Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot, The Elections, and Space Exploration
We've been putting off coverage of the US elections for a long time now, but with the election only weeks away, we figure its time to let
loose. The stories about the election will be posted under the United States topic, and will stop with the announcement of the winner. Stories that are selected will be very few, so expect to be have submissions rejected. Submissions must have some sort of angle for them to be considered for Slashdot, and we will be brutal: we're not CNN here.
And if you don't care about the election, login and disable the United States topic and you'll be free from this. We're starting this
off with a link from
TOTKChief where you can read NASA Watch's of journal of space-related election news, which is just the first of many issues we think is
relevant in this upcoming election. Read it, make up your own mind, and vote goddammit.
What is the consequence of this? Maybe the losing party will look at the results sand say "Well, gee, if we had Nader's vote, we would have won."
So what do they do the next election? They take on a platform that will hopefully woo the Nader (or Brown, or Perot) voters.
This is precisely how Populist and Socialist positions were incorporated into the Democratic Party, how Dixiecrat positions were incorporated into the Republican Party, and how deficit reduction became a major issue for both parties after Perot's performance in 1992.
A third party doesn't have to win; it just has to do well enough to scare the Establishment.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Not as omnipotent as advertised, I guess.
.50 cal.
Not even as omnipotent as me with a Hummer and a postmount
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
-- Judges 1:19
I think we've moved on past needing HIS help...
In the current installment, Reed Hundt makes a thinly veiled argument for the BS that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
Bullshit. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
And I cannot believe how many people are running for President....
Listed as running:
Harry Browne - Libertarian
Pat Buchanan - Reform
George Bush - Republican
Al Gore - Democrat
John Hagelin - Natural Law
James Harris - Socialist Workers
Denny Lane - Vermont Grassroots
David McReynolds - Liberty Union
Ralph Nader - Progressive/Green
Howard Philips - Constitution
It's too bad that most of these people haven't gotten any press, I would be interested in knowing what other than Bush, Gore, Nader, Browne and Buchanan think. Does anyone know what the others stand for?
It's just too bad that no one other than the 2 major parties have a chance in winning, their ideas are so stale...
It isn't possible to get such a system while the existing parties hold power. The only way to get from here to there is to get a third party into power by voting for them.
Pretty dismal.
I have an idea, but it's so wacky that I don't think it'll take off. The third parties are wildly different from one another, but this is one thing they can probably all agree on: election reform to make it possible for third parties to get representation. So... if all those parties (with wildly different idealogies) could somehow get a primary and put forth a single candidate and get their power bases to support and vote for that candidate (even though many of hem might hate that candidate (e.g. I'm a libertarian and I hate Nader)) then perhaps that candidate would have a chance of getting elected. Then, there would at least be some real power which could be used for election reform.
I'm just dreamin', aren't I?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
When Ralph Nader spoke at my university a couple of weeks ago, he brought Michael Moore with him, and Moore warmed up the audience before Nader stepped onstage. The thing I remember most was when he told us to ask people these two questions:
"When you elect a representative or a senator or a president and you send him to Washington, do you expect him to vote what he believes?"
Most people will say something along the lines of "Of course!
"So why don't you?"
And that is why I will not vote for Gore or Bush, and have to figure out who I really support. I don't agree with a lot of what Nader says, but damn, I can actually believe in the guy instead of wondering what he's really thinking behind that mask.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39295-3
The fact that you are 19 is the greatest reason to vote 3rd party. You have probably 60 or 70 years of your life yet to live. If you ever want to see candidates that you can whole-heartedly vote for, you have to start empowering them now. Otherwise you will end up voting the lesser of two evils for life. What a scary thought.
Whether you side more with Democrats or Republicans you are screwed either way in this election. Both are moving so far into the middle that they are virtually clones except for a few cosmetic differences in opinion. I considered myself a "democrat" until Bradley lost the primaries. But regardless of our differences, you and I are BOTH being screwed.
So I urge you, vote Browne if you believe in the Libertarian ideas. If only to give the Republican party a kick in the ass and a wake up call. Many progressives will be doing the same with Nader. Democrats have also abandoned progressives.
