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.
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!
... 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.
--
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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
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
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.
"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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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!
---
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.
/.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.
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
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.
You got Ralph Nader confused with Jello Biafra who was a candidate for the Greens nomination, but lost it to Nader.
Perhaps the reason why you got confused was you also failed to read the disclaimer on the beginning of the Greens website here that states "This platform is not binding for candidates on any level".
For more information on the Green party, check out this link. Notice on this website that it has a link to Ralph Nader's platform, as ratified at the Green Party National Convention, June 2000.
This is the platform Ralph Nader supports, don't believe the rumor mongers.
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.