state's at-large votes, there would still be no Electoral College votes if Bush or Gore got 34%. [And remember, even if Ralph wins MI, he still only gets a handful of Electoral votes].
If you wanna make a difference and not waste your vote, you better get a whole bunch of friends to move to CA, NY, TX, MA, IL, or OH [and a few others]. It's certainly no coincidence that that's where the big campagning happens.
Anyone can campaign their ass off and win VT, but that's only three votes! [OK, only Repulicans can win VT, but that's not the point.]
Of course you should vote. As stated in several earlier posts, if you don't vote, don't complain about the government you have, because you have opted out of the process.
What I have done in every election I have ever voted in (and that's a sad statement when it covers more than three decades) is vote against the greater of the evils, rather than for the lesser. I realize the distinction is only in my mind, but it counts.
These days I usually vote Libertarian. At least they still believe in liberty for the individual.
IMHO Yes, you should vote---Against Bush
--Ben
Have you ever noticed how Jon Katz is really free with the term Luddite? I mean, it doesn't really seem to be a fair comparision between the presidential canidates and some mad candlemen smashing things, does it?
You know, there are a lot of choices in this world, and getting an abortion is just the last in a long string of choices. If you don't want to baby, don't get pregnant. There are many ways to avoid pregnancy -- birth control being one way (though it's not perfect) and (surprise) not having sex being another. I realize this may be a big revelation to some people, but you typically have to work hard at getting pregnant -- it's not something you just get like a cold. It disturbs me that some people seem to think that a woman can just become pregnant spontaneously. Sorry -- doesn't work that way. If you make a choice to get pregnant, live with the consequences. (there are exceptions to this, rape being a good example, where I don't think the victim should be held responsible).
That being said, I don't think abortion should be illegal. I do think it should be strongly discouraged as a bad thing. Remember -- getting an abortion is killing a baby. You better have a damn good reason to kill your child. Someday, we may look back and say "what kind of primitive animal would destroy their unborn children?"
Remember that with freedom comes responsibility.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Well Gore dosn't state there are limits. He just doesn't want to tell you he is going to take them all away.
Almost anyone? How about Gore? A man that can't keep a simple story right. A man that lies about the simple things. This same man can't possiblely be trusted with something that is a as important as president. Here is a situtation Al get elected war breaks out in the middle east. Al makes some promiss or tell some lies(one in the same). Now we have lost creditablity again. Thats the type of man that I want in office another lieing IDIOT
Bush actually wants schools to have a moment of silence so kids can practice anything them want.
As far a abortion - This is a very important issue to me as well I really don't like his stance on abortion but he has some good points. He wants people to start loving each other. I dont totally believe that he is against abortion all together.
As far Gore- Gore wants to take rights away from you - GUNS,Choices, and freedom. How can any one of these issues be over looked just because Bush's lack of vision on abortion.
Gore has also voted in the past again abortion. Mr flip-flop ( aka Al Gore)
Just me two cents.
If I vote for the Green party, and the Green party loses (which it will), what difference have I made?
If one of the third-party candidates gets 15% of the vote, they'll get Federal funding for the next election. Then they can advertise more effectively and get more of the votes in 4 years. Of course neither of the 3rd party candidates will win this time, but the more votes they get this time the better they'll do next time.
That said... VOTE HARRY BROWNE!
--
If Gore wins, then your vote for Bush is as wasted as your hypothetical vote for Harry Browne.
If everyone who ever said "I agree with the Libertarians, but they don't have a chance" would just vote for a Libertarian, there'd be one in the White House.
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
I'm not voting in this year's presedential election because I don't think any of the candidates are worth my vote. I don't like any of them, and I just can't pledge my support for someone I dislike.
It was 3/5ths of a person.
Do you really want Walmart decides what CDs should be widely available?
<p>
You answered your own rhetorical question:
<p>
<i>
They are the number 1 seller of CDs already.
</i>
<p>
Obviously, WalMart decides which CDs to sell and which not to. They decide based mostly on estimated popularity, and therefore leave out anything but the top few hundred most popular CDs from the recent years - CDs that will sell quickly. And as the number 1 seller of CDs, they have decided that those few hundred CDs will be the CDs that are widely available.
<p>
Luckily, there are still a few small independent stores around most decent sized cities. And, there's always mail order and the net
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
The point is that if we don't like the way the Consistution framed our federal government, the founding fathers gave us a procedure (a pretty fair one, I think) to change what it does. For years, the process has been bypassed, and we have not been given a choice.
Note that I'm note necessarily saying the federal government shouldn't do more that what the Constitution says; only that the citizens are the only ones with the authority to give it those additional powers.
Rabbi Hillel, 12th Century
Exactly when is the time to follow your conscience?
I think the differences between the two major candidates are ulitmately miniscule, and any polices they implement with regard to Social Security, healthcare, etc. will be filtered through a bi-partisan congress anyway, so will probably come out looking about the same no matter who wins.
I can't vote Libertarian because I don't share their ultiimate faith in the market (read: corporations) to do what's right. Witness Ford and Firestone. I do believe that government has a balancing role.
I can't vote for Nader because he's just an old lefty fart.
Buchanan..., yeah, right.... far right.
My decision to vote for Gore is based primarily on cultural issues: the Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's have been keeping quiet throughout the whole campaign but they're just salivating in the wings, waiting for a Bush victory. I cannot and will not support the party of the Christian right. If you think you're seeing culture bashing now, wait til these guys get re-emboldened by a Bush victory......
The fundamental nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can. -- John Prine
I will be voting Libertarian primarily this year. I'm told "you're just wasting your vote", but that's the attitude that has kept this country limited to essentially a two party system. Granted, a better voting mechanism would help, but if you're always voting for the lesser of two evils, you're always going to get evil. If you vote your conscience, then your real opinion is known, and if a significant number agree with you, it will have influence. If you vote otherwise, you're supporting something that goes against how you truly feel, and then it's really hard to justify any complaints. As a quote I once saw said "don't complain how the ball bounces if you dropped it". If you don't vote at all, then you've really got no cause to complain because you're saying "I don't care what happens". Democracy is not a spectator sport. You only get out of it what you put into it.
Perhaps the shortest summary of this post is: GIGO
Disclaimer: I'm from Australia, and I'm seriously pro gun control. Make of that what you will.
I'd like to see some statistics showing that the "crime rate shot through the roof" after gun control laws were tightened considerably here. Until then, I'm going to continue to ignore anyone who uses that as an argument in favour of resisting gun control.
But before I wander off to ignore you completely, I'll point you at an interesting little piece of data: the rates of death due to firearms in various countries show a strong correlation between the strength of gun control laws in a country. The UK, for example, has some of the strongest gun control laws around, and they also have one of the lowest rates of death from firearms. Australia (prior to the Port Arthur massacre that prompted the strengthening of gun control laws) had significantly weaker laws than the UK, and had, suprisingly enough, a higher rate of firearms deaths. As far as I know (I can't say for certain, because I haven't seen any hard statistics) since the laws were tightened here, we've seen less firearms related deaths. The same correlation is seen throughout Europe, and in Canada.
And take a little guess at which country has the _highest_ rates of firearms related deaths? Yup, it's the good ol' U.S of A . . .
Personally, I don't really care if you think gun ownership is a right: I _know_ that I have a right to _not_ be at risk of getting shot, and that's what gun control laws are aimed at. I don't want to have to own a gun to stop people from shooting me.
himi
--
My very own DeCSS mirror.
> The whole point of getting the public to fund research is to broaden public knowledge and to research things that may or may not have an immediate payoff but might be good things to know anyway.
But the public funds research through charity endowments if the pursuit has no clear monetary reward. The US public did just fine funding research before the government came along and mucked things about. Besides - putting the government in a position to influence research is a bad idea. What happens if a political party or individual with a tyrannical bent comes to power?
> how free am I when the businessmen are in control?
You are free, because YOU are in control. If you don't like the way a company does business, don't do business with them. As long as they are not infringing upon your freedom to life and property, they're in the clear. If not, take the matter up in a civil court.
> How free am when I can't make a copy of some music some dead guy made?
Oh please. How would less government cause this to happen?
> How free am I if someone else owns everything, from the water I drink, to the air I breathe?
You imply that public ownership is preferrable to private ownership. Communism?
> Large corporations lobby the government to extend the period of time an artist's work is copyrighted. (A power of the government explicitly stated in the constitution.) As a result, despite there being no benefit to the person who actually created the work, I have to pay for the right to have a copy of a song written by someone who has been dead for years.
This is very true, and I am loathe to argue about it as I think it has more to do with the problems of intellectual property than it does the potential "evils" of a Libertarian ideology. Unlike physical property, intellectual property can be exactly copied and/or dually owned, and I believe the constitution fails to adequately address this situation, as it more or less treats it the same way as physical property.
> Some things are better if they are privately owned. Some things are better if they are publicly owned. Some can go either way. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out which are which.
The Libertarian ideology adopts the common law view of property ownership in that property is privately owned unless seized by eminent domain. And that should be used sparingly and only for a truly public use - one that is broadly enjoyed by the public, and not by some narrow part of the public. In the case of the fed, it means only for a constitutionally authorized use.
On welfare:
> This sounds like turning people out on the street to me.
It sounds to me like people getting tax money back with which to donate to charities and removing a system that encourages dependence on the state. Clinton's welfare reform helped, but really only scratched the surface - while the number of caseloads have dropped, money going to welfare has increased.
Elimination of the welfare system will put money back into the hands of the people, and they will put it into charity. Every time taxes have been cut in recent memory, charitable spending has increased.
If you want to help the poor, where would you rather put your money? In a charity of your choice, or a government welfare system? Who would do a better job at managing it?
Besides, the constitution does not give the fed any authority to even create a welfare system like it has. It's too bad the Supreme Court has been stacked to not see it this way.
On Families:
> It seems to me that people will work long and hard for more money anyway. Greed is deep-rooted in the American psyche and I can't see how repealing the income tax has anything to do with people spending more time with their families.
It's simple. By removing the 15% tax I pay (not to say the social security and higher tax brackets), I'm bringing home more money. More money means less of a chance that mom will need to get a job to help support the family. Or maybe she can just get a part time job.
On Military Service:
Browne> "I spent three years in the Army, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to be in the Army."
> From the man who would like to become our commander in chief.
He's making the point that the primary purpose of the army is to ward off attack, and serving that purpose will probably put you in harm's way. Why would anybody want to put theirselves in harm's way if they don't have to? Our army is so hopelessly advanced, any justification of further spending, expansion, or duties would hard to come by.
On Selling off the Environment:
> I am assuming this includes National Forest lands, BLM lands, perhapes even National Wilderness Areas. This is almost as bad as Bush wanting to drill in the ANWR. Selling these lands in auction essentially to the highest corporate bidder could possibly close many of them to public use.
This has nothing to do with Bush wanting to drill in the ANWR. You assume that the government is doing a good job of maintaing its land now and that any purchaser will seek to destroy it or not let anybody onto it. Should I point out the horrible wildlife management that occurs in many national forests, or the lack of land management in the government's wilderness areas that exacerbated the recent wildires that consumed vast stretches of land in the west? How about the large quantities of land the government leases out to ranchers who subsequently trash it because it's not their own. Who takes better care of land? Renters or owners? Most of the surface polution in the US occurs on govnerment owned property. And you think that private owners would do worse? Please explain.
On closing down federal programs:
> Say goodbye to federal loans for education, research grants for science, national forests and parks, etc. Say hello to corporate control of the environment, massive unchecked monopolies, and an increase in federal crime becuase without federal law enforcement, who will enforce the laws of the US constitiution?
Somebody else responded to the loans and grants, and I've already responded to the parks and corporate control of environment. Massive unchecked monopolies are only bad if they harm the consumer. If a company achieves true monopoly status it will only retain it if it out-competes its competitors. Otherwise, competitors will slowly begin to chip away at it until it does not have monopoly status any more.
As far as federal crime goes, how relevant is that now? States have more than enough power to rid crime from theirselves and can easily share databases of crime information. Federal law enforcement does hardly anything while consuming vast amounts of taxpayer money and threatening our civil liberties. The only reason for federal law enforcement is to keep local corruption in check, and that is only there because of the stupid drug war.
People keep claiming that a Libertarian way of life will result in people dying in the streets, and I challenge anybody to prove it. At the same time, I challenge them to show a single government program that has succeeded in its purpose.
Of course, if you live in Oregon, you can stay home and vote at the same time. All elections are vote by mail. When you do business at the DMV, they're required by law to ask if you'd like to register to vote. Ballots are mailed out today in Oregon, expect yours by Monday.
You really have to make a dedicated effort to *not* vote in Oregon. There's no excuse for giving your government your opinion, if only to piss off Sizemore and Mabon.
Help us build a better map!
Voting is one of those rights that we all need to exercise. It's not just about picking a candidate, it's about showing this country that we are responsibile citizens. I am so tired of hearing about apathy in Gen X. I vote, I go to civic meetings, and care about my community. It's time that we, as americans, show what we stand for and vote for our candidates. If you don't have a particular candidate, vote for the issues. There are more things up this time than just the presidential race.
I don't trust Gore. I can't stand the thought of a daddy's boy like Bush. I know I don't like Buchanan and the others I don't know enough about.
Nader seems to be the only one with a clue about the internet. And he definitely isn't a "corporate guy" like Bush and Gore.
I'd really like to vote for Jesse Ventura. Maybe he'll run in 2004!
I know people have been saying this since ... well, as long as I can remember ... but it's really too bad when we have to look at the ballot and as Brin sais "hold your nose and vote..." ... Perhaps someday soon the populus will force the government to look into alternative voting methods (as seen in earlier slashdot articles)...
... i can't think of anything more to say.
bemis
-beer
>What has Gore said that puts him in that category >in your mind?
When he said that he wants ISP's to put up "parent pages" before serving up 95% of web content and wants website viewing to be better tracked. Personally, I have no problem with public computers having censorware on them. The government, whether state, federal, or local, owns those machines and they have the right to do whatever they want with them. Sure, it may seem fascist, but who are you to say what they can or cannot do with what the majority of people actually want?
Exactly: if the Constitution is not set up to do what you want, you can make an amendment to it. It's been done before, and it will be again. Simply ignoring the Constitution and passing and enforcing whatever laws we please is dishonest and sets a dangerous precedent.
Sure its a viable solution. We could have a television station like CNN's Headline News doling out info on legislation in one minute sound-bites all paid for by political commercials from major corporations. And all our tvs will be connected to our computers via CueCats so we can instantly get "in-depth", all Flash animated web pages that will conveniently summarize why this is or isn't a good bill. Of course there will be the occassional political gaffe when somebody plays the site's version of the American Anthem backwards and hears a demonic voice bellowing "Don't vote for this! Freddy is the Devil!" but that's the price one pays for a true democracy.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
As for being stripped of rights, I'll say this. The right to vote is one of the most basic and most important ones. It comes with a responsibility to vote. By not taking the time to become involved and exercising this right you are essentially forfeiting it. And it is upon that slippery slope in which the rest of your rights get taken away.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
As Batta's post (#297) shows, even at the most local level it is difficult for the citizens to keep up to date on every little issue, make a decision, and then vote. People only have so much time in the day and as you expanded true democracy to the state and federal level the amount of effort to cast informed votes rises exponentially.
To compensate people would have to start taking in sound bites to make decisions and/or ignore issues that would take too much research to accurately comprehend. The WWW isn't going to improve that. And I, being a husband with a baby on the way and working 40+ hours, do not have the time to go over a 700+ page document on the need to protect wetlands v. the impact it will have on various industries.
btw, how do you propose to keep the citizens informed on everthing they have to vote on? Not everybody has access to the Internet. For a true democracy to work you have to provide equivalent information to everyone. That means finding out who doesn't have access and getting hardcopy out.
You talk about the tyrrany of the minority but again I ask you to examine Batta's post. Due to the inability of the populance to keep up on everything the tyrrany of the minority still exists. A true democracy is not going to be something better. It will be something different and imho somthing worse.
Eventually information overload will cause voters to elect and pay people to go over all this information and produce a recommendation. From there I wonder how long it would take them to re-implement a representative democracy.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Oh great, I can just see it now.
I'm glad to say Mr. Vice President that you are "quasi-evil." The diet coke of evil. Just one calorie, not quite evil enough. You Sir, have my vote.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Couldn't agree with you more. Shame too. I was really looking forward to seeing Elizabeth Dole in the primaries.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
I don't think that any form of media can turn anyone's heart dark. It may uncover darkness which already exists, in which case I say don't shoot the messenger.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I like what they do in VA (or so I've heard). If a candidate doesn't receive more than 50% of the vote, they have a run-off between the top two vote getters. Between doing away with the electoral college and doing the run-off, I think you'd see a lot more 3rd party votes. But then, I also thought it would be neat if VP was an elected office rather than a chosen one (even if it were done in the primaries within each party). A Gore-Bradley ticket is much more attractive to me than the current Democratic ticket.
-Jennifer
WHAT?!! You've got to be kidding! This is the person who said that he would be making decisions based on principle, not polls. I like leaders with principle, but I don't trust any leader who says that he will not listen to his constituents. How does he know that his "principles" are 1) right or 2) reflective of mine?
Add to that his LOUSY track record here in Texas, and I have to say that I feel the opposite of you, and I'm going to do anything I can to keep Bush out of office. I consider myself to have conservative, Republican values, but I normally vote Democratic because they seem to listen more to the average person and focus a little less on the needs of the upper 1%.
I have been thinking of late of Federalist No. 10, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, attributed to Madison under the pen name Publius, where he defends a republican government as one being most immune to the passions of factious influences. "Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people." I am most intrigued by the following passage, which argues that large republics are safer than small republics:
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It would seem that with the introduction of instant, global, pervasive, saturating media coverage of the election process the so-called "viscious arts" may indeed be practiced with wanton abandon. Witness Nixon and his "dirty tricks" and, as a more modern example, the allegations on both sides of this election of smear campaigns levied against them by their opponents. It would seem that, for better or worse, politics is changing as a consequence of the infusion of communications and information technology into the voting public. (Katz would argue that this is the end of politics, but I see it, rather, as a subtle change).
The question I have follows from the observation that the two political parties' platforms tend to asymptote toward one another as election day approaches in a strategic attempt to snag the vote of the undecided voter who is, generally speaking, a political moderate. With current technology we can categorize and poll these voters down to the minutiae. We know their age and income demographics. We know where they live. We know how many children they have, how frequently they watch television or listen to the radio, whether they work for big or small business. In the waning hours of the election we craft political platforms in a manner that captures their vote, and we see this pandering mirrored in the bills brought before Congress. Can we call a spade a spade and view these moderates as a faction?
I would argue that we may. They certainly receive a disproportionate amount of attention from both of the major parties, and their sometimes ill-informed concerns have surfaced in eleventh-hour Congressional resolutions, particularly appropriations bills. This year we have many such stingers, including appropriations bills laden with pork, a much-expanded polygraph program to "make our nuclear secrets safe again" by harrassing DOE scientists into resigning from their posts, and the inclusion of censorware on public computers "for the sake of children." Anything to keep the focus groups employed, safe, and keep salaciousness away from their children's eyes--at considerable cost to the good of the public. Even if no campaign promises are kept they have affected public policy in a manner incommensurate with their representation in the populace. The greatest potential tyrrany, according to Madison, was from factions who find themselves in the majority. No matter what the Fates decide for this election, these groups will indeed be members of the majority with public policy initiatives specifically crafted to appeal to their interests.
It is too bad that Gen-X chooses not to vote. We might otherwise use this to our advantage.
They simply can't.
As harsh as this realism is, it is reality. Either Bush or Gore is going to win, and we're going to be stuck with em.
If I vote for the Green party, and the Green party loses (which it will), what difference have I made? I just threw away my vote, becuase Joe Sixpack has never heard anything about or from Ralph Nader, only what ABC News or whoever have fed them.
What elderly white millionare is going to save us for the next four years?
Evan
misterorange.com
Back in the mid 80s I had a young and highly intelligent South African woman working for me in a low level tech support job. When she graduated college she was one of the very top students in the country, but she had to come here because she couldn't get a decent job. Why? Because she was "coloured" -- an ethnic Indian moslem. Back at home, people would walk into her office and as "Is anybody here?" meaning anybody who was white enough to count.
During the 88 election she said to me "Just for once in my life, I wish I could vote!"
Every time I hear some idiot whining that they aren't going to vote because they don't like the choices, I remember what the vote means to people who don't have it and I want to kick those their teeth in. Don't they realize they're volunteering to be a second class citizen? I wouldn't mind that so much, but they're going to drag the rest of the middle class down the political tube along with themselves.
Knee-jerk cynicism, like any unthinking emotional state, can and is manipulated by anti-democracy forces for their own selfish ends. The character assasination, and the myth that there is no difference between the major party candidates, this swill is fostered by people who are interested in getting you to opt out of the election so they can keep the political process to themselves. You don't think they are staying home, do you? What's worse is that it is spread by the fools they've turned into apathetic zombies.
You might argue there should be more difference between the candidates, and I'd agree, but who gets elected will affect a lot of people's lives one way or the other. Even if there were no important differences between them, there are third party candidates that offer radically different and sometimes better positions; and there is alway the option of protest by abstaining. As long as you are in the voting booth, you are a factor to be reckoned with.
This is what will happen when enough people stop voting: First, you become a non-voter. Next you become a non-citizen. Then, you become a non-entity.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The best form of protesting is to vote. the fact that we have a choice of two complete lying idiots running in the election gives me only one clear decision Ralph Nader and the green party!
I mean come on al gore says he invented the internet and george bush thinks it is evil and dark. I guess both of these fools are still on AOL.
Ralph might not win but at least I won't feel guilty as either of the other two idiots fu*k up what remains of our free country.
inDica
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
Bush gets my vote. I am tired of working 4-5 months for free to pay the government each year. We need a tax cut for everyone. I don't get one under the Gore plan, even though I consider myself middle class. I know social security will be gone when I retire, but maybe 2 percent privatization my get our generation something. It is better than hoping. Also, my second amendment rights mean a lot to me. They mean nothing to Gore.
Also, for those of you voting Nader, check out the Green Party Platform. They believe in extra taxation for people like us who make money, and negative taxation for artists, teachers, etc. That is redistribution of wealth. aka Communism
Yeah, banning firearms would be a good thing until we accidently elect a man like hitler who wants to wipe out your specific ethic group. Good luck defending yoursdelf with sticks and stones.
So many Americans just don't understand that most of the federal programs are completely ILLEGAL against the Constitution. They also don't understand the Constitution has been abolished, and there is only ONE person running for office that is willing reinstate it. To read more about what I'm talking about go here: http://www.vaix.net/~api/23118.htm
Going back to gad_zuki's post, the Libertarian party is for one thing, the Constitution. If that is evil, then the Foundering fathers are evil and America is evil.
MarNuke
Well, to be honest neither of the two major choices are any good. However, I am probably going to vote for Bush. The primary reason is that while they are both scum^H^H^H^H polititions, Gore is a known lier of the like that makes even Clinton almost look good. Bush is no saint, but he hasn't proven that he is anywhere near as bad a choice as Gore.
Still, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I think maybe it's time to start a massive write-in campain for Richie Blackmore!
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
I couldn't decide either way though. One us a moron. The other is a schmuck! They will both royalling fsck things up. So who is there to pick? There should be a law that requires Natalie Portman to run if there isn't anybody worth voting for... That guy in Maxim magazine looks like a worth while vote.... :-)
and with how easily manipuated the general public is, and with the relatively low education of the populace in general, this would just be a horror story.
so ... keep the representative democracy, but get rid of the duopoly.
tagline
... hi bingo
Robo-Gore (tm) will make us feel his bigger government.
Can you make a "kids heart dark"? Sure! It is normally done during wartime, the kids are taught to hate the enemy. Those who never got the history lessons (thanks , teachers union!) about Cambodia, Guana, and Germany can tune in the nighly news and watch kids throw rocks.
Can you do it over the internet? I don't know, but do images such as (warning: disturbing, will make you skip lunch at the very least) this and this (is porn, will offend you and make you say ouch) make kids happier and better adjusted? I cannot see how.
Just for the record- I'm voting for Bush.
Boycotting the booth will not make an impact. If you want to show your dissatisfaction with the two major parties, vote for someone else. If enough people write in a candidate, it will send a clear message.
Sure, your write-in candidate probably doesn't stand a chance. You may think that you are throwing away your vote. No, definitely not! You are making your opinion known, which is a heck of a lot better than joining the apathetic majority who just don't care and don't vote. Go to the booth and make an impact!
If you wonder what I'm talking about, go back and read the debate again - this time objectively. Bush's point was not that the Internet turns children's hearts black, but that America has gone far from values that are virtuous, and the current values portrayed by the Internet - necrophilia, anyone? how about bomb making information? - are not things that young people should be subjected to.
Granted, you say "those are stupid arguements, that doesn't mean the kids will do it." Kids ARE stupid. How many kids do you know that are smart enough to do things behind their parents back? Lots. How many do you know that have any common sence? Not many. They find something on the Internet that says "How to blow things up," and they foolishly think, "Oh cool! Roadrunner type stuff!" because that's all that they've been subjected to, as far as blowing things up is concerned. That, or movies where the action hero gets blown out of the 3rd story of a building by a large atomic fireball, falls to the ground landing on a large spike, gets up, pulls the spike out, and then kills the villian with it.
American media has made senceless kids who don't have common sence; that, paired with a knowledge of computers has the potential for danger.
I personally get sick of Katz endless stream of croud-pleasing articles that conform to the Slashdot Way. It gets so bad, you don't even have to read what he says to know what he says.
I know I'll probably get moderated down for this one, but at this point I don't care. I miss the unbiased slashdot, the one that was open minded and allowed for more views. They political views on slashdot this election have been horrid - very much 'AntiBush', even though they claim to be against both Bush and Gore...
Don't let people tell you what they're saying, read what they're saying for yourselves.
#include "aspestos.h"
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
"If I'm a a lower-class worker, the non-flat tax is a disincentive to working harder; I'll only end up having to pay a disproportionately larger amount in taxes."
No. I have *never* heard *anyone* say "Oh, I wish I weren't rich so I didn't have to pay so much in taxes" or "I'm not going to work hard because I'll just have to pay too much in taxes."
Now, Nader's "maximum wage" = 100% tax over a certain amount *would* make some people say that, which is why I don't support it. But I support Nader anyhow, since even were he to be elected, that particular measure would never pass. IOW, his madness is safer than Browne's (or Gore's or Bush's).
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Well, first off, Vermont uses proportional vote to determine delegates, so you can't vote Green without decreasing the Gore electoral college votes and also increasing the Bush electoral college votes.
Plus, it's a lot closer in the Leaning To states you mentioned, such as Washington and Oregon. Trust me on this.
However, the basic strategy is a sound one, as proposed at Greens For Gore, and would work fairly well to maximize vote counts for any party it's used for.
If you're Libertarian or Green, this might allow you to get over the 5 percent threshold, qualify for federal matching funds, acheive majority party status in the affected status, and still stick it to Bush.
Will in Seattle
I was being sarcastic in saying that I thought America was smart. Most are not. They're dumb because they can. I have to deal with them on a daily basis.
... milk fed sheeple I said earlier.
I'll say it again, the vast population is a bunch of mind-numbed robots who just vote the way their friends do
Politician is not a dubious title. "Career politician" is. The ones "in it" for the corporate bribes, er, money have lost the fervor and the will to do the best for their "constitutients" (who just vote on name recognition anyway -- anyone remember the name of the dead guy who won a local election?).
I'd like to see what happens if Senator Thurmond dies. It would be interesting to see how many automatons will vote for him if his name was still on the ballot. I'm sure the people in South Carolina are, sadly, no smarter than those anywhere else.
-m
The problem as I see it is that the majority of Americans are a bunch of milk fed sheeple who will vote, not their conscience, but for whomever their friend does.
Their friend only votes for whomever their friend votes, and so on and so on.
Eventually you reach a point where the Alpha-Voter actually has a reason to vote for that person... they are that person.
The second problem is the candidates. They have turned their public service into a career. We have lawyers becoming congresspersons, senators, and presidents. Does anyone see the problem with this? They're making laws in which they will be prosecuting in court. Talk about a conflict of interest. Also, as you have career politicians, they start voting in order to *STAY* in office... not for the *BEST* of their community. Most likely for the *BEST* of their biggest supporters. With *CASH* they can *BUY* their votes. Joe Sixpack doesn't *SUPPLY* the *CASH* necessary to win.
If a qualified candidate came down the pike who has swatched a path of change in their wake, America might finally wake up.
But what am I saying. I'm actually thinking the populous is smart. I'm actually thinking someone qualified who actually cares and shows it will step forward with a giant silver sword and destroy the old codgers currently getting off on being popular and constantly winning the popularity contest, boosting their egos.
...and don't even get me started on the idiocy called the Electoral College...
One vote make a difference? Hardly... but you can get the good feeling that you voted for whomever you wish -- not for whomever your friend wished.
-m
Given the choice between someone who thinks he is intelligent enough to run my life better than I can and a dimwit, I will choose the dimwit.
Since the actual choices are more extensive, I'm voting for the one fairly close to my views, namely Harry Browne.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
As a latin american, I've always complained about how the US have become the police of the world, and how they dictate the economical policies that all countries must follow. In Argentina, sometimes it's a moot point who wins an election, because they will have to listen to Washington even to make the annual budget.
So you're not only holding the power to change your country, but, sadly, you are in a position to sway the world.
Vote. Don't vote Bush; he means CIA, he means daddy Bush, and by association he means everything conspirative and fascist.
Vote. Maybe vote Gore. He's not OK, but I don't know if there are other candidates.
Vote. Vote someone. Don't stay home.
---
Mondongo
I understand that you're planning on voting for Brown, but consider that the Democrats AND Republicans are both for a progressive tax system, so there is no need to single out the Green Party for their view. Sure, Bush wants a huge tax cut for the rich, but even with that tax cut the U.S. tax system would still be progressive.
What is Browne's position on taxing wages? Is he for a flat tax, or a regressive tax, or no taxes on wages? IIRC, he wants to pay for the government with only tarrifs and excise taxes, right?
I'm afraid to hear what Browne says should be done for seniors and people who can't find work. Here's a quote of Browne from his website: "Repealing the income and Social Security taxes will leave a trillion dollars a year in the private economy. That money will buy a job for everyone who can work, and charity for everyone who can't." I think a more accurate statement would be: "That money could buy a job for everyone who can work, and charity for everyone who can't." Browne has no way to guarantee that is what will happen. If it doesn't, you have all of those people stranded without any help what so ever. That doesn't sound very helpful. To me it sounds like, "Let's take the government out of welfare and hope that everything will work out for best." That doesn't address my concerns at all.
So I guess, thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick with Nader.
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
It's the least any decent American can do to go out and vote for the patriarchal, northern European descended Ivy League education candidate of your choice, Gore, Bush or Nader. :-)
But point taken anyway.
I am a Pagan... I believe in things that are not standard religions. Realistically, in this election, there are only 2 candidates... As much as I wish this were not true, it is.
I am voting for Gore. It is not a vote for Gore on my part, but a vote against Bush. Bush has said that he supports Freedom of Religion, but that Wicca (witchcraft, as he calls it) is not a religion. Wicca is, I believe, the largest pagan religion. It scares me to think that this man could be in a position to appoint SEVERAL Supreme Court Justices, and effectively change every major decision that has been made in the most recent decades.
Religion is not just the only issue... I would not personally want a significant other of mine to have an abortion, BUT sometimes it is neccisary... Bush does not even believe in it in cases of rape or incest... And by being in a position to appoint Supreme Court Justices, he can change things to his way.
Supreme Court Justices are selected for life or until they choose to retire... So even if Bush gets in and out in 4 years, we will be stuck with any of his appointees long after he leaves office. So I am voting for Gore, even though I hate to do it, but I have to, just to try to keep Bush out of office.
NO
Wow! Unbelievable! I can't believe that Katz wrote such a good, short article! If that is possible, mayhap we do have a chance of having an effect on our goverment.
All humor aside. This comments related to this article are some of the best I've seen on Slashdot to date. This is how we should talk about our politics, all the time. The media gives their own song and dance and the politicians feed it with their own smoke and mirrors.
Some where in there we lose the true discourse we need. And possibly that is the problem these days, as a country we've forgotten about discourse and get led (or blinded) by the media flash.
It makes me wonder, will we ever have statesmen again? Tis a shame that true statesmen are far and few between. And when they do exist, American media tends to ignore them. Mostly because they are on the international scene.
There are more things to vote for than merely a presidential race. In MA, we have a number of 'questions' on the ballot. Other places do too! Some of these are pretty important: There is one concerning universal health care for example.
I always mention to other college students the question regarding cannabis reform too -- this usually rings them in.
The existing system would like nothing more than for you to not vote, in "protest". You see, if people who care don't vote out of disgust, the two major parties (think of them as two subsidiaries of one big corporation) have their success solidified. They need only to pander to the right or left, and scare the weak willed into voting for them. So *not* voting is playing right into their hands. They would like you to relinquish your power.
2 43,58092,00.html
Did you ever notice how many times each side says this election is about "issues" and "real differences". Imagine that! Unlike all other previous elections, right? Doesn't it make you curious as to why they feel they have to repeat this over and over to you? Well, it's because they *know* there aren't real differences. They *know* they agree on NAFTA/WTO "free" trade, propping up corrupt foreign governments because it is in our "national interest", prohibiting gay unions, gun laws, the environment, the most militarized democracy in history. Of course they will beat the drum of the Supreme Court and abortion to get you running scared and voting for them, despite the fact that in recent history conservative adminstrations appointed more liberal justices, while liberal administrations appointed more conservative ones. No wonder the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, you guessed it, is run by a Republican/Democrat duopoly, doesn't want third parties debating and bringing up real issues.
If you vote for Bush or Gore you are really voting for the same thing. Despite any superficial or character differences between them, either way you are voting for further corporatization and corruption of our political process.
The fact is, while many of us may seem very comfortable, this election is about a *lot* more than the Supreme Court, or whatever crisis-du-jour the Republicrats want to pull out of their hat. This election is about deciding whether you are going to hold government accountable to the people, or whether you will allow faceless powers pull the wool over your eyes. This is your chance to take a stand.
I am voting for Nader, among many other reasons, because he has a strong platform on social justice, and government accountability. He has a long history of fighting, and repairing the system. The Green platform addresses farmers, average working people. Those who have been "protesting" by not voting out of disgust, are the *real* majority. This is the real center.
Of course, many around this parts favor Browne and Libertarianism. I can live with that, I agree with some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, and I certainly respect their candidate above the two status-quo candidates.
Don't vote like you pick soda beverages. Vote your conscience, otherwise, greater or lesser, you will always get some sort of evil.
Don't be taken for granted. "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you in very unpleasant ways."
Ain't Fallin' for that One Again
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
Bush and Gore Make Me Want to Ralph
http://www.michaelmoore.com/07192000.html
Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)
http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com
Who Do You Trust?
http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000/story/0,7
Nader Campaign
http://www.votenader.org
And if they have you scared about wasting your vote: the election is determined by the electoral college, not popular opinion (see recent Slashdot article on how this system is fscked). That means, in all but a handful of battleground states, where the outcome has already pretty much been decided (e.g., in NY Gore has a large lead), you can turn the tables on the same mentality that says your one vote can't possibly affect the outcome - and vote for a third party.
And on the risk of getting too squishy here:
"A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble." -- Ghandi
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Just because you don't hear about it through the mass media, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Mark Dunau, a farmer, is the Green party candidate for NY Senate. Yet I have not heard his name mentioned even once amid all the garbage about Hillary and Lazio.
So you New Yorkers who dislike both Hillary and Lazio and think there is no other choice - there is. Look up Mark Dunau. Vote for him if you agree with him.
http://www.ruralparty.com/
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
While I agree that Texas' death penalty is not the way it is due to Bush, and it's been that way for a while, I feel that he takes pride in the fact that his state kills so many people. I find that kind of complete lack of respect for life disturbing. I'm not arguing that the death penalty is wrong or that it doesn't work; just that when you kill anyone, even a convicted murderer, you should not feel pride or happiness. I think Bush does.
As far as Clinton/Gore, I don't support them at all; but they are the only alternative to Bush. I wish it wasn't that way, but in reality for this election, if I don't want Bush, my only choice is Gore. Very unfortunate, but true.
I would vote for Nader, but for the first time I am so scared of what would happen if Bush won that I feel I can't throw my vote away (by taking a vote away from Gore - face it, in this election there's only 2 people who might win).
Not only is Bush stupid, he's arrogant, childish, and evil. Texas has executed an ungodly number of people since he's been Governor. His views on everything important are completely wrong. Especially with all the turmoil in the Middle East, I don't want someone who has so little regard for life as president. World War III does not appeal to me. If he's elected I will probably move to Canada.
So I'm voting for Gore.
That would be most cool, although I think (on a first pass) that I would give that up if I had the option to use my vote as a "for" or an "against," my choice.
I don't care for a single one of the candidates. It doesn't matter who wins, we still lose. But I would like to avoid losing to a couple people in particular, because they represent the worst-case outcome. So I wish I could vote against Bush or Gore. (Adjust the Constitution's voting rules and cutoffs as appropriate.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Katz was asking for reasons to vote.
People that don't want to vote quite often don't want to vote because they think they're locked into the two major parties.
Nader represents an alternative to that, thus a way to vote without supporting someone you don't want to elect.
