Politics, Endorsements And Privacy

We have a few stories relating to the candidates this morning: First up is this piece which lists techies endorsing Gore (including Vint Cerf) but notes that Bush still raised more campaign money. Second is a self-promotional piece from the Green Party on Nader's stance on Privacy.

Comments

Re:Nader

[Ian Bicking]

Well, I have a philosophical difference here. The problem with our system is that it has a bug: the mathematical relation of "preference" is nontransitive when measured over the populace.

It should be noted that this bug is solvable on the state level: federal or constitutional reform is not necessary. States are free to come up with the method for choosing their electoral college votes. A run-off system without winner-takes-all (which would solve this nasty bug) is not that difficult to attain.

Well, still not that easy. But at least within the realm of reason.

Have you actually looked into what the green party stands for? Nader is running as their candidate, but he's really not one of them, or at least he disavows some of their positions and doesn't run on their platform.

It makes sense to vote for a candidate who you believe to have the character to make the right decision on future matters. In the same way, a party is not just its platform, but a system and a process for coming to that platform.

The Green's platform reflects the beliefs of their members, who at the moment tend to be radical leftists (radical, because they haven't given up, not because they are crazy)

I don't think the Democratic or the Republican platforms really represent their members. If you became active in the Greens you would actually have a reasonable chance to change their direction in a number of ways -- if not nationally, at least locally.

Here in Chicago, under the Democratic Machine, you just can't do that. There is little I can do to make the Democrats reflect my beliefs (and the Republicans are just further yet).

A platform can and will change, but the party process underneith that platform is much more static. The Green Party's process is democratic. The Republican and Democratic parties don't even come close.
--

Re:Elastic Politics and Privacy Concerns

[NMerriam]

And, if the wealthiest 1% are paying 34% of the taxes, then there is obviously something wrong with our tax structure...Don't you think?

You raise a lot of interesting points -- but this one stuck out. Why shouldn't the wealthiest 1% pay 34% of all taxes when they own 40% of the wealth in the country?

I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.

My funny Nader story

[Hairy_Potter]

A few days ago, a telephone pollster called me asking about the election.

Most of her questions were so vague, I didn't answer them, ie. "Would you vote for the candidate that would cut taxes.?"

But she asked if I would vote for Gore or Bush, so I told her Nader. She then said, "Oh, so you're undecided?"

I got nasty, "No, I'm not undecided, I decided I would vote for Nader."

Dipshit, but it sure felt good.

The Raider's answers

[plastickiwi]

Man, Ralph's sounding more and more like a real politician every day.

1. Do you think the use of social security numbers by businesses and government agencies should be regulated?

Yes. The use and sale of social security numbers by private firms and most government agencies should be banned.

Note: "most government agencies." Which ones are the exeption? Surely Ralph knows that federal law prohibits the use of the SSN as an identifier for any purpose other than Social Security benefits? Surely he knows this law is completely disregarded? Surely he's not proposing more legislation instead of enforcing the laws we already have?

Ralph's got a lot of good ideas in this Q & A, but he's cutting them down to sound bites. One of the reasons I don't support him for President is that he's more effective as a consumer advocate when he can tell the whole truth. Running for office he has to say "I think..." and "I support..." a dozen times a day, but doesn't have the latitude to propose actual solutions.

Nader...

[Electric Angst]

Okay, this is pretty cool...


Should the US Government create a watchdog agency to protect US citizens from privacy invasions from other government offices or from corporations?

Yes. The US is the only major industrialized country in the World without such an agency. More than 40 countries have them. An aggressive, independent watchdog agency is essential to protect citizens' privacy from corporate and governmental invasions.


Still, I'd rather go to my Democratic preceinct meeting, bring up this issue, have it voted on, and make it part of the Democratic platform than vote for a candidate who wants to take our trade practices back to 1930's isolationism rather than figure out ways to support the individual and worker in a global society...
--

Re:Nader

[Booker]

As Nader says, you really should vote your conscience. If you wish he could win, vote for him.

I know he's not going to win, but I'm tired of the political "discussion" that goes on now between the 2 parties.

If we can get a real third party, or maybe even 4th or 5th, perhaps we could actually talk about issues, rather than "fuzzy math" and "lockboxes."

If Nader & the Green party can get 5% of the popular vote, they get Federal funds next time around. 5% gets their foot in the door.

If you wish he could win, vote for him. The lesser of two evils is still an evil.

I do have some concerns about Nader hurting Gore, and I'm not sure where I stand on that... but if you're in a state where Bush has no chance of losing (say... Texas, for example) and you like what Nader has to say, then by all means, vote for Nader! (Or any 3rd party candidate, for that matter). A vote for Gore in Texas is more of a throw-away vote than a vote for Nader...

---