This is the first election I can vote in, and I thought Bradley was a decent candidate until I found out about Nader. It is an utter crying shame and disappointment when I see kids my age, college kids, high school kids, fall into the two-party mentality trap, and choose a candidate like they are choosing a soda brand. It bewilders me when polls show Gore has a humongous amount of young people supporting him. I want to turn to those kids and say "wake up!". If you want to get active in politics, get active with a burgeoning party that respects you and that you can make a difference in. Don't get sucked in by the two parties that don't really give a damn about you and are only using you and throwing you away.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
And if you don't like Gore or Bush, vote third party. Nader, Browne, Buchanan. They won't win, but:
1) If they get a certain percentage of the vote this election, they get more official money and recognition in the next election and more power between times
2) It's a form of protest. If you are sick of the system as is, protest vote for a third party.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
One mistake I think a lot of people make is looking solely at the candidate, rather than the beliefs of the party. Obviously the candidate matters, but I think the party actually matters more. Let me explain.
Despite what the popular press would have you believe, Presidents simply don't have that much power. They have most of the foreign policy power, but most of the domestic policy power lies in Congress. Presidents can suggest legislation, but all bills are ultimately written by congress. The President only gets the ability to do a thumbs up or thumbs down on the whole package (unless he eventually gets the line-item veto). That's why you see weird things get attached to bills, because a President is reluctant to down an entire bill over one pork-barrel project.
Bottom line, even if you don't like a particular candidate, vote for the party anyway. For example, I don't think Bush is the best possible candidate in the U.S. However, despite my reservations about the religious wing of the Republican party, I would much rather have conservative, limited economic government policies than the Democrat's "socialism light". Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise.
And by the way, don't let anyone tell you that there is "no difference to the parties". That is just idiocy. Anyone who says that is simply ignorant and is just parroting things they have "heard" with no rational thought.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Gore was instrumental in securing lots of funding for networking in the 80s between Universitites that really poised the 'net to take off. Republicans have ridiculed his statement because he didn't have anything to do with opening the 'net to commercial traffic, as if that is the only thing that matters. Techies have ridiculed him because he didn't invent any protocols, as if the funding he secured in the 80s was irrelevant.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Boycott the election?
That proves nothing but apathy. Apathy does not cause change but promotes the status quo. If you want to enact change you must do something.
A vote for Nader or Buchannan would have a chance to make some difference. Neither of them can win the election, they're well aware of that. What it will do, is at the very least send a message to the major parties that they need to pay more attention to the average person.
A third party vote this election also could pave the road to open things up in the future. In 2008, it could be entirely possible that other parties/independents have a realistic chance, if 15-20% of the vote goes toward a 3rd or 4th canidate.
You need three things to make change happen. Activism, Vigilance, and Agreement. If all of these are not there, no change is going to occur.
"...the solution is (somehow) getting a preferential voting system."
"Somehow", indeed. You think the Republicrats are going to implement a system like that? The only way to get something like that in is to give the third parties more power--which means voting for them.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Rather than serving the people, our government has tried it's damdest to become our ruler instead, starting with the imposition of the 16th Amendment
Actually, this isn't entirely far from the truth when you go back and look at which states actually ratified the 16th amendment and which states were counted as having done so even though they didn't. Kentucky's senate voted against ratification, yet they were counted. Oklahoma voted to ratify a substantially different version of the 16th amendment (making provision for appropriation according to census, not the absence thereof as in the official version of the 16th amendment). There's even an argument to be made that while Texas did vote to ratify, it could not have done so according to law, because it would have violated certain provisions of Texas's own constitution to do so. (The interesting part of the argument is whether state's own constitutions can restrict their ability to ratify federal constitutional amendments -- the language of the Constitution is ambiguous and perhaps even approving on this point).
So, then the result is a corrupt central government aggrandizing this power onto itself without respect for the contitutional processes that bear legitimacy. A similar argument can be made concerning the 14th amendment (which was ratified by southern "states" which hadn't been fully let back into the union since seceding) and even the original constitution (which required a smaller number of states ratifying it than even the 3/4 majority needed for amendment under Article V, much less the unanimity required under the Articles of Confederation). But it's sad, none the less.
-- Anne Marie
While I did enjoy reading up on Bush's and Gore's viewpoint as they specifically relate to space and other sciences, I find it rather sad that they are yet again the only candidates to get a mention. It appears that the folks at NASA Watch took some time to find out about the candidates' viewpoints on the space program, but they couldn't spend just a few minutes learning who the other candidates running on the majority of the ballots were and what they thought? I understand the thinking behind the whole "wasted vote" philosophy which so many people abide by and therefore disregard third party candidates, but it is that kind of thinking which has resulted in this two party oligarchy that currently holds power in the USA today and will continue to do so until people learn that you shouldn't vote against a candidate but for a candidate. The Republican Party was a third party once as well, until a guy by the name of Abraham Lincoln ran on their ticket back in 1860, and that was 140 years ago, when to find out what candidates were about, you had to run your dumb ass all over hell and gone just to catch a rally and hear what they were about. These days, we have so much info without ever getting off of our asses, that there really is no excuse for not knowing who's running, what their stances are, etc.