So does Harry Browne (Libertarian).
Jerry Garcia, being dead, does not.
-Ross
It's the government's proper function to prevent people from hurting and defrauding each other. When the government isn't in myriad "partnerships" with Corporate America, it can oversee them better.
There will be no power vaccuum filled by corporations.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I love this strict almost fundamentalist Constitution talk, ever hear of amendments?
"fundamentalist Constitution talk"? The Consitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Pointing out that the government is in violation of the supreme law of the land isn't "fundamentalism." It's not hard to understand the meaning of words like "shall make no law," "shall not be abridged," and "reserved to the states and people". What good is a supreme law of the land if it's not actually followed?
Or those part of the evil empire also?
No, they're part of the system. The idea is that, when large changes are made to the supreme law of the land, there must be vast support for it. As opposed to simply issuing an executive order.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
If your the backbone of the democratic party with weak convictions been like the parent post.
... I have no idea what that means.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
he will only help empower the already over-powered multinationals.
Not true. Libertarian government would kick coporations off of the public teat and make them accountable for fraud.
It would be cool if the corporate death penalty were revived as well.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Freedom or capitalism, you can't have it both ways.
Freedom and capitalism go hand in hand. You'd be better off saying "socialism or freedom; can't have it both ways"
The Libertarians would be telling you to vote for Nader if they weren't all rich.
Breathtakingly silly. Nader is much more of a socialist than a capitalist. He wants a nanny-state -- exactly what Libertarians don't want.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
why cant we accept paying political campaigns to remove corporate influence.
Mmmm... welfare for the political class.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The guy making 15k is going to pay 1.5k in taxes.
Not true. All of the flat tax plans call for a flat tax on all income over a certain amount, and it's typically fairly high, like $60,000. Your $15k/year example guy would pay no taxes.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
all the talk about freedom is crap
Our Anonymous Coward friend has, in fact, made it abundantly clear that he doesn't want freedom; he wants free stuff. AC For President! He will make us his slaves, but feed us.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=3, Overrated=2, Total=8.
... flamebait?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I would really like "none of the above" to be on the ballot. A lot of people abstain because there's no choice they like. This skews the results by not counting abstentions. If "none of the above" wins, we have to have another election until candidates are produced that a majority does like. The would let people register their dissent in a meaningful way.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I'm voting Libertarian because they are the only party that actually cares about freedom. The rest want a nanny state of one type or another.
Voting Libertarian is the best campaign finance reform possible, because they will reduce government back to its constitutional limits. One the federal government isn't all-powerful anymore, there will be much less to fight over. Without corporate and personal subsidies being handed out right and left, why bribe a politician to get the rules skewed in your favor?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I never ceases to amaze me how many people equate freedom with getting something free off the backs of someone else.
$$$ -> Universal Healthcare, publicly funded elections, living wage, social security, government schools, government funded clinics, minimum wage, wads of regulations, etc.
It's all incremental socialism/facism/nanny statism. Turn up the heat a little at a time, and the frog won't realize he's being cooked. That Nader fellow just likes to make sure the frog isn't scratched by any burrs left over from the kettle factory.
-- Eric
> Anyway, those of us outside the US rarely hear anything about the indeps. Anyone like to fill us in?
We don't hear about them either.
-- Eric
if Nader weren't running, I wouldn't be voting at all, simply because I wouldn't want any of the candidates to be president.
Well, there are plenty of ways to indicate that. Not voting sends no message whatsoever, so nobody can possibly realize this is how you feel. If you don't like ANY, write in someone, or just not vote for anyone. But staying home only indicates that the result is unimportant to you, that it's acceptable no matter who wins. And that is obviously not what you want.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
If you don't vote, you're statistically voting for the default result.
Exactly. Not voting is giving your approval to ALL of the candidates - after all, if you had an opinion, you'd go make it known, right?
You DON'T have to vote for either of the two big parties. Heck, you don't have to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot. Or even go in to vote and just not select anyone.
If everyone who was going to not vote went in and voted for nobody, that would be a huge percentage, and would definately be noticed. If, when they counted up results, 25% of the people voted for essentially "none of the above", don't you think that would send a message? That all those people found nobody worth voting for?
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
When did we just give up on things as a society? The Greens are wrong because they won't compromise and go mainstream? Is compromising and going mainstream really the point? Isn't there room for a minority view to have some effect? It would probably have an excellent moderating effect if, say 10% of the representatives in government were Greens (I'm guessing that's about the percentage of the population that would support the Green platform if we didn't have such a defeatist attitude). Sure, maybe they can't get elected president because their views are extreme, but we still need to have those extreme views around.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
I actually went out and purchased an antenna for my TV for the presidential debates. It is currently taking up my entire living room, but it feeds signal to the TV downstairs just fine, thankyouverymuch.
When I am in a job interview, I make it a point to ask the employer a few questions. The questions themselves are immaterial, as long as they give the employer a chance to make an answer. The content of the answers aren't nearly as important as the tone, direction, and quantity of information.
In the debates, I listened to the answers that our candidates gave. They both dodged prickly subjects for topics that they were stronger on. Both insisted that the other explain the weak points of his plans, and both cleanly avoided dwelling on this (or making excuses).
Gore liked to listen to himself talk, and explained things in great boring detail, as if talking to a fifth grade class. In my opinion, his "Lady with a poodle" bit at the end was a big mistake.
Bush, on the other hand, described his policies in glossing detail, and spent an inordinate amount of time comparing his strong points to Gore's weak ones. I felt as if he were saying "You're not bright enough to understand the details, but mine is better than his". I found his blatant attacks on Gore to be quite annoying.
On the average, Gore felt like a fifth grade teacher, and Bush felt like a magician or confidence trickster. You can guess which one I prefer.
On the purely content level, I feel that Gore comes off stronger. His policies are obviously more aimed at the public good, while Bush seems to want to sneek more money into the hands of the wealthy. Just my personal view. But remember, Bush is your buddy and Gore is just a rambling politician.
Mythological Beast
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
How are we supposed to tell those who simply don't care from those who are opting out of the process? Staying home removes the distinction.
Don't take the lazy way out. You have a duty to your fellow citizens, and to your country, to make your voice be heard.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Direct from Harry Browne's website:
On welfare:
"The only sensible solution is to end it -- immediately and completely."
"If I have my way, your federal welfare payments will end in eight months."
This sounds like turning people out on the street to me.
On Social Security:
"Phasing out Social Security over many years won't work."
"I believe annuities should be provided only for those who truly need them."
Does Harry Browne get to decide who truly needs social security benefits? The rest of the people currently receiving benfits just get cut off? You say that Browne has a plan for the people currently receiving these benefits? He says that they will go through everyone receiving social security and evaluate on a case by case basis. That would take FOREVER. And in the meantime, those in their late fifties that are preparing to retire, perhaps don't have a dime saved for retirement due to no fault of their own, those people get left out on the streets. And Harry Browne says that those people will get what they need through "charity."
On Families:
"Repealing the income tax so that parents can spend more time with their children, teaching them values that will minimize teenage pregnancies."
It seems to me that people will work long and hard for more money anyway. Greed is deep-rooted in the American psyche and I can't see how repealing the income tax has anything to do with people spending more time with their families.
On Military Service:
"I spent three years in the Army, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to be in the Army."
From the man who would like to become our commander in chief.
On Selling off the Environment:
"I want to pay off the federal debt by auctioning off the assets the government shouldn't own -- western lands, power companies, unused military bases, and commodity reserves."
I am assuming this includes National Forest lands, BLM lands, perhapes even National Wilderness Areas. This is almost as bad as Bush wanting to drill in the ANWR. Selling these lands in auction essentially to the highest corporate bidder could possibly close many of them to public use.
On closing down federal programs:
"The federal government has no authority to be involved in any way in education, health care, welfare, law enforcement, the retirement business, or anything else the Constitution hasn't specified."
Say goodbye to federal loans for education, research grants for science, national forests and parks, etc. Say hello to corporate control of the environment, massive unchecked monopolies, and an increase in federal crime becuase without federal law enforcement, who will enforce the laws of the US constitiution?
And lastly, I have read up on Browne's ideas, and obviously, I don't agree with them. But I haven't found any real plans for implementing any of these things he talks about. The president can't just grab the phone in the oval office and say, "Yeah hi, this is the president and I need you to just fire all government employees, cancel all federal government programs, sell all of our national lands, repeal the income tax, and be sure to call up all the college students currently receiving government money that it ends tomorrow." You want libertarian policies implemented, elect people to your local state congressional bodies, elect them to national congress. The president does not have the constitutional power to do the things Harry Browne wants to do.
--
lukas
Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
What "laws of the US constitution?"
Sorry, what I meant to say was the laws of the US congress, not constitution. You're right the constitution is a description of government and amendments including the Bill of Rights.
As far as consumers keeping corporations in check, that hasn't worked with AT&T, Microsoft, ADM, the recording industry, etc.
Been to a national forest recently?
Yes I've been to national forests and parks recently. Some of them are filthy, some of them are not. I like the idea of community owned lands. The problem is that I think community organizations would be outbid by corporate money for some of these lands. But there are private organizations, like the Access Fund that do a great job of land management. It is possible that it could work, as most states have laws in place that would stop outright exploitation of the land, but my feeling is that it would be a disaster.
Why is federally funded science bad for capitalism?
How do low interest federal college loans hurt capitalism?
--
lukas
Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
If you're over 18 in the United States, then there is absolutely no excuse for not voting. There is no room to be apathetic about the leaders of our own country, there are important issues on the table, and we owe it to the people who have fought and died to preserve our way of life. It sounds cliche, but it really is that simple, there are people in this world who would love to be as lucky as we are to be able to elect our government.
Having to choose between the lesser of two mediocrities in this election is sorta like having someone ask: "Would you like me to reem you with the 1-foot dildo, or should I use the 12-incher?" Not much of a choice. Thanks anyway, I'll pass. I'm starting to subscribe to the George Carlin notion that if you participate in this farce, you give up the right to bitch about it later. (After all, *I* didn't vote the goober into office -- YOU did by participating). ;)
The last straw was when Ralph Nader was evicted from simply OBSERVING the pseudo-dabate. That's something I expect to see in some banana republic or totalitarian regime. What next? Maybe they'll only allow write-ins from party-approved alternative candidates (the two-party system here has already gutted local petition laws to safeguard their seats at the public trough).
I cannot vote for Al Gore (God, grant me relief from yet another southern bumpkin!! Carter, Clinton, Gore. How 'bout a democratic candidate from a state with indoor plumbing for once??) because he finds lying much too easy, he's out of touch with what real people endure (what career politician isn't?), and he advocates censorship -- not because he believes it necessary, but because it's a sure-fire gimmick to goose up his poll numbers. Someone who would forfeit hard-won rights for the express purpose of packing his political resume is reprehensible. He also needs to grow a backbone and not predicate his views on the latest opinion polls. My God, I swear -- If Al Gore jumped off the Washington Monument, he wouldn't hit the ground until his aides convinced him that the "law of gravity" was still popular.
I cannot vote for "Shrub". He's a moron. Beyond the fact that he was coronated for the candidacy by the backroom Republicans (Why do we even have fucking primaries if the parties make our choices in advance. These are looking like Soviet-style elections to me), the man seems to never have had an original thought in his life. He's a rubber stamp, which is exactly why they coronated him. I believe strongly in the welfare of people, Bush prefers the welfare of corporate America. (Has anyone else noticed that the traditional Republican rallying cry, "Get government off our backs", has been sorta dropped? They seem obsessed with dictating their version of morality and intruding into people's personal lives, so I guess the motto change was inevitable).
I cannot vote for Pat Buchanan. This jackass ought to favor the legalization of drugs. His best chance of being elected is if the country is stoned in November.
I cannot vote for Nader -- even though I admire him in many ways. I want government to take care of basic & essential governance -- I don't need a nanny, and I suspect Ralph would be unable to resist the urge. Just because I happen to agree with more of his ethical views, does not mean that I want to see them implemented into law. ("Ohh! Cigarettes are bad(tm) for people. Let's jack up the taxes 5 bucks." "Hey, Ralphie! Jack this!)
MAYBE, I could be persuaded to the libertarian party, but there are a few things beyond simple defense that a government needs to manage. I can't imagine a Libertarian defense of the MicroSoft breakup. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, the Libertarians sort of leave us at the mercy of capitalistic robber-barons.
You know who I would vote for? (and this will evoke howls of flamage, no doubt, but little actual substance to back it up). I'd vote for Jesse Ventura in a Minnesota minute. I disagree with a large number of his views, but find his overall approach appealing and grounded in common sense. Stop trying to make government do everything, so that it can concentrate on the genuinely important stuff. Root out the entrenched 2-party system, so that congressmen will stop viewing Capitol Hill as a retirement home. And fuck political correctness while we're at it. Say what you will about Ventura, but the man says what's on his mind and is honest. I can't remember an honest president.
there are so many messages of people who want to vote , but in the end vote for bush or gore. why not just vote for what you believe in? the worst that can happen is that gore or bush wins anyway, but with a smaller margin.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
In a country where it is illegal to discriminate against anyone for any reason (other than insurance purposes, anyway), there is still one of the most blatant imbalances in our election process: the electoral college. The electoral college is a concept similar to a party convention where your state has sent a certain number of representatives to vote for who should be the candidate for your party. In the electoral college, however, the people who are sent are based on which candidate wins the general election in your state with a similar majority vote. If a Republican wins in your state, the Republican Party of that state sends a certain number of representatives to the electoral college to vote for who should actually be president.
Here, there are a certain number of votes that your state gets for the president. California, Texas, and New York all have tremendous influence in the election process, because the number of electoral college votes that your state gets is dependent on the population of your state, and as it turns out, that number is also equal to the number of representatives your state has in the House of Representatives.
Because the number of electoral college representatives a state gets is dependent on the number of people in it, this creates an imbalance. Two states, one large in population, one smaller, could have vastly differing numbers of electoral college votes. But if their voter turnout is the same, whoever voted in the larger state actually had a bigger say in who became president.
For example, I'll say that state A has 10 million people in it and gets 20 electoral college votes. State B has 4 million people and gets 8 electoral college votes. They both have the same turnout, 2 million people. So in state A, a vote was worth 20/2000000 = .00001 of an electoral college vote, and in state B, a vote was worth 8/2000000 = .000004 of an electoral college vote. So the person who lives in state B has a vote that's worth a lot less than the person who lives in state A.
What needs to happen is for there to be the abolishment of the electoral college. It was founded under the belief that because voting is such an important right, everyone would want to do it. We know today that that is just simply not the case, and so we should move to a simple majority vote for president and cut out the middleman.
One thing that I didn't mention up above in my electoral college discussion is that the electoral college representatives can vote however they like! Even if the popular vote of the state voted for a Republican, the electoral college rep. can vote for a Democrat if he or she wishes! This is completely absurd.
Anyway, someone else can take the soapbox now, thanks for your time.
They're putting dimes in the hole in my head to see the change in me.
You want to uphold the constitution, vote Harry Browne. He may not win, but voting for him is better than abstaining, or voting for one of the other candidates because you can't find someone better.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Ben Franklin
I read this article, and as a card carrying libertarian it chaps my ass, and here's why. This author conflates libertarianism in general with a class of tecno-elitist who have coopted libertarianism because it fits their own ideals. Not that this is necessarily wrong, but this has plagued libertarianism since its inception: its adoption by fringe elements who overshadow the more moderate members of the party. She rightly points out the problem that those pushing to make public policy often have trouble with even basic social interaction--however, this has nothing to do with the subscription of those same folks to the libertarian party or point of view.
I also object to her reactionary assertion that innovation is impossible without government. Yes, the technologies that made these techno-libertarians forces to be considered in the public arena are the legacy of government projects, but I would argue there's a fine distinction missed here: there are the children of *military* projects: DARPAnet, the first computers (ENIAC, &c.) were developed for *military* purposes (calculating projectile trajectories, code-breaking, &c.), et. al. The libertarian platform has no problem with the military--this is one of the few constitutional powers granted to the federal government, to raise a standing army. Beyond the subsidies, I wouldn't argue that government regulation is an overwhelming success. Industrial polluters continue to get away with it by being "grandfathered" past new anti-polution regulations. How often do you see horror stories about corporate interests flaunting regulation at the expense of the consumer? I would argue that the fear of class action suit is a stronger disincentive not to screw with a consumer base.
As for her closing assertions:
Protecting Privacy - excuse me?! Yes, corporations are trying to get and sell our personal data. No one was proposing that corporate America be entrusted with our privacy. As a staunch libertarian, I would argue this falls within the realm of the government's powers by way of the Bill of Rights. The government must respect my privay--however, this does not preclude it alsom protecting and ensuring it. Saying I don't want the govenerment snooping in my affairs is not equivalent to say they should be powerless to stop others from doing so.
Skimping on philanthropy: Again, she has targeted a particular breed of (arguably) libertarian folks. And what does this have to do with governance or anything other than the social/moral character of the billionaire geek? As a well paid technologist who falls within her parameters, I participate in philanthropy--the Nature Conservancy, my local NPR station, &c.
Gutting the environment: I'm sorry, this is a stretch. Is the high tech sector the only responsible for polluting? And the morality barb about immigrants coming here because of government regulation on environments is bunk--however imperfectly? Try very imperfectly. Do you know who the worst polluters are? Companies working leased government lands. This is thin argument overall at best. Environmental arguments always are aimed at the heart--"what about posterity?". What about facts, like some reports on pollution levels caused by high tech industries versus mining and logging or other traditional manufacturing?
Ignoring cities: What, did she need an even four points, here? This argument doesn't even make sense.
Once again, her conclusion conflates the inept politicking of social deficient techno-riche (who arguably have to be socially inept to be focused and driven enough to get that damn rich) with the libertarian agenda, which is utter bunk. She makes many valid arguments about the alarming lack of gratitude, compassion, and sense of what has come before amongst the newly rich, technocrats but this is hardly an idictment of all libertarians and many of these traits could be ascribe just as easily to the old-money mega-rich that are just as disconnected from the plight of the common man as many of the "geeks" populating the upper stratosphere of the dot-com world.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Ben Franklin
Better yet, go to http://www.harrybrowne2000.org.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Ben Franklin
Um, Jon, you forgot to post the last 95% of your article. What you have written there is concise and to-the-point; it feels like something is missing.
he's completely right-wing except for his stance on drugs
Not at all. Or is free immigration and gays in the military right-wing these days?
Actually, Al Gore never said that. He said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Several people, including Vint Cerf, have aggressively backed Gore's involvement in the creation of the Internet.
Here's an interesting article on media distortions of various quotes by both candidates:
Al Gore and the Internet
Democratic Party:
Al Gore:
Pro: He's schizo. We'll never know which Gore we're getting. It'll be a surprise.
Con: He's schizo. Free Lithium for all.
Pro: He pushes an anti-smoking campaign. Why smoke when drinking Vodka is much more glamorous?
Con: He pushes an anti-smoking campaign. He used to defend tobacco farmers and accept contributions from tobacco companies.
Pro: He invented the Internet. And brought this Web site to you.
Con: He invented the Internet. And he'd gladly ban "hate speech" on it.
Pro: He wants to expand anti-drug policies. But you're safe if you're related to him and attend Harvard.
Con: He wants to expand anti-drug policies. In his youth, he put Cheech and Chong to shame, which means he's even more rabid about his anti-drug stance.
Pro: He feels that Latino values are the best values. Henceforth, all women will shop at Rave, Bang Bang and Le Chateau.
Con: He feels that Latino values are the best values. Henceforth, all men must drench women in beer and water, and shamelessly group-grope them.
Pro: He wants to give stay-at-home mothers five years' worth of Social Security credits. Good. Give them an incentive to quit the workforce and spare us the details of their lochia.
Con: He wants to give stay-at-home mothers five years' worth of Social Security credits. Bad. Why the hell should they reap rewards for sitting on their fat asses for five years, while the rest of us are worker bees?
Pro: He claims to be pro-women. Abortion will remain legal.
Con: He claims to be pro-women. He kept having children until he got his boy.
Pro: He wants to provide $500 billion in tax cuts to families. Those Expedition payments are just becoming too much.
Con: He wants to provide $500 billion in tax cuts to families. Hint: If you don't have kids, you're not part of a family.
Pro: He believes that universal Internet connection should be a national priority. Everyone deserves a chance to read my site.
Con: He believes that universal Internet connection should be a national priority. Come on, he thinks it should be a national priority.
Joseph Lieberman:
All you need to know is that this guy is hellbent on getting rid of violence in the media.
Quotes: " We are not seeking censorship but better citizenship. We are appealing to the industry's conscience, to recognize that you are part of the national community that is endangered by the virus of youth violence, and to work with us to do whatever we can to prevent another Littleton."
-- Source: Senate testimony, "Marketing of Violence to Children" May 4, 1999
Lieberman was one of 10 Senators who sent a letter to seven video-game retailers. "We are seriously concerned about the accumulated impact that media violence is having on our children," the senators wrote. "We are particularly concerned by what is happening in the video game marketplace. Most games contain little if any violence and are rated as perfectly appropriate for players of all ages. But there is a significant core of increasingly graphic, gruesome, and perverse games that despite being rated for adults are commonly played by children."
The Senators noted that a prime reason kids have such easy access to ultraviolent games is that few leading retailers have policies restricting the sale of "M"-rated games to minors. They praised Sears and Wards for deciding not to carry "M"-rated games and asked the other companies to at least adopt standard policies to prevent children from buying potentially harmful games.
No single policy, governmental or corporate, will eliminate the serious threat of violence or prevent another Columbine from happening," the senators wrote. "But we have an obligation to do whatever we can to reduce the risks, and we believe that shielding our children from cultural messages and images that glorify and legitimize violence will do just that."
-- Source: Press Release, "Ultraviolent video games" Jun 16, 2000
On Lieberman's Web site, he's proud to announce that he has:
Republican Party:
George W. Bush.:
Pro: He laughed about convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker's execution. He's a sick bastard.
Con: He laughed about convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker's execution. I'm not seeing a con here.
Pro: He supports the pro-life stance. A Republican can't get elected without throwing a bone to the fringe elements.
Con: He supports the pro-life stance. A Republican can't get elected without throwing a bone to the fringe elements.
Pro: He would defend Taiwan if China attacks Taiwan. Well, that's one way to cut down on overpopulation.
Con: He would defend Taiwan if China attacks Taiwan. Chinese is a really difficult language to learn.
Pro: He would allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in schools. The kids can't read them, anyway.
Con: He would allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in schools. 16-year-old Wiccans will create protest Web sites.
Pro: He supports stronger penalties for first time cocaine possession. Unless one's last name is "Bush." I'm applying to change my name.
Con: He supports stronger penalties for first time cocaine possession. What about all of the hot young actors who won't be able to cut a deal just in time to star in the latest teen comedy?
Pro: He wants to help failing students pass. An educated populace makes for a successful nation.
Con: He wants to help failing students pass. Who will fill up the prisons by getting arrested for selling coke?
Pro: He wants to get rid of the Superfund program. Battery acid seeping into the water supply adds to the character of a neighborhood.
Con: He wants to get rid of the Superfund program. New Jersey will surpass Staten Island in being the world's largest garbage dump.
Pro: He wants to pursue stronger ties to Israel. Because they'd, uh, like, defend us and stuff, like, if we were attacked. **cough**
Con: He wants to pursue stronger ties to Israel. Israel sinks another American ship, anyway.
Pro: He's stupid. Think of the soundbites.
Con: He's stupid. Think of how the rest of the world will perceive the soundbites.
Dick Cheney:
Pro: He supports F-16 sales to Taiwan. They fall apart after playing with them for three days.
Con: He supports F-16 sales to Taiwan. It won't narrow the trade gap.
Pro: He supported a bill that would reward snitching on drug dealers. That's one way to supplement my income.
Con: He supported a bill that would reward snitching on drug dealers. The reward was a handshake from General Barry McCaffrey.
Pro: He voted against the Clean Water Act. Has Poland Springs gone public?
Con: He voted against the Clean Water Act. I guess he doesn't care about the children.
Green Party:
Ralph Nader::
Pro: He wants universal health care. Millions of Americans will wait months or years to receive needed medical care. Could cut down on the population.
Con: He wants universal health care. Reduction in population not worth the enormous cost.
Pro: He wants to provide additional child-care options to America's parents. 20 percent of SIDS cases occur at daycare.
Con: He wants to provide additional child-care options to America's parents. We'll probably foot the bill for Mama Sow to spend a year at home with her pint-sized cretin.
Pro: He wants to tax meat and anything we "don't like." Great. I can't wait for the taxes on breeding.
Con: He wants to tax meat and anything we "don't like." I think he means all of the things I like.
Pro: He wants a 100 percent tax for the rich. Sour grapes never looked so good.
Con: He wants a 100 percent tax for the rich. Yes, let's punish people for working hard, and give it to idiots who can't even put together the right order at Taco Bell.
Pro: He wants gun control. It's about time someone promoted gun features that steady the shooter's aim.
Con: He wants gun control. I doubt he'll pay for each of us to have a bodyguard, instead.
Pro: He wants to teach "democratic principles" in school. His democratic principles include affirmative action.
Con: He wants to teach "democratic principles" in school. Lovely. We'll go from the Pledge of Allegiance to the Pledge of Tolerance:
I will take every opportunity that presents itself to educate the ignorant in a passive/non-violent manner. I will not accept stereotyping, prejudice or hate in any form. I will make known my disgust of hate-based "jokes," while not losing my sense of true humor.
Pro: He wants to set up the domain ".sucks." All right! www.ralphnader.sucks!
Con: He wants to set up the domain ".sucks." He already owns the rights to it.
Pro: He said that TV ads are "electronic child molesting." At least he'll let pedophiles get off in some way.
Con: He said that TV ads are "electronic child molesting." Someone should tell him that rampant consumerism is what keeps the economy going.
Pro: He supports the decision against Microsoft. Nobody needs to be that rich.
Con: He supports the decision against Microsoft. He's obviously never tried to mount his own hard drive.
Pro: He wants to substantially increase the minimum wage. McDonald's isn't looking so bad now.
Con: He wants to substantially increase the minimum wage. If everyone earns a highly livable wage, where's the incentive to do well and work harder?
And really, would you want that pansy in charge of the military?
Winona LaDuke:
Pro: She's a Native American. When the Northeast experiences another drought, maybe she'll do a raindance.
Con: She's a Native American. Breeders will stop naming their kids after boroughs of New York City, and start giving their kids bastardized Native American names such as "Squatting Twat." Public school textbooks will be revised to show the inherent superiority of Native Americans, and school buses will have ads for Foxwoods.
Pro: She's a woman. Maybe she'll show us her tits.
Con: She's a feminist. She'll only show us her tits if there's an infant latched on to one.
Pro: She lives on a reservation. Hey, she couldn't be against the tobacco industry.
Con: She lives on a reservation. We'll never hear the end of Wounded Knee.
Libertarian Party:
Harry Browne:
Pro: He wants to end the War on Drugs. "Yes, I'll have a pack of gum and a sheet of acid."
Con: He wants to end the War on Drugs. Watch the price of weed shoot up when CVS and Eckerd's stock it.
Pro: He wants to keep abortion legal. I hate when condoms break.
Con: He wants to keep abortion legal. Four more years of pro-life activists.
Pro: He supports cutting back on defending two-bit nations. Rwanda didn't have any fancy art museums to plunder.
Con: He supports cutting back on defending two-bit nations. Taiwan won't send any more tchotchkes.
Pro: He intends to scale back the powers of the federal government, and in turn, eliminate the need for income/estate/etc. taxes. Jesus, have you seen how much those bastards take out of our paychecks?
Con: He intends to scale back the powers of the federal government, and in turn, eliminate the need for income/estate/etc. taxes. But who will tend to the highway infrastructure?
Pro: He thinks that since there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books, there is no need for more. Hello, clocktower!
Con: He thinks that since there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books, there is no need for more. Hello, clocktower!
Pro: He wants to get the federal government out of the education business. What, a 25 percent illiteracy rate isn't pure success?
Con: He wants to get the federal government out of the education business. What will John Stoessel bitch about?
Pro: He wants to get the federal government out of the health insurance business. Pay for what you need.
Con: He wants to get the federal government out of the health insurance business. And make infertile women pay for their own treatments? For shame!
Pro: He doesn't want to tighten immigration restrictions. University math programs and computer companies breathe a sigh of relief.
Con: He doesn't want to tighten immigration restrictions. University students and computer users brush up on deciphering heavy Asian accents.
Pro: He views Social Security as a pyramid scheme. And we don't even get a cheap pendant and a year's subscription to Reader's Digest.
Con: He views Social Security as a pyramid scheme. Grandmothers across the land grip their chests in terror at the thought of losing a benefit they didn't earn.
Art Olivier:
See above. So, who am I voting for? As usual, I'm voting Libertarian. A wasted vote, you say? Probably. But so is voting for Deadwood or Shrub. Harry Browne is the closest a misanthrope can come to a perfect candidate.
And don't think a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. A candidate who receives at least 5 percent of the vote can qualify for matching federal funds in the next election, and money makes a campaign go 'round. But if you can't bring yourself to vote for a third party candidate, go with Bush.
I had always considered myself to be in favor of direct democracy. I have always voted and tried to be up on the issuse. A couple of years ago, I moved to a small town in New England with a strong tradition of direct democracy, and guess what? They vote on everything and it bugs the hell out of me.
Seriously, they must have six or seven elections a year. I don't have time to stay on top of the issues or know who the candidates are, and consequently, I have not voted in any of the elections since I moved here.
In practice, I find that I prefer representative democracy. I don't want to have to deal with the minute details of every issue. If the town needs to repave a road or chop down a tree, they should not need to ask for a show of hands in advance.
The other problem, here at least, is a tyrrany of the minority. It turns out that there is only a relatively small group of people with the time and energy to devote to working this kind of a system. Consequently, their opinions get voted in time and again. These are often retired people who, in my town, don't want to vote a cent for the schools, or religous voting blocks that vote in decisions preferential to their own groups.
I'm afraid the same herd mentality would happen on a larger scale with national direct democracy. How many elections would be decided by Rush Limbaugh saying "OK, dittoheads, go to www.votenow.gov and click the YES button."?
If on the other hand, we could get an electorate with a HURD mentality....
...he's completely right-wing except for his stance on drugs...
Another point to be made: IIRC, Gore admitted to experimenting with marijuana in the past. Clinton "didn't inhale." It's pretty well-known that Bush was quite the party animal back in the 70s. Yet these hypocrites want to send marijuana users to jail. The fact that these (and many, many, many more) politicians have smoked marijuana in the past should be evidence to them that smoking a joint is no more dangerous (less, in fact) to one's health and wellbeing than smoking a cigarette or having a drink. Browne openly admits that he tried marijuana in the 60s. For me, this says, "I'm not just a politician in some white building in Washington, I'm a real person too."
Note that Browne's site has a banner for NORML.
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?
It's not as if Browne is going to take all the money in SS and stash it for himself. SS as we know it needs to be phased out - it does not work. I tend to side with Bush's plans for SS, or at least a derivative of those plans.
He is competely against universal healthcare, which most wealthy nations are handing out like flyers, except we can't seem to get it right. I hope no one voting for Browne is getting federal grants and loans for college, cause it ain't going to be there much longer.
Both of these can be privatized. But again, I wouldn't support a sudden cut of such programs, they need to be phased out.
I'm going for Nader because he want's the federal government to work especially with publically funding elections, establishing a living wage, and providing universal healthcare to 80-100 mil uninsured Americans.
Nader want to tax the hell out of people who actually work and make money, and then give it to the poor. The thing is, the working poor (I don't give a damn about the poor who are able but unwilling to work) would have more income for things such as insurance if businesses are investing rather than saving (thereby offering jobs). Call it trickle-down economics if you want, but a Robin Hood-esque plan of taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work in my book.
He also plans to establish a 'none of the above' options in elections so people like Katz and company don't sit out but voice their protest and force another election if no one gets a decent majority.
Nader is riding the wave of people jaded by the political process. My interpretation of the meaning of elections is to vote for the person most qualified for the job.
Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Your statement is misleading; the rich still pay taxes (more than the poor). A flat tax simply doesn't discriminate against those who are wealthy. Does not a person making $200,000 a year pay the same tax for a bar of soap that a person making $15,000 a year pays? If I'm a a lower-class worker, the non-flat tax is a disincentive to working harder; I'll only end up having to pay a disproportionately larger amount in taxes.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
You wouldn't happen to be George "Dubya" Bush, eh?
-bugg
A voting tax hurts democracy. Perhaps a fine if you don't vote would make more sense... but I still disagree with it on principle.
My state doesn't have write-ins, yours does? And voting for yourself, if you aren't running, is just as bad as not voting at all- you didn't take your vote seriously, and know that noone else will either.
-bugg
"Don't even think about voting for someone other than a Republicrat, because your person won't win, andit'll just make everything worse because you voted for someone you believed in."
/all/ the candidates and voted with their own views? We wouldn't have a two-party system, I'll tell you that...
It's unfortunate that so many people believe this. Do you know the sort of impact that could be had if all the people who bought into this sort of BS actually looked at
By and large, not everyone, or even a majority of people, are Socialists, but we've had Socialist presidents for a long, long time.
Oh no, people might have to *gasp* learn to fend for themselves, and not be dependent on money stolen, yes, stolen, from others. Taxes are theft. You don't pay, we lock you up. You don't capitulate, we shoot you. You are an accessory to theft. You like the Socialist government programs, because you've decided that the money of others should be yours, and you've decided that it should go to others who did not earn it lawfully. I want to live my life without having to pay others to live. I'm lucky enough now to work without having my money stolen, but most aren't. I'm lucky enough to realize that participating in federal programs is tantamount to out-and-out theft, but most aren't. I don't like to steal, and I don't like others stealing from me. Browne is the only candidate who doesn't endorse theft as a way to equalize (and control) everyone. Browne s the only candidate who realizes that I can take care of myself, and that I should not expect to live on the wealth of others, unless it is give freely. Don't be a thief. Thieves suck.
Keeping the federal government out of law enforcement means keeping them from usurping control of states, such as the federal government meddling in what eventually became the murder of Peter McWilliams.
>It's not as if Browne is going to take all the >money in SS and stash it for himself. SS as we >know it needs to be phased out - it does not >work. I tend to side with Bush's plans for SS, or >at least a derivative of those plans.
/is/ no money in Social Security. Not a dime. It's all spent. You know why there's a budget surplus? It's not because the President is a great guy, or Congressional officials know what they're doing. No! It's because SS receipts are larger and larger due to an increasing workforce, and the Baby Boom generation has not yet started to retire en masse. Instead of SS money being compounded, as was the original plan (and would have almost guaranteed solvency for a long, long time), it is spent as soon as it is received. That's why Browne plans to establish private accounts for those already dependant, funded by auctioning off unnecessary federal holdings. SS is a scam. Only so long as the taxation of the workforce exceeds inflation and "interest" on SS payments made by those retired will Social Security be solvent. I for one choose not to involve myself in that system, do not pay, will never voluntarily receive. I do not approve of using institutionalized theft for anything, no matter how noble. The ends do not justify the means. Some may find that stance distasteful, but I am simply choosing another route for retirement. Social Security was never meant for one person to pay for another, so I'm not screwing anyone but those too short-sighted to realize that Republicrats are damned liars and thieves. Every single bloody one of them. Without exception. Only if you do not receive tax money that is not yours are you not a thief. You may rationalize it, but it'll always be theft.
Umm, what nobody seems to realize is that there
Well, I certainly find it interesting that Ohio is being considered a swing state. At least in the Cincinnati area (where I've lived my entire life) republicans have about 80% of all the public offices. On top of that, last time I checked we had a republican governor and two republican senators. The only reason John Glenn was in office for so long is because people liked him. Of course, the US house is 8 Democrats to 11 Republicans, but I still tend to think that Bush will take Ohio. Not that I'm happy about that, but its realistically what I think will happen.
_________
MJN222
---- Yay! I have a sig!
Because if a lot of us vote, we become a target group.
When was the last time you saw CNN say that "Bush is leading among men and gaining among women, but has a consistantly poor showing among the nerd population." Never. Our propensity for apathy is what keeps them from talking about issues that matter to us.
If we aren't going to vote for them or against them, why should they care what we think?
How eloquent. Perhaps my wording was not purely scientific, but I still believe in my underlying point, which, as I'll repeat below, was that a person that has a large percentage of the populations acceptance should have SOMETHING to show for it. I'll elaborate below on why that's more than just a pride issue for the candidate.
Yes, third party candidates will get the measily little 5-10% that they were working towards, but they will still lose. We're in a winner-take-all Democracy here, and weather you get 10% of the popular vote, or Zero electoral votes, you still end up losing
I disagree. We have logic and human psychology to contend with, which is a stabalizing force. IF, a given party gets 15% one year, they may do the same, better or worse next year; they have incentive to keep fighting the long uphill battle.. If however, they receive ZERO electorial votes, even though they got 15 - 20% of the popular vote, then people will consider that any votes for them are wasted. The media, and even potential supports will discount that party / candidate. I thought I made this part clear. The electorial college provides a barrier to entry that will probably forever keep us in a two party system, EVEN if people are completely sick of one or both of the parties. So long as the parties go back and forth with candidates that don't repulse the general population, someone will win out of protest votes for the other side (since people will generally not want to "waste" their vote on a 3'rd party).
The pro side of my argument suggests that we should alleviate this barrier to entry.
Even if there is a win, what will one Green (or libertatian, etc.) President be able to do when the Congress is still filled with majority party members?
Well, you are assuming that the party would be completely unagreeable with congress. I don't think Perot would have had complete lack of support. He was generally liked, and he attempted to take the engineering approach to politics. He repeatedly stated that he didn't know the answers, but as part of his plan, he would put the "best minds" on the job and basically engineer from solution to solution. I respect that, but it obviously doesn't go over that well; People like knowing what they're getting with a candidate, and this usually means making promises up front.
Though it's true that a radical would be impeeched (since they'd have little support in congres to avoid it), not all 3'rd parties are radicals (again, thinking of Perot, who's just different, if not too unsophisticated for public office).
Disclaimer, I did vote for Perot, so take my view of him with a grain of salt. I don't generally support his party, because I don't know that it isn't full of morons who just want 'any' sort of change.
-Michael
-Michael
The public's psychology about third-party candidates has always been based on the popular vote, and will continue to be.
Sorry, I let myself get carried away in the last message. I didn't want to provide too much weight on the effect of the state-divided electorial process.
My main point was that for me, there is nothing I can do (by voting) to affect the outcome of the election, since my vote is grouped with the local majority. That discourages me.
I speculate that the reason I conclude this is because of logic. This same logic is what the debate committee uses to select it's candidates. I personally believe the debates are the single best avenue that a 3'rd paty has to get recognized (which was part of my original discussion).
I argue that the effects of the electorial college are subtle, and that they do provide a barrier to entry. My original argument then went on to anaylize the possible negative effects that promiting large numbers of candidates might have. The electorial process is only one such barrier. Special interests probably don't have enough desire to financially seed dozens of campaigns; it is in their interests to have as few candidates as possible, at which point they have the option of "buying" both candidates. Thus the effect of special interests funding (even if covertly) two or possibly three major parties essentially puts 3'rd parties at a disadvantages.
Campaign finance reform will probably help alleviate this. If candidates have less campaign money, they'll have to use it more wisely, but it'll also level the playing field somewhat. The only real possibilities would be personal wealth (like Perot). But in the light of dismal failure (partially due to the electorial college shutting them out to embarrasingly low levels), there is little incentive for the independantly wealthy to try for office. (This could be a good or bad thing, depending on your opinion).
To hopefully recap for the last time. The electorial process directly affects me negatively (hence my post). I view it to be one of several "barriers" that allow the two main parties to wield power. I believe philosophically, that long-term power is too corruptable and should generally be avoided (just like we prevent more than 2 presidential terms). Hell, you could solve this problem by making another constitutional ammendment which said that a party can not have more than 6 terms accredited to them in a half century. That would encourage "evolution" in a party, by having to start from scratch their organization every couple years. Course that would be almost impossible to manage. You can identify a person and say, "you're done", but how do you do that with an organization? They could change their name.. rearrange a few words on their charter.. Not to mention, we don't want to exclude organizations from the political process, just to prevent them from having a nearly totalitarian influence over it. Oh well, wishful thinking.
The fact that we have a direct election of our executive branch, rather than an appointed one (like a Prime Minister) means that it will always be a horse race, and only the one who comes over the line wins.
Don't know how I feel about this. I don't really have a good feel for the long-term effects of a parlamentary system. I did think about this not too long ago. The only conclusion I could draw was that the US was founded apon distrust, and so the executive branch was made to be an independant process (minus the various tie-breaking votes, and congressional-based representation, etc).
I was going to say more, but I don't want to seem ignorant - more importantly, I don't want to say potentially wrong things which could mislead "the masses".
-Michael
-Michael
Yeah, I just saw the article today.. It was rejected as a possible
Though it's unlikely to avoid the multi-tier voting (primaries / general election ), they suggested approval voting (vote for all candidates that you approve of for presidency - thus you're never wasting your vote, and you really can see who the public likes. The other was a score-card method. You rank candidates from most liked to least liked. Unfortunately I don't think that would ever work in our society. First of all, there was the problem of not telling the truth causing undesired / unrepresentative outcomes just like the one-person one-vote we have now. Additionally, it makes the ballot harder.. An illiterate person might not be able to figure out how to do it properly. Or a clumsy person might not read the directions correctly, and put all 5's or leave some blank, etc.
You can't get much simpler than check boxes were people select from the above with X's, or by push-button.
Oh well, this thread is probably over.
-Michael
I am part of a small state, that almost always votes for the same party. This literally means that my vote is useless. Though a very small fraction of the country understands this process, I doubt it is a major stumbling block for the general population.
One state( can't remember which) at least broke up their electorial votes based on percentage of votes). I like that idea, since it basically is within the rights of a state.
The problems I have with the electorial college are:
- My vote means nothing.. Except a margin of error for historical statistics in my state.
- It blocks non-mainstream party candidates. A candidate that gets 15% of the vote should have 15% of the final vote, which is not the case. A uniform 15% vote will get you zero electorial votes. The problem this causes is that the media AND organizations like the debate committee know this and so they completely discount 3'rd party candidates. If, for example, 3'rd party candidates could have gone to the debates, they could have mustered an enormous support (most people have never even heard of them). They could at least double their support (if nothign else than for people to vote against the main candidates with someone they _think_ looks trustworthy).
- The electorial process was deviced when we had state-loyalty. You were not an American, you were a Virginian. Today, people move from state to state will little concern - people identify with the US as a whole, we're more concerned with the Federal Gov. than the local ones. Back in the day, we trusted local Gov. more than the Fed., and so we united as a state to vote for a candidate. Today many don't even know who their local congressmen are.
Now, for the flip side. There are advantages to the electorial process that I can imagine. First of all, it is doing exactly what it was intended to do. Not least of which, it reduces the number of candidates. I have heard horror stories about politics in India (and I assume in other parts of the world), where there are hundreds of parties. You have a perfectly competative market, so you have to sell your self cheaper than your competitor - or more correctly, offer more apparent value, even if it means compromising good judgement. Incredibly, the US does not have a market-based executive branch. We don't see the same sort of free-wheeling, don't pay any attention to the detail of the man that is me, just see what I'm trying to give you if I'm elected to office. In other countries, they take a candidate like we take a McDonalds burger. They don't even want to KNOW what's inside, but it's cheap and it'll satisfy us for the short term. Political candidates are put through a lot of scrutiny, and if a candidate things something embarrasing has come out, they will tend to resign. There's more attention being paid to fewer candidates. The media will also be quick to spend enough air time on the flaws of candidates that people will generally discount unfavorables. You can't do this if you have hundreds of candidates. The likely hood that people will be well enough informed is slim.
The big issue we find today is that power corrupts, and our two main parties have been in power for a long while. A 3'rd party is not going to break through for a long while (if ever), especially when the main parties are catering to more and more of the other side. "Don't rock the boat", is too strong.
I don't know that things wouldn't go bad in time if we got rid of the electorial process, but I can't imagine that dividing state votes up based on their percentage isn't more "fair", and would at the very least provide enough scare into the main candidates to not dismiss the 15% or so that goes out.
In closing, I'll put my plug; a highly biased opinion. Though some don't like the social engineering that Gore proposes, I personally think it's a more intelligent approach than Bush's brute force approach (of giving away money to everyone). Neither really sticks to any philosophy. Bush claims support for regional independance, but then wants to use the purse strings for control. He claims to support the military, but doesn't fully fund it in his plan. He wants to give us rights to guns and says that "we know best", but wants to remove a woman's choice (actually it's consistent if you think of him as a sexist conservative male dominant character, but I doubt that's really true).
Gore is just a mixture of about everything (he's even taken a 180 from his earlier years on many issues). He's probably going to follow in Clinton's foot-steps and change opinion with what-ever is popular; just look at his new stance on Campain finance - especially after his fallings out. He's a green-peace person at heart, but he's trying to logically play the political game to accomplish as much as he can.. Thus, I'd label him an opportunist, which might not be the best for us. He's definately going to increase the size of government, and he'll only be successful if we don't hit a recession. To the credit of big government. If we hit a recession, then the large government could start cutting fat to alleviate the burden. If, in Bush's plan, we cut the fat now, while we're still at inflationary levels of prosperity, we'll over-heat the economy, and then have no monetary tools to adjust in the future (unless you believe the fed. reserve can accomplish this through trickle-down economics via interest rates)
Harry Brown was interesting for an intellectual thought game. Unfortunately, he basically assumes that people will know what's best, and we'll take proper care of our new-found responsibilities after our parental government goes away. Labeling him an anarchist isn't that far from the truth. Ideally, the government holds a monopoly on the use of force, then you let the people do just about anything they want from there-on-out. They obviously can't kill each other, so we don't have total social break-down. But then how do you enforce contractual obligations? Perhaps the Gov. stays in the business of en'forcing' contracts. But then where does it stop? Brown wants the federal court to not have any power on non-constitutional issues. At the very least, you would be hard pressed to support human rights when states seem biased. Most importantly on Brown, he doesn't seem like he'd mingle well with congress. You'd probably have a record number of executive decisions over-turned by congress with-in his term.
-Michael
-Michael
But remember, folks, just as Bush and Gore aren't the only choices, neither is Nader the only "other" choice. There are many, many other people running for president, including Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party (my personal choice), Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party, and many others.
Look at Project Vote Smart and find out about the candidates. I urge you to vote for someone who agrees with your idea, not just Nader because not "either of the other two idiots."
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized. -AC
"A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush"--Michael Moore
Remember, Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by a Democratic Senate. Yes, that includes a vote for confirmations by Mr. Gore. Clarence Thomas? Approved by a majority Democratic senate.
Two of the staunchest abortion rights supporters right now on the court? O'Conner (Reagan) and Souter(Bush Sr.)
Who wrote the opinion reconfirming Miranda? Rehnquist, another Republican appointee.
Don't buy into this 'Supreme Court' arguments. IF Bush scares you, and you believe Gore is significantly better, than by all means vote for Gore--after all, that would be voting your conscience. But if you have to hold your nose, chip in a vote for Nader (my choice, you may insert significantly more honorable and less corporate shill candidate of your choice).
Stevis
We've got two lives, one we're given, and the other one we make. --Mary Chapin Carpenter
The whole intellectual basis of modern gov is based on the idea that we can predict the future and therefore we understand the system well enough to change it for the better.
That we can predict the future is false. Chaos and computational complexity prohibit it. We see these work in our everyday lives, in our jobs, and in our gov's actions. We KNOW we can't predict in areas we are most familiar with and in control of, yet we continue, as a mass, to believe.
Even if the prevaling world-view was correct, the methods of affecting the future are ridiculous. As technologists, we know how hard it is to make our complex (but still simple compared to natural systems such as weather, purely social systems such as government/politics, or mixed such as the economy) technological systems work. Every area I have worked in (hardware, software, sysadmin, web) I make a lot of mistakes. Despite having machine assistance in checking our work and extensive testing, we put out buggy systems.
The political process produces 10,000 PAGE bills with NO testing. This approach is ludicrous beyond belief, guaranteed to kill any system.
Yet we continue to support this mass insanity year after year.
People will look back on the last 5 centuries, with their history of ever-increasing scope of gov action and the ever-increasing scale of human tragidy/catastrophy, and find no parallels in human existence. Salem witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition are minor, temporary 'bad hair days' compared to the effects of our Newtonian world-view: clockwork predictable into the far future.
Radically reducing the size, scope, complexity of our gov is the only reason to vote. Anything else perpetuates the mass insanity, responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the last century. If it continues, "you ain't seen nothing yet".
Lew Glendenning
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
I'm surprised, astonished really, that everyone is so concerned about the presidential election. I don't say this blindly, here's why:
Haven't you realized it yet? Can't you see the game that everyone is playing? We're in the biggest game of the century, one that even Regis Philbin can't figure out: Who Wants to Be President? Think about it, Slash-people. When has an elected president really changed the course of this country? I mean, really changed it. FDR? Probably. You could say that he was the last great president because he helped yank everyone out of the Great Depression. But he's probably the last great hurrah in the whole thing. On the whole, this country has been headed uphill in terms of prosperity, power, and world political influence for about the past 60 years or so. New presidents haven't changed the flow of that any more than dropping a cow into Lake Michigan changes the way the waves are moving. No president has of yet tried to take over the country, turn us to communism, make murder legal, or any other really revolutionary crap. They change some policies, appoint some judges, and make foreign policy over cups of tea with the King of Taiwan.
So, in light of all this, does it really matter who you vote for in the presidential election? Not unless you have specific issues and your candidate stands for one of them. You want to get rid of the DMCA? Good for you. Find a candidate that has that opinion and go for it. But don't expect that you'll find a end-all-be-all presidential candidate. Most of the best people for the job won't run. I wouldn't. And don't expect that whoever gets in there will do any real damage and/or benefit. It's all a game, my dear friend, and you are but the chesspiece. Make your move, sit back, grab a cold one, and watch what happens. It's not worth losing a kidney over the thing out of excessive worrying.
Blog,Twitter
Chomsky has an interesting book in which he describes how economically powerful countries such as the United States subjugates smaller poorer countries such as Mexico, and simply "uses" the resources for investors, while not truly helping the local economy. It's called "Profit over People", and is a rather good read for anyone who supports Nader, to see *why* one should support Nader.
I figure given the likeness of Chomsky and Nader's views on big corporations, that their foreign policy is conceptually similar.
yours,
yours,
kbs
Politicians care only about voters.
Voters are divided into categories based on their social group.
If you exist in a group "middle class single females under the age of 30" and a large enough section of your group doesn't vote then the politicians will have no interest in pleasing your group.Your group will be stepped on
But small social groups with agendas will be voting in large droves. So their issues will be key issues with the politicians
Get a free ipod.
Actually polls are based on likely voters, a slippery definition which always includes those who have voted at least 3 times before making them at least 30. When much of Nader's support is from first time voters. As far as the federal judges go, why would Gore vote for Scalia, the biggest anti-abortionist, if your theory was right. There are other examples of conservatives bringing in liberal judges so I wouldn't sweat it.
Vote your conscience, most of the states are already takes, ah the magic of the electoral college, especially if you're a new voter. If your the backbone of the democratic party with weak convictions been like the parent post.
Actually communism is state controlled everything while socialism is state controlled means of production. Nader doesn't support any of these.
European healthcare is far from perfect and some also offer pivate insurance, but it sure beats nothing and we're talking about 80 million uninsured americans. Who when need serious medical help find themselves in debt gouged by our out of control HMO system and pharmacutical companies that recieve research grants and corporate welfare but don't give consumers breaks on prices.
Using your ideas, why should we be paying for roads or anything else on the state level? Its "communism", to pay and share the roads and highways?! We accept that, why cant we accept paying political campaigns to remove corporate influence.
Browne sounds way too much like the second coming of the civil war and passing the buck to the states. He doesn't believe in abortion and wants to cut its funding, so when it comes down to the states what will be the outcome? With right-wing libertarians in office we can kiss it goodbye.
I love this strict almost fundamentalist Constitution talk, ever hear of amendments? Or those part of the evil empire also?
"Sorry buddy you're just 5/8ths of a person."
Nader want to tax the hell out of people who actually work and make money, and then give it to the poor. The thing is, the working poor (I don't give a damn about the poor who are able but unwilling to work) would have more income for things such as insurance if businesses are investing rather than saving (thereby offering jobs). Call it trickle-down economics if you want, but a Robin Hood-esque plan of taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work in my book
Actually the plan is to cut all corporate welfare and lessen defense spending to make room for new social programs. Not to "tax" the hell out of people who are already paying R&D for the products they buy at retail prices. Removing these two items is a big chunk of revenue.
I can't see how Browne's brand of libertarianism has anything to do freedom, considering he's completely right-wing except for his stance on drugs and will not defend women's reproductive rights and will cut federal funding to hospitals and abortion clinics.
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?
He is competely against universal healthcare, which most wealthy nations are handing out like flyers, except we can't seem to get it right. I hope no one voting for Browne is getting federal grants and loans for college, cause it ain't going to be there much longer.
I'm going for Nader because he want's the federal government to work especially with publically funding elections, establishing a living wage, and providing universal healthcare to 80-100 mil uninsured Americans.
He also plans to establish a 'none of the above' options in elections so people like Katz and company don't sit out but voice their protest and force another election if no one gets a decent majority.
Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there and aren't living on the wrong side of the tracks or on hard times and simply don't care about the working poor. Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Let's look at the good things done in the 80s under Republican leadership. First, the fall of communism in Europe & Russia. Germany is 1 country again. Did the Democratics accomplish this? Nope! The Iron Curtain(sp?) fell, and in case you are not old enough to remember that term, the Iron Curtain was sort of a "line, wall, or curtain" that seperated western Europe form the Communist Eastern Europe. The split could be symbolised by the wall that ran through Berlin Germany. The city itself was torn in two. One part free and Democratic, and the other was communist. So, for the Republicans, we can say they won the Cold War. As a result, we are the number one country in the world, and the only country that could possibly take us on in an old fassion war (not this terrorism stuff) is China. Their biggest strength is the number people in China.
Then we have the countless technogies that have spilled over into the general public fromthe military during and after the Cold War.
These are just a couple of things the Republicans did in the Eighties that was good.
What did the Democrats do in the 90s with 80% of the decade they controled? Turned their back on Taiwan! Taiwan was our ally! We should have supported them, but we didn't! Instead, the Democratics sold their SOULS to China for money for the party! We turned out back on China.
Look at the Middle East. We have again turned our backs on an ally. We have basically turned our backs on Isreal! Isreal has been the one to give in. I am surprised our Allies trust us!
The last reason why I would vote for Bush is because I want my money to stay where it belongs...in MY pockets, and NOT in Al Gores!
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
A simple google search yielded the following URL . It contains a list of ALL candidates running for president. Cast your votes everyone!
And just one more comment to all you voters, voting for a third party candidate is not throwing your vote. It's a statement for your party. Politics asside, do you think that Jesse Ventura would have been elected governer of Minnisota if it wasn't for Ross Perot's run for the presidency two years earlier? If the reform (independance) party can elect a governer, any party can, and that should be the starting point for any party.
not true. The 25% would be scrutinized avidly both by the 2 major parties (as they scrutinized the perot people and the wallace people) so that they can morph their platform enough to pull in that group into their coalition. The first time one of the two major US parties doesn't do that, it will be the death knell for one of the two current parties because there *will* be a third party to take up the banner. Actually there most likely are already several, Libertarian, Green, Natural Law, Socialist, National Socialist, they are all there if that is what floats your boat.
DB
In a society which has a majority that would turn its back on all the good things that have made America special, a little totemic respect for the founders is actually a good thing. The best that an idiot can achieve in voting is to vote in step with those smarter than he is. Whatever else you say about the founders of the US, they were a remarkably intellectual and practical bunch that have produced arguably the best founding political document in the history of mankind.
DB
I'm assuming you have the classic pull a lever, draw the curtain, pull a lever again to register your vote.
Step 1
pull main lever to draw curtain (it's the big one in the middle).
Step 2
vote only on those elections where you want to register a vote (this can be 0 elections) leaving the other races blank.
Step 3
pull main lever back
All races with no votes cast are 'none of the above' races. People do this all of the time but usually they vote for the 'big' elections and leave blank the junior assistant dogcatcher races that they don't understand. Believe me, if a race were held and the congressional race generated more votes than the presidential it would be a very big deal for the parties no matter who won the respective races.
DB
Actually, it does make a difference to the third party's fundraising efforts the next time around. Also, any third party that 'beats the spread' between the major two parties traditionally gets pieces of its platform lifted and adopted by *both* major parties - see the experience of Henry Wallace for a practical example.
DB
"I'm sure he's white, with that selfish Libertarian philosophy".
Try that BS with Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Larry Elder, all three black libertarians. Yes, Harry Browne is white but to say that if you have sufficient melanin, you can't be a libertarian (why? do you think it makes blacks too stupid to join the group?) or even more perfidious, are you saying that anybody with a melanin count sufficient to put himself out of the white race is a race traitor for adopting a particular political philosophy?
What a nasty, nasty, mind you have.
DB
to vote for third parties.
There are several reasons poeple should not choose this election to abstain or vote third-party. Among the most persuasive is that the future President will choose 2 to 4 court justices. If Bush is elected, these will be ultra-conservative people who will hve a major effect on american life (think right to abortion, separation of church and state, privacy, copyrights and monopolies).
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush since in the absence of this choice the vote in question would probably have gone democrats.
This is a time to ensure the lesser of two evils, not to make a principled stand !
G.W.B. is probably the worst prepared candidate for the presidental election in quite a while. His lack of experience is amazing. As a Businessman he is a failure (mostly LOST money) except for what he latched onto riding on daddy's coattails. Listening to him speak sounds like hearing someone with the IQ of a highschool dropout.
Now A.G. has take credit for alot of stuff he had nothing to do with (except maybe for NOT getting in the way), but at least he UNDERSTANDS technology. Actually I sort of wish that the vice presidental candidates would swap places with the presidental ones. I was more impressed with the running mates.
Now considering everything, I guess I'll have to vote for A.G.
If you'd like to see a list of most of the candidates then go here. Vote Libertarian!
I firmly believe that if you aren't voting, then quit whining.
My personal responsibility says that I don't have the right to whine and throw a fit unless I've actually made a real honest effort to make a difference.
This differs from millions of people who whine about the government, but on the griping hand, they don't vote. They don't even take 30 minutes out of their day to add their two cents to the whole mess. I believe my vote doesn't matter a whole lot, but I know that it does matter a little bit.
AND regardless. I want to be able to say
"Hey, at least I tried."
I'd rather try and fail then not try at all.
Fook
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
WAH quit whining.
DayLight savings time sucks too, but there it is.
Vote ANYWAYS.
or you could just stop whining....
Fook
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
Libertarians would decriminalize all drug use. In fact, Harry Browne has stated he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders the very day he took office.
Harry Browne doesn't want to dismantle government. He wants it to fullfill it's constitutional responsibilities. Only.
I live in one of the much contended "swing states" (Pennsylvania), and I just voted yesterday (by absentee ballot). I didn't vote for a major party (democrat/republican) candidate, and for a while I was seriously considering not voting at all, but after looking at the Bush & Gore, I knew I had to vote.
What inspired me so much? I looked at both of their platforms and found myself disgusted by the levels of doubletalk and pandering to focus groups. Instead of being discouraged from voting by this, I decided to vote for a third party candidate that I could agree with. Who I voted for doesn't really matter, what does matter that I did vote. My vote is a protest. I'd be thrilled if my candidate got 5% of the popular vote. By casting my vote for a third party candidate (and hoping others do as well) I want to let the government know that I'm not satisfied with the way either of the major parties are running things.
So even if you "throw away" your vote, make sure you do vote. By exercising your right to vote, you can send a message that you are paying attention to what is happening in your country.
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...
Who said politics isn't rocket science?
-John Hagelin Natural Law Presidental candidate and quantum physicist.
The complete text is available online.
"Third parties have contributed huge ideas to American politics, from the abolition of slavery, to a woman's right to vote, to child labor laws. Their relatively recent exile to the margins of American political life is highly unfortunate. A Reason to Vote gives us the information we need to bring third parties back to center stage."
-- Marianne Williamson,
author of The Healing of America
everybody should vote for nader who doesn't like the other options this go round. don't just not vote, vote for the alternative instead. if the green party gets 5% in this election then next time the government has to recognize them for political debates. it might prove to be a better choice in the future.
i don't know what i fear worse coming from dc, a coke head president or an inanimate carbon rod. it's always good to have another choice.
You see a problem, I see potential. - Vincent 'Vinnie' Antonelli
Why shouldn't I trust mailings from the League of Women Voters if I know that historically, I have agreed with what they say? How is going to Vote Smart and finding the candidate that best agrees with me better (especially if I already know what the result will be)?
--
The shareholder is always right.
--
The shareholder is always right.
Due to the why the american voting system is with the electorial college, which means that it almost impossible to vote in a third party president.
Bush could have a point with some of freaks I have need on the net, but if you could TRUST Gore with anything?? Another 4-8 years of Gore with his stupid lying and other scandals like his boss Clinton would be tiresome at the least. You don't choose a vice president that smells like roses if your crooked like Clinton.
I would like a 3rd Party, but until we can get into office individuals will to push through hard reform the political system and reign back the huge federal system. Bush is a start if he had a Republician Congress, but if we can push him to seriously understand our points on the internet and technology. We need to be louder then the Corporate and other influence groups with organization and pushing for change!
Were it not for this issue Browne would have my vote in a second. However, as the cynics have pointed out, a vote for a third party is essentially a vote for Bush. Can you honestly risk Bush having the power to make supreme court appointments?
Sadly, I'm voting Gore 2000.
WWLUG: Feed the penguin.
not to nitpick, but I don't think Bush is going to fight for anything... except the tax cut that benefits himself.
remember, compassionate conservatism. he doesn't want to offend anyone... soccer moms included.
"Frankly, I was surprised at the level of interest from the tech world"
why would you be? we send our kids to private and public schools, some of our kids might have been harmed in school violence, we pay taxes, might have to rely on unemployment checks one day soon if the market keeps on doing what it's doing, might need social security if our stock options don't pan out, might need to take care of our parents or grandparents, etc.
why should it suprise you that we care what goes on in the election? we're tax paying, freedom loving, US citizens.
Michael Moore would change the anthem and country name, not Nader. He would also abolish presidential elections and replace it with a winner-take-all monster truck rally. Of course, Moore supports Nader, so it's all good.
--
Matt Singerman
Matt Singerman
http://matt.vegan.net/
Nevermind your duty as a citizen. Just think, with only 30% of the eligible population voting, that means your vote counts for not just you, but two non-voters who couldn't seem to take the time to vote.
In many countries, you don't get any representation; here, you get to speak for three people. You can't beat that.
I know for myself, guilt is driving my voting over the past few elections, and this one to vote for a third party candidate. At least when the elected president screws up I can honestly say "I didn't vote him in, but *you* did".
Furthermore, there are issues that I agree with on both democrats or republicans. So I cannot assuage my guilt over giving up one principle to get another. For example, I believe in the individual rights written in the 2nd amendment (Well formed militia = individual rights), but I also agree with Al Gore's more liberal social policies and probably Supreme Court nominations. Hence, neither candidate fits my bill, no of the issues is primary, so either a) I don't vote (and feel guilty for not doing so) or b) vote, but choose a third party candidate.
There is rarely anything the president does that I wish to stand up for and acknowledge that I voted for that man.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Gore Vidal once ran for office. His summed up his experience as follows (paraphrasing): by the time you've reached presidential candidacy, you've been bought so many times by corporate interests, you begin to look upon crack whores as a paragon of virtue.
Not so Nader. Vote fucking Nader, already. Its the only way 99.9999999% of you losers are ever gonna make a positive difference to the world with your lives.
I'm sorry, I just can't visualize him ever even uttering the phrase 'crack whores'. The man has good taste.
The man is also a libertine, a sodomist, and a no holds barred paragon of common sense. If he didnt say "crack whores," he said something worse (better.) All this, of course, is more reason to admire him. I do not have a twisted view of Vidal's message; it is accurate as far as I paraphrased it.
Oops, sentence fart. I knew all that. Hopefully Nader will choose Moore as VP once people do the right thing and elect him.
Less government interference is what I want.
Vote for Harry Browne
http://www.harrybrowne2000.com
vote john armitage for president!
"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
KA-CHING!!
This is an email that Harry Browne sent out to his mailing list and the Libertarian mailing list. It explains why voting Libertarian is not throwing away your vote.
-----------
Do You Want Smaller Government?
by Harry Browne
Libertarian Candidate for President
The most important political question you can ask
yourself is simply this:
Do you want smaller government?
Do you want an end to the welfare state, to
government destroying our health-care system, to
government at all levels taking 47% of the
national income in taxes, to government intrusions
into your life and your business?
Do you want smaller government?
Stop Supporting Big Government
If you do, the first step toward getting it is
obvious:
You must stop supporting those who are making
government bigger.
You can't go east by moving west. It's a physical
impossibility.
You can't make government smaller by rewarding
those who make government bigger. It's a political
impossibility.
Only when you begin asking for what you really
want do you have any chance of getting it.
Al Gore wants to make government bigger. He's
proposed a long list of new government programs.
George W. Bush wants to make government bigger.
He's proposed an equally long list of new
government programs to show that he's as
compassionate as Mr. Gore -- as though having
government spend your money somehow demonstrates
compassion.
Pat Buchanan says he wants a return to
constitutional government. But he's made no
specific proposals to reduce government, while
proposing to have government fix what he thinks is
wrong with America. For one thing, he wants to
tell you what kind of car you can drive.
And Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can
drive a car at all. But that's the least of his
many plans to make government much bigger.
What Smaller Government Means
I am the only presidential candidate offering
specific proposals to make government smaller --
much smaller:
* I want to get the federal government
_completely_ out of every area where it's made
such a mess -- health care, education, law
enforcement, welfare, foreign aid, corporate
welfare, highway boondoggles, farm subsidies. Not
only are these programs unconstitutional, they do
tremendous damage to our lives.
* I want to make the federal government so small
you won't pay _any_ income tax. (The tariffs and
excise taxes already being collected are enough to
finance the constitutional functions of
government.)
* I want to free you immediately and completely
from the Social Security system. I want to sell
off government assets to finance private
retirement accounts for anyone now dependent on
Social Security -- so you and I and every other
American can immediately stop paying the 15%
Social Security tax.
* I want to end the nightmare of Prohibition by
stopping the insane War on Drugs. At least 90% of
the invasions of your civil liberties over the
last 30 years have been justified by the Drug War.
You may have no interest in drugs, but the
government still snoops in your bank account,
monitors your email, and claims the power to
search and seize your property without due
process.
* I want to restore completely your unconditional
right to keep and bear any weapon necessary to
defend yourself and your family. We can't end gun
violence with new laws or by enforcing the laws on
the books now. The gun laws are the principal
_cause_ of gun violence, so we must repeal those
laws.
* I _don't_ want to appoint Supreme Court judges
who are "strict constructionists" or who divine
"original intent." I want to appoint judges who
can read the plain language of the Constitution --
who understand that when the Constitution says
"Congress shall make no law," it means _Congress
shall make no law_. I want judges who will strike
down government programs that are not authorized
by the Constitution.
In short, I don't want to slow the growth of
government. I don't even want to stop the growth
of government. I want to _reduce_ government
dramatically -- to the limits imposed by the
Constitution.
What Freedom Means
I want you to be free to live your life as _you_
want to live it -- not as Al Gore or George Bush
thinks you should.
You're the one who gets up every morning and goes
to work for 8, 10, or 12 hours a day. How dare
politicians like George Bush or Al Gore presume to
decide how much of what you earn you should be
allowed to keep?
I want you to be able to keep _every_ dollar you
earn -- to spend it, save it, give it away as
_you_ think best -- not just the crumbs the
politicians leave for you.
I want you to be able to use your own money to put
your children in a school of your choice --
private, religious, or home school -- without
having to beg the state for a voucher or plead
with the Board of Education for improvement.
I want you to be able to use your own money to
start your own business. Or to support your church
or favorite charity in a way you've never been
able to do before.
I want you to be free. I want to get government
out of your life.
Isn't that what _you_ want?
How to Get to Smaller Government
If so, why would you vote for someone who's moving
in the opposite direction -- someone who's made it
clear he intends to make government bigger, not
smaller?
I'm the only candidate who's running solely for
the purpose of making government smaller. I'm the
only candidate who doesn't presume to know what
charities your money should go to, or how much of
your income belongs to the politicians.
How You Can Win
Can I win?
Probably not. But if you vote for anyone else, you
won't win either. Your candidate might win, but
_you_ won't get what you want. Government will
continue to get bigger, more expensive, more
intrusive, and more oppressive -- and you will
have given your approval to this.
No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush
or Mr. Gore -- to keep Al Gore out of the White
House or to ward off the Religious Right -- your
vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of
every big-government proposal your candidate has
made.
Even though we Libertarians may not win this year,
every vote I get will be an endorsement, a
statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller
government. No one can misinterpret a vote for me
as a vote for more government.
And if I get even one million votes, it could
change politics in America forever. It could cause
the press to pay more attention to
smaller-government proposals, it could encourage
other voters to abandon the big-government
parties, and it could attract millions of
non-voters who have given up on any hope of
getting smaller government.
Please don't let the old parties destroy your
future by scaring you into voting _against_
someone this year.
Raise your sights. Vote in a way that could lead
to a free America with a constitutional government
before the end of this decade.
For once, vote for yourself instead of a
politician. Vote for freedom.
Vote Libertarian.
---
Harry Browne is the Libertarian candidate for
president, and the author of The Great Libertarian
Offer. More of his articles are available at
http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org/lw
The key to voting is to balance the views of the people you elect. That is, find the president who has a view that is most important to you and that you agree with and vote for that person for president. For example, I'm going to vote for Bush, just because I really don't like the social engineering tendencies in the liberal left that Al Gore strongly represents. See, I agree/like Bush more than Gore, but there is no, and there will never be, a presidential candidate that I agree with on all issues. I too think that Bush is mostly just pandering to the radical right on the issue of internet "violence" (I should say, I am conservative, but a progressive conservative who sees many good things about the net and doesn't believe in blatant censorship.)
Now, here's where the art comes in. I've voted (hypothetically) for Bush, but when I go to vote for my senator or representative, I'll try to find someone who will represent me against Bush in issues that I think Bush is wrong about. That's why I'll probably vote Democratic for my representative, to have a balancing effect in Congress.
All this is to say, the president can't do hardly anything without congressional approval/legislation. So you don't have to worry that it will be the end of the world, no matter who occupies the White House, as long as you have a congress which keeps the Chief Executive in balance.
So, if you understand the voting process and make it work for you, you can effectively cancel out the bad qualities of whoever you vote for president with your vote for congress. And you don't have to throw up your hands in disgust just because you can't find the "perfect" candidate; he/she doesn't exist.
Take a look at this site and then decide if it is important to vote.
A cautionary message to all would-be voters:
A Vote For Jon Katz Is A Vote For...
Eh? What's that? Jon Katz isn't running?
Screw it then, I'm not voting.
-Denor
People, I cannot stress the importance of voting. If you don't vote, you don't allow your voice to be heard. I know, it looks like a lockup right now, it seems like the leader is going to just walk away with this one. That can't happen.
So please, take a little time out of your day to go and vote. It's not hard, you just move the mouse from the front page of ./ for once, and a bit to the right. You're nearly there.
Vote. Vote early, vote often. There may already be 31863 votes already, but yours can make a difference. Throw your support behind a third party candidate. Vote what you believe.
I can't stress it enough: Vote. The favored candidate may be in the lead, but I think we can all agree that with this election, there is one certainty:
We cannot allow /home to win!
Thank you.
-Denor
> The man has good taste.
;-) (He of course distanced himself from it after he saw wat Guccione did to it)
What? The man who wrote the script for "Caligula"?
- Also Sprach Doktor Merkwurdigliebe
Bring the federal government down to its Constitutional rights. Not ALL government. The big and wasteful one that takes 30% of my paycheck and makes me work a hell of a lot more to pay for my education and buy my computer. The government that I pay into, and will never receive out of it. The government that sends my friends out into the Middle East and gets 18 of their peers killed.
I don't want that type of government. Libertarians are NOT saying "no government". We're saying, keep it local, keep it real, keep it limited, and keep the feds out of my personal shit. I can balance my own check book, thank you. If everyone else is too ignorant to save money for health needs, then learn. We'll all be better for it if we accept our own responsibilities.
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
My brother is running for a Representative position in Washington State as a Libertarian. On his website he put a nice article that he wrote on why he votes Libertarian, and it's a good summary of what libertarianism is.
I'll let it speak for itself.
-john
These people will get better treatement from the states. One of the big advantages of the Libertarian platform is that the money we send to the Fed will go to local and state projects where it can be better managed and go to the people who need it. This will also cut down on the governmental overhead. We won't have to pay someone to collect our federal taxes just to give it back to the states anyway.
States' rights!
âoeIn theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." â Albert Einstein
FOR GOODNESS SAKE VOTE BROWNE! THERE'S MORE CHOICES OTHER THAN FRIKIN GORE AND BUSH!!! Harrybrowne.org
poop.
Somehow, this feels like a Windows versus Mac debate. Nobody has yet figured out that Politics is naturally Open Source, and we can cook up our own politics and distribute it at will.
Given four years of development time, we can build our own kernel of policies and values.
We can discuss, debate and critique the actions of the next president. We can have our own revision control system, and decide what would make a better look and feel to politics in America.
We can try it out. Send test candidates to State governments, and on Capitol Hill. We can tweak them. We can work with everything. We can build something that can handle just about any situation without crashing.
We are free to find someone in our midst willing to put a Penguin in the whitehouse instead of a donkey or elephant.
We don't have to buy slick marketed pre-boxed politics. But politics, just like software distributions, takes time and effort to develop. We seem to be too busy clicking on our icons to care.
-Ouija- poke 53280,11:poke 53281,12
Right on Libertarians... For those of you who want to grok libertarianism see: www.libertarian.org (excellent intro to our philosophy) www.lp.org (the party's official site) -- Keller
Hmm... I see I have raised a lot of controversy here with my, umm... radical proposal. Thanks. Even if you disagree vehemently with me, that is good, far better than indifference. I am sorry I have no time to address all the posters in turn; instead I will try to summarize:
Some might have thought I was kidding, but I am quite serious. A lot of the arguments raised against my proposal boils down to this: "People are too stupid to know their own good." If this is truly how you feel, then why should we have any so-called representative democracy either? Arent people too stupid to vote period then? Shouldnt we all return to being totally governed by supposedly enlightened monarchs or CEOs then, who can think for us and tell us what to think and do?