If you are still in the dark, cruise over to www.vote-smart.org to get a brief view of the candidates and links to their official sites, or for a cool website concerning the candidates' stances on many issues, check out Issues2000.org. Oh, and don't neglect to learn about your local Congresscritters, either, especially since their decisions have a hell of a lot more impact on your daily life than the president's does. Whatever you do, don't just whine about not being able to make a difference, because that's a load of horseshit; even if your candidate of choice doesn't win, at least your vote is officially tallied so that whoever is elected will realize that, although they may have won, there is a large number of people, voting people, who support a different way of doing things and that they do well to find out why so many people voted a certain way. So go out, learn about the candidates and their views, decide who you would like to support and, most importantly:
Vote!
Deo
I see too many people speaking of boycotting the election. People don't want to pick the lesser of two evils, so they're choosing not to vote. This is not the best response.
Don't vote for the lesser evil. Find a candidate you do believe in and vote for that one. You're not throwing away your vote. You're showing that you're fed up with the two main parties. That you are no longer represented by them.
This govenment is not going to be changed overnight. Ralph Nader, for instance, has no chance in hell of winning this election. But, if all the people who believe in his ideas vote for him, instead of voting for the big party candidate that they fear the least, a very clear message would be sent to the government. And then in 4 years, maybe Ralph Nader, or another 3rd party candidate, would really have a chance.
We must respect evil, and we must make evil respect us.
Doesn't anyone else think we should have a 'ask the candidates' forum on
The solution is not throwing away your vote every 4 years for the same lost cause,
This is the Big Lie that's ruined the chances of any third party and wrecked what was once the model of democracy for the rest of the world to follow.
Voting for someone you're pretty sure won't win isn't "throwing your vote away." A poster on Slashdot long ago said "It's not a horse race." You're choosing who you think is the best person for the job, not "the lesser of two evils."
You, and the rest of the country, have more than two choices for President, Governor, House and Senate members, etc. It's just the largest two parties have done a good enough job of skewing the electoral system in their favour that other voices almost never get a chance to be heard - witness Nader not even being allowed to view the debate even though he had a ticket, never mind - horror of horrors - he could actually get a chance to espouse his left-wing, anti-corporate views in front of a nation that believes it only has two choices. And Harry Browne and his Libertarian wingnuts? He absolutely must be kept silent, lest people start thinking they actually have a choice that could result in politicians having less power and individuals having more freedom.
I suppose that Jesse Ventura guy in Minnesota doesn't exist - after all, he's not a Republican or Democrat, so Minnesota voters must have thrown their votes away.
Vote your conscience - vote for Brown (or Nader, or whomeever). Don't give extra votes to people you think are morons just because they're the "lesser of two evils" (even though you have more than two choices!), and don't eschew going to the polls. Elections are the one time when individuals such as yourself actually wield more power over the formation and direction of government than lobbyists and "friends", and it's a shame more people don't exercise that power. Even if your favoured candidate loses, your vote shows there are some people who believe a candidate is right. The more people who vote their conscience rather than just stay home because "it doesn't matter," the more it proves to others that non-Republicrats might be worth listening to.
-------------
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Dave and Declan,
I am taking the liberty of sending to you both a brief summary of Al Gore's Internet involvement, prepared by Bob Kahn and me. As you know, there have been a seemingly unending series of jokes chiding the vice president for his assertion that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has become the Internet.
I thought you might find this short summary of sufficient interest to share it with Politech and the IP lists, respectively.
================================================== ============
Al Gore and the Internet
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.
The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.
Ralph Nader and Gore advisor Reed Hundt (former FCC chairman) have been having a back-and-forth on Wired.
, 00.html
In Nader's latest, he really sounds like a slashdotter. He takes what I consider to be all the stands on open access to information while criticizing Gore for taking money from Vance Opperman (former CEO of West Publishing who claim to "own" all the legal opinions in the U.S.) and doing nothing to support open-source:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39295
Nader points out that while Gore did in fact play a prominent role in early public investment of the internet, he has "coasted on his earlier deeds, [and] he has actively pushed for a new approach to the Internet as something that is far less public."
It's a great debate and really highlights how pitiful the "presidential debates" are when they leave out third party candidates.
Reed never really addresses Nader's arguments and just attacks Bush...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!