I dont share that pessimism. I think people can be smart if you show you trust them and dont think of them as little kids or retarded. But by all means lets start in small scale, at the local level. See how it works out, iron out the bugs in the system before moving on.
Other people talk about the tyrrany of the majority. That is a valid point, but what of the tyranny of the minority we have now then? It is true the majority of the people may have views that are repugnant to us, but it is less likely than a minority holding them. This isnt about creating Utopia, it is about creating something better than what we have now.
History shows that governments are more capable of atrocities the more dictatorial they are, because power corrupts and because the decisionmakers dont have to see their victims eyes. Do you really think a majority of the German people wanted to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers? Sure, a majority may have disliked them, but I say that something like the Holocaust would not be possible in a direct democracy.
Some people tell me that "51% is not some magic number that makes an evil thing a right thing". Indeed you are right. But how come you seem to think that 51% of the people voting for a candidate, who then does this very evil thing, somehow can make it right?
Look, I know theres a lot of bugs in my very vague proposal. Certainly a lot of the details need to be worked out. But Im still convinced that the basic premise is right.
/Dervak
Ok, certainly an executive branch of govt need to exist. The members can be voted for or appointed in some other way. What I mean by Direct Democracy is the legislative branch, as well as the function of taxation and funding. That is, I dont so much want to replace the President as Congress.
As for your questions:
1) Definately. Going to war is an extremely serious thing. Defending the nation against outside attack is another thing, which can be handled by the executive govt and the military.
2) In the case noone voted in any issue, a coin can be tossed. It obviously isnt very important if noone bothers to vote.
3) Certainly the number of bills need to be vastly decreased, laws simplified etc. Everyone should be able to understand the law - make lawyers obsolete. All bills should go for vote, I guess there could be a minimum number of votes for a bill to pass.
4) North Korea, why not? Are details of diplomatic relationships with specific countries voted on in Congress? If not, then it need not be voted on by the public either.
5) Why not? The result can be had within a few hours with electronic voting.
/Dervak
What I would like to is to have a candidate to vote for, who explicitly states that his or her goal is to get rid of the elected representative system.
To replace with Direct Democracy. You know, the people voting directly on the issues; laws, taxes, spending etc.
Before it wasnt possible in practice in a large society, but now with the net and strong encryption it is possible. Bills could be presented on TV and voted on by the people every evening.
This would be True Democracy, not the oligocracy in disguise that we have now. But what is the probability of that ever happening without a revolution, with all the power that they stand to lose...
/Dervak
Why you ask?
1) Bush is the only guy who seems to be saying "I trust you with your lives."
2) Have you looked at your paycheck recently? I find it so insultiung that the government gets upwards of 40% of my money when you look at all of the taxes I pay to everyone with their hand out (Federal/State/Local) and let me tell you....I am in the middle of the middle class!! That in effect means I work January-->April for the government and May-->December for my young family.
3) He is also the only guy up there who has the courage to admit that the Social Security system we now have is hopelessly broke due to the impending demographic changes. Unless we move away from the current system and move towards self financed social security, we will not see social security around when we need it. Having 1/3 of the system being self financed is better than 0. If we don't move towards that, we will be pumping tens of thousands of dollars into a system that will fail or be so scaled back when we retire bthat it will be useless. When I say we....I am talking about those us us in the 18-45 crowd. Anyone over 45 should be guaranteed their benefits because they have been in the system for 1/2 of a normal working career.
4) Finally, vote for Bush because the guy has some semblence of integrity. You might not like what he says, but his message has been consistent since day 1. Leno jumped all over Gore the other night.....
So vote for Bush.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
A Republican congressman came out last week and condemed the Clinton administration for seeking the breakup of Microsoft. On Yahoo yesterday an article with Bush talking along the same lines. People should vote if Free Software and Open Source are important to them.
I was greatly saddened by seeing this question when the obvious answer is YES!
When you vote, you're not voting for the candidate you think will win -- or even the candidate you think is most different. You're voting for the candidate whose views you most support.
The debates are pretty much a show to capture the vote of those who are undecided or not voting for the participating persons. Debates are where the candidates will say whatever they must to capture your vote. In the end, their party's platform and the candidate's political history will determine their credibility, ability, and willingness to execute any promises that had been made.
If you are undecided, the decision should be as simple as choosing whose platform you most support.
Obviously not.
Listen up Slashdot Terminal, don't think that you can go and disappear for a little while, only to return and think that all has been forgotten. Your troll rhetoric has been a cancer to this web site for far too long. It is compunded by your mangling of not only the English language, but of defenseless html code as well. Your ridiculous statements, intentional misinformation, and just plain cluelessness is the bane of slashbots everywhere.
Got it?
I learned everything I know from StreetLawyer `;^)
Not to say I haven't whored an account up to +1 for the sheer pleasure of trolling it away, but that was in the past. This is my account. I will say what I feel. If it's considered a troll then so be it.
Tip, don't use "troll-specific" terms that have not been used anywhere but the troll sids. You let everyone know that you are
1. Trolling, or
2. A loser "TrollBuster" who reads the troll sids more religiously than Vladinator.
Gore is one of those "intellegent" people who just can't see himself being wrong. This is way more dangerous than someone like Bush who has the wisdom to ask someone else first.
I'm voting for Nader because I am confident that he is commited to grassroots efforts, and because he is committed to returning the power of gov't back to the consumer. He would almost restore my trust that gov't is working in my best interest.
We've all heard the arguments - "It's the future of this country, of your locality and state, it's your duty as a citizen."
WhatEVER! Let's be serious. From what I hear, it takes about three minutes to register to vote at one of those bothersome street-corner registration booths. It takes *several hours* to go through the issues and decide how to vote. Then it takes a good 30 minutes to get to the polling station and vote. What an outrage!
I'm going to do the right thing and opt out of elections this year, so that I can use that valuable time to do something far more important to me, like playing a rip-snortin' game of Tomb Raider III.
Now THAT is something important!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
True, and consider the amount of education that people would have to have to judge which issues deserve legislation and which don't? What proportion of the population has the expertise needed to judge the intricacies of, say, the rules that govern the American stock markets, or what effect raising or lowering a certain tax will have?
These are all very complex issues which require a lot of knowledge before you can make an effective judgement. That's why governments have people specifically devoted to studying these issues in depth.
People just aren't going to have the time to even study and think about these reports, let alone the entire issue. The only people who would vote would be the ones that are already informed about the subject, who would vote to please themselves (leading to an elite) and those who just voted without thinking (which is a dumb idea).
It's just not a viable solution at the moment. Chances are, it never will be unless we develop some kind of hivemind :)
British politics is much more interesting to watch... The parties actually hate each other, and preach nailing members of the other parties to the wall with industrial bolters.
It also helps that we're the only country in the world without proportional representation of some kind but with a strong third party IIRC. This means that there's somewhat less of the polarisation that America suffers from.
That, and they had Screaming Lord Sooch (sp?), head of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Now, that was fun to watch.
Good old Screaming Lord Sutch. His manifesto was that he'd call another general election the day after he got into power :) He was actually a very smart guy though, he managed to predict a lot of policy some 20 years before it was actually introduced, but he was ignored at the time for being too "radical". Well, he was, but he was right a lot of the time.
For the official homepage of the OMRLP, see here. Worth a look :)
What we really need is the option to vote for "none of the above," on our ballots.
Saying that deaths are caused by guns, is like saying pencils cause spelling mistakes.
Jon, the internet is not without fault. The net can "turn a child's heart dark and murderous". The net is just another form of media, and it has the same disadvantages that other media has.
Television, newspapers, and even radio has the same ability to change a person, even motivate them to do something stupid. The thing with the internet, is that it's not as hard to become a broadcaster (all you need is some know-how and a net connection).
And what about the hypocrisy? When there is a story about net censoring using technology, everybody agrees that parents, not the government should be in the control seat. But god forbid a presidential candidate realize the potential impact the internet can have on a child, and suggest that parents get involved.
Personally, my choice is Bush. And this isn't because I like him, but to be honest, I will do anything to keep Gore from becoming president. I am a gun-carrying, voting citizen of the United States. I don't take my freedom for granted, and I volunteer in a lot of areas where I can help.
The issue of gun control, is more important to me then internet control. Wow, just pawned a new phrase. I can honestly see Gore pushing "Internet Control" laws. If you look at the big picture, the two issues are quite the same. Parents can teach their children safe gun practice, just as they can teach them safe internet use.
I just think Bush is most likely to fight for our freedoms,... complete, and unabridged.
How about the town in Georgia, which required all residents to own a gun, and the crime rate hit zero. Now, I don't think mandatory gun ownership is right, but I do think that voluntary gun ownership is a right, and one which should be protected.
I have taken this one step further. I have now committed to NEVER vote for a republicrat again.
Just one person voting once for an alternative canidate can seem like a wasted vote, but add up all the votes you have remaining, in every race--big and small... THEN you have made a fairly powerful statement--much more so than "I'm not voting".
Then, get three friends to make the same comitment and you've got the start of a revolution.
The only wasted vote is a vote for a canidate that you don't truly want!
If someone wrote this up in a convincing chain email, it might be the first chain letter I'd consider forwarding on the internet in 10 years.
In my state we have a very idiotic system that decides who gets on our supreme court...it isn't anything as smart and helpful as appointment either...it's election, that's right, we vote for our supreme court here in this backwards state of the union. I'm sure you're thinking this doesn't sound that bad, but when you consider that this allows for a campaign budget, and therefore bias from donations. The pendulum swings from business having the alabama supreme court, to lawyers having it, and so forth. But Alabama's political system is much more fractured than that. Our state constitution leads the country (and possibly the world) as the most amended constitution, with somewhere over 500 amendments...While I have before me the US constitution amendments in all, in a small convenient pamphlet, the alabama state constitution would take up a whole bookshelf. Please help my state, write to your congressman and request that this state be bombed back into the stoneage!
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
When Jessie Ventura won the election in minnesota, he confessed his key to victory: grab a lil' media attention right when everyone is so sick of the candidates that they'd rather not vote than pick either of the two.
Just a thought for those of you who are looking for a break in your world domination schemes...
What the heck is a 'sig'?
Vanguard
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
GDub is as anti-freedom as anyone else. Have you noticed that he'd be in a position to install Supreme court justices that could:
1) Overturn Roe v. Wade... that's a huge loss of freedom. Whether you believe in abortion or not, you have to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone, right?
2) Criminalize Gay relationships.... The extreme right Republicans refers to homosexuality as a curable disease, not a lifestyle they don't understand. Does that mean that Gay couples that want to get married or adopt don't have Rights to be protected?
3) Distroy Environmental rights... Just because I live in a big city doesn't mean I want the air here to taste like it does in Houston(!) or L.A. Bush has proven that he cares about industrial machinery more than he does the lungs of the good people of Houston.
Now, I do support your right to own a gun, and wouldn't take that away from you either. But until there's a viable choice on the Libertarian ticket, where EVERYONES rights are respected, I pick people and environment over guns every day.
> But if you've decided to vote and care to say why
If you choose not to vote for the presidential race, fine. It's certainly your right. But please don't neglect the other races and propositions on the ballot this November (at the state, county and city level)! It'd be a shame for anyone registered to vote to skip out on the entire ballot just because they're upset with the presidential race. Vote!
I saw today that Bush is ahead in Minnesota, a traditionally liberal Democratic state. Since I am female, and the next president will be appointing supreme court justices, this one is a no-brainer. I don't want to give my vote to a candidate I actually like, only to find that I've helped to give Bush MN's electoral votes.
And even if he is a goon, and wants censorship, at least Gore recognizes the Net's potential and doesn't think it turns hearts to darkness or some such nonsense.
Every once in awhile we get to kick out the bums and replace them with new ones. In other words, we get an opportunity to peacefully revolt. Join in that revolution, even if it's just to put your mother down as a write-in, protest candidate. Exercise the franchise! jonathan
every alien applying for citizenship in the u.s.a. knows that an americans greatest right is the right to vote. the right to participate in choosing new leadership and ejecting the inaffective. i'm constantly amazed at hearing so many americans claim that voting is a waste of their time. do you have something more important to do in that fifteen minutes? of course, these are the same idiots that will bitch and complain for the next four years about the state of affairs and how the government is screwing everything up. pathetic! get off yer arse and vote! you only have the right to bitch if you made your stand on election day.
There's only one presidential candidate this election who has the cojones to use the F word. Libertarian Harry Browne is the only candidate who wants you to be Free of internet censorship, internet taxation and internet snooping by government. Dubya wants to use the force and violence of government to censor the internet and the entertainment industry. Goreby, who "invented the internet" is not adverse to taxing it, and hasn't come out against his own administration's "Carnivore." Nader, on the left hand, would like to nationalize the internet and put a government-financed internet appliance on every kitchen table, not to mention using the force and violence of government to boost the minimum wage to $50.00/hr. (and if you claim that's "too much" why is it too much?) Buchanan, of course, would ban the import of all Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese computer parts because they're "taking jobs from Americans." Haeglin wants you to meditate. Phillips wants to use the force and violence of government to prevent your wife/significant other from consulting with her doctor regarding her pregnancy.
Only Libertarian Harry Browne is asking the question, "Do you want smaller government?" Because if you vote for Bush, Gore, Buchanan, Haeglin, or Phillips, you'll get bigger government, more intrusive government, and more expensive government. None of them want government to "do less." All of them want government to "do more," and if you vote for them you'll be wasting your vote because when any one of them gets into office, they'll be making you less free. Only Harry Browne wants government to do less and make you more free.
I'm not throwing my vote away on people who have deluded themselves that using the force and violence of government against the American people is a good thing. I'm going to stand proud and tall and vote for the only presidential candidate who wants America to once again be the "land of the free and the home of the brave," Harry Browne. Vote Libertarian for liberty, responsibility and community.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
And yes, I'd agree, if government made those computers, instead of just buying them from private companies, they'd still be the size of houses and would still cost billions.
Instead of three issues, I'll just name one that I disagree with the watermelon Greens on: using the guns of government to force a living (say, how about $50/hr) wage on all employees and employers in these United States. If you think $50.00/hr is "too much," then why is it too much? Wouldn't $100.00 an hour be even better? Or maybe even $1000.00 an hour? So what would you propose? $10.00? Well then, why not $10.50?
Just remember what Larry says about greatness and freedom, and you'll see that the only reasonable reaction to the Green candidate is "ralph."
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
Depends on where you live. Since we have the electoral college, the majority of your state decides. I live in a very democratic state, so you know what, I'd be throwing away my vote even if I voted for Bush.
I would be extremely surprised to see Gore lose my state. OTOH federal matching funds are based on the voting percentages of the entire country. This means that my vote for Nader, or Browne, or whoever, is very significant.
Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those that do know me, DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me.
With a small number of choices, or an educated and informed voting population, Borda is good, but not for a country of millions(a billion?).
IMHO it's like communism, works well on paper, and in small groups only.
Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those that do know me, DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me.
It makes it all the more important that the type of unlikely voter we've got in these parts votes, to balance out the elementary school teachers and nurses.
Not that I'm saying elementary school teachers and nurses are bad people. They just seem a little bewildered about this whole "government" thing and what it does.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Yes, it would send the message that the 25% of people who don't like any of the candidates can't get their sh*t together enough to run somebody else, and are immaterial to the political process.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Uhhh, I hate to break it to you, but you DON'T get to vote for the president anyway. The electoral college does that. And there is nothing to prevent a candidate from being elected by the electoral college when he didn't win the popular vote...in fact it's happend before in history, twice I think.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Direct Democracy is the principle that people should have a more direct handle on what goes into law.
Excuse the fact that these are Canadian-oriented sites.. that's where I'm from.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Our mass media make it harder by basically ignoring the third party candidates.
The voters make it impossible by not voting for them (possibly because they listen to the mass media rants about how it's impossible to win).
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: If everybody who didn't vote in the last few elections came out and voted for a "third-party, can't win" candidate, The republicans and democrats would be out of power!
The Republican Party started out as a third party that people said couldn't possibly win. As their history document points out:
Voting for Nader (or any other 3rd party candidate) is not a vote for Bush -- especially if you wouldn't have otherwise voted. Best case is -- if you get enough of your friends out to vote too -- you could actually elect a third party candidate and turn the political system on it's head for a while.`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If you want to make a bigger difference, work on someone's campaign. It'll not only affect the election more, it will give you access to the insides of the power structures that will be shaping our future in the years to come.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
This is quite distinct from being a technical leader in the creation of the protocols, etc. of the internet. It also occurred after the internet already existed as a research/military network.
(ah, the good old days -- pre spam, pre-adds, pre-slashdot ...
Aye, there's the rub).
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I hate to be as normative as the pigs but please, check out Ralph Nader.
FREE LEONARD PELTIER!
Thank you. Keep the love alive.
http://siokaos.org/
nader isn't bloated BS anti-survival shit like you are talking about (which I think is a big problem in our nation) Do you know what that's related to? IGNORANCE he is for a good ethic.
http://siokaos.org/
No, seriously now; I think many people end up voting for a negative, the person who has the best chances against the candidate they hate most. This alone would drive them away from men like Nader or Browne.
This is the sad state of American politics; it's almost impossible to vote for someone you like, so you end up voting for someone you dislike less.
"Oh Bother", said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh."
Both of these bozos would probably have signed the DMCA, and will probably continue to take away our rights to "protect the children."
Unfortunately there is not a candidate in the race, that has me convinced that they are even aware of Internet culture. That means I have to choose based on other issues.
I feel that the power in government should be just a short walk or drive away. The idea of local control that G.W. Bush espouses (but probably doesn't mean) is compelling. When you want to participate in governing you should be able to complain to the one making the decision in _person_.
I will probably vote for Bush in the hope that his pledge of local control comes to fruition.
Come Jon, what kind of a question is this?
There's only one answer: of course you should vote. It's really not that hard, there are plenty of ways to do it too.
Too lazy to drive to your local polling station and press a few buttons or pull some levers? No problem! Get an absentee ballot. In the county I used to live in a couple months ago, the Democratic Party mailed absentee ballots out to almost everyone in the city just to get them to vote for Gore.
And if that's not easy enough, it's as simple as registering to vote (I had to fill out a half sheet of paper to do so when I renewed my driver's license), and then going to the polling station in your area.
I think everyone should vote, no matter what their reason. Spite for a candidate, actual belief in another candidate or even just to see how many votes Jerry Garcia gets this year.
Vote. It's simple, and the only way we can change who represents the people.
I registered to vote after 10 yrs. of refusing. I figure that even if I can't find a candidate that I can support, I can write in "none of the above". Personally I think that should be an option on *all* ballots. If NOTA gets the majority, the election has to be held again, with none of the original candidates being eligible.
:-)
That being said, Go Harry Browne!!!
jred
www.cautioninc.com
caution, inc.
jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
The electoral college effectively makes the vote of residents of small states worth more than the vote of residents of large states. Utah (where I live) has 3 congressmen based on our population and 2 senators, so Utah get's 5 electoral votes. A larger state might have 30 congressmen and 2 senators for 32 electoral votes.
Assuming 1 million people per congressman, in Utah my vote is worth 5/3,000,000=.000001666 whereas the larger-state resident vote is worth 32/30,000,000=.000001066.
And as somebody else mentioned, Clinton came in 3rd place in the '92 election here in Utah. There is absolutely no chance that Utah will go anything but republican this year, so it does give me the feeling that my vote isn't actually counting at all (especially since I am voting republican anyhow).
There is no doubt in my mind that voter turnout would be higher if the President were elected by direct popular vote. Also, I think if none of the candidates gets a 50% majority, then there should be a run-off election between the top 2, we never would have had to deal with a loser like Clinton (who only got 43% of the vote in '92) if we had a run-off election and a direct popular vote.
There's a Web site (sorry, I forget its URL -- search for it) that let's you enter your (anonymous) decisions on all the major issues, then rates the candidates (ALL of them) regarding how they agree with your profile. I was amazed to find that Nader's policies fit 88% with my profile. Nader also has had the largest rallies in the election (he sold out Madison Square Garden last Friday -- you didn't read about it, of course, but it happened!), so it's not wasting your vote to vote for the Green Party.
If your politics don't fit the Green Party, of course, you may not have a preferred candidate. But why not check it out first? There's more to the ballot (in most states) that Bore and Gush.
Yes, California is rather conservative and uptight. So how did California get its reputation for being liberal? From it's concentrated areas of liberalism, such as Berkeley, San Francisco, and a few southern areas. Those places get headlines and cause the ruckus, but the rest of the state is fairly conservative, and it's the overall effect that wins out. (The average)
A lot of people tell you not to vote for a third party because it would "waste" your vote. But, really, the waste of your vote is to vote for a more "mainstream" candidate that you don't really believe in.
Bush and Gore both seem the same to me and they both sicken me. Did you see the debates? They were even wearing the same suit!
So, please, take a look at third parties and independents out there. These people aren't so politically entrenched as the major parties, and have some very insightful ideas about what to do with our country.
Don't waste your vote.
Ralph Nader, Green Party (also endorsed by the Reform Party)
Harry Browne, Libertarian
Pat Buchanan, Reform Party (sort of)
John Hagelin, Natural Law Party (sort of)
Howard Phillips, Constitution Party
I nomanate CmdrTaco! or maybe Hemos! even though i'm from Canada, and my vote dosn't count in the 'states..
--DV
"Kermit the frog, cuz he gets all the hos!"
--DV
In this day it is safer to be a ninja than a samurai
Uhhh....
Just because there are people who disagree with you doesn't mean they "are full of hate."
Vermont is in this pickle because a court of law tried to impose its views on the electorate. Like the abortion (I oppose Roe vs Wade while still being pro-choice), when the courts try to set social policy and in so doing bypass the elected portion of the government, you end up getting more polarization than if you simply let that process work its way out.
Getting back to the abortion issue, in Western Europe you have countries that are on both ends of the spectrum on how they allow it or disallow it. Ireland and Italy are very restrictive (I believe the ban is outright in Ireland). In Sweden it's very liberal. Yet no one is blowing up abortion clinics there (that I've heard of). In the U.S., many pro-lifers regard teh issue as a "civil war". The difference? Pro choice in this country was mandated by court order.
There are plenty of indications that w/o Roe vs Wade, there would have been a liberalization of the abortion laws in this country, with some states being liberal about it and others not. I doubt we would have had the backlash that ensued after the Supreme Court's ruling.
As for Vermont, I'm glad the electorate decided to stand up for themselves. It gives me hope that judiciary in this country will get its come-uppance.
As someone with mostly libertarian views, I don't think that there should be a legal distinction between married and unmarried. It's a religious institution. It should be a wholly religious institution, with little or no recognition of its existence by the state.
Vote! The US is after all a representative democracy, and while not perfect, the concept has worked well enough for us to be the model for so many new governments. If you don't vote, your voice is not REPRESENTED in the leadership, and we'll end up with skewed representation. It doesn't matter if your favorite (esp. third party) candidate loses the election if the issues that they voice most strongly get adopted by the winner. That's what is supposed to happen with our system. It's why Delaware has as big of a voice in the Senate as California. A vote not cast is a voice not heard. Getting the issues addressed starts at the local level and trickles up to the federal executive. If you avoid the polls, then your school district suffers, your state initiatives suffer, your voice in the legislatures and congress is not heard. Voting in local elections gives you the best chance of helping someone get elected who you might actually get to know well enough to influence with your opinion. (Leaving the soap box now...)
Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm not an American but I thought I'd give my 2c anyway.
Neither candidate inspires my confidence. Bush flunked badly on that interview half a year ago when he couldn't name the heads of state of several foreign countries. And his tax reform plan is even worse than Gore's. Gore stretches the truth even more than Apple advertising and his tax reform plan isn't any good either.
As for their views on violence and pornography etc. on the net, I disagree with both of them. To quote Sister Miriam from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri :) = Evil lurks in the datalinks[internet] as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil. As has been said countless times before, the internet is just another medium for communication (though it is unlike outher media). The internet is neutral, just as books and TV are neutral. It's what we put up that is good or bad. As for the prevalence of pornography and other such forms of entertainment on the net, it just reflects the morals of the society (mainly US). By the way, I saw an article noting that all the porn site have been reaping the profits from the beginning while all those hyped dot-coms have yet to do so. Says something about where all the traffic is going, no?
Anyway, if i were an American, I'd seriously consider the independant candidates, though Nader seems a bit wacky. Anyway, those of us outside the US rarely hear anything about the indeps. Anyone like to fill us in?
Any person who claims that they have not voted because there wasn't a suitable candidate is as guilty as the person who does not vote because they couldn't be bothered to get to a ballot box.
If you really feel that you cannot vote for one of the candidates at an election, then go along and write "This ballot paper is spoilt" accross your voting slip.
Of course, when we have widespread electronic voting, it might be harder to do this. Hopefully they will always provide the option of abstaining.
Not voting is no protest. Make you apathy heard!
There is no conspiracy
More detail on all of these positions can be found at here.
Don't like censorship? Libertarians are adamantly against any infringement upon the first amendment.
Tired of the War on Drugs and it's flagrant abuses of the 1st and 4th amendment? Libertarians oppose any form of prohibition, including drugs. They believe that morality can not be legislated and any attempt to prohibit a victimless, consensual act only leads to the violence, and overbearing government control we see in reaction to the drug war.
Sick of seeing 20 to 40 percent of your paycheck disappearing each pay period? Libertarians will do away with the income tax by making the federal government so small, it will be unnecessary. The limited government functions outlined in the constitution could easily be paid on the existing excise taxes and tarrifs.
Sick of America being the world's police force and bully? Tired of America trying to impose it's will on foreign governments? Libertarians would withdraw all American troops and establish a military focused only on defense of the nation, while ceasing the efforts of current politicians to impose American values on foreign soil. Never again will American soldiers die on foreign soil when America is not directly threatened.
How about social security? Do you think it will be there when you need it? Libertarians don't. That's why they will privatize Social Security, opening personal accounts for all those who have been made dependant on it, freeing you to put the money you earned into a private account, with a private company that can't change the rules on you every time they realize they've bankrupted the system.
I could go on and on, but check out their position page. Libertarians are the ONLY ones who can save this country from sliding farther and farther towards the socialist and communist governments we've fought for so long.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
Our survival as a country depends on NOT voting Nader. Nader would reduce to the level of every other socialist nation, whose people have few rights, are taxed to the point of bankruptcy in order to "take care" of the idiots who made bad decisions all of their lives and demand that the government take care of them.
America is the grandest and noblest experiment in personal freedom and liberty ever attempted on this planet. Ever. With this freedom comes personal responsibility, a notion escaping any misinformed fool supporting Nader.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
This statement in itself is a wonderful statement in support of the constitution. Let's assume for a moment that your statement "The founders also though that black people are subhuman, and that women should not vote" were true. There's a lot of evidence to suggest it wasn't, but whatever. The Constitution supported black civil rights from the beginning! Just because a majority might have though blacks were subhuman, it was still unconstitutional to deny them there rights. Same for women. It's proof that 51% is not some magic figure that can make something right. That's why we follow the founders. They were far more prescient than they could have ever hoped, and made every attempt to protect the Republic from themselves. Thanks for making my point!
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
I'm trying desperately to figure out what in the hell you're talking about, but I can't get any logic around it. Of course, you are obviously a Nader supporter, so logic wouldn't be your strong point.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
You're right! I vote for Nader... to pack his bags and zip right off to the USSR where they love things like dominant central government, government seizure of all their assets, having no civil liberties at all, and best of all, no constitution to be wiped on the ass of some celebrity, socialist consumer advocate!
Oh I forgot. There is no USSR anymore. I think that's because SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK! HELLO? IS THIS THING ON!?! Great idea, Brainiac!
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
Do you really think private industry would have never thought of the internet? I'm guessing they would have, except that they would have started out with a secure protocol instead of waiting 20 years. I've yet to see any government program that couldn't be handled better privately. It's the naderites who amaze me. I see him as big brother incarnate, and it's beyond me how a freedom loving people could vote for him.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
Oh, geez, I have to limit myself to three? :)
nationalize the top 500 corporations.
tax at 100% salaries that exceed 10x minimum wage.
force business to decrease the work week without decreasing pay.
force me, using all the power of government, to fund cradle to grave healthcare for everyone.
I know, you said 3 but I couldn't help myself. I'll use the same old phrase I've used at least 40 times in replies to this article. Nader is a socialist. He may be a well-intentioned socialist, but a socialist all the same. And socialism does not work. Never has, never will.
I have no data to back this up, but I will try to find some evidence that if it weren't for private industry there would be no internet. It would still be used by two professors on opposite ends of the country sending pings back and forth. It was business that came up with old WWW and transformed it into what it is now, with all the good and bad that goes with it.
And one more thing. As you said, the invention of the internet was in response to military needs, a vital and necessary function of federal government. So that in no way refutes the possibility of it's existence under a libertarian government.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
Why do you think this prosperity only benefits the 10-20% of the wealthiest? For the most part these are the people who paid attention, were smart and took advantage of the opportunities presented them. Sure, there are some silver spoons, but they represent a minority of the "wealthy". These are the people who made good decisions with their lives and now their going to be expected to pony up their earnings for people who decided to crank their credit to the max, so they can get a big screen to watch some good wrasslin'. Of course, I'm speaking in generalities, but for the most part, the prosperity is there for all, some people choose to take advantage of it. Wealth is not an entitlement.
And who is it who's telling them the economy's great? Our benevolent, socialist leaning, imperial federal government, of course. Because they want to keep you fat, dumb and happy. Personal responsibility for your life? That's somebody elses problem. We'll take the money from the hated rich (whose votes they don't need) and give to you, the exalted poor (whose votes they do need). Thus the scramble to shift as much of the tax burden on the upper income levels as possible.
This is why schools teach our children that their own needs are not as important as the needs of the group. That the individual is less important than the whole. That's CLASSIC socialism, used by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.
I think someone else needs a review on socialism.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
Yep, you're right. I can't wait to head off to the technological capitals of the world. Countries whose contributions to the world number in the single digits combined.
Vietnamese? Tunisian? Are you kidding me? Have you ever looked at the economies of some these countries? OK, with Sweden and Finland you might have the beginnings of a point. But Vietnam is one of your examples of the success of socialism?
Let's look at the euro's for example. Tax rates beyond belief, snd socialized medicine working so well that people have to leave the country, in many cases, in order get medical attention. Woo Hoo!
The key phrase you use here is "flavor of socialism". Not fully socialist nations. Most if not all of these nations (sorry, not an expert on Tunisia) have a capitalist base for their economy but have various levels of socialist leanings, much like the current U.S. The only fully socialist countries I'm aware of (1 being China, it's chosen form is communism), have human rights abuses that are absolutely atrocious. Because too much power is held by too few people. This is why socialism doesn't work as a complete economic basis for a country, especially a large country.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
Who said anything about private police forces? That's the states job. The thing that people always get wrong about Libertarianism is they think we are against all government period. It's simply not true. We simply believe that the fed should be absolutely limited to the constitution and let the states handle the rest. That makes government much more responsive and answerable to the people because they're closer to them.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
Ahh, the infamous line "the enlightened society". If the 10 to 20 % did move off and form their own country, what would the other 80-90% do? I refer you to the book Atlas Shrugged for the answer. Not that I agree with you numbers, mind you, but whatever. The only elightenment I need is that which I choose to take, not that which you will force upon me. If I choose to help those who are in need, than I will do so, picking those that I feel I most worthy. I resent folks such as you would hi-jack my money and give it to people I don't think should get it. This is the difference between a free society and government controlled society. The mark of a free society is that all of it's citizens have the opportunity to live well, and it is their choice as to whether they take it.
The sponging elite? You have famous company. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Mussolini all used that same line. I care little for their "enlightened society".
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jeffeson
I'm voting Nader for a lot of reasons but it all sort of boils down to this. We have a political system that guarantees all our politicians are corrupt liars, because only those politicians that can be methodical about collecting campaign funds for corporations and putting together their special interest portfolios can even compete. Corporations completely dominate our political system. Gore and Bush are liars. Nader has proven himself over the last thirty years. He is excruciatingly honest. He has dedicated himself to making this country more safe, just, and good. He has shown himself to be someone involved in public service because he cares, not so he can be a big shot. He is the only candidate worth voting for.
SS works just fine. It does exactly what it's supposed to do, which is make sure that good, honest people who worked hard their whole lives don't starve or freeze to death when they are no longer able to work. Bush's plan won't work because the people who need SS are the ones who couldn't afford to invest. SS provides a gauranteed return. That's why it's called Social Security. It isn't much, but it's gauranteed. Trading that for the volitility of the stock market is a very bad idea.
The thing is, the working poor (I don't give a damn about the poor who are able but unwilling to work) would have more income for things such as insurance if businesses are investing rather than saving (thereby offering jobs).
What about the poor who are unable to work? Are you aware that a certain level of unemployment is necessary for our economy to remain healthy? Without unemployment labor costs would skyrocket, and inflation right along with it. However, these able unemployed still need to eat. Desperate people comit desperate acts. That's the real reason wellfare exists.
Call it trickle-down economics if you want,...
Ah yes, I remember that from the 80's. As I recall the rich were trickling down all over the poor.
The thing about Robin Hood-esqe plans is they prevent situations such as the French Revolution or any of the various Communist revolutions from happening here. Contrary to what many would have you believe, government does have a responsibility to take care of it's citizens. Under feudalism it was called Nobise Oblige (pardon my spelling if you happen to be French). History has proven that any government that ignores this responsibility gets overthrown without exception, and often violently, which I am not particularly keen on.
Your statement is misleading; the rich still pay taxes (more than the poor). A flat tax simply doesn't discriminate against those who are wealthy. Does not a person making $200,000 a year pay the same tax for a bar of soap that a person making $15,000 a year pays?
Your statement is not only misleading, it's self-contradicting. I know it's currently politically correct to feel sorry for the overburdened upper-class. After all, why should the top 10% have to pay 1/3 of the taxes when they only control 98% of the wealth? And what's up with all these free-loaders living below the poverty level not paying taxes? While our current tax system certainly isn't perfect, it does actually work. Here's why:
Under a flat tax (10% is the usual proposal I believe) the guy making 200k is going to pay 20k in taxes. That smarts a little, but it's not going to put him out on the street (although he may have to put off buying that new BMW for another year). The guy making 15k is going to pay 1.5k in taxes. Unfortunately, he has to choose whether that 1.5k is going to come out of his food or his rent. If you don't believe me try supporting yourself on only 15k for the next year. I've done it, and it really sucks. That's why we have a sliding scale in our tax system. A flat tax may not discriminate against the wealthy, but it certainly discriminates against the poor.
If I'm a a lower-class worker, the non-flat tax is a disincentive to working harder; I'll only end up having to pay a disproportionately larger amount in taxes.
This has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Have you ever heard anyone refuse a raise because they'd have to pay more taxes? I don't think so.
I'm not saying the system we have is perfect, just that a better one has not yet been presented. I applaud you for examining alternative proposals, but the ones you have decided to promote are very poorly thought out, as is revealed when they are put up against the lessons to be learned from history. I agree that our government is large and inefficient, but every part of it exists because there was a need for it. Social Security exists because old people were starving and freezing to death. Wellfare exists because children were starving and freezing to death. Labor laws (such as minimum wage) exist because people were working 18 hour days and still couldn't afford to buy food.Industries are regulated because their abuses became intollerable.
Face it, the government in the US exists primarily to prevent the poor from rising up and killing the rich. That's why all these social programs are necessary.
The Libertarian party was founded on some good ideas, and traces of those ideas are still there. By and large, though, Libertarianism has come to be based on a single concept: Greed.
There has to be more to life than how much I can grab for myself. If that's all yours is based on then you should pray for an early death, because your life will be very sad.
Personally, I'm voting for Gore. I disagree with him on many points, but at least he considers the options and their repercussions before he decides on a course of action.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Until such issues become solid legislation and real attempts to strip our liberties rather than conflagaration to get square middle class votes, and on that day we should fucking fight like a heavyweight champion - until then let's consider what's truly important. Neither of the candidates during the debate apart from scurillious scaremongering had anything intelligent or definite to say about the supposed "culture of violence". It's just hype
The next president will appoint 3 supreme court justices.
What the candidates' position on space exploration might be.
A fossil fuel crisis is looming. Our demands outstrip what's needed. Next president has the power to declare areas in Alaska a national monument to prevent oil drilling. May I remind you that the only the only single remaining natural salmon runs in the US is now in Alaska.
These are some of the issues I don't think have been highlighted enough in favor of assurances to people about their money. What's more important to me is which candidate is equipped and intelligent enough to understand that science governs progress at this point in time, and is prepared to understand it's appliance.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
And I did not say it was a national monument - what I said was that the next president could declare the area one, preventing it from development. Living in Alaska, you've forgotten how destroyed a state can become through neglect of its environmental resources.
Also, as someone who grew up in Washington State, I can't forget the pipeline fire that evaporated the majority of a river in Bellingham a few years ago.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that people ought to eat fish, and maybe hunt, even. Hell, nothing pisses me off more than the organic food movement, which is stifling genetically modified food research which would be of enormous benefit to those starving in the third world. However, I also believe that mismanagement and human ignorance gets in the way of how to properly handle these issues.
And the real problem with our dependence on oil has nothing to do with where it is. It's the economic and cultural system in the US which has the highways flooded with people alone in their SUVs commuting two hours a day while the carpool lane is clear. A new commuter rail system has been started in Tacoma with the capacity to carry 2000 people on every train. About 600 use it. Meanwhile we have some of the worst traffic in the entire U.S.
Growing up, however, Washington state was a beautiful place. That's all changing, and you'll be pissed off too when they strip mine Alaska.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
The importance of this election is much more profound than most people think it to be. Theere are big fdiferences between the candidates. Granted the difference between Gore and Bush is not as big as the difference between Nader and Buchanan but that doesnot mean they are the same candidate.
One of the most important things being decided by this election is who will compose the supreme court. If GWB wins he will appoint judges that are in the mold of Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas (Bush said this himself). This means that Roe vs. Wade WILL BE OVERTURNED. Our Miranda rights are also in question since Scalia and Thomas were opposed to overturning a a case because the cops failed to read the person their rights and follow due process.
As it is the supreme court tilts on the side of conservativism on almost all cases but Sandra Day O'connor will vote on the more liberal side of hings when womens issues are involved. Look at most of the decition made by the supreme court in the last few years and you will see this patern.
Justices of the supreme court dont retire very often (in eight years Clinton only nominated 2) but we are at a junction were many of them are advance enough in age that a swing in the balance could happen. Most of the important events in this country are dictated by the Supreme court because they have no repercussions to deal with once they are appointed. No reelection to keep them from doing what they think is right. Most equal rights decisions were made by the supreme court (in a time when it was more liberal than now). This election then indirectly (and maybe directly) will set the agenda for the US for the next thirty years. So all you out there who think voting in this election doesnt matter get off your asses stop being idiots and realize you are dead wrong about this. This election is key.
Other demographics that vote.
If we want the issues that are important to us to be important to the candidates, we have to vote.
It doesn't matter who you vote for. Vote for yourself if you want. Just vote. And increase the percentage of people that care in our demographic.
Then, and only then, will the issues that matter to us appear on the national stage.
it's the first presidential election that i can vote in. i'll be Goddamned if i have to complain about something, yet i took no action to prevent that something from happening in the first place.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
As an absentee voter (in Canada) though I haven't mailed my ballot in yet.
Of course, since my name is on this message, my vote won't be. (archived public forum.. ummm no, I'll keep my ballot secret thankyouverymuch)
Not voting is an irrational form of protest. While this statement is common (I was about to post the same thing before I noticed yours) Democracy only works if all the people vote for canidates. People complain about government all the time, yet less than 50% of ALL registerd voters go to the polls one day a year. So only 50% of the people are making decisions for the other 50%.
Last I checked there is normally a "write in" slot where you can write in a canidates name. So if you don't like any of the canidates vote for yourself.
Additionally besides the presidency there are many local issues that will affect you more directly that you should go out and vote for. At least go out and voice your opinion for things that will be done in your small town, city, or suburb. By giving up this freedom you are turning the democratic process into a form of dictatorship.
Maybe we should force people to pay a voting tax. Back when they had a voting tax many more people excercised their right to vote. Women finally got the right in 1928? in the 20's and they don't vote any more than men.
Until there is a binding "None of the Above", I don't approve of abstainence here. OTOH, that is what the primaries are for. We could have had a Bradley v.s. Keyes or McCain.
Browne and the Libertarians are probably the 2nd best choice, since if they get 5%, they don't have to go through the ballot access fight next time around.
Nader wants to tell you what kind of car you can drive. Although I think he is on the right side of many issues, his solutions (more huge government bureaucracy - register your OS with the government? A National InfoSuperHighway traffic saftey administration?
Since Nader was mentioned, Buchanan is better if only in that he believes in nationalism - if you don't like the US dictating to europe what their infopolicies should be, you would like Brussels dictating to us less.
And then there's Haeglin of the Natural Law party, who I also have trouble with, but might be the choice of other SlashDotters.
Voting for any of them will send a message that Gush and Bore (I get them confused - no less than they seem confused themselves) aren't your choices and you won't vote for the lesser evil. (The A/B choice: Asmodeus v.s. Beelzebubba).
If you don't vote, you simply get counted as someone too apathetic to care who is going to screw you.
Around the campus in Davis, California I have honestly heard more support for Nader than any other candidate. It seems to me that 3rd party talk is coming into more peoples minds. If everyone who is die hard Nader could get those "Don't wanna waste my vote" people Nader has a really good chance IMO. Look around you and see whose voting for who. If you can find a couple other people in your office or neighborhood voting Nader how can you say it's a wasted vote?
Bzzt Whir Click
The chances of your single vote changing the election are less than 1 in 100 billion, less than your chances of being killed on the way to the election. Besides, wouldn't it be cooler if you don't vote, and there was a tie! If you vote, don't do it to change the results, do it because you want to give support to the candidate of your choice. That means vote for whoever is eligible that you like best, not only those who have a chance of winning (since no one has a chance of winning except the person who wins).
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Personal Issues
-------- ------
1) Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) should say
1) Abolosh all U.S. military except the National Guard
2) Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet should read
2) Sell the airwaves and the Internet to the highest bidder.
3) Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults should read
3) Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
4) Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them should read
4) Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
5) People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose should read
5) People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose
Economic Issues
-------- ------
1) Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies should read
1) Large corporate farms should be permitted to put mom and pop farmers out of business
2) People are better off with free trade than with tariffs should read
2) Allow countries with child labor and forced labor to freely exchange the products of this labor with the United States. Allow U.S. corporations to replace American workers with slaves.
3) Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them should read
3) Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
4) End taxes. Pay for services with user fees should read
4) End taxes. Auction off government services to the highest bidder. Those without money can fend for themselves, with the concealed uzis that are legalized.
5) All foreign aid should be privately funded should read
5) All foreign aid should be privately funded.
A true libertarian would still vote "yes" on all these issues.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Nader is against the maximum wage.
The Green Party USA (GPUSA), which calls itself "the original Green Party organization in the USA," traces its history to 1984, 12 years before the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) formed. But Nader, who is not a Green Party member, says he doesn't "really pay much attention" to the older, more radical party's platform. Of the GPUSA's plans to scrap the Senate and impose a 100 percent tax on all income over 10 times the minimum wage, he says: "I don't like those two positions. . . . I'm adopting positions that disagree with some positions of the Green Party USA. I'm not for the abolition of the Senate. There's so many bad things going through Congress I want two opportunities to stop them." Taxing a maximum wage, meanwhile, he dismisses as "not comprehensive enough. If you really want to have a tax on wealth, have a tax on wealth."
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
read the facts in this washington post article. Nader is not a member of The Green Party USA. He is a member of the Association of State Green Parties. He opposes the maximum wage. I do not know off hand his position on the other two issues you mention.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Nader opposes the "maximum wage" tax. See this article. Of the GPUSA's plans to scrap the Senate and impose a 100 percent tax on all income over 10 times the minimum wage, he says: "I don't like those two positions. . . . I'm adopting positions that disagree with some positions of the Green Party USA."
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Since I have a feeling that the subjects of internet filtering and media censorship generally may be central to many slashdotter's decision in this election, I'd like to point out that both slates in this campaign -- and Liebermann especially -- have made a big deal about stemming violence in our media. After the latest FTC report, Gore/Liebermann made it pretty clear that they would "do something" about violence in Hollywood. So keep in mind that this is no longer just a Republican issue...
Jim
Leadership in the USA is in the form of top-down control, those at the top make the decisions for those at the bottom. Who is at the top? The major corporations. This is self-evident, simply look at what laws are passed and why. The public doesn't vote, but corporate lobbyists are there 24/7. People don't get involved, and those that vote don't hold their representatives accountable. Corporate lobbyists definitely hold their representatives accountable.
The one freedom we have in the US is freedom of speech, the right to say what you want without being shot or put in prison. If we don't vote and bring back the old definition of Democracy (bottom-up control, people making the decisions for themselves) we will lose the right to vote. The media will cease to bother explaining that this is a democracy, it will no longer be necessary.
Violence is to Dictatorship as Propaganda is to Democracy. This means that in a Dictatorship, violence is used to control the citizenry; in a Democracy propaganda is used. We should seriously question what politicians mean when they speak of "Enlarging Democracy" (read: Enlarging corporate pockets) or "Spreading Democracy" (read: maintaining top-down control, ensuring US foreign investment and economic/political domination).
A few last thoughts are: The US only allows 2 political parties, both of which are so similar in their views (and the fact that they are both dominated by corporations) that they are really 2 faces of the same coin. There are no meaningful labor rights, human rights, environmental rights, and freedom of speech is almost non-existent. This US has become a police state (simply look at any protest, the people are beaten, gassed and imprisoned for trying to uphold the right to speak out). It is no longer legal to give bad reviews of corporations and their products. In the US people don't have the right to education or health care, only if you can afford it.
Get involved in grassroots organizations and make decisions for yourself.
If don't feel comfortable voting for Gore or Bush, don't just sit back and refuse to vote. Vote for a third party candidate like Nader or Browne. The more votes these alternate candidates get, the more attention they'll get in the next election, resulting in a better choice of tolerable candidates. It's a better way to protest the two-party system, IMO, than not voting.
I found these sites to be extremely helpful:
http://www.issues2000.org
http://www.speakout.com/votematch/index2.asp
I don't know about any bias or anything like that on these sites, but there is a wealth of information about issues and candidates. The quiz was particularly helpful for me.
There's no such thing as a non-publically funded election. For gods sake, where else would the money come from? Some buisness, some person, etcetera, gives every single penny that supports any canidate.
The question is, do you want to give directly to the canidate you support, in whatever amount you want, or do you want to hand your money to the Government, where it will be mostly wasted on paperwork then given to canidates whose stand you find morally reprehensible?
Rich people already pay most of the taxes. The bottom fifty percent of the poulation pay 5% of the taxes. The upper fifty percent pays the other 95%. What is right, what is fair, about that? Why shouldn't a rich person feel tumultuous rage at his money being taken away from him at rates that would have the lower classes up in arms?
I agree with what the recent Cato institute article said. The only minority it is safe to abuse, steal from, and insult in public anymore is the rich. The average joe citizen *loves* to throw in the face of a bureaucrat, "I pay your salary through my taxes!". So who pays the salary of the average joe? The rich person who owns and runs the buisness (probably founded it out of his own blood, sweat, and tears). But no rich person ever says, "I pay *your* salary so STOP PRETENDING I'M EVIL!". It's about time for them to start, before the Green Party's platform gets in and they have every drop of wealth sucked out of them.
Fact. Some people are rich because they inherited money. Most, however, are rich because they worked for it. They worked for it - making your car, television, house, and precious fucking beer - making things of value that you consume and enjoy! So stop treating them as though they were the minions of cosmic evil, out to destroy the planet and the enviornment, when you consume the things they make and enjoy the socialism that thier taxes provide!
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
You persuade your state to increase taxes by a factor of 10 and provide all those services and handouts and regulations that Mr. Nader proposes. The only difference you would notice is that instead of "United States Treasury," the checks you get - and send, and send, and send, would say "State of Fuckistan." I hope there's plenty of room for your state capital to expand.
Upon reading the words, "Fuckistan", I laughed loud enough to get the attention of everyone within about 50 meters - a cackle that either the wicked witch of the west or the grinch would envy. Thanks, you've brightened my day.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Really.
If Ralph Nader gets 5% of the vote, then someone will get matching funds.
Is that someone Ralph? No. It's the party he represents.
What party does Ralph represent? The Greens.
What do the Greens support? A maximum wage. Read thier platform.
Nader can NOT escape (at least, I won't let him) that he represents a party that wants to institute socialism in it's most intrusive, most expensive, most Constution-ignoring form. There was that guy, who said that line. It describes how I feel about people voting for Nader. How does it go? Oh, yeah:
"Forgive them, my lord, for they know not what they do." Revenge! The most petty of all emotions, the desire to wrong because you have been wronged. Nader backers tell you that you are sticking one to Big Government if you vote for him. They persuade you to vote for someone by saying it will hurt someone else, and it works.
We take the power of kings, and give it to the people, and find out that the people handle it no better than the kings did. In a thousand years, that will summarize the United States democracy in a history book.
Ralph's platform means zilch, because that's about the chance that he's going to win. It is entirely about matching funds - Ralph's people will even *tell* you this. Do they tell you the platform of the people who will get the matching funds? No, they avoid that. Instead: "Stab the man! stab him! stab him! revenge! revenge!"
In short, tewl, the rumor mongers are right. A vote towards Nader is a vote for the representantive of a party that supports a maximum wage.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
The Libertarian Party is already eligible for matching federal funds but has refused it in the last two elections. Vote for Nader/the Green Party and you will actually accomplish something. The Libertarian utopian "free market" is really not ever going to happen anyway, and I tend to hope it never does. Check out this salon article: http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/20/cust omer/index.html
Towards the end it has an interesting theory about the true free market being embodied by, of all things, Napster....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I hypothesize that Nader wants to keep the middle class right where they are."
Nader is not against the wealthy, he is against social injustice which is often committed by the rich (read: corporations) unto the public.
First of all, can we vote on the future topics of Katz's columns?
I stopped voting years ago, but this isn't surprising given that I am an anarchist. What amazes me is that a minority of Americans still bother to vote when the rest of us are smart enough to sit on our hands. It's almost like some of these folks never learn. The candidates keep promising things which they'll never deliver on and the voters keep sticking their fingers in the electrical outlet.
When you vote, you sanction the system, which doesn't make sense if you feel like it doesn't listen to you. Voting sanctions the behavior of the politicians and it sanctions the things they do in your name, which ranges from selling national forests to the logging companies to bombimg pharmaceutical plants in Sudan. If you don't like these things, then it makes sense to abstain from participating in a process that makes it seem like this all is normal.
Anarchists don't vote because we are opposed to the state and capitalism. We don't want any leaders telling us how to live our lives, so it doesn't make sense to participate in a sham process to choose new masters. It doesn't take an anarchist to point out that the current American two party system is controlled by big business. In fact, if you look at any American foreign policy decision, the U.S. guvmint will always do what is best for business, even if it means supporting dictators like Suharto, Pinochet, Marcos, and our favorite bad boy, Saddam Hussein.
So, don't vote on Election Day. Instead, become an activist and start working with other people to make changes happen. You can whine about the corporations controlling the domain system through lawsuits, or you can create an alternative. You can wait for the guvmint to slap Microsoft's wrist, or you start working with thousands of others to create alternatives like Linux.
For more info: http://www.infoshop.org/voting.html
</SouthPark>
I think that the most important thing a president does is make lifetime appointments of supreme court judges. Everything else is really more up to the house and the senate than the president themselves. Even military decisions are (hopefully) made more by advisors than the president.
So pick a candidate that will pick judges who will uphold your view of the constitution, and vote that way.
I pay taxes to Uncle Sam, but get no vote. Tee hee.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
I live in a state that is going to vote for Bush whether I like it or not. That means he gets 100% of our electoral votes. The candidates know it too. We haven't gotten a visit from either of them, just their running mates. As a result my vote is best used for Nader. Voting for political change to get us out of this two party system. If Nader gets enough of a percentage of the national vote, the green party will get federal support for the next election. That is a win in my book. Cheers LarryZ
Read the following passage, and if you still don't feel as though you should care to steer the United States of America toward a better, brighter future by voting for the candidates you agree with most, then I genuinely feel sorry for you.
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
______________________________
Eric Krout
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
If you are in the *business* of doing scientific research, then the things you are researching are only things in which there will be a clear, efficient monetary reward for doing that research. The whole point of getting the public to fund research is to broaden public knowledge and to research things that may or may not have an immediate payoff but might be good things to know anyway.
But hey, that's fine. There can't really be much worth knowing outside of how to make more money. And once the Libertarians are in power, everyone will get to make as much money as possible. Everyone will be free, provided they have money. And if they don't have money, it can only be because they're lazy.
So tell me, Mr. Capitalism=freedom, how free am I when the businessmen are in control? How free am when I can't make a copy of some music some dead guy made? How free am I if someone else owns everything, from the water I drink, to the air I breathe?
--
share and enjoy
"Oh, but wait. They told me [Evil Politician X] could win this election, and that only I could stop him. I have to figure out who is going to come in second and give him one more vote, so that he will win instead of X."
Really? Well, how do you determine which of the candidates is going to come in second?
"The man on the TV says so. They have it all figured out. See, there's only two candidates, and if you don't vote for either of them, they just add a vote to whichever candidate you like least."
I see. And do you always do what the man on the TV tells you to? No, don't tell me, I can guess. Well, enjoy the new fall lineup, I hear they have some great shows for you this year!
--
share and enjoy
: some music some dead guy made?
Oh please. How would less government cause this to happen?
Not less government, but the kind of government that serves only business' interests and not the public's interests, which I felt the previous poster was in favor of.
How could it happen? It's already happened in the United States. Large corporations lobby the government to extend the period of time an artist's work is copyrighted. (A power of the government explicitly stated in the constitution.) As a result, despite there being no benefit to the person who actually created the work, I have to pay for the right to have a copy of a song written by someone who has been dead for years.
: How free am I if someone else owns everything,
: from the water I drink, to the air I breathe?
You imply that public ownership is preferrable to private ownership. Communism?
Some things are better if they are privately owned. Some things are better if they are publicly owned. Some can go either way. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out which are which.
By 'Commmunism?' I assume you mean the following argument, which I find false for reason which should be evident.
Communism is the public ownership of all property. Communism is bad. Therefore, the private ownership of all property must be as good as Communism is bad.
--
share and enjoy
I do not believe people do not vote because of apathy, or out of protest (at least not many). Most people that do not vote, do so because they realize that it in no way empowers them. In today political climate, it takes vast sums of money to have any influence at all with politicians. This basically breaks down to two groups with any political power at all. Special interest groups and corporations. So, if you vote, you are really voting for which corporations and special interest groups you wish to see run the country. I am voting for Harry Browne, because he actually represents my views. If the libertarians did not have a candidate, I probably would not vote.
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
So, yes, libertarians, I guess you must really be enamored of the idea of using a totally proprietary closed-sourced netowrk system developed by Microsoft or whoever, (AOL?). I agree with the lib's point of view of personal freedom, but their black-and-white view of all government is bad is freaky to me.
The thought of private police forces send chills up my spine, and it should yours as well. The 'invisible hand' is not something to rely on.
I will vote this year, I always do. I am conflicted, however. I am very liberal in general, but I am also an exception. I am a gun owner, and the democrats seem to have been taken over by hysterical cultural types who think gun owners are all potential mass murderers. Unfortunately, the only party that seems to have a handle on the 2nd amendment seem to be the repubs, but I'll be damned if I vote for them, because they want to outlaw abortions and teach my kids bogus "creation science". So what's a guy to do? Vote for a third party candidate that's a little more together? I dunno. Luckily I live on the west coast, so if I wait to vote until later that day, I can safely vote for the candidate that most appeals to me. Otherwise, I'll go for Gore, because I believe that at the end of the day, he'll do less damage. Privatization is not a silver bullet. Talk to the British about privatization, and all the wonderful 'benefits' it has bestowed on them.
-----------------------------------------------
Surface dwellers can be so stupid.
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
Your statement only reflects the notion that you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING about...- -----------------
---------------------------------------
Surface dwellers can be so stupid.
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
However, I will be truckin' my cookies down to the polls because I want to make sure that my state assembly rep wins. I know her and think she's been doing a great job, and she's not even affiliated with ANY political party. I want to vote against school vouchers, which are on the ballot here in California. Remember folks, there's more than just the president on that ballot. There really is stuff on there that matters, that will affect you. Think what would happen if you didn't vote, and the next thing you know, the school board, which got filled with religious nuts because you couldn't be bothered to vote, takes the theory of evolution out of the curriculum. You'd be kicking yourself! Think of your town, your state, stuff that really does affect you.
So the point is, you don't even HAVE to vote for the prez. If you don't like any of them, then just don't make any selections in that portion of the ballot. But not voting is in a very real way giving up your say in local matters as well as federal matters. So vote, or don't vote, but realize that voting *does* affect your life.- --------------
------------------------------------------
Surface dwellers can be so stupid.
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
That's treason.- -----------------
---------------------------------------
Surface dwellers can be so stupid.
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
Napster gets an injunction thrown on it.
People whine.
The MPAA goes after DeCSS.
People complain.
Microsoft uses its influence to get unfiar treatment in the court.
People cry out.
George Bush pulls ahead in the polls with a position that supports all three of these things.
Kind of quiet around here lately...
I'm not telling you to go vote for the hell of it. Just get out there. Who cares if Al Gore invented the internet, (He never said that by the way.) he's not an IT professional, he is trying to lead the ultimate open source project here. American government. By the people, for the people, so where are you?
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
It's pretty funny that you're associating people bankrupcies with "socialism" (you obviously don't know what socialism is anyway), 'cause America is, among the rich nations, the one in which the percentage of household indebtment and bankrupcies is by far the highest (and growing fast, too).
This is not very surprising: people are told that the economy is great, and they get blindly confident and consume more than ever, whereas they're in fact not richer than before, since this "prosperity" only benefits to the 10-20% wealthiest since 1975.
The best way to make your vote more effective is to encourage other people to NOT vote. The fewer votes cast, the more your vote is worth.
As a side note, US presidents have bombed a different country every two years, on average, since World War II. The only president who didn't have a bombing campaign was Carter. Note that he wasn't reelected.
If you really want to make the president elect nervous, try voting for a "third party" (as opposed to 4th party, 5th party, or 6th party?) candidate. Nothing says, "many of the people don't like you" more than an election won with 35% of the vote.
I don't believe it is our right nor our duty to enact 'shuttle diplomacy'. I was raised overseas, and believe me, they hate the fact that the US feels it has to meddle because they are somehow incapable of solving their own problems. This causes the rest of the world to become dependant on us and then we have to continue doing it or risk disrupting the world. It is dangerous for us and for them: for us because we have to spend an ever-increasing amount on this shuttle diplomacy; for them because they are dependant on us and if we quit, they can't solve their own problems.
The only compelling reason for US intervention is direct affront to any of our concerns in the area. Kuwait being attacked is a clear case of vested interest because of the oil situation. Kuwait could have certainly afforded to buy a better army, but they did not. We rescued them because the spectre of an Iraqi controlled oilflow was terrible indeed. George Bush enlisted the support of the UN first, scoring big points.
Since then, Clinton has been all over the place dealing with issues the US shouldn't deal with and doing it unilaterally for the most part, sometimes in direct opposition to the UN.
As a person who was abroad at the time Clinton got elected, I can't convey the total shock felt by people overseas at George Bush's loss. He was clearly the best foreign policy president since Jimmy Carter.
As to Al Gore being adept at foreign policy, I seriously doubt it. I don't think GW would be very good, either, but GW has Dick Cheney, part of his dad's team. If you're going to vote foreign policy, Dick Cheney is your man, and I'm certain GW would have no problem taking his advice.
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
Bush doesn't pass because he's stupid enough to believe that we can spend $50-200 billion on a missle defense and get something useful in return. Moreover, he thinks it's ok to abrogate the ABM treaty we initiated in 1972. Back then, we were smart enough to realize that a missle defense is pointless. You either overwhelm it like Eisenhower overwhelmed Hitler's Atlantic Wall or you go around it like Hitler circumvented the Maginot line. This country doesn't need another arms race and yet Bush is stupid enough to think our abrogating the ABM treaty won't start one.
So in a nutshell, the two main candidates this year are not getting my vote. I will vote this year, but it'll be for one of the minority candidates.
I am voting for Ralph Nader because I don't think that a corporation comes before the common good of humans. I also find fundamental wrong in candidates that use scare tactics (Bush, Buchanan) and smoke and mirrors (Will the real Al Gore PLEASE stand up) to get me to vote for them. I want it straight. That's why I respect Jesse Ventura and that's why my vote's with Nader. Nader has been a black eye to corporate America for years, no wonder why he's not debating. That's why I am voting.
the deacon...that's all you need to know for now
Look at what happens in countries like Zimbabwe when a dictator calls elections: despite outrageous political violence perpetrated by the ruling party, turnout was huge: over 90%, I believe. If people want change, they vote.
It seems possible that low turnout is a sign that people are relatively happy with their government
But it's a trade-off. Gore is more likely to ensure that your protected from Big Business, while Bush will allow Corporations to run you down because he wants government to mind it's own business. Yet, at the same time personal liberties will be diminished by a Bush administration. Freedom of religion will be down the tubes because he sold his soul to Right-Wing-Religious-Radicals. Good Bye Roe v. Wade.
Now some tell me I should vote for Nader. But the truth is he's just stealing votes from Gore. There is no possibility he will win and the people going to his side would have "settled" for Gore otherwise. Right now the polls are too much in Bush's favor for me to vote Nader. Besides, I believe someone posted here a while back that Nader fought for mandatory airbags in cars. Why would I want someone in office you thinks something that takes more lives than it saves is good. Might as well vote for Charlton Heston.
Besides, on the Daily Show's interview with Nader last week, he, too, said that although he says Gore and Bush are the same, he thinks Gore is the better of the two.
I want you to know that I voted for Bradley.
It is very important to vote. It is not important to vote for anyone. By going into the voting booth and not selecting anyone, you are sending a message that "I am here and ready to vote as soon as you give me someone worthwhile." By not voting at all, you are saying "I don't care, do whatever you want." Just go in, close the curtain, open the curtain and leave. (Or take the ballot and return it blank).
Voting a blank has a very powerful meaning, especially when "blank" starts to win. When that happens, someone other than tweedle dee or tweedle dum will be emboldened enough to step forward and run. After all, he or she may be able to count on all those "blanks" that have started to win.
This has already started to happen in my city council district. The other half of the district always votes solidly for Mr. I'veBeenHereThirtyYears, whereas my half of the district votes for "blank" by a 3-1 margin. Our district is gerrymandered in such a way as to make the vote from my half of the district irrelevant, but next year is redistricting and that is where all of this can be addressed. There is no reason that this can not be the case on the state and national level as well.
The real problem is that we elect idiots to the legislative branch. Smart people realize you shouldn't spend more than you make. They're running businesses, making money, and want nothing to do with politics. They realize that the right thing to do is not always the popluar thing to do. When they do run, they make horrible candidates because they piss-off interest groups and get bad press. So who do we elect? Morons. Whishy-washy people that can't balance their check-book, let alone the budget, and make decisions based polls and popularity rather than what's right and best for the country.
But how can we get decent people elected? By the time they are ready to be supported by the major parties, they have been corrupted already by special interests and the system.
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
Remember, even a "centrist" Republican, Nixon, appointed Rehnquist, a man who never saw a big business he didn't like (unless they were in litigation against an even bigger business). This embrace of corporatism, not the Bible-thumpers, is the real soul of Republicanism.
For me, it's not so much a vote for Gore as it is a sure-fire vote against more Republican/corporate judges and Justices.
Concerning the presidential election, you have many choices as to what you can do with your vote, in spite of the conventional wisdom that you only have two choices: 1) vote for one of the two major candidates, as the winner will most likely be one of those two candidates; 2) vote for one of the third party candidates on the ballot in your state because you want to send a message that that candidate's position is most in alignment with yours; 3) write in someone who is not on the ballot, perhaps someone who was in the race and dropped out, someone who you think should have run, or yourself.
I don't think that the second or third options are altogether bad, and I don't consider them to be "wasted votes"; I call them "message votes". While you must know when casting such a vote that your candidate is not going to win, you are at least expressing your opinion and, if enough other people do the same, you are sending a message that may influence things the next time around; this is far better than not voting, which to me sends the message "I don't care".
For me though, I will go with the first option. I don't think that either of the two major candidates is perfect, but I do know that one of them will win, and I choose to use my vote to influence which of the two it will be. After spending a lot of time reading up on the issues that I care about and the candidates positions, I believe that George W. Bush is the better of the two, by a long shot.
I think the key is to think about the question "What exactly does a president do?" and then ask "Which candidate can do that best?" My take on the most important things that a president does is this: amongst other things, the President is responsible for working with the Congress to create and pass legislation; he appoints and directs an administration of people that will carry out the functions of the various departments of the executive branch; he is responsible for determining how the United States presents itself to the rest of the world, both politically and militarily; and he is responsible, as the focal point of our government, for projecting the image of what we as a nation stand for. In the context of these duties, I believe that Gov. Bush is more capable of performing the task than any other candidate running for President (including the third party candidates). I'll expand on each of these below.
Regarding the ability to work with Congress, Bush has a track record of being able to work with both parties in Texas (for example, he was endorsed by the Democratic Lt. Governor there). Much has been made of personality and likeability in this race; for a long time I ignored this issue, thinking that I didn't really care if I like a guy or not, I care more about how he does his job. Once it occurred to me that a significant part of the President's job is working with others, I realized that there is something important about personality. I know from experience that I work harder for and cooperate better with bosses and peers that I get along with on a personal level. The easier it is for the Congress to get along with the President, the more he will be able to accomplish. Like it or not, leadership has a great deal to do with getting along with people personally, and I believe that Bush wins this issue hands down.
The next task, appointing and directing the members of his administration is another area where I think Bush wins. He has executive-level experience in both the private sector and as Governor, and has been successful in both realms. We have already seen a glimpse of the kind of people Bush will surround himself with: Cheney, who has experience with the military, served in Congress, and was part of two prior White House administrations fills in several of the so-called gaps in Bush's resume; Colon Powell, who obviously has strong military experience; and Condeleeza Rice (sorry if I misspelled that) has an incredible grasp of foreign policy and the role that the United States should play in the world (if you didn't see her speech at the Republican convention, you missed seeing a truly impressive human being). A leader can only succeed if he is not too proud to surround himself with a strong network of capable individuals - I believe that Bush has shown that he will do that.
The next point, that he is responsible for determining how the United States presents itself to the rest of the world, both politically and militarily may be the most important duty of all. It is easy to ignore this or downplay it in times of domestic peace, but it is foolish to do so. Bush understands and respects the fact that we need to strengthen our military and stop extending it all over the world. Bush believes that we must be strong so we can defend ourselves and our allies when they need our support, but we must also realize that we cannot deploy our forces as a means of bullying other nations to start doing things our way. I loved the answer he gave in the second debate about how other nations should view the US: "It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't - I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us." Then later he said "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it gotta be.' We can help. And may it's just our difference in government - the way we view government. I mean, I want to empower people. I don't - you know, I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, 'We do it this way; so should you.'"
The last point, that he is responsible, as the focal point of our government, for projecting the image of what we as a nation stand for has become more important to me now that I am a parent. While Bush is no Libertarian, he is certainly an advocate of a smaller, less intrusive federal government than that which Gore would like to implement. Gov. Bush is also an advocate of individual responsibility and accountability. I know, especially amongst the Slashdot crowd, many of you were put off by the "Internet" comment - I know, I bristled at that myself; but I must say that as a new parent, I have started to look at the media (including the net) a little differently. I absolutely believe that it is up to each parent to be aware of what their kids are up to and what they are exposed to, and I don't want to censor anyone, but I also know that it is not physically possible to sit with each of my kids and monitor every bit of every TV show, movie, video game, and web site they see. Bush made a point that exactly reflects my philosophy in the third debate when he said "I happen to like the idea of having technology for the TV, easy for parents to use, so you can tune-out these programs that you don't want in your house. But I'm going to remind moms and dads, the best weapon is the off/on button and paying attention to your children, and eating dinner with them..." That, to me, speaks volumes. I believe that Bush is an honest and genuine man who is capable of making the office of the President respectable again.
You may disagree with the points above about which of the President's duties is most important, and you may disagree about which candidate can best address those duties, but I encourage you to consider you vote in the same way that I did. Think about what your vote means and how you want to use it, think about which of the President's responsibilities you consider to be most important, and then think about which candidate can best live up to those responsibilities. Then remember to vote.
I have voted this way before. Never again. There is no such thing as the lesser of two evils in this election. Both Gore and Both scare the living s*** out of me. To me, the only real choice you have is Nader or Browne. Voting for Browne is voting to throw out the last 75 years of illegal laws and beauracracy.
-bluebomber
The Daily Build
Oh yeah, I forgot that the only reason Bush is the Republican candidate is because he won in NH. Wait, we voted for McCain. Now I remember, Bush is the Republican candidate because he raised INSANE amounts of money before a single vote had been cast. Forget the primaries, Bush was anointed two years ago by the GOP Money Machine and The Media.
You say that lots of people fail to respect the First Amendment. Hey, there's nine others in the Bill of Rights! Too many people forget about the Second, the Fourth, the Fifth (both halves), and the Sixth. And don't even get me started on the Ninth (overused) and Tenth (ignored for the past 90 years).
-bluebomber
The Daily Build
I think Nader's brand of government has been tried a few times. They called it Communism. It didn't work. Ok, maybe Communism is too harsh. Let's call it Socialism, currently practised in varying degrees all over Europe (and to a slightly lesser extent in the US). Now, someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the health care system in Britain and elsewhere on the Continent just plain suck? I've heard horror stories about waiting lists and people (read: "rich", desperate people) needing to go overseas (read: the US) to have not-uncommon medical procedures performed.
Don't get Browne's politics mixed up. He most certainly would cut federal funding to hospitals and abortion clinics. He'd also cut highway funding, school funding, and funding for every other ILLEGAL federal program. Funding hospitals and roads and schools is NOT the job of the Federal Government. It is in fact prohibited by the Constitution, which was ignored for most of the 20th Century. Why do you want someone in (INSERT NAME OF FAR-AWAY STATE HERE) dictating how people in (INSERT YOUR LOCALITY HERE) should run their hospitals!???!
-bluebomber
The Daily Build
Good way to stay impartial and not single out one canidate! Your unbiased views never cease to amaze me. I like how you never try to sway a converstaion one way or the other.
_______
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
When choosing a candidate, one should do one's best to select one who will uphold the Constitiution.
In this election we have a choice between a Communist and a Socialist. Doesn't sound like fun to me. The candidates who actually support the Constitution and the principles therein never get enough support in the primaries to stand a chance. Why? Because they say things that people don't want to hear. Things like "Parents are resposible for their children's behavior." Something to think about.
I want to leave this last thing with you. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.
PerlStalker
They aren't rigged to make you think that you're a libertarian. The questions are objective and concise. Believe it or not, not everyone who goes to that site ends up being categorized as a Libertarian. The goal of the smallest political quiz is to give people an idea of where they stand in the political diamond. Many people have libertarian approaches to government but don't realize it.
Unless voting is made compulsory you cannot claim that you have a democracy. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I believe its true. Unless everyone is forced to express an opinion then the elected Goverment cannot claim to have a mandate from all the people. They can only claim that the people that bothered to vote gave them a mandate. All too often the people not voting are those most in need of help or assistance from the Government.
With the majority of voters being middle class to rich, they are obviously going to vote for the party that makes them better off, usually at the expense of the marginalised classes in society. A compulsory vote would force the major parties to direct attention at these other voters.
I'm *not* advocating that everyone must choose a party. They should be forced to go to the polling booth. If they elect to put a blank ballot in the box - so be it. Thats a vote to say "No party is good enough". Hopefully, if this "informal" vote is high enough politicians will have to pay attention. Cynics would say it doesn't matter to the politicians. But if they have any credibility it would.
One downside though, in Australia (which has compulsory Federal and State voting) the "informal" vote has been increasing and the politicians keep saying they will make the ballot paper easier to use. I think they are missing the point...
You don't have to be a doper to understand the the War On Drugs is every bit as stupid and destructive as was the 18th Amendment. You don't have to be a mathemetician to figure out that your paycheck is being sliced up to buy influence in foreign nations. And you don't have to be a pacifist to start wondering why the hell our military is deployed in such huge numbers in Europe and Asia. The only candidate on the ballot who would work to bring an end to these things is Harry Browne.
If you don't like the status quo, you should vote. Especially if your conscience dictates that you vote for a candidate who is not in a position to win the election. Why? Votes are more than just votes, they are voices. Important voices. Get those "third party" candidates some votes this time, and maybe we'll hear more from them next time. Prove that the People don't care, and the media will run the next election just as surely as they're running this one.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
This is not good science, this is not good politics. This is not how things are done when they are done right. The man is extreme and does not allow respectful dissent from his views.
Bush is not perfect. However, I feel I can trust him. The President acts on behalf of the people of the U.S. Those people darn well better be able to trust the President to do what's right.
Example: Lincoln was willing to stand for what was right, even knowing it could cost him his life. We need more leadership like this.
Further, I think Bush can communicate and build relationships across party lines (a la Reagan).
While he is not perfect, I think Bush is the candidate that is closest to being a true leader. I believe he can be trusted. That is why I will vote for Bush.
Hey i agree with you. The U.S. is ran by rich dumbass. That for some unknown reason 80% of the U.S. votes for. As if we even need our over inflated goverment. But the majority are sheep. Bah!
Andy's a Gimp 10-4
Personally, I will be voting for Bush. While I don't agree with everything he says, he shares my beliefs more than any of the other candidates.
Actually, I'd like to hear from all the candidate supporters on why they want to vote for a candidate (but not why other candidates shouldn't be in office).
Also, what does Nader want to help the middle class to become? It is my understanding Nader doens't like the wealthy, correct my if I'm wrong. I hypothesize that Nader wants to keep the middle class right where they are.
--
For the first eighteen years of my life, all I could do was exercise my right to free speech and complain about our government.
On a clear disk you can seek forever
Gore's stance on the environment is "laudable but too extreme"??? How about Bush's stance which is essentially "fuck the environment." Seems to me the choice is pretty clear. Perhaps you need to go reread The Lorax.
On a clear disk you can seek forever
Vote Nader!
On a clear disk you can seek forever
Okay, first things first. I don't just think in one state of mind/view or other. Some cases, i'm liberal; other times, i'm as conservative as anyone could sanely be; so, least to say, i don't have a political party preference. With that out, i think it's hard to say who i'll vote for. One of the more recent articles talking about how all the presidential candidates were doing the usual ignorant "oh, it's the video games, RPGs, movies, TV, ..." speeches made me think of how i was going to prepare to vote.
My decision right now is to read up off and on, especially during a couple weeks before election day, on all possible candidates i can vote for and take as many notes as reasonably possible. Being that i don't read mainstream media (due to possible "filtration" of articles; i prefer my slashdot, Wired and Playboy, thank you), i don't have a stand right now, let alone any major notes.
All i can say now is that the article from Yahoo! Internet news (from a very recent post made) opened my eyes to how i thought of Gore. I say this only because the lines of bullshit i normally expect from a politician was down to a minimal. Most can lie there way out of anything, and being i'm a professional B.S. myself (i do phone technical support :) ), i can usually spot it; with Gore, it seemed to be at a minimal. But, hey, it's still early so we'll see which lesser of the evils i'll vote for.
Now, if i don't find anyone i really prefer (who shares most of my ideas), i'll keep my eyes open for that "great hopeful" that might be the next big president who's worth more then ten cents. From what i recall from my history classes (yes, not toooo much, really), we haven't had a great president in at least fifty years. But hey, i'm not up with all the gospel/gossip/... on all the presidents since Kennedy so maybe there was one. In any rate, when i see that next one, i'm going to support that SOB with what i can spare, hoping that he can pass all the B.S. enough to not get corrupt.
We can only hope, no?
Just read the platform on the issues and see if they don't take the circus out of the surreal election we have this year. http://www.lp.org Libertarians, for the constitution doesn't make provision for anyone to have their hands in each others bank accounts to fund an endless cycle of dependency-creating gubbermint programs. Read also, Brave New World and see how scarily similar we are drifting toward that scenario. Both the idiot can-duh-tits we have to chose from this year keep us drifting towards the special-ineterest-group dominated society..... ehhhhhh, enough rant. think for yourselves folks. That is what neither candidate will ask of you. CKS
for a change, I may actualy vote this time. The race is close enough that the extra votes could make a diference. Both the candidates are a little nuts, but Gore is the bad-crazy kind of nuts where Bush is the bumbling-nuts. Gore's stand on the enviorment is laudable, but rather too extreme for my point of view.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
I'm mixed on the electoral college issue, and see you're one-sided, so I'll share my views.
If Germany had an electoral college, we would never have seen the likes of Hitler. Our Founding Fathers knew that people as a whole are largely un-educated. A lack of knowledge can leave a nation suceptible to the election of a radical candidate who has an EMOTIONAL swing, which can bring about change in a nation much faster than we are prepared to handle.
What the electoral college does for us, is ensure that educated Americans choose candidates. This ensures a slower acceptance of change, which although some may see as bad, can also be good when you take into consideration the Nazi movement in Germany. Today, most Germans are ashamed of what their nation did. They changed too rapidly.
Not to play on words, but the entire point of the electoral college is to stop the presidency from becoming a popularity contest, as opposed to an informed election process.
I agree, it can be frustrating, but it serves an important component in our society. Our Founding Fathers had seen the changes that can radically sweep the likes of Europe, and this fear later materialized in Germany. The question is, with sometimes less than HALF of our population voting, it shows we could still be severely in danger of a popular-alternative candidate winning the election. Fortunately, the electoral college wouldn't let that happen.
JoshuaI really find this entire thread of rediculous pretense. Katz posts the article based on two technical areas spoken by the candidates. If anyone is voting because Bush knows what an MP3 is, or because Al "Invented the Internet" it is rediculous.
What is important is that people research the issues that are important to them. For me, the candidate's economic plans, taxes, schools, and social security are important to me. Anyone who thinks anyone who runs for office is going to have any sort of CLUE about technical issues needs to get real. Their stance is to be reflected in their economic plan.
Lastly, some may need to get real. Obviously, either Gore or Bush will be the president, and we're stuck with the electoral college, so your vote DOES mean less than most presume. Is it worth voting for the lesser of two evils if you support a third-party candidate? Personally, I think Brown of the Libertarian party is more in line with my political vision, but he doesn't stand a prayer. In lieu of this, I'll likely vote for Bush, to ensure he makes office. The question is, am I helping to stifle the Libertarian voice by making it seem more insignificant than it already is?
JoshuaAfter being a voting zealot for my first 22 years on the planet, I did not vote in the 1996 elections. Why? Because my vote does not count.
There are two reasons for this:
1) The Stamp Act in 1765 brought about the issue of "No Taxation without Representation". It was the cornerstone idea of the American Revolution. Yet those of us who live in the American capital are not represented by a voting member in Congress. We have a non-voting "delegate" who has no real power to cause positive change for her constituents.
2) We have an electoral vote in Washington DC, so surely I can vote for president, right? Wrong. You see, I am a Republican, and Republicans make up 6% of the voting population of this city. Democrats consistently win not only the electoral vote, but all public offices as well. I cannot complain about the fairly held local elections: the majority should rule and I fully support that idea, even though the Democrats re-elected a convicted felon for mayor several times (Marion Barry). My complaint is with the electoral process in presidential elections that affords votes according to state, rather than according to person. One who lives in a hopelessly liberal or conservative state does not have any say in the election -- the outcomes of those states have been pre-determined.
I am almost hoping for Bush to win the popular vote, and Gore to win the electoral vote. I am hoping that the electoral college will come crashing down in this election's wake. Most citizens have forgotten completely about the electoral college since the day they learned about it in the fourth grade. The media barely helps, touting public opinion polls that do not reflect the true process -- the only polls that matter are within states that "count" -- those that are hedging on their vote.
Some of you who live in "battleground" states may be surprised to hear that I have not seen a *single* commercial for one presidential candidate or the other. After all, why should they spend money to convince undecided voters in a state whose outcome is already decided?
Maybe I shouldn't complain -- maybe I'm lucky that I don't have to see the dark side of these campaigns in sleazy television ads.
And maybe I shouldn't complain -- if Washington DC had a voting member in Congress, that vote would certainly belong to a Democrat, thereby undermining many of the programs I believe in as a Republican.
But I AM complaining, because this country was founded on fairness and equality, and those ideals have been lost in the political process. One voice, one vote.
By the way, I'm moving to Maryland next month. :)
For more info on Taxation without Representation, see the DC Votes site.
My leanings are more Libertarian than anything else, but the party is run by impractical idealists. They keep shooting for the moon (the Presidency) without making a serious attempt to build a base at the local and state levels. Even if by some miracle Harry Brown managed to get himself elected, he'd be facing a Congress comprising nothing but the opposition, each and every one of whom would have his destruction as the main objective. That's no way to get your agenda passed. If Libertarians want to get their ideas adopted, they should be getting themselves elected to school boards, county commissioner, city attorney, state senator, etc. before taking a shot at the higher jobs. So, the next best party to promote my beliefs at the higher office levels are Republicans, flawed and usually spineless as they are.
...is voting like choosing between hanging and frying.
In my eyes as an "impartial", foreign observers I see both the candidates as wide-assed conservatives.
To you Americans, my condolances, no matter who gets elected.
Geir L K
We're better off building on those conversations and further exploring how everyone (tech-heads included) can play a bigger part in shaping government.
Quite honestly if someone answers "No, we shouldn't vote," I don't care what they have to say. They are not part of the process and their opinions matter very little since they are unwilling to use what power they are given to effect the process.
If you do not even go your probably just telling yourself your making a statement and are really just lazy (at least that is me). Also the presidential race is not the only one to think about, there should be at least one local election that has a good canidate to throw your sopport behind.
The recomendation to campaign is good if you really do support a canidate, a few hours there could easily make the difference of 10 or 20 votes, and thats impact.
anyway, I probably just sound like an idiot, all that I really wanted to say was that if you don't at least go to the voting booth your probably just a lazy fuck, and not making a statement.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
One individual probably doesn't make much difference, but helping turn out a large number of people probably does. What if the Slashdot "community" ever got organized? It would be interesting if a consituency as large as Slashdot readers decided to vote as a bloc... like a union or say, the Cubans in Miami or the Hassidic community in New York City. To have the community endorse a candidate would be a prize to be vied. Imagine how seriously the candidates would take questions from geeks if they knew that the right answers, right promises, and a record of passing good, geek-friendly laws would guarantee hundreds of thousands of votes and a bit of soft money. And if they knew they would lose that if they crossed us.
Now just at to that a GNU PAC to lobby The Hill and we're in business.
Actually, it's determined by the electoral college, which is influenced by voting, to a point. I might also add that the presidency is the most affected by votes... but it still comes down to money - many votes are bought.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
I've been using a computer since I was 10. I've been playing doom and doom like games since I was about 13. Now at 17, I have no desire to bring a gun to school and shoot everyone that calls me a dork. i know I'm a dork, and i'm very proud to be one. It shows that I think for myself and don't accept the propaganda that my teachers spit out at me. Any presidential candidate that tries to blame bad parenting on violent games is a blind moron. To some degree, repetual playing of violent games can numb the senses...but I still cry when bambi's mother died. I still laugh at Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. So trying to label me as goth just because I play violent video games is well....
doug
-a.thought.crushed.my.mind-
Of course a likely effect of abstention is that of the other elections taking place (Senate etc) the candidate you least prefer could get elected. Sure they may get elected anyway but at least you'd have done your best.
If you do decide to abstain make sure it's for a *good* reason (apathy isn't a reason).
That is correct. The government should never have started babysiting these people, and it's time to stop. What should these people do? Seek help from churches, charities, and communities. These entities are better suited to meeting their individual needs and getting them back on their feet.
As for Social Security, Browne's plan is to continue paying Social Security to those already dependant on it. He will do this out of a privately (not government) managed fund filled with money saved from the trimming of excess government. Everyone is better off if we end Social Security. Refer to the study I linked to in my last post.
On Selling off the Environment: "I want to pay off the federal debt by auctioning off the assets the government shouldn't own -- western lands, power companies, unused military bases, and commodity reserves." I am assuming this includes National Forest lands, BLM lands, perhapes even National Wilderness Areas. This is almost as bad as Bush wanting to drill in the ANWR. Selling these lands in auction essentially to the highest corporate bidder could possibly close many of them to public use.
Yes. Individuals are better suited to care for those lands than the government. Been to a national forest recently? They're filthy. Besides, no one said that your community can't, as a community, purchase a large chunk of forest for your use.. Or your state, for that matter. But the federal government has no business doing it. (It is unconstitutional). Besides, private land management can provide better care for the land.
On closing down federal programs: "The federal government has no authority to be involved in any way in education, health care, welfare, law enforcement, the retirement business, or anything else the Constitution hasn't specified." Say goodbye to federal loans for education, research grants for science, national forests and parks, etc. Say hello to corporate control of the environment, massive unchecked monopolies, and an increase in federal crime becuase without federal law enforcement, who will enforce the laws of the US constitiution?
Federally funded science is bad for capitalism. Federal college loans hurt capitalism also. If there is a market for low-interest educational loans, someone will step up and provide them. But no one can compete with the federal government. Look at the increasing privatization of telecommunications - never before has it been so cheap, or you had so many options to communicate. Federal interferance in all these things hurts capitalism.
The idea of "unchecked corporations" is stupid. Who keeps them in check? The consumers. It's very simple.
without federal law enforcement, who will enforce the laws of the US constitiution?
What "laws of the US constitution?" Last I checked, the constitution was a description of government and a bill of rights for the citizens. By the way, most of the federal government today is unconstitutional, so someone is not doing a very good job of "enforcing the constitution."
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
If I am in the business of doing scientific research, it is hard for me to compete with someone who gets money from the federal government to do their research.
If I am in the business of loaning money, I lose business on the loans that the federal government provides.
Most federal social programs are bad for capitalism. For instance, Bush wants to spend a few billion dollars building government-sponsored internet huts, where anyone can come to get internet access. His reasoning is that there are many who cannot afford computers, and so they are getting locked out of all the technical innovations. I agree with him that it would be nice if everyone had access to the new technology, but government is the wrong way to do it. Capitalism will work it out. You see, there is a guy in california that put some internet connected computers in his laundramat, and customers can surf while they wash. I bet he's raking it in. I can tell you this guy isn't voting for Bush. Also, the people trying to develop low-cost internet boxes - the people targeting their products for this demographic - would now have to compete with this government program, which they would be paying for.
I know we're not talking Bush here, but I thought that was a good illustration of how government social programs harm capitalism - they make people fund things that compete with their own business ideas. Not too nice.
As far as the corporations go, it is a cycle. Say there is no government check on Microsoft. It grows big and powerful, becomes a big nasty monopoly. It squashes the competition. All of a sudden, there is no reason for it to be innovative (if it ever was :), and it gets fat and lazy. Then, out of nowhere, comes someone who is not fat and lazy, with a better product, and upsets MS's control. That is how capitalism works. Maybe it's a bit slower than the government charging in and busting things up, but it's better because it's powered by the people, innovation, and capitalism.
The record industry is already seeing some upset. It got big, fat, and lazy, and all it will take is someone to figure out how to really succeed with digital music (mp3.com, maybe, if they'd stop with this my.mp3 thing) to upset it and change things for good. The record industry as we know it will crumple when someone comes up with a system that pleases the consumer and feeds the artist.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
No, I am in favor of government that does not tell me how to live my life, as long as I don't infringe on another's right to life or property.
How could it happen? It's already happened in the United States. Large corporations lobby the government to extend the period of time an artist's work is copyrighted. (A power of the government explicitly stated in the constitution.) As a result, despite there being no benefit to the person who actually created the work, I have to pay for the right to have a copy of a song written by someone who has been dead for years.
They are able to accomplish this precisely because the government is too big, and too powerful. If the government would stay out of the free market, then corporations wouldn't be able to make laws with lobbyists and money. The government has no place interfering, and trying to babysit the economy.
Intellectual property is a sticky topic, and one on which the constitution doesn't have much to say. It would be best to rethink intellectual property and ammend the constitution - so that the government can adequately protect your right to property.
Since you're determined to talk about music, here's my take on it: There is a difference between the words to a song and a recording of a performance of that song. Once someone is dead, there is little point to granting him exclusive rights to sing a song he wrote - but, in my opinion, the recordings of his performances should remain his property, to be willed to his descendants. You must also consider that, in the performance of a song, there are many other people involved. From the engineers to the producer to the mixing engineer to the mastering engineer, all these people have "performed" with the artist to make the recording you are listening to.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
Browne has everything to do with freedom. Browne wants to get the government out of your life, in all aspects. He is completely right-wing. He is the most right-wing candidate out there. His stance on drugs is right-wing: "Get the government out of it. Quit spending your tax dollars fighting a war that puts hundreds of thousands of nonviolent people in jail." His stance on abortion is right-wing: "The government has no place to make these decisions - get it out of the way." Should the government fund hospitals and clinics? No! Let private industry compete to offer you the best hospital or clinic. Let you choose which one to go to.
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?
Social Security is a big mess. Why don't you read this study (take time to read the whole thing) and think about what it would mean for you to take all your social security taxes and invest them yourself, and make, say, 18% returns on your investment. Then, if you die at 66, guess what? Your family can inherit your savings. Under Social Security, you can work all your life, "saving" hundreds of thousands of dollars with the government, die at 66, and your wife and kids not see a penny. That's a bad investment, my friend. Read that link above. You'll be surprised at the numbers.
Furthermore, Browne is not going to dump people out on the street. If you're dependant on Social Security, you'll continue to get it until you die. Browne is not going to crap on these people - he's got a plan to take care of them.
Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there and aren't living on the wrong side of the tracks or on hard times and simply don't care about the working poor. Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Browne is great if you believe you can manage your life better than the government. If you prefer the government to be your nanny, protecting you from bad decisions and responsibility, vote for anyone else.
Browne is about people having freedom and taking responsibility for thier actions. And, by the way, if you read that article I linked to above, cutting things like Social Security will help the poor get richer.
Why don't you go read through Harry Browne's website. Read up on his ideas and his plans for implementing them before you spout off about things you aren't sure about.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
How about instead, a system where each voter gets one positive vote, and another negative vote. This would have a similar effect to what you are proposing, but would be less likely to be manipulated or tampered with. A system such as yours sounds like it would need a set of equations to work properly, and that may need to be adjusted depending on the number of candidates. This system could work no matter how many candidates there are, and would also help to keep certain parties from garnering the majority of the votes. People who vote Democrat would be likely to unvote Republican. However, voters that vote for one of the other parties, could also unvote Bush or Gore. Another system would be a two vote system, but this has the problem of giving more votes to the parties in power. By allowing the voter to have a negative vote, it will take some of the power away from the Republicans/Democrats.
No matter who's elected, the same stuff is done. A president will be elected after bashing another candidate's platform, and then turn coat and adopt it himself. And even if you don't vote, that does nothing to change it. Someone always is elected; someone always votes. Boycotting a vote may seem the best way, but, like voting for an unknown from a third party, does nothing. Democracy just doesn't work, at least not in the USA. Same old, same old.
Chris 'coldacid' Charabaruk Meldstar Entertainment
within the last 100 years, some of us weren't allowed to vote.
Even if you don't vote, get involved at some level before someone else makes all your decisions for you.
One thing I have noticed about both Bush and Gore is that they seem to have a contest on who is the most christian (or in Lieberman's case who is the most jewish.) I guess since the problems with Bill and a certian white house intern both camps seem to be trying to say they are the most moral. Now I would give my life to defend their rights to be christian, but one thing that pisses me off is that they seem to forget that there are millions of tax paying americans that aren't christian or jewish but are moral. We should have seperation of church and state -- ones religion should have no baring on a presidential election. It also pisses me off that many people think those are the only two religions one can have.
Also it seems both parties like to blame hollywood for the nation's troubles with violence. Personally I think that is because Hollywood is an easy target. We need to be careful that this doesn't lead to censorship. It seems to me that in the past people have done some crazy stuff in the name of protecting the children. Throwing out the bill of rights is no way to protect the children.
Just my $0.02.
I don't know much about elections in other countries, but I sure do know how it is done in Portugal. Whenever I find that there are no candidates that I can trust to rule I simply cast a blank vote, and I usualy urge people I know to do the same. Not voting is a way of showing that you don't care about the way things are run, it's like don't caring to live in a free country or in a dictatorship. Casting a blank vote is always a way to say "I care to vote everytime, but I don't like any of the candidates". And by the time there are more blank votes than in any other candidate, politics will have to think twice about the way they run things. This is only possible if blank votes count for your elections, here they sure do!!! -- Zedepe
PIck a person around you who's old enough to hold the office, and vote for them. If all the people who hated the current canidattes did this, there would be something like 20% of the votes for random people. That would get the basic message across - that an average joe is better equiped to run government than the lawyers we get now.
Then, be sure that if you're lucky enough to get exit polled that you give the pollster a mouthfull!
You can't complain. No matter which candidate is up there, they will never agree with you on every issue. You need to prioritize the issues and find the candidate that best meets them. Protesting the choice of candidates by not voting is counter-productive. The politicians only care about the voting public and if you don't vote, then the politicians don't care. That's why you see them pandering to the elderly, because they have the largest turnout. If demographics showed that slashdotters turned out in droves at the polling stations, they you bet that the candidates would be trying to address your concerns.
Choose a candidate. You can bitch and moan when he doesn't win, but pardon me if I don't give a shit when you say "I didn't vote because I didn't like any of the candidates".
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
I have always believed that voting just to votie is non-sence. It only helps the "powers that be" stay in power. The reason is that people who are not interested or don't know the issues cannot make an real vote -- i.e., they can't have formed a real oppinion as to who they want in office, and are practically cating random ballots. These ballots are bound to be for the major parties, thus keeping "third" parties out.
However, this does NOT mean you should not vote, and niether do the comment made by main party candidates. What all this should mean is that US citizen who are concern with these issues should consider looking at some of the third party candidates, such as Ralph Nadar or (my favorite) Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. If you don't like any one, then you probably shouldn't vote. But if you just want to keep both major candidate out of office, then please do your self a favor and vote against both of them, not let the one of them stroll into office.
Even if you vote for someone who looses, at least it was a try, and hopefully will send a message that might be noticed. And, if evey simply decides third parties can't win, they are just creating self fulfilling prophesy. I'd rather not vote than support major parties, but Iplan to vote against them both.
Analogues could apply to any democracy, I think.
Why would Gore invent both the Internet and Pants if one precludes the need for the other?
;-D
Nader, on the other hand, is not only the braver rebel, but also has taken up the causes of greatest import: The call to make companies accountable to humans. What a concept! Maybe if he gets too good, I'll eventually have to switch voting to a REAL loser, but it is his reforms and lawsuits of the established system that will provide us the freedom to do so! ;-)
What if I believe in George Bush's philosphy of small government and local control?
Then you're naive. Do you really think he'll shrink the military and allow local governments to decide not to install smut filters on school and library PC's?
Republicans use of the phrases "small government" and "local control" only applies to giving more freedom to the wealthy and to large corporations. Stop restricting the right of corporations to pollute, stop taking money from the wealthy to educate the poor, etc.
But small government and local control is forgotten when discussion shifts to "family values" and such. Prayer in schools, illegal abortions, trillion dollar defense programs, "card carrying member of the ACLU" considered bad -- these are not consistent with small government or local control.
Unfortunately the Democrats have been increasingly embracing social conservatism, which doesn't really leave any option for people who really like the idea of a free country.
-- Sigs are for losers
Vote Gore! Slightly less evil than Bush!
-- Sigs are for losers
If you don't vote because your vote doesn't matter that is fine. The American voting system and gerrymandered districts are designed to make your vote almost always meaningless. But only if you do other meaningful political activity. If you participated in the Seattle riots you really don't have to vote. But if voting is the only political action you contemplate ( except for reading this), your not voting means that the meaninglessness of your vote means nothing to you, so don't complain about the system, because you are the problem!
-- look, cheese ahoy!
I am voting for Gore.
I agree with a comment made by someone the other day in a recent post about how the President is more of a figurehead than actual hands-on leader. However, a figurehead is meant to lead by example so that the people do what they (the figurehead) think is the right thing. The one thing that struk me about the debates (I watched the 1st and 3rd in their entirety) were 2 things: Bush's evasiveness, esp in the 3rd, and Gore's willingness to admit when he didnt know something. More important than what someone does know is that they know what they do not know -- that is why the President has a cabinet. For example, its not the President that rebuilds the military, its the person he chooses as his Secretary of Defense. Picking the right advisors is what makes a President effective at doing his job on a day-to-day basis.
When it does come to personal ideals of the candidates, the one way they are very powerful at leaving a "legacy" is through Supreme Court appointments. In the next 4 years, there will very likely be 2, 3 or even 4 new justices appointed. Aside from whatever the media chooses as its "hot issues" of the campaign, I like Gore's forwardlookingness rather than Bush's protectionism.
I saw Gore speak in 88 at my HS and was impressed (disclaimer: sure, I was young and so more impressionable, but other speakers that impressed me: Mike Dukakis, Elizabeth Dole; those that did not: Dick Gephardt, Ron Paul, and George Bush, who was actually heckled for his evasiveness; Alexander Haig was simply scary -- I grew up in NH so had a unique opportunity). This year, both candidates have the wrong view with many of the issues we care about, but I feel much more comfortable in the fact that Gore seems more willing to listen to what we have to say and to learn what we have to teach him about filtering, the DMCI, etc...
I do think we are better off than we were 8 years ago, and I dont think 4 more years of the same is a bad thing. I also think we should start thinking about 40 years from now in our policymaking rather than what is good for me today. The big issue for me is so-called "oil crisis" we are having. Gore wants to find alternate fuels. Bush wants to drill for more and ignore the fact that it is a limited resource. If we started working on alternate fuels the last time we had this problem, we wouldnt be having it again now.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
I am concerned about our government and our society sacrificing individual rights. From what I've heard, the next president will probably get the oppurtunity to appoint several Supreme Court justices. Who gets appointed to the Supreme Court will have a huge impact on our country. It will quite possibly have a bigger impact on individual rights than any presidential policies or campaign promises.
Whatever candidate you support, I was wondering if
If we could agree on that much at least, then we would go a long way towards safeguarding our freedoms.
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
I am concerned about our government and our society sacrificing individual rights. From what I've heard, the next president will probably get the oppurtunity to appoint several Supreme Court justices. Who gets appointed to the Supreme Court will have a huge impact on our country. It will quite possibly have a bigger impact on individual rights than any presidential policies or campaign promises. Whatever candidate you support, I was wondering if /. readers could agree that concerns over individual rights should be the chief issue that people use to make the decision over who gets elected.
If we could agree on that much at least, then we would go a long way towards safeguarding our freedoms.
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
Definitely. I hear people all the time saying, "I want lower taxes." People agree that we don't need to spend $300 B on defense, they agree that Social Security is rotten, they agree that they don't want to spend $50 K/yr on people that smoke pot, but they vote Democrat b/c they feel Clinton/Gore care about them, or they vote Republican because they believe that's good for the stock market. They don't vote Libertarian because they don't feel like they have a chance. Also, the big 2 have pretty well conspired to keep out viable 3rd parties. Do you notice who they allow to get press? Ralph Nader is the biggest 3rd party candidate in the polls. Has anyone read his platform? He wants to dissolve all Fortune 500 companies because they make too much money. He wants to tax the rich back into middle class status. I'm serious. He wants to implement a maximum income so that everything you earn above that goes to Washington. This is who the D & R allow to have a little press. Ralph Nader makes them look like small government. Vote and vote your conscience. Vote on principle, consequences be damned!
John McNair
I always vote, but I know a lot of people don't. For the first time, this election, I am voting for a candidate I know has no chance of winning. But I am voting my conscience and voting for Harry Browne. I am sick of living in a country that is getting really close to sucking. If everybody who has expressed apathy in the past, or is planning on not voting in this election just voted their conscience instead, Browne or Nader could really show well, or, (dare I say it?), even win. What a statement. Return this country to the Constitution! Down with taxes! Down with an intrusive government! Vote your conscience! Exercise YOUR power!
Here in England we had the a regional election won by the British National Party (Who are racist bigots), simply because the turnout was something like 10%.
This example alone should make it obvious that not voting is one of the most idiotic ways you could possibly "protest" your current system of government
Imagine at some point in the future if the 1% of people who did vote only did so because they were fanatically against democracy?
Hi all, please forgive my poor english.
I'm from France, and I would give you a recent experience. We've had a referendum afew weeks ago, about a question not very important (should our President be elected all 7 years or 5 years ?). It doesn't matter.
What matters, is the fact that only 40% of people went to vote ! But that didn't seem very disturbing for our politicians. More disturbing for them, is that on those 40%, something like 15% went to vote, but didn't answer ! They voted blank. Hey, that's about 3 millions persons ! Indeed, there's a message here.
Many years ago, in you country as well as in mine, many people fought and died to bring you this so simple right : to vote. Maybe I'm not welcome to interfer in US elections ("interfer" is not the right word, it's too strong, but you see what I mean -- sorry again), but please don't forget them. Go to vote.
I could be sacarstic, and say "a people has the politicians he deserves". I think it's true - for you and for me. You don't like any of your politicians ? That's OK, so don't choose any. But tell them you don't like them. Go to vote.
At least you'll have a legitimity to complain. If you don't go, then shut up : you did nothing to try to make better a bad situation. You don't exist.
You know what ? Be careful, fascism ideas are still alive, everywhere in the world. Your vote is your only weapon against such ideas. If they reach the power, and you have a new Hitler as president, then prepare your blood - but believe me, some already tried this, and it's a waste of time.
Go to vote !
While it's nice to get chummy with a presidential candidate's views so you feel like there's a big guy out there looking out for your best interests, if you live in one of the 25 states that has some form of an initiative or referendum process, then it's the small guy calling the shots for your day to day life. DirectDemocracy.com explains the initiative process, lists the states with initiatives, and gives a brief summary of current initiatives on ballots. Out of the 25 states that currently have an initiative process, Oregon tops out the lot with a total of 134 initiatives to vote on this November. While many may feel apathetic about the presidential election, initiative elections at local and state levels carry a strong impact on our daily lives and the development of our society. It is one of the many ways to make a difference in your community without doing much more than a little background reading and follow up with your mail-in ballot or a trip to the voting booth.
The number 1 reason to vote directly affects all the main issues discussed on Slashdot and all the other issues that you might see as pertaining to your existance. That reason is: The next President is likely to have the opportunity to elect I have heard up to 4 US Supreme Court Justices. The last few major votes have split 5/4 or 4/5 and if the president elects the men or women he most believes will vote in his favor then the general tie will be broken. This has everything to do with why you should vote! Whether it involves Napster, Microsoft, DECSS, hacker laws, copyright law, or any "Intellectual" property issues. Go vote! Then when your man loses you can claim the right to complain. Otherwise you have no right to speak poorly of the elected official.
So instead of discussing wide-ranging issues, and actually arguing (which doesn't mean "My plan's better!" "No, my plan's better!"), they go for a few key topics that they figure will convince one-topic-voting middle of the roaders.
Do you really believe that the future of our nation and direction of the people who live here is centrally based on school vouchers, cheaper prescription drugs for seniors (hey, I buy prescription drugs, too, but ain't nobody trying to buy my vote), and social security? People gloss over things like, oh, I don't know, economics and foreign policy. Apparently, people seem okay with the fact that Dubya, the would-be representative of our country to the world, is about as conversant with world politics as a college freshman! This is bizarre!
And Gore...well, Gore's the lesser of two evils, but that still means that he's evil. The Democratic party is like methadone to liberal junkies -- it gives them enough of a social kick to stop them going out and making a real difference in the world. I think that, in terms of developing political consciousness in this country, it's a bad thing -- it keeps us sheeplike, and distracts us from the transformation of our republic into a corporate oligarchy. See http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.co m.
Plenty of folk who could do plenty good as activists and active voters and citizens are lulled by the vague social bread-and-circuses of the Dems.
So hey, yeah, I'm voting for Nader, so the Green Party can get matching funds, so that in four years when things are f-ed up even more, they can put up a real fight. Remember, corporate soft-money contributions have _doubled_ since the last election. That's not 10% growth, or 50% growth, but _doubled_. I don't want my politics to be corporate PR.
Can't sleep. Clown will eat me.
The founders also though that black people are subhuman, and that women should not vote.
This is an historically inacurate statement. The vast majority of the delegates thought that all
people including those of African decscent should be protected by and given full right
under the Bill of Rights. Even most of the colonies that had slave based economies at the time agreed.
There were two or three delegates who refused to sign if blacks were given rights.
The delegates at the time decided that the vote must be unanamous so a horible politicle compromise was made.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
Since we have the electoral college, the majority of your state decides .
The electoral college is made up of people. Those people are NOT obligated to vote with the majority in a state.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
I didn't realize I was stating any opinion here. So I will for the record state one. The Bill of rights is a perfect document. It adresses the issues for all times. These rights are for all citizens and can not legally be abridged. The law itself as upheld by the politically based supreme court has bastardized everything that this country stands for. I wish I had the answer to it all. The only way, it seems, that we will get those answers is to be put in the same situation our founding fathers were in. Our rights will have to become so abridged, that we can no longer stand the tyranny. We will at that time be forced to fight.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
...is a voting model by which one could choose to either vote affirmatively FOR someone, OR to vote negatively AGAINST someone. And the rules would state that the winning candidate must have a positive total (more for votes than against votes). Each voter would still get only one vote. And the winner would be the candidate with the highest number of positive votes AFTER subtracting the negative votes.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Yeah, there have been pleas to vote all over the place, particularly among young people.
With all the controversy over Napster and such, I was not at all suprised that candidates focused on technology and the 'Net as much as they did. I was, however, completely disappoined in the both of them.
I for one am voting, but it would be so much better if you could someone vote online. Getting absentee ballots is a real pain
Too bad the international flavor of Slashdot coupled with the obvious diversity here prevents us from slashdotting the ballot box.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
I made an earlier statement that I am voting to keep Bush out of the Oval Office. I wonder how many people are voting to keep Gore out of the oval office. Is there anyone who truly stands behind one of these candidates and would make a high stakes gamble in regarding either of them?
Who would tie their very life to whether or not either of these candidates will be considered a 'Great President' as decided in four years by a public opinion poll?
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
I say it is time for a Continental Congress part 3, with the only thing on the table able to be discussed is the electoral system. Our system has served us well for 200+ years, but it is time to take another critical look at it and let it be adapted to our current situation. The reason we only want the electoral system on the table is we don't want the Continental Congress being hijacked by extremists.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
I am one of those people who has consistently voted for third parties or chosen not to vote. But this year there happens to be two very large considerations. One - the Supreme Court may be losing up to 3 judges that will have to be replaced. While I'm not keen on 'legislation from the bench' I am very very interested in making sure abortion does not become illegal. It is more important for us to work on the social factors that create teen pregnancy than take away this very important medical procedure. I'll let the politicians pound out the details of parental consent and such, that isn't that important in the long run. But securing abortion as a legal medical operation is tremendously important.
The second important issue for me happens to be foreign policy. I understand that most American's couldn't care less about foreign policy unless there is a war. The American President, especially in this post-cold war era, needs to be able to perform Shuttle Diplomacy, going from one group to another to bring two opposing sides together on key issues. This requires a sharp mind and cannot be left to a skilled advisor in many cases because it is the power of the POTUS that makes these things happen. I cannot see Bush, a man who can cause an international incident in a debate, being able to carry out the subtle and delicate work of shuttle diplomacy. This is one area, that of all the candidates, I think Gore will be quite successful -- more successful than Reagan or Clinton. Reagan barely carried out shuttle diplomacy, abandoning Nixon's lead on the matter, perferring to be a cold warrior, but when he did do it, it was impressive.
Since this is more about keeping Bush out of the oval office than putting Gore in, my vote has to be strategically used to do the most damage to Bush, meaning I have to vote for Gore and give up my pursuit of supporting a third party. Besides, this year was a horrible election year for 3rd parties.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
It's not because they don't agree with you that you should be allowed to download all the fucking mp3's you want for free, that you should forfeit your right to vote.
There is a much bigger picture that you are missing.
If you don't vote, then they win. Who wins? The big corporations who are expecting you to stay home like the loser you are and let them and their minions continue to dictate what the future of the country will be.
Alone you cannot fight them, united with your votes, you will make a difference.
I totally agree with what many posters have been saying, that if I don't vote, I have no right to complain. And I reeallly like to complain...so of course I'll be voting!
:)
Of course, there is a bit more to it than that. Although I disagree with Mr. Gore that this is the most important time in the history of the universe or however he put it, there are some important issues on the table that this election will affect. I don't particularly feel like either candidate will ruin anything, but I think there is a potential for the next president to do some very good things. And I'll be paying close attention to what happens over the next 4 years, especially now that I'm not distracted by school anymore.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Time is fun when you're having flies.
-Kermit the Frog
...but I want to give whichever candidate wins as little reason as possible to interpret his victory as some kind of mandate.
You bring up an interesting issue.
Perhaps this is a bit offtopic, but I find it interesting how so many politicians tell us what America wants and what Americans don't want, and that American's feel this way or that way. Are they basing this on the fact that they were elected? The fact is, you just can't go around speaking for people as if they ALL agree with you, when a LOT of them don't. This is why I like the idea of a politician who 1) is going to have the government try less to interfere with my life, and 2) is open to different ideas and isn't afraid to change his/her mind for the right causes...even if that is considered to be political suicide.
Maybe I am asking for too much though.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Time is fun when you're having flies.
-Kermit the Frog
You're saying that because you live a privileged life. If you're an immigrant, or someone up for trial, your life depends on what your elected leaders decide. They make the laws, and people's lives change.
I think what that poster actually meant was that voting for everyone would have the same effect as voting for none of them.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Time is fun when you're having flies.
-Kermit the Frog
good point. But remember that Buchanan won in '92, and then Bush senior had to fight off the hard right for much of the rest of the race. This certainly helped sow the seeds of his defeat.
I agree that much of the Bill of Rights is ignored these days. Civil forfeiture, for example, is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Time to give $ to the ACLU, I guess...
sulli
RTFJ.
The electoral process would improve, in my view, if we had campaign finance reform, and if we abandoned this fucking stupid (sorry) system of having the first and most decisive primaries in the tiniest states. Hold a national primary (inevitable, some would argue) and then we won't have to worry so much about candidates leaning too far left or right to energize the base.
But other than that, we do basically get what we deserve. The candidates pretty much represent the mainstream views in society ... if you don't like what they're saying, you need to convince your peers as much as anyone else. Lots of people fail to respect the First Amendment; time for a stronger pro-freedom movement, elections notwithstanding. Eternal vigilance the price of liberty and all that.
sulli
RTFJ.
The moral dilemma that I (and I'm sure quite a few others) face is whether to vote for Gore, who actually has a chance of winning, and is certainly the lesser of the two most significant evils, or to do the Right Thing and vote for Nader, thereby essentially helping to elect George "There ought to be limits to freedom" Dubya. Voting for Gore, still, would leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I would be very, very frightened to have Bush in the White House. Politics is a dirty game.
... what is it, five percent? ... they need to get federal funds in four years.
Of course, a vote for Nader brings just that much more support to third party candidates, and specifically the Green Party closer to the
What finally made up my mind to vote for Nader is the corporate exclusion, by physical force, of Nader from the first debate. This was thuggish and low, and should never have happened in America. I still don't understand why it (and corporate-sponsored debates, for that matter) was tolerated. Well, I suppose I do, but it's depressing.
(Usually, of course, I'm more of the opinion expressed in thi s comic...)
...but basically incorrect, as far as I'm concerned. I can understand why someone would not vote as a matter of protest. And even if that isn't the reason, people still have a right to complain when they live under a poor government, no matter what. The fact that they didn't vote doesn't imply that the election results would have been any different or that there were suddenly viable outcomes that did not involve a rich business-friendly white man winning.
They should do more than complain, of course, but that doesn't mean the government can strip their rights away at a record pace and take away half their money in taxes and they can't bitch about it a little bit!
I'm always amazed to see people on Slashdot say they're planning to vote libertarian. Why? Let's think about it: How can you support growth of the internet even while voting for a party that wants to dismantle the very government that created the internet in the first place? Yes, the government has grown a lot since it began- but let's face it. People WANT the services, and the government does a lot of things the private sector might not think to or even be able to do (such as creating demand for the first computers). Before you bash the bad things the government did, consider the good. And if you still don't like the bad... try Voting. It is very important- why else would candidates spend millions to get you out to the voting booth?
Read this testimony on electoral college reform. A few votes in the right place can matter, and can swing an election (in this case though, the example is of how the election could swing to the actual loser).
Check out the following items in the story if you don't want to go there:
/.ers are always screaming for the government to stop trying to legislate things it doesn't understand or has no business in, like the 'net, encryption, etc. Therefore, it's a wonder we don't all vote for the only party interested in removing government interference in our lives -- Libertarian.
I know they're pretty extreme in their desire to dismantle the government, but we need that extreme to counter the extreme of the two current big-government parties, especially to counter a possible Ralph (government control to the max) Nader-influenced government.
There has been a lot of talk about how the major candidates have basically ignored the issues that are important to us, or worse, came out with positions that are completely opposite to our own (such as Bush's statement about the Internet turning hearts dark, and both major candidates support of filters and monitoring devices).
There is a good reason for this - we don't vote. The other groups - senior citizens, minorities, unions, even the undecided idiots - will all go to the polls that Tuesday, and support the candidate that speak to them. Because they have an excellent track record for voting, the candidates actively seek their vote, and spend some time and money learning about the groups.
Young people, however, appear to have the shortest political attention span ever. They don't really seem to know what issues they want to fight for, and are only motivated for a short period of time. Any politician who has worked with young Americans quickly learn that there is a minority that will vote reliably and even help with campaigns, but that the majority will vote on gut feelings, for or against their parents, forget to go to the polls, or put it off until the last minute ("Maybe I'll go right after the Simpsons.")
Traditionally, young Americans are the doers rather than the voters. We love pitching in on a cause for a day, supporting rallies, going to war, and writing comments on online forums, but don't have the willpower to really do poltical acts with a lasting impact.
I'm fairly disheartened by the candidates, because, even though I intend to vote, I'll probably be voting against candidates rather than for candidates. Since I'm in Oklahoma, I can't even write in Nader to stage an effective protest vote. But I will vote, and I plan to vote in every election, and make sure my representives know that I'm a voter.
I'm encouraging all those out there to do the same, and to follow the lead of all those other political action groups out there - make yourself heard. This means voting, but it also means letting those you voted into office know who got them there. Everyone should have their representatives' email addresses in their address books. Everytime you get really angry about something you read here, you should fire off an email to your representative, knowing how one of his voters and taxpayers feels on the issues. Otherwise, we'll get what we have now - a political landscape formed by the retired, the "family guys", and the corporations.
Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox now. I'd love to hear any other ideas for getting the tech voice heard.
Ok, so I've only had time to work there once. But I believe in 80% of what he does, and almost 100% of his moral values and opinions. Also, people in states where one candidate has an obvious huge lead (like Bush in Texas) should definately vote Nader, because your vote will not "take away" from Gore or be "wasted".
Hell yes, you should vote. At the very least, if you sit out you have absolutely no right to bitch or complain about the president's actions come the next 4 years.
Now here's the REAL reason to vote, especially in local elections. Why do you think Gore and Bush are our only two choices? Because someone voted or them in local elections (House/Senate and Governor), and now they are supported by the major parties.
Don't let assholes win local elections, and you won't have assholes to choose from when it comes to President.
Vote Nader
Luddite (ldt) n.
1. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.
2. One who opposes technical or technological change.
This wouldn't seem to apply to Gore who "was instramental in creating the Internet" or to John Haglund (sp?), who is a physicist (and presumably supports scientific research).
It would, however, apply to the Senate, whose rules forbid electronic devices including laptops, cellphones, etc. on the chamber floor.
Personally, I'd rather see anyone other than a Republican or Democrat elected. I'm voting all 3rd party this year. Even though I agree with each candidate on some things, there is a lot they aren't addressing and a lot that they shouldn't be doing (read special interests).
science is a religion
You might want to check your facts. Gore, in fact, graduated with honors from Harvard. He volunteered to serve in Viet Nam. His duty may not have been the most dangerous, but you cannot accuse someone who went to war by his choice of avoiding the war. Yes, he got bad grades in seminary, but I think it's safe to surmise that his day job was simply more important to him than school. I think at least 30% of slashdotters could say the same.
That being said, I think the original post was going for humor and irony, and I think you would do well to laugh rather than bitterly grind your axe.
Hear, hear! This is one of the reason's why I'm voting for Nader. 'Course, it doesn't take a lot of courage to do so in Texas, where Gore hasn't the faintest chance... Although I agree with Nader's politics, my primary motivation is to encourage the growth of alternatives to the Republicrats: anybody who believes there are substantive differences between the two haven't done their homework. Incidentally, the actor who played Grandpa Munster is an extraordinary individual ( I believe I heard an interview with him on Fresh Air). Very progressive, pro-labor, etc.
Uh oh, looks like Taco's getting a visit from the secret service.
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
The people saying to vote Nader to 'scare' the two big parties are wrong. That will not scare them at all. Why? Your vote doesn't count. The electoral college votes. They're not going to vote for a third party candidate at all, and they're sure as hell not going to elect one president. The electoral college has gone against the popular choice before and if you think it won't do it again and again you are terribly, terribly mistaken.
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
My state is going for Bush regardless, but I want to give whichever candidate wins as little reason as possible to interpret his victory as some kind of mandate.
I would also encourage everyone to vote in a manner calculated to not give the same party control of the White House and Congress. Neither major party's stated goals are worthy of wholesale adoption...
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
" Keep this in mind, in the US there are only a few groups of people that trully vote regularly .... old people, gay/lesbians, religious zealots, feminazi's. Do you seriously think any of these people give a shit about the space program? .... how about embracing technology for what it is truly worth(remember ... many of the groups mentioned believe the internet is a tool of the devil .... )?"
What kind of stereotypical crap is this? Why should any of those people *not* care any more than someone on this board?
Ranessin (gay man who gives shit about the space program).
This is bound to get a lot of knee-jerk negative responses in the US, under the guise of sophisticated apathy. But there are several things that nobody wants to do, which are necessary for society to function - for instance, almost nobody wants to serve on a jury, nobody wants to pay taxes, nobody wants to do lots of things which are very important to keep society functioning, such as stand in a line to get driver licenses.
I'm not saying that this gives the govt. the right to invade your property and so on. But it's important to consider the fact that certain inputs from citizens are ncessary to keep society functioning - the other alternative is a dictatorship.
It's pathetic for people to hate dictatorships and at the same time complain that their vote doesn't make a difference - how do they really want the power to be chosen or decisions made? You can't do everything by direct vote - imagine if they had one everytime an ambassador to Lithuania had to be chosen, or if the budget for the Dept. of Agriculture had to be decided. US citizens have one of the worst turnout records and hold the most power of any nation in the world.
Most of the people who whine about voting not making a difference have never set foot outside the US, it's a bit like some aristocrat's offspring complaining that the cake isn't good enough, or some self-indulgent weiner holding a can of beer and whining about MTV. Guess what - someone in society has to appoint supreme court justices who decide the deaths of people, and by some miracle, that person is chosen by society - not by inheritence (disagree? go and undo it, it's happened before), not by a bunch of academics, but by popular vote. It's necessary for a US president to bomb at least one country in his 4 year term to show his leadership and be popular for re-election. A bunch of people will die, and YOU decide who gets to push the buttons.
So go out there and vote. It may not matter to you, but it will to someone.
w/m
this discussion seems to span a wide range of political issues. if i may, i'd like to add a couple of points.
1.) i feel that it is my responsibility as a citizen to vote, and i choose to be a "responsible citizen." i choose my candidate by deciding which, among the names on the ballot in my state, i would most like to see elected. i do not look for someone who identically matches my ideology; if i did, i would probably never be able to vote.
2.) i am registered as an independent, in order to receive a ballot with every candidate's name. i do not think voters should have the option of registering with one party or another and receiving only that party's ballot.
3.) on november 7, i plan to cast my vote for george w. bush. i would like to vote for libertarian harry browne. if bush were leading gore by a fifteen- or twenty-point margin, i would vote for browne. i do not think "because browne won't win" is a valid reason not to vote for browne; however, i do feel that "because gore might win" is a valid reason to vote for bush over browne. in other words: in my case, gore is actually the one taking a vote away from browne.
4.) right now, i want, more than anything else, an effective leader as president. i regret that neither bush nor gore appears to have this trait. i think the republican party, with whom i usually align, erred greatly in nominating bush, rather than senator john mccain, for candidacy. i speculate that mccain would have easily defeated gore; and whatever mccain may lack, he certainly possesses the trait of leadership which i feel our country is so desperately lacking.
5.) neither the death penalty nor abortion concern me as issues regarding the presidency. both are ultimately handled by state governments. i am pro-choice, but find justice scalia's arguments persuasive, and would probably favor overturning roe v. wade -- not because i seek to outlaw abortion, but because i believe that the court overstepped its bounds. if the people wish to preserve the "right" to abortion, i believe that they should campaign accordingly in their states. remember: roe v. wade would never have been an issue but for a state [texas] law. as to the issue of capital punishment, i am currently undecided. philosophically, i do not favor granting any government -- particularly ones as bureaucratic and disorganized as our states' -- the power to take a life; however, i recognize that there may be certain crimes for which society requires an extreme psychological remedy to counter the resulting feelings of impotence.
6.) i find many americans' pride in the mantra "i don't care," regarding the clintons' scandals (lewinsky, whitewater, fundraising, etc.) to be a disturbing indicator of the level of apathy in this country. while i do not care about the clintons' marital issues, i do care whether or not the office of the president and several branches of our government are occupied for great lengths of time by soap opera-esque issues. i would prefer that office be held by someone who would, by his/her behavior, not permit such things to occur.
7.) although i do plan to vote for him, i am troubled by bush's recent declaration: "i don't trust the federal government." i want a government minimalist who is so by philosophy, and seeks to achieve same constructively -- but one who inspires both confidence and trust in that resulting federal government. i don't support federal controls in certain areas of my life because i am philosophically opposed to that, not because i "distrust those dirtbag politicians." i want a president who favors strong state government, but who absolutely trusts and exemplifies optimism for the federal government.
...my seven cents.
crib
Please don't read my journal
everyone should really vote 4 nader. the guy has all of our best interests in mind, and could definitely help end the tyranny of corporate representative democracy, and maybe usher in a real democracy where we all vote 4 issues on the net, etc. i know there are dozens of technical difficulties 2 this idea, but that'z what all u /. geekz r 4 anyway, right?
rhy
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The way I see it, when the only candidates likely to win are both reprehensible, whoever votes for the winner will eventually have to answer for their vote. This is a potentially embarrassing situation. The solution is to vote for someone that you can be sure is not going to win. That way, when Gore gets us into a depression or Bush gets us into a war, you can always say, "Don't blame me. I voted for Nader." If you don't vote at all, you forfeit this right, since you are indirectly responsible for allowing the election of the winner.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
But if you want to vote but don't want to vote for Bush and Gore, there is always Nader, Buchanan or Jello Biafra(?).
Just a suggestion.
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
Well, I'm no supporter of either candidate, but I'd rather see Gore in office than Bush, simply because of who he's going to put in the Supreme Court. I don't think either of them have said anything useful about pretty much any of the issues, and if I wasn't so apprehensive about Bush, I wouldn't vote at all. Unfortunately, voting for Nader or other third party candidates is basically helping Bush get into office, since third-party folks have 0 chance of winning, and thus Gore is the only alternative (*sigh*).
It's a sad state of affairs when we're voting *against* someone, instead of voting *for* someone. At least that's how I feel about my vote... It's not for Gore as much as it is against Bush. I wish McCain would've been able to stay in the race... he seemed alot more interesting.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Know what that means? Choice! That's right... I can't just flip a coin, because there are SOOO many choices to make! Yessir... I can vote Liberal, and keep our international code-of-conduct FUBARing Frenchman Jean Chretien. Or, maybe I'll go for the new kid on the block, Stockwell Day and his Canadian Alliance just to piss both the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives off. Oh yeah... I could vote PC... but that'd be sort of like picking the slow nerdy kid with asthma for your soccer team - you'd do it just to make him feel good. I could shore up the New Democratic Party, who are rumoured to possibly cease to exist as a federal party after this election, but Lord knows I didn't care for Bob Rae. I can't even keep him straight with Preston Manning.
So yes, as a Proud Canadian with an upcoming election, I Have Choice! Too bad... finding the lesser of 2 evils is a lot easier than finding the lesser of 5. I wonder if the Natural Law Party will be running again. I still have to see a flying yogi.
Mr. Ska
Seems to me that the minorities in today's U.S. might think then that some of the founder's intentions didn't turn out the results quite as they wanted to...or what ?
:-)
Is it possible that Americans start to be able to see their founding fathers' intentions as human ones, with the potential of having some flaws with regards to their applicability to our modern times ?
The constitution is man-made and not God-given and I would say you are allowed to make changes to it if needed be. But who knows...I am not American. Anyway, it looks like as if you can kill any political arguement by referring to your founding fathers, because apparently they did everything right and that's it. Period. End of discussion.
...if you don't vote, you shouldn't bitch about what your elected officials do.
Why?
If you vote, and another guy wins, you can say, "I didn't vote for him...I'm not responsible for his actions." If you did vote for her, and you don't like her actions, you can say, "I voted for her, and I don't like what she's doing." But if you don't vote, you pretty much said that "I don't care". If you're too apathetic to vote, why should you complain about the political process?
I'll tell you all that I'm voting for Bush. My reason isn't that I can't stand Al Gore (I really can't stand him), and it isn't that I don't think a third party candidate can win, so I won't "waste my vote" (in any election, no vote is wasted, even a vote for Mickey Mouse). No, it's because, of all the candidates, I agree most with Bush's stated positions on things that I care about.
Does this mean I agree with everything he says? Nope. I never agree with everything anyone says, much less what any politician says. I should know--I'm into politics myself. But I have taken a look at all the candidates and their platforms--including running through BetterVote.com's BetterMatch survey. When I ran through it, I agreed about 80% of the time with Bush--and several third-party candidates were well above 50% with me. That's fine.
I encourage every American /.er to get out and vote. If you vote, your voice is heard in that one very special way. If you're dissatisfied with both of the major parties, find some third party candidate that you most agree with, and vote with them.
Why?
Politicians will look at what will get them elected. Hell, I looked at it in last year's SGA election, and I'm already looking at it for next year's SGA election. (Note to all UAH /.ers: yeah, I'm running again.) There are certain issues that are highly important to our citizenry, and politicians will work hardest on those issues. That's how you earn people's trust in politics--you listen to their problems and work for a soultion.
Politics is the process of compromise and the art of the possible. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, folks, and if you want some lubrication, start squeaking. You can start 11/07/2000.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
After reading through most of the other replies, I'm finding a lot of electoral college hatred. I understand that. I don't like it myself--I was born in Tennessee (not much EC impact), grew up in Texas and Ohio (are you kidding?), and moved to Mississippi. Hell, in '92, there might as well not have been an election for me. I don't think I saw a single paid political advertisement for Bush or Clinton that wasn't on a national news program.
Now I live in Alabama, which has two more EC votes than does Missisippi. Whoop-de-freaking-doo. I still have yet to see Bush or Gore next to a bunch of enraptured, smiling children. I kinda miss seeing election commercials.
So, if you're pissed with the electoral college, why don't you pester your local Congresscritter? In looking at the Electoral College, you have to win 11 states to win. Don't believe me? Check out Jim Howard's EC Calculator. They are: California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia or Virginia. Win those, and you have 270--enough to win.
The EC was a filtering mechanism. In this Information Age, do we need a filter? Nope. Remember, the original U.S. Constitution had the state legislatures electing Senators. Amendement XVII changed that. The Constitution can be changed again to reflect the desires of the people. It takes just 37 states. There are only 12 in the above list?
You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world. Start now. Pester your Congresscritter.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
Have any of y'all looked to see Tejas's laws on the death penalty? The Governor has little, if anything, to do with 'em. It's not like most states, where the governor can commute the sentence.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
To start, we live in the original democracy(speaking from the US). However, approximately 30% of our country votes. What is wrong with this picture? Everyone in this country has a problem with one aspect of the government or another, but few actually participate in changing it. It is very easy to say that my one vote doesn't count when taken with respect to the other 200 million voters in the US. With that in mind, it is just as easy to say I don't need to recycle, or throwing my trash out my car window doesn't matter .... the comparisons are never ending. The fact is that it does matter. Keep this in mind, in the US there are only a few groups of people that trully vote regularly .... old people, gay/lesbians, religious zealots, feminazi's. Do you seriously think any of these people give a shit about the space program? .... how about embracing technology for what it is truly worth(remember ... many of the groups mentioned believe the internet is a tool of the devil .... )? Is this they type of people you want making your decisions? Imagine the ghetto's started to vote .... we would finally have our first black president. If the younger generation voted ... under 25 .... we could have a president that is neither Democrat nor Republican. But, I guess taking twenty minutes out of your day once every four years is too much work. And, its only one vote .... does it really matter?
Do you want change? Make your voice heard!
I agree. In order to see any true change, we must boot out the Republicans and Democrats .... the old government. Libertarian has my vote as well.
Only idiots don't vote- every person who doesn't vote gives more say to those who do (who tend to elect people into office who say things like "I created the internet").
I have voted in some elections where the only two choices for a position were idiots- I just cast a ballot without a vote for either. At least my vote counted.
Even if you don't think Nader can win, that's not really the point. If he gets more than 5% this time around, he's guaranteed to be on the ballot in all 50 states.
Do the right thing - vote for Nader!
Looking carefully at the history of Europe around the WWII period I can say that having a changing government that would be produced from such a constantly shifting coalition would be a bad idea. Take a look a French history for a good illustration of this.
Respond to s
What are you illiterate?
Actually no that's why I can read and respond your post. Humans don't have telepathy.
How would you diagram that sentence? That's right. You would take the pencil and SHOVE IT IN YOUR FUCKING EYE.
Now why does that have any relation to what my point was? Of course if I took enough time and either did a postscript map or scanned a handwritten image I could diagram that sentence.
I don't consider all the vagaries of grammar really all that important.
*sarcasm*
Thanks for the well thought out reply and from a +1 bonus man as well.
*/sarcasm*
Respond to s
Seems to me that the minorities in today's U.S. might think then that some of the founder's intentions didn't turn out the results quite as they wanted to...or what ?
True that some minorities seem to have problems but it's like that almost anywhere because of prejudice, hate, fear, etc. People stigmatize what they either hate or fear sometimes both.
Not everything was perfect witht he constitution but those changes have been ammendments which have been added since.
Is it possible that Americans start to be able to see their founding fathers' intentions as human ones, with the potential of having some flaws with regards to their applicability to our modern times ?
Of course they were human and they thought they might make mistakes hence the ammendment process that makes sure that if something is really, really important it will be changed. Also the Supreme Court does this as well.
The constitution is man-made and not God-given and I would say you are allowed to make changes to it if needed be. But who knows...I am not American. Anyway, it looks like as if you can kill any political
arguement by referring to your founding fathers, because apparently they did everything right and that's it. Period. End of discussion.
The country had a vision initially. That vision has some minor flaws like people spending big bucks to get elected and screwing people over I grant you that it has happened. However that dosn't mean the entire system is flawed. That's like saying that TCP/IP is flawed and should be replaced because people spam others, DoS attacks happen, and some people have slow connections.
I don't blandly follow the founding fathers but I do believe that they sensed that direct democratic rule was dangerous. And when I look at the body of evidence for this over the past few thousand years I tend to agree.
The only real true direct democracy was ancient Athens and that eventually ended when they suffered the great Athenian plague and various conflicts with Sparta, etc. Even their idyllic system froze because it didn't work. Since representative democracy has lasted 200+ years in America and elsewhere and even that outlasted the Athenians I would hazard a guess that representative democracy works better over a long haul; and it keeps all people happy for a while longer.
Respond to s
Reference the following title (might be avaible from amazon.com or similar a bit old but good for this type of thing).
"Europe in the 20th Century: a history" by Andreas Dorpalen
published by Macmillian publishing in 1968.
The politics of the French were extremely chaotic and not extremely stable. Direct democracy and the inclusion of various factionalist elements mixed in with periodic strikes, street violence, etc. All of these attributes made France a good example of having massive factionalism.
So now what about being misinformed were you talking about?
I can cite chapter paragraph if need be.
Respond to s
One of the funniest things I saw on slashdot was some poster who say basically that if you voted at all you are supporting bad policy but then goes on to say that we have a crappy government.
It is precisely because of the lack of voting that the world is in such bad shape. Apathy never solves anything.
Respond to s
The founders did not intend to have people voting directly on issues as far as that goes. They had seen what happens when you have the people in control (really nasty little problems in France, Oliver Cromwell in England, persecution of Puritans, Protestants, etc). They knew about the rights of the minority. The rights of the minority cannot be held in lower esteem than the rights of the majority.
Respond to s
You got that right. Eventually Reagan will be remember as one of the greatest presidents in XX century.
I voted absentee ballot for Hagelin. I think GW and AG are an absolute joke and I already want to shoot both of them in the face, and this is when they're trying to suck up to us. Quite sad.
but they should back a candidate they believe in...like say, ralph nader?
How Jaded Are You?
OF COURSE YOU SHOULD VOTE! ALL you get by NOT voting is the loss of the right to complain about what your political leaders are doing. You are NOT sending them a message by not voting. They only hear what the actual voters "tell them".
What does this mean? Well guess who votes in every damn election, like clockwork? One of the largest blocks are right-wing Christians. Even though they are a minority of the population, because they vote, and in large numbers, politicians get elected by them and only hear them. They don't give a damn about non-voters. You were silent, which simply means that by your silence you are OK with them and what they do.
If you want to have the right to complain or to be actually heard, you have to vote. It DOES matter who gets elected. It DOES affect your every day life. All the laws that get passed, the judges that get appointed ALL affects your life directly and indirectly. Your silence is NOT useful and does nothing but give them (politicians) license to do what the few VOTERS want them to do -- afterall, it was ONLY those who voted who put them in office and it is ONLY them who will re-elect them.
It should be illegal to NOT vote. If you want to make ANY use of ANY government service, be it student loans, wellfare, interstate highways, the federal airway system, etc, you should be required to vote.
NOT voting is merely lazy and stupid. It is a do-nothing activity that is justified by unjustifiable excuses. Only idiots and fools do not vote. You DO give up ALL right to get upset with ANY law passed when you don't make your voice heard.
I live in Utah, the most Republican state in the country. The Mormon citizens here are Republican practically by religious decree and they ALL have the same, robotic political viewpoint. Nevertheless, I vote in every election. I can't affect the presidency, it is a foregone conclusion that Utah will go with whatever creature, no matter who or what it is, who has "Republican" associated with its name, but I do get to affect the local government. There are enough of people like me here to make Salt Lake City a Democratic stronghold in a wilderness of robotons. We actually get to see moderate, and even slightly left-leaning individuals, even NON-rich individuals, win office here in Salt Lake.
The bulk of the population is rather moderate, yet because most of (you) are also idiots, the only voices heard by the bulk of representatives is the right-wing religious looney fanatic with hate and fear and ignorance proudly displayed.
Vote you dumbasses.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
If your parents are Republicans and/or you live in a conservative area, then you are definitely not thinking on your own here. Regardless, I hope you have some doubt about the claims you make. You should. Your post offers only the versions of each issue that favor your particular politics. If you had studied the opposing views, your arguments would be much more logical and less emotional because thinking about opposing viewpoints requires logic. The emotional appeals in your arguments may make you feel more sure, but as a means of persuasion all it does is distract one from actually thinking. That's why so many people here on Slashdot are not sure about who they favor, they are trying to think through these issues--not repeating what they have heard from one party or the other.
You confuse politics with the issues. This is like understanding the way technology companies operate without any understanding of the technology itself. This is a very common mistake that plagues both politics and technology.
Unfortunately, the reality of each of the issues you wrote a blurb on encompasses so much that I cannot adequately explain them. This is something that your parents & teachers might not even be able to explain, although you should discuss it with them--logically! I'm going to give it a shot here, though.
Taxes: Here's an example. George W. Bush failed as an oilman in Texas in the 80's. He was looking for a new job. A rich friend of his wanted to buy the Texas Rangers baseball team, but the then-owner didn't know him & wanted to sell it to someone he knew, if possible. George W.'s rich friend knew that the owner liked the President, so he offered George W. a job if he could help him buy the team. George asked his dad to ask the owner to sell the team to George W.'s friend. This worked. George W. took out a $500K loan & then owned 2% of the team. But the team was shabby. It needed a stadium, which would cost $100M+. Now the mayor of Arlington was being investigated by the Bush Administration for some crime (fraud, I think). George W. asked this mayor to impose a tax on the local residents so that the team could have a new stadium. The mayor agreed to this proposal from George W., the son of the man who was investigating him. The stadium was built with tax-payer money & then given to the owners of the team. They then sold the team for 200M+, which included the stadium. George W. got 10M for his 2%. The New York Times article that this story comes from claimed that many owners of sports teams get this kind of gift. Similar kinds of deals happen everyday in any business you can think of. Now having George W. & friends pay a higher rate of taxes on their earnings than you or me doesn't counterbalance all of the advantages they have, but doesn't making their taxes more equal to our own just give them more advantages over us?
SS: Social Security was created as a safety net for when the entire economy collapses completely. Don't say, "Oh, but we have systems that prevent that from ever happening again." Unfortunately, not so. Therefore, risking Social Security in the market negates the very purpose of Social Security. The only reason George W. wants to do it is to flood the economy with that money to send stock prices up & make more money for rich shareholders. Only RICH shareholders. I have serveral friends who invest ~30K of their incomes every year and they are all living miserably & only getting a 10%-15% return from it. You need at least $500K-$1M to really invest, this is why so many brokerages only take on clients with this much money.
Abortion. Your argument is completely subjective, vague, and digresses into pathos at the end. Science cannot determine whether abortion is right/wrong. Science would classify capital punishment as murder, too, but I bet you're for that? I'm against both, but I'm not against people having sex so I don't think I'm ever voting against abortion. I plan on adopting children, too. Also, are you for/against euthenasia? Euthenasia's the one scenario where death actually is desired by the person being killed.
Gun Control: Your examples are Bad and Wrong. America had far fewer problems overall in the 1950's. Switzerland still does have far fewer problems than almost anywhere else in the world. The constitution changes whenever the USA faces a challenge that requires a universal solution. When the USA was weak & needed everyone available to be a soldier, the 2nd Amendment was added. When 15 year olds are planning wars against their classmates, the USA requires a solution that opposes the old one. BTW, at 15 I loved guns, but 10 years later I'm completely against them.
Vouchers: Ok, here's another version. Say your public school sucks. Not just one but 400 of your classmates want to use vouchers to attend the nearby private school. The private school is not able to accept more than 200 additional students. What happens to the 200 who can't get in? The public school still sucks, and the parents of the children who left now must pay all of their "lucky" children's tuition with less money (from the voucher) than they paid in taxes for education. The voucher idea once again only offers extra money to those rich people who send their children to private school anyway. My parents would have loved vouchers, they complained about paying my private school tuition despite it being the most important thing in my life. I also remember the one Mexican kid that came to my school having to leave because his mom couldn't keep up with the payments. I thought the local public school looked like a prison (it was sinking ~1"/year even), but I ended up going there for a while. Honestly, I learned as much because I knew my parents could pay for a good college if I got in, but I had far less fun.
If you honestly came to these conclusions on your own, please expand your views.
Slashdot has really suprised me with its progressive (liberal!) bent when it comes to politics because I'm much more used to views like this guy's coming from the tech world. I know a lot of smart people who just spend all day thinking about functions or servers, so when it comes to politics (or anything else) their narrow-mindedness reveals itself--classic Libertarians.
PackMan97 misses my point on each of the issues, and instead steers it toward his socioeconomic argument about the importance of making money. I really don't understand the soullessness of Libertarians and their ilk, but I won't let you muddle this up.
So, once again:
On your response to Taxes: The mention of Gore/Occidental is simply a recrimination & has nothing to do with taxes that I can see? PackMan then twists the point to try to say that nobody should pay taxes because of people like George W. Bush. He's right about most taxes not enough of our taxes making it back to us in meaningful ways, but the solution to that lies in taking the government on more forcefully. Good government requires citizens to be involved, which is why we don't have good government in the USA.
On Social Security, PackMan does the same damn thing. I have no idea what the point about his father means? My friends probably think they'll make money all that money, too. Only misery will come to these people. They live in $600/month apartments & recycle their razorblades even though they earn $50,000+. They're single and have little hope of attracting women when they're so cheap, or they're married & making their home life miserable. Oh, BTW my father-in-law died at 67 with over $1M in the bank and he lived a miserably shabby existence. He only collected SS for 2 years, too! WTF are you complaining about here?
No real argument on abortion. OH, except he's against all that money going to low-income health care. Yes, he'd be against all money going to low-income health care if he didn't think it would make him look like an a-hole.
Gun Control: Wow, what a shock, a constructionist reading of the constitution from a Libertarian! The founding fathers where sort of Libertarian in their desire to evade taxes & social tyranny. Modern Libertarians just exploit that legacy, but this brings up my main argument against Libertarians. That form of goverment might have worked for the 13 original colonies, as separate & self-contained as they were, BUT THERE IS NO CHANCE A LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT COULD WORK IN THE USA TODAY.
What's sad is that Libertarians are often upper-middle class people who think they could become much more wealthy if they were just unfettered from taxes & (most) laws. What's funny is that they would be crushed without all of the (governmental) infrastructure that has supported them all their lives. Republicans have the same goals, although they are truly evil in that they want to use the system itself to gain advantage. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT TAXES, FINE:
George W. Bush's tax cut gives a higher percentage tax cut to the wealthy than it does to the poor. I believe it lowers the top tax bracket by 6.6% while it lowers the bottom by 5%. Now, can any Libertarian or Republican out there tell me how that is fair? At best it's trickle-down economics, just as George H.W. Bush proposed 10 years ago.
Well, PackMan97, if you are not voting for George W. Bush then at least you are an honest Libertarian (as self-centered as that is), but if you do vote for Bush then you are a hypocrite.
Okay, Harry Browne is a male, that fits the controlling patriarch bit.
I'm sure he's white, with that selfish Libertarian philosophy.
But was he matriculated in the Ivy League, like Bush, Gore and Nader, and like most of our previous presidents (though Clinton went to Oxford in England, which is roughly comparable to a lesser Ivy League school like Columbia or Cornell, but Bush pere was a Yale man, but Reagan went to Eureka which is not an Ivy League school)?
You see my point?
My ancestor's fought a bloody revolution to free us from England's perfidious grasp and allow us to elect our own representatives, instead of having a queen bestowed upon us by reason of high birth.
It's the least any decent American can do to go out and vote for the patriarchal, northern European descended Ivy League education candidate of your choice, Gore, Bush or Nader.
Hi There, I'm a Canadian (from Toronto) watching the Americans and this process of choosing a president. I find it curiously interesting how the process works down there. For one, the 8 year limit on a President is a novel idea and makes sense ( I don't think we have that here). Most of the politics in the US, however, are dry, boring, beamed here on a constant basis. I'm almost ready to vote for Gore. Just for the record (if your gonna start a pool), I think Gore is best for Canada's future. Bush is waaay too American for me! We are inundated with these images of Gore and Bush.. While I like Gore more, but they are both the same! I tell you, no one would ever say Joe Clark, John Turner and Pierre Treudeau were the same. And aren't there supposed to be more then two choices? I've heard there were more, but no one ever mentions them. I guess no-one expects those guys to win. I think voting is an essential part of the process and it's your most important duty as a citizen of your country, city or town. I still feel good about voting for Mike Harris.. It's just sad that if Cretien announces an election in the next three weeks, it won't even be noticed but the media.. go figure. Thanks, Kevin Costain
Or Sarge, or Ranger, or even Patriot. We need someone who respects that even if you have every Id Software title and a bunch of Id Technology-driven titles, you're not a criminal. There needs to be more focus on some untouched aspects of gun control: keeping both hands on the firearm at all times, and keeping a sane mind. We don't want another incident like Columbine or Waco, but we also don't want to surrender a part of ourselves to the government just because they say so. It is within our second amendment rights to form an independent militia and keep and bear arms; there needs to be a checks-and-balances system in place just in case the U.S. military turns rogue on us. Unfortunately, there's just too many immature gun owners out there.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I don't want to abolish the entire government; there are too many moronic citizens out there who need to be watched over every day. I oppose the conglom-o hell of big business, and as soon as I join the rifle team at college (next year, gotta get residency), I'll join the NRA. I'm like the Republican in my Democratic family. When I hear "gun control", I think: "Hold on tight with both hands, check your fire, and watch your ammo stock!" I'm either voting for Nader or Bush; Gore's just too much of an idiot to trust in the White House. However, the presidential influence on the Internet had better remain where it is: right now, the President is only a government spokesperson, not a cyber-tyrant. If that changes, then I might just join the revolution.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I have now lived long enough to see the horrendous results of Reagans and Bushes Republiucan Regime. Under them we got the Drug War and it's devastating result on our precious constitution. Under them we also saw a drmatic escaltion of military coups and campaigns around the world, killing hundreds of thousans of innocent people in the name of 'freedom fighters'.
Under this same regime we saw the economy stumble on real wages plummet.
Under Clinton we have seen the same incroachment of out liberties through travesties like the DMCA, CArnivore, and the suspension of Habeus Corpus. But also under Clinton we have enjoyed the longest economic boom in decades, and a real increase in real wages.
So who am I going to vote for? Well I would like to vote for Harry Browne or someone of his ilk, but he has a ices chance in hell of winning. I dislike intensely both Gore and Bush. Especially Bush in that he is against a women's right to choose, and he likes to see innocent people die on death row.
So as much as I can't stand the guy, I'm voting for Gore.
www.enthea.org
Whenever I hear someone complain about the government, the first thing I ask is, "Did you vote?"
If the answer is no, then I tell them that they have no 'right' to complain, as they decided not to participate in the process. Even if they vote for the losing candidate, or a fringe candidate, the fact that they took the time to participate in the process shows that they care enough to be allowed to complain...
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Canadian general election of 1993
After 9 years of rule the Conservative government went to the polls facing 4 opposition parties: two traditional opposition parties and two protest movements formed as a direct result of the Conservative's attempt at constitutional reform. In Quebec voters voted for the Bloc Quebecois while in the west voters voted for the Reform Party. As a result, even though the Conservatives got 45% of the popular vote, they only managed to get 2 MPs elected to the 295 seat Parliament. The Liberals formed the new government. Protest votes led to the downfall of the Conservatives.
Non-vote
Japanese general election of 2000
After 10 years of trying to spend their way out of a lingering ressession the Liberal Democrats went to the polls on a platform of continued goverment spending rather than structural reforms. Voters, protesting the government's past efforts at reviving the economy, stayed at home rather than vote for the opposition. The Liberal Democrats won the election and Japan is in for more of the same.
But at least Gore understands the internet. Bush's ignorance disturbs me. I'm voting Gore for this issue alone.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
A friend of mine claims, only half-jokingly, that he'll never vote so he can't be blamed when the government goes to hell in a handbasket. I'll vote, but only to keep Bush from being elected. Almost anyone would be better than Bush; I've seen what that idiot has done in my home state of Texas...
End of lesson. You may press the button.
If I am responsible for my actions, and I can do whatever I want without hurting anyone, why are so many things (like softdrugs) illegal? Being from the Netherlands, and having lived in the States for a number of months now, I wouldn't consider America or the "Libertarian Party" to follow the philosophy of "don't do to others what you wouldn't want to be done to yourself" (which is what "do what you want to do as long as you don't hurt others and take responsibility" usually boils down to) much...
Arrrrg!
I've already said this once in this thread, but I can't let this pass. If you "just vote" for somebody, you're part of the problem.
You wonder why politicians pander and spin? Because most citizens of this fine country don't subject them to any real scrutiny. They don't study policy at all. They can be pandered to and spun about quite easily. If you can be, too, then your uninformed vote elects people who shouldn't be.
Your Vote Is Already Wasted If You're Uninformed. And worse. It dilutes the votes of those who are.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Point taken. There are other good organizations for keeping one actually informed b'sides vote-smart.org. I saw a booklet given out by the League of Women Voters this summer 'round primary time, and I thought it was very helpful. I think they CAN be trusted as much as anyone can. More people using LWV as a resource would probably result in better informed voters.
As far as mailings go, I was primarily refering to candidate direct mailings, which is what most people 'round my parts receive. I don't think they can be trusted. The mainstream media can't be trusted because 1) politicians are more and more skilled at USING it and 2) they treat political contests like football games, not discussing policy, but rather the "score", political strategy, and occasional well-rehearsed soundbites.
LWV is great. Vote-smart.org is just another way to investigate a candidate. Their generalized issues test provides a way to see how their tendancies stack up to yours without rhetoric. Their campaign finance records can indicate to you whose interests they probably will represent. It's a tool, and there are others.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
I tried testing this idea in the furnace of slashdot a while ago, but got no comment. I'll try again.
"Your Vote" is already wasted and skews the election if you're uninformed. I'm going to define "informed" as making active efforts to gain an understanding of candidates -- passive receiving of ads, mailings, and any other major media outlet won't do. These are the places where politicians carefully polish their image and deliberately choose their words. You won't learn anything but what they (or maybe their opponents, who may be less credible) want you to know about them (and chances are you won't learn anything about a candidate who isn't a Democrat or Republican).
Lots of people vote on a vague feeling that someone is "a good man" or "would probably represent me well". I get these expressions when I talk to people every day.
We wonder why politicians pander and pontificate, rather than intelligently speaking about policy and justifying their positions with reason or actual scientific citation. It's not much wonder. Joe voter hasn't learned to do much other than go absorb what the mass media says by osmosis and show up at the polls.
If you're one of those people, take the time to do a little bit of research. Project Vote Smart is a decent place to start; there's more to be done, though, if you really want to dig in. You have to learn something about policy.
Example: you know how many politicians are positioning themselves as champions of education. And the things they promise to do? Increase spending per pupil, decrease class sizes. Yet, there's a fair bit of data collected for which there is no correlation between spending and better test scores, or (down to the point of about 15 students) class size and better test scores. What does help? Smaller schools, apparently. The studies have been known to and distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council for at least a year. Any policy maker sincerly interested in improving things should know things like that. If YOU know things like this, and your candidate trots out the same old tired solutions, that can tell you something about them.
A number of you, however, will just not take the time to do research before Nov 7. At that point in time, please do the rest of us a favor, and don't turn the election into a spin-based lottery. Keep your vote to yourself.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The absentee ballot came last week and I sent it out, with a big ol' X by Ralph Nader's name.
Absentee ballots are so easy to obtain, if you really can't get to the election on the 7th, it may not be too late to get an absentee ballot, by not voting, it's not really a form of protest, it's just emphasizing the laziness of our generation. Sure, I know Ralph Nader won't win, but atleast I'm not letting others decide for me.
Whatever you do though, don't try to sell your ballot like here. This website was hawking absentee ballots....
From the Green Party's platform website
C. LIVABLE INCOME
1. We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.
2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities.
3. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty - a "living wage" campaign and "living wage" standard will go a long way toward achieving this goal.
4. We urge that a national debate be held and broad public mandate be sought regarding (fiscal and monetary) economic strategies and policies as they impact wages. This debate is long overdue. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the "American dream" by the young and middle-class - each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.
5. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a "floor" of wage protections and worker's rights should be negotiated and set in place in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front - and not allow destructive, corporate predatory practices under the guise of "free" international trade.
This is a living wage, not a MAXIMUM wage. Please, get your facts straight before blurting out a rumor that's not true...I've heard alot of rumors (rumors are not a trustworthy source, but this is worth taking note of), that if George W. Bush gets elected, there will be some sort of retalliation for Dallas, 1963.
Please tell me you're joking...Bush will be assassinated because of JFK??? Do you have any evidence to back this up with???
EXCUSE ME? Did you read my post? Not full of hate, then what do you make of this??
I went to a local fair a few weeks ago, and just for showing my support for the civil unions law, I was continually harassed, told to "go back to California" (when I've lived in Vermont all my life), called a dyke and lesbian (though I am a heterosexual woman), purposely run into by "innocent" bystanders, all for wanting the same rights for gays that I will enjoy should I ever get married. I was also told that "shit is for spreading on fields, not for packing".
I'm sorry, but these people weren't simply "disagreeing" with me, their actions were out of HATE. Nothing in their statements or actions showed any hint of difference of opinion in an intelligent way, but out of a gang mentality.
Take my state Vermont for example. There is a tight race going on at the moment due to the fact that the representatives decided to legalize civil unions in the state, so that a gay or lesbian couple can enjoy many (but not all) of the rights that a heterosexual couple often takes for granted.
Right now there is a great deal of hate being spread around my state with people who don't agree with it. They started a campaign "Take Back Vermont", in order to, supposedly, take Vermont back to it's "roots". To me, this against what Vermont is about, once our own Union before joining the US, it's always been for equal rights, respect, and understanding.
I went to a local fair a few weeks ago, and just for showing my support for the civil unions law, I was continually harassed, told to "go back to California" (when I've lived in Vermont all my life), called a dyke and lesbian (though I am a heterosexual woman), purposely run into by "innocent" bystanders, all for wanting the same rights for gays that I will enjoy should I ever get married. I was also told that "shit is for spreading on fields, not for packing".
Pat Buchanan took it upon himself to come to Vermont this week and express his disgust for the Vermonters that support this bill, the ones that actually elected the officials and pushed for the bill, understanding that all Vermonters are equal, even in God's eyes. He was very demeaning and extremely anti-gay.
We that support the civil unions bill, we understand that not everyone has to accept gays, but what happened to RESPECT?
So yes, voting does matter, ESPECIALLY in the local elections, many things will get decided that will affect only your state and not the nation as a whole, one vote can make a difference.
I've often wondered what the implications are if you enter the voting booth and just didn't vote for one particular race.
Will it be counted in the total vote total, just not for any candidate? Or will it not be counted in the vote total, and have the same effect as if you didn't vote?
I've been thinking about this because I get the pleasure of voting in the NY Senate Race, and I honestly think my six-month-old Golden Retriever could do a better job than any candidate on the ballot.
This was written by Alexander Tyler over 200 years ago.
From Bondage to Spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependency;
From dependency back into bondage
I can't thinkof a better reason to vote.
Kris Felscher
Kris Felscher
We've got enough youth, how about a fountain of "smart"?
Go to www.lp.org and check out The Libertarian Party. The basic philosophy is be responsible for your actions and don't interfere with anyone elses right to do what they want. If what you want to do harms no one else (without there consent) go for it.
>>He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess
Thank God. It's nothing but a pyramid scheme anyway.
Not to split hairs, but I think you mean "Ponzi scheme."
Well, "noone" must feel pretty important now, eh? :)
"My job is being right when other people are wrong." -- George Bernard Shaw
There is no such thing as a "wasted vote."
Any vote is an expression of the citizen's power in the government. The only way to "waste" your vote...
Is to sit back on Election day like a traitor, and not vote.
Quite simply, when Bush gets in, as I'm expecting to be the case (blargh), I'm blaming everyone who didn't help me vote him down, and that includes everyone who couldn't be bothered to try.
What wimps.
Kasreyn
"If a nation dreams of being ignorant and free, it dreams of what never was, and never shall be." -Thomas Jefferson.
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
It's a shame that isn't one of the ballot choices, but the next best thing is to cast a protest vote - I feel it's better to do that than to abstain. Even if I care it really doesn't matter. With the "winner take all" electoral system, and living in a state that is dead certain to go for Gore, my vote for Gore or for Bush just won't matter. So I plan to vote (as I have a number of times in the past) for the Libertarian ticket, the party with which I find myself most in accord.
If you are unhappy with the two major candidates, go and vote anyway. Pick the minor party you like best, and use it to vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE"!!
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story
With names like "Bush" and "Gore" how could they be so opposed to sex and violence?
The FUNDEMENTAL issues in this election are simple --
- either Gore or Bush will win the election.
- Bush is an un-intelligent puppet of the conservative right, who will say anything to get elected (like Gore) but then puts a smarmy, populist spin on it.
- Gore is admittedly intelligent, committed (he volunteered for Vietnam -- perhaps to support his father), and experienced.
- and, slashdotters, Gore knows technology. If the country were a tech firm, Gore would be writing Perl scripts in a room without windows and Bush would work for marketing on the golf course.
Sure, Nader's got cutesy appeal -- and if Gore were up enough in the polls, I might vote for him. But it is irresponsible of anyone to not recognize this election as a referendum on the TYPE of president we want -- someone with intelligence, or a Bush.
go get it
You should vote if you're voting for Gore.
I don't like the guy but Bush will do more to give away what freedom we have left to his sponsors and will probably crash the economy if you believe Alan Greenspan. Bush's potential appointees to the Supreme Court should be enough to terrify anybody into doing everything possible to keep Bush out of office. All we need is a few more decades of bizzaro Supreme Court decisions like money = speech, innocence is no defense against being put to death and the like to ruin what's left of the U.S.
A vote for Nader is a wasted vote. Perot got a party built a few years back and where are the federal matching dollars going? Pat Buchanan? Does he really represent what Perot was pushing years ago? What makes you think Nader will still be alive or in control of his party four years from now? At present, Nader might as well be funded by the Republicans for all the good he's doing for them.
Why is the media going easy on Bush and hammering Gore for things that aren't even true? Take a look at who owns them and who they're supporting.
It's gotta be Gore. This country can't stand another run-up of the national debt for a tax cut for the wealthy and the Supreme Court needs balance, not 3 or 4 more wackos that will sell your rights to the highest bidder. I don't like Gore's policy on guns, but didn't his daddy break his promises about keeping his hands off? Isn't his son the one who said "There should be limits to freedom"? YOURS.
In normal countries, there is gun control, and people just don't get killed. But then again in normal countries, we don't have two million people in jail, no death penalty, and (relatively) less criminality, and no one except a few hardcore catholics would set abortion in question. But again, its only in normal countries.
... you're willing to accept a free life. Don't think free beer, think free software. In a libertarian society, you have the freedom to determine what happens to you. Government grants (welfare, healthcare, et al), whether to individuals or corporations are designed to remove risk from life and create a predictable society where everyone is the same because everyone has the same things as everyone else. Screw that! I want to be different. Libertarian thought encourages diversity in all things because it encourages being an individual, albeit a *responsible* individual. So ... if you want to be coddled from cradle to grave, removed from the risks of freedom, vote for Gore, Bush or Nader. If you want to be free, vote for Browne.
make your vote count, vote for individual freedom and personal responsibility vote libertarian across the ballot !!! I am personally shock to see my fellow slashbots not rallying around a party based on principles, freedom, and the constitution. It has become one of the 3 official "Major" parties and the third largest party Largely in part to its huge internet presence. Way Presidential Debate to Air on October 20th On Friday, October 20, from 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. Eastern time, Judicial Watch will host a nationally televised presidential debate featuring six of the seven qualified presidential candidates. Harry Browne, John Hagelin, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and Howard Phillips have all accepted--only George W. Bush has declined. C-SPAN has committed to televising the debate, and Fox TV and American Voice Radio are considering coverage
"I know where you wanted to go today, But we decided to stop here instead!"
you my friend sound like a libertarian. check out www.lp.org/
"I know where you wanted to go today, But we decided to stop here instead!"
I think I wan't to kill him for saying that.
I mean, this has probably happened before, supposedly the mob helped JFK get elected, and then Texas oil helped "take" him out of office, but htat's beside the point. What were the ops of this website thinking???
I am voting for Bush for several good reasons. First off, I don't trust Gore, due to his closeness with Clinton. Clinton has in the past eight years destroyed the interenet as we once knew it. It has also under Clinton that the government has become more and more involved in the internet. One example of this is Carnivore and the FBI. Second, though Bush has said negative things about the internet and the video game companies, he has also said that he wants to expand computer education in this country. One way was to use federal money to educate teachers to then in turn teach students and not to spend the bulk of the money to buy top of the line computers and hardware that can't be use in the first place. Third is that the stock market is going down and I never gave credit to the good economy to Clinton in the first place. So Bush is my choice because I believe in the long run he is a more tech friendly choice for president than Gore.
I want the candidates to work for the american people. I want to cast my vote on issues, not people. How about this idea, we get some guy/gal in the office, or a team of people, and then create a system for voting on a daily basis, not just once every 4 years. I don't want to care about the candidates personal views or his 'stance' on important issues, his moral upbringing, who he did/didn't do. I want someone who has NO PERSONAL OPINION. Then, when a bill gets to office to be passed, they could submit a post to slashdot.gov, and take a poll of the american public. No more of this "during election you said you'd do this and now you've betrayed us!" Where I work, my representation of my company is not that of my own personal opinion, if I took my personal views over that of which my company wants presented to the public, I get fired. The president is our employee, we are his employer, and to only be able to select an employee and let them run with it for 4 years puts the people out of the loop. Sure there are also local elections, but the majority of the campaigning HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISSUES. street corners get plastered with signs that say: "vote foe Joe blow for better schools" does anyone honestly believe that the other candidate doesn't also want better schools? what when how why.... these are the issues, that for the most part, the issues and debates are popularity contests. For somweone to say, "this is the greatest country in the world and I'm going to make sure it stays that way" will likely get that person votes on the Fluff factor (fluff: doesn't mean much but it feels nice) In olden days, information moved slowly and counting votes itself, and campaigning from city to city was a major logistical issue, today, some guy could sitt at a computer and share his views in one place to everybody everywhere. It's time we took the personalities out of the picture and use this information age to put poeple directly in touch with the voting on Issues, Bills, and Laws. The Idea that the political canbdidate somehow knows what we want because of his stance on the issues has lots of holes in it. Not being able to vote for someone against censorship, while also seeing eye 2 eye on some of the other issues is an example of this.I'd like a ballot that had questions like 1-5 1=strongly agree 5= strongly disagree "libraries should censor internet connections." and I could vote 5 for strongly disagree and not worry how that vote might affect the abortion issue. Instead the vote ballot reads something like this: who's your buddy? a. Gore B. Bush
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
trusting a politician... that's a good one. having worked for the republican party, i can only say you are very naive. vote on issues, and don't even consider "trust", or god forbid "morals" (a moral politician, he he he)
As part of various national movements to play this sim called Politics.gov which we appear to be trapped in, a number of people throughout the US are participating in an exercise to make sure that every vote is a useful vote.
Basically, the US has an Electoral College with winner-take-all spoils on a state by state basis, with the exception of Vermont (where they distribute the electoral college votes proportionally). So, to game the system, it behooves people to use wasted votes in Texas and other Bush states that Gore has no chance to win to take their votes and use them to vote for a presidential candidate from the Green Party (Ralph Nader) or another party (like Libertarians or Reform party). The reason is that if a third party can break the 5 percent vote threshold on a national basis, they qualify for federal matching funds in four years, and also qualify to appear on ballots as a major party for the next four years in that state.
So, groups like Greens For Gore have been established to help make sure that every vote counts.
Additionally, on the West Coast, we have a three hour time difference between when polls in the East close, especially states like Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio which are in contention and will make or break the election. So a lot of us are having parties and using web sites to find out who's winning there. Then we'll go and use our votes wisely at 7pm ourtime, since our polls close at 8pm.
Plus, on the West Coast, most voters are absentee voters - we can mail in our ballots at post offices up to midnight on election day - so those with absentee ballots are waiting until 11pm to send convoys of ballot stuffers off to designated post offices (like SeaTac Airport) which are open till midnight.
Hey, you back east may not like it, but tough. And here on the tech-heavy west, the real center of the US, we know how to design, play, and win games, and politics is just a games.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Presidential Debate Transcript
Jim Lehrer: Welcome to the second presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. The candidates have agreed on these rules: I will ask a question. The candidate will ignore the question and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to undecided women voters. The opponent will then have one minute to respond by trying to frighten senior citizens into voting for him. When a speaker's time has expired, I will whimper softly while he continues to spew incomprehensible statistics for three more minutes. Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can you give us the name of a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her story in a way that strains the bounds of common sense?
Gore: As I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made love the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid marriage, the downtrodden have a clear choice in this election. My opponent wants to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans. I, on the other hand, want to put the richest 1 percent in an iron clad lockbox so they can't hurt old people like Roberta Frampinhamper, who is here tonight. Mrs. Frampinhamper has been selling her internal organs, one by one, to pay for gas so that she can travel to these debates and personify problems for me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.
Lehrer: Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.
Bush: Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging people, crying with them, relieving suffering anywhere a photo opportunity exists. I want to empower those crying people to make their own decisions, unlike my opponent, whose mother is not Barbara Bush.
Lehrer: Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if Slobodan Milosevic were to launch a bid to return to power in Yugoslavia, would you be able to pronounce his name?
Bush: The current administration had eight years to deal with that guy and didn't get it done. If I'm elected, the first thing I would do about that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies. And then Dick would present me several options for dealing with that guy. And then Dick would tell me which one to choose. You know, as governor of Texas, I have to make tough foreign policy decisions every day about how we're going to deal with New Mexico.
Lehrer: Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.
Gore: Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly interested in. I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who was a victim of poison gas in World War I. I myself lost a leg in the Franco-Prussian War. And when that war was over, I came home and tenderly made love to Tipper in a way that any undecided woman voter would find romantic. If I'm entrusted with the office of president, I pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat, foreign or domestic, by putting it in an iron clad lockbox. Because the American people deserve a president who can comfort them with simple metaphors.
Lehrer: Vice President Gore, how would you reform the Social Security system?
Gore: It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Lieberman and I have proposed changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give $50,000 to every senior citizen without having it cost the federal treasury a single penny until the year 2250. In addition, my budget commits $60 trillion over the next 10 years to guarantee that all senior citizens can have drugs delivered free to their homes every Monday by a federal employee who will also help them with the child-proof cap.
Lehrer: Gov. Bush?
Bush: That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of Texas, I have to do math every day. I have to add up the numbers and decide whether I'm going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene or commit funds to reroof the sheep barn at the Texas state fairgrounds.
Lehrer: It's time for closing statements.
Gore: I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting politician, but I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to turning the White House into a lusty pit of marital love for Tipper and me.
Bush: It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by electing no one but Republicans.
Lehrer: Thank you and good night.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Brown is a Libertarian. And while I do not agree with the reductio ad absurbum philosophy about privatizing everything, the rest of their philosophy seems intact. Seatbelts are your choice, do not censor anthying, etc... He is the only one that I can stomach voting for. The idea of the rest of those clueless bastards becoming president is enough to make vomit and gives me the strong urge to go out and bring physical harm to small and furry woodland creatures.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
it is extremely stupid to sit out and not vote as a form of protest. politians will look at it as a form of apathy and not protest. there is a reason why the elections have focused on medicare and social security. that reason is that the elderly vote in huge numbers. if young people don't vote, then there will be no focus on them and comments like the one bush made would not be said. the elderly in general dont understand technology, and hear what the media says about it. bush is playing on this while demonizing the internet. what does he care what young people think? he doesnt because he knows for the most part that they wont vote. that is why the best form of protest towards the two main parties is not abstaining from voting, but it is voting for 3rd party candidates. if young people vote for 3rd parties the two old parties will see that they are leaving out a huge section of their constituants. i come from mn, where jesse ventura was elected. he got young people to get out and vote. and vote they did. who would have ever thought that jesse ventura would be the governer of a state. please, please go and vote or be forever forgotten by the system. and if you dont please dont complain about who gets voted, because you have NO right to whatsoever until you let them know who you want in office.
I can't bring myself to vote for the inventor of the internet. Of course, having a robot president would be kinda cool!
I believe a good lot of you are making something out of nothing. George W. made a comment that has been utterly misconstrued. He didn't state that the internet was the only cause of the incident - he may have used poor word choices but to slam him and to used your media power to put words in his mouth are unfair. I am voting for Bush because he is a fair man that realizes our country has been made weak over the last 8 years. Our military (the main purpose for the federal government by the way) is in a weakened state. Bush has a solid plan and vision for his term in office . Gore's plan changes with the audience he is speaking to. Bush by far would be the better choice for the techie, he is for smaller government. Less government intrusion !!!! In all I would say cut George W some slack for the slip - He's not going to ban the internet and have a witch hunt. We seem to forgive Al G. for "inventing the internet" and other exagerations like his "dog's medicine" George W. , in my opinion remembers what the US is all about (see quote below) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about." Woodrow Wilson
While I can't say I'm exactly unhappy with the last 8 years I think the best vote this year is to vote ALL the bums out. I'm not going to tout the abilities of any candidate, and any non-Rep or non-Dem candidate would have one HELL of a time getting anything done in office . . .
A vote for Nader, Brown or Buchanan (The devil himself) is an attempt to rattle the cage and that's a great idea.
Offended and amused by Bush ? Wary of Gore and more of the same polished promises? Vote for somebody else.
Vote the bums out - just f*****g vote !
JB
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
I hear an awful lot of people saying "Vote Nader, vote Nader", but the last time I checked, he wasn't on the ballots in all states yet, correct?
=
This is an incredibly personal decision, and what gives ANYONE the right to tell other people who to vote for. If someone wants to vote for Nader, fine...but don't shove it down everyone else's throat. Bush, Gore, Jerry Garcia...pick one, but there's a reason it's a SECRET ballot, folks.I don't care who you're voting for, and neither do most other people...I'm sure everyone has their reasons for choosing "their" candidate
(Note: for those of you just giving information on a candidate's position, please forgive this post)
Mark it as flamebait, I don't care
===========================================
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
Here are my $0.02 worth. I still have no idea who to vote for, but the two main candidates are both incompetant imho. I have been using the internet for almost 7 years now (I was a youngin when I started, 13). I have been playing games longer than that. My point is that the candidates are ostricizing the population in America that is becoming the largest population, the 18 to 25 year-olds. I am not some dark, brooding, evil individual because I play games, watch movies, and surf the net. Last I checked, parents were to be responsible for their kids' actions. My parents were involved in my life growing up with games, movies and the internet, and I think that I grew up just fine. When kids do the extremes, it is a blatant cry for attention from people, because people don't give them the attention that they deserve. Children are our future, with the guidance of parents, not the government (known to me from now on as Big Brother) and not the diplomats who themselves seem like a bunch of kids who cannot get along with each other. To make a long post longer, Brown looks like a good candidate for me.
Cogito, ergo sum.
To clarify one point, 5% of the popular vote, unfortunately, does NOT guarantee you a place in the debates. The debates are put on by the Bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (a commission that is represented by only the Republicans and Democrats). The stipulation that they lay out is that a candidate must be polling 15% to be invited to the debates. If you think back, you might recall that , while Ross Perot polled very well in the 1992 general election (19%), he still was denied access to the '96 debates.
If you look at the three justices Bush has appointed two turned out to be pro abortion rights. None of the three have been particularly 'conservative' let alone 'ultra-conservatice'.
Actually, a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. Bush must get more votes than Gore in order to win. The best analogy you can make is a Vote for Nader is the same as not voting. Since you aren't helping Bush or Gore your not voting. What a useless way of looking at things.
BTW - The lesser of two evils is still an evil. Cast a vote for what you think is good, not evil (unless you consider yourself evil, then by all means don't vote for good)
7 of the 9 judges on the current court ARE republican appointments and they aren't overturning Roe v. Wade anytime soon. Additionaly two of the three judges Bush has appointed in Texas are pro abortion rights. Not exactly the radical right wing record most would expect.
What I don't understand is how folks can say they don't want Bush appointing judges, but Gore is OK? WTF? Neither clearly understand the constitution and neither will appoint judges who will limit the federal government to its constitutional powers.
Article I - Section 8.
'To establish Post Offices and post Roads;'
This got modded up as funny? I wasn't trying to be funny, I am serious....
I've heard alot of rumors (rumors are not a trustworthy source, but this is worth taking note of), that if George W. Bush gets elected, there will be some sort of retalliation for Dallas, 1963.
I've often heard claims that Texas Oil had a bit to do with the assassination of JFK. Does anyone have any facts to support this? I'm just curious if these rumors have any basis or not.
This people *do* sound dangerous, so I'm wondering if their intent of *payback* has any basis for consideration? They just kept muttering something about a 20 year cycle- FDR died in office in 1945, JFK was assassinated in 1963, an attempt on Reagan's life in 1981 (he was wounded though), and now the 20 year cycle needs to be "completed" as the people in the chat room I was in said.
I've heard claims of this in various places and it freaks me out that someone may actually try to go through with this. I'm not a Bush supporter, but no one deserves to die...
Has anybody ever thought of using a yes/no checkbox for each candidate? It would work like this:
Do you think x is suitable for president?
x=bush NO
x=gore YES (holding nose)
x=nader YES
x=buchanan NO
x=browne NO
Consider if 60% of people are torn between gore and nader.
Current system:
40% Bush (Winner)
30% Gore
30% Nader
Yes/no boxes:
60.00001% Nader (Winner-Hey its my fantasy, I can do whatever I want)
59.99999% Gore
40% Bush
I can certainly endorse at least the title of your comment.
Nader speaks to the Middle Class. He certainly doesn't represent the Upper Class or the Working Class.
He's like those Middle Class Marxists one finds on college campuses. "Stand Up For The Worker's Rights" they exclaim as they rant and rave about some adventurist band of terrorists in Nicaragua or Bolivia. You know who I mean: middle class elitists who carry around a caricature of 'the noble workingman' in their hearts.
I think you jumped too fast. Nader is definitely the lesser, but not of two evils.
I myself, being an Air Force enlistee, am most definately voting for Bush. I would like to keep UN Patches and Chinese Flags off of my Blues thank you. Al Gore and the current Administration have pandered to the Chinese. We open trade policies with Communist China. Key word, Communist. I thought the US wasn't going to trade with communist countries? Am I wrong? Why not trade openly with Cuba as well? Gore handing over secrets to Russia as well. What 's up with that?
"Game over man! Game over!!"
Oooh! Oh uninformed Alaska Natoinal Monument supporter. It's not a National Monument, it's frozen barren land. I was raised in Alaska, lived there 19 years of my life. ANWR is barren wasteland. I worked in the Salmon industry for six years. There's plenty of Salmon, they arne't going anywhere, the Fish Industry in Alaska is booming, they had one of their best seasons last year. The big issue of drilling in ANWR is the Caribou migratory pattern. They have drilled and run pieplines through migratory patterns before, and have not effected them at all. The Caribou don't pay any attention to them. As for oil leakages in the pipeline. The pipelines are sectioned, they have the control to turn off any section at any time. They are routinely maintained. There's no excuse to not tap into the oil in ANWR, except for a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who don't know the facts. ANWR has more oil then most middle eastern nations, and should be tapped. Period.
"Game over man! Game over!!"
Actually, for the most part, I couldn't agree with you more, at least for most of your comments. As for SUV's, nobodies ever complained about Semi's, Minivans, Large Pickups, why gang up on SUV's. Just because the upper class can afford them, and are safer in them, why do we have to condemn them for having a better lifestyle then us? So, we should strip them of what they've (hopefully) earned through hard work? Instead of making cars that are just as safe and/or get just as good gas mileage. (and yes, most SUV's get rather good gas mileage.) I personally drive a 63 Dodge Dart, and it sucks gas like Monica...well, you know. Hell, I'd love to have an SUV, they're nice, roomy, and comfortable, drive well. What's wrong with that? Now, about the environment, if ANWR were something beautiful, and something to behold, I could see the argument, but, alas, it's just frozen marsh and tundra, no trees, nothing. So drill there instead of in the middle of the ocean floor. Right now, I live in Chico, CA, it's beautiful here, but the traffic sucks. I lived in san Diego, traffic was horrid there, and yes, for a while I lived in Seattle, worst traffic and public highways I've ever seen. I think ever 'major' city SHOULD have some sort of public rail system. In San Diego they have a nice trolley system that I used to ride daily to work. Trollies are nice. Monorails are nice. I've lost my point, but, I agree on the public rail system. Oh yeah, I carpool with 3 other people from work. *shrugs*
"Game over man! Game over!!"
Unfortunately, not voting doesn't make any statement whatsoever. In fact, it only makes the status quo happy. The fewer voters there are, the easier their campaigning is. If you are dissatisfied with the system as-is, then vote for a third party. Even if the third party candidate is less than optimal, it's the only way to send a message that the dems and reps are idiots. If the total voting for all third parties (Libertarian, Constitution, Natural Law, Reform) in the aggregate begain to exceed 10% on a consistent basis, then the mainstream would have to take notice. If there were, as many think there ought to be, a 'none of the above' choice on the ballot, then that would be a great way to make the kind of statement you wish to make by not voting. Unfortunately, your only recourse is to vote third party or write someone in. Personally, I think there should be a 'none of the above' choice on the ballot.
gameDB
Have the artists get a job, sit on the side lines and creat their art out of plastic toilet items and try to sell them. DOn't expect me to pay for it. I will GLADLY pay to maintain a strang infrastructure - including but not limited to: Police, Military, Fire Departments, Water, Sewage, and trash just to name a few. Education? I have my son in a private school because I cannot trust the governemnt to deliver my mail on time, I will not trust them to educate my child. Darn.. there I go again. ::Voices won't stop:: Hehehe
This should be obvious, you vote to further your own interests and view of things, not to make some politician happy. So, pick the one that comes closest even if you think they are a jerk. It is an unfortunate side effect making them happy but there are ways to reduce that effect later, write letters to the paper, go to meetings a lot, make their next few years miserable unless they do your bidding.
I find it very interesting how the readers here seem to be divided:
e w.Science.of.C.html
:)).
1) The rare right-wing fanatics who have bought into the ridiculous idea that Gore and Lieberman are going say, BAN firearms. Which would be a wonderful thing, but our country isn't ready for it. Lots of evolution still to be done before we get to that stage.
It's called character assassination, folks. Same thing that has been going on thanks to our wonderful Republican party for years now (most recently: whitewater, lewinsky, etc.)
http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.The.N
2) Then we have those who are scared by a right-wing administration appointing more supreme court justices than any one administration should, thereby doing something drastic like overturning Roe v Wade. Which will never happen, btw. No, really. Right-to-lifers are a minority, and if it did happen, we'd have 20 million people marching on Washington the next day.
Anyway, what strikes me is that NO ONE actually _likes_ Al Gore. People vote for him out of fear, which to me, is the wrong reason.
3) Folks like myself - interested in politics, yet sick of the two party "system" and the way it leverages corporate wealth to perpetuate its own existence. I'm sick of candidates unwilling to lead with their hearts. Bush v Gore is the worst choice Americans have been presented with in my (short) lifetime. Watching the debates makes me want to move to Canada (oh wait, I already did that
IMO, we are idealists struggling against old culture and old philosophy. We vote for Nader because we know someday, our 'radical' idealism won't seem so radical, so long as we make it known that we exist. It makes me happy to know that there are lots of Nader fans up in here who are willing to speak their mind.
Where's my absentee ballot, anyway?
tasty
What are you talking about??? The national debt tripled under Reagan and the economy was nothing but stagnant under Bush. When Clinton was elected and began instituiting his economic policies, the republicans in the house specifically said that they wanted no responsibility for his actions and policies. I say we give them no responsibility. Clinton definitely got help from the booming private sector, but many of his reforms have helped boost the lower classes into a much better position in our economy and therefore become better consumers and boost it even more. Trickle down economics are a joke, you're not going to help the economy by giving more money to the wealthy and hope that they spend enough to help the poor. Instead you must build up the consumer class so that there are more people with money to buy products and services from all of the emerging industries. Don't be fooled into thinking our economy will flourish no matter which candidate is elected as they both have very differing views on how to keep it strong. One has worked for the past 8 years, and the other led to the recession felt in the early 90's.
By not voting, you're opinion isn't heard in the arena that politicians really listen to. Granted that in a presidential election, you have a choice of two evils, but there is almost always (and definitly is this year) a lesser evil. Don't get me wrong, a system like the US government, were it a business, would have gone bankrupt long ago. On the other hand, we can vote against the people who will make it worse than it is by their own shortsightedness. Not voting accomplishes a fool (Bush) being elected. Don't even consider voting for Nader or one of the other candidates: They have no chance of winning, and are only taking away votes from the person who would cause the least damage.
My theory is you should vote for Gore if you care about technology at all. Because even if you don't agree with his positions on some things, he is at least smart enough, that if you have a valid argument, he will be able to understand it and make the right choice. Bush, is a moron and he will do what his advisors say.
First, let's get something across. I'm only 15, so I can't vote. My parents haven't told me everything about politics: I learn on my own. I have to know this stuff for the school Forensics team. (If anyone from MI out there reads this, and is on a Forensics team, e-mail me if you're in Impromptu/Extemp) There are a lot of things that people don't understand about politics, and that's why I believe that Bush won't get as many botes as he deserves: people don't understand politics. So, even if you hate him, please read this and then tell me what you think.
First, taxes. The whole bit about Gore's 1 percent accusation is, in a sense, true. THink about it this way. If you're making 10 billion dollars a year, and you have to pay 40 percent of your income to federal taxes, that's a LOT of money. So, if Bush gives tax cuts to all Americans, of course a lot is going to be given back to the people who pay all the bills: the richest one percent. It's just a matter of logic. And don't say, "Oh, well the people who make that much can spare some money anyway." American is about capitalism: keeping what you EARN. If you make that money, keep it. You shouldn't be cheated out of hard work. As for myself,I got a paycheck today, and, not to my surprise, I got pummelled with taxes: 15 percent of my income. So, for someone who makes LESS THAN 1000 per year, that's pretty bad. I'd hate to see it get worse. Gore and Nader are both for increases in taxes (Nader is almost socialist), so I say whatever. I want my money back.
Social Security. Ok. Right now, as the current Social Security system stands, every American makes approximately 2 percent each year on this money. Not only does inflation, most of the time, grow faster than this, so we are actually LOSING money, but, if we happen to die before 61 or whatever age it is...I can't quite remember, all of that money goes down the tubes. That SUCKS. Currently, passing those retirement savings on to future generations is illegal, but it is not with the privatization of SS. Also, government-controlled programs would yield a 7 percent annual rate of capital gains through bonds, so that they are secure unless the ENTIRE economy were to collapse, completely. Sounds good to me. Keep my money if I want to invest diferently (On a side note, you can't just take the money. You MUST invest it, so no one will be left in the dark if he/she irresponsibly wastes his SS savings), and make more if the government does the work. Also, I can pass the savings on to my kids. Cool.
Abortion. Listen. Abortion is stupid. You can't play God. If you want to know anything more about this, PLEASE e-mail me and I will send you some essays, etc. that I guarantee will change your mind. If you want to know, a committee of highly respected doctors met shortly after Roe v. Wade, and they determined that life begins at conception, so, regardless of the gestation length, it's murder. Also, a part of a woman's body is scientifically defined as "a structure that shares the same genetic code as the body," and the fetus' g. code is different. It's not her's, the baby is a baby and muder is murder. Nothing can change that.(I know Bush is for abortion is rape, incest and Life OT Mother rases, but the last is almost nothing. Dr. Koop in however many years as the S. Gerneral, was aware of NO CASE where the woman's life was in danger. Anyway, At least he isn't for sucking the brains out of babies and, although I think a bill just passed through Congress abolishing it, yet Clinton will probably veto is, in which babies for which abortion fails, in that their brains are half gone, but they come out crying, and fully alive, it has been MANDATORY to literally throw the half-live baby into the corner and let it die and it has been illegal to otherwise touch/comfort the suffering human. A nurse was fired for cradling a baby whose brains were almost gone, crying, on the verge of death and covered in its own blood. Please. How sick you can be. Stop the horror.)
Gun Control. In the 50's before the first gun control laws were passed, the amount of gun-related crime was 0.4 percent of what it is today. So, this crime is a problem of society, not the government. Also, in Switzerland, the government mandates that each household has in its possession at least 1 gun, and since this legislation was passed, the crime rate has dropped there to become the lowest in Europe, etc. Anyway, it's a Constitutional Right.
School Vouchers. Because I live in Michigan, I'll use Detriot as an example. Let's say that there is some public school in Detroit that has a graduation rate of 10 percent and the academic value is close to nothing. There is a student at this school who would LOVE to learn, but his family is too poor to afford private/parochail school tuition. Why should he be stuck there? He shouldn't. And most schools will not be affected by these vouchers. They are only used where schools are failing. As Bush remarked in one of the debates, "Why should we continue to subsidize failure?" It seems almost rudimentary to me in that schools with no educational value should not be a prison for poor children. Another argument against school vouchers is that teachers don't have to have credentials to teach at the "other schools." If this is a bad thing, than I suppose the State should stop allowing graduate students teach at public universities, such as the prestigious U of M. Kids first.
I think I have covered most of the basic bases for people to consider. If you want more info, just e-mail. (delete the NO SPAM in the address)I would be happy to LaTeX something up for everyone. Thank you for your consideration. I greatly appreciate any comments/criticism. Impromptu rules. :)
CMcTortoise
Oh yeah. If you're wondering about foreign policy, please just look at Cheney's records. Secretary of Defense for some years and tons of government experience. He knows foreign policy like Slashdotters know technology.
The thing about opting not to vote is, it directly effects you, me and all of us! You may think "one in however many votes wont matter" but what if one candidate wins by a vote. You'd be kickin youreself in the @$$ then wouldn't you.
ok, bottom line, I'm emploring you all who read this to vote. I'm going to, even though the candidates aren't my favorite. Put in your 2 cents and have an effect on what happens in your nation!
It's not for everybody