Slashdot Mirror
Messages From Democracy's Ghosts
There's a strong and historic impulse -- a reflex maybe -- that insists that citizens ought to vote, because it's an important duty (which is true), because it might make a difference (less clear), because it's simply the right thing.
"Just wanted to drop my 2 cents in and say that maybe those who are thinking of sitting out the election should vote Nader," e-mailed Wade."If enough people vote for another party, maybe, just maybe, someone might take notice, and in the next election things could be different. Seems vaguely familiar to me. I think I went through this when I switched OSes...."
Byron Albert wrote that "in the next four years 3 Supreme Court justices will retire. This means that the new president will get to appoint them. These justices will be a major factor in the upcoming years when most of the intellectual property laws and many other things that will impact us (the open source and free software community)."
Scott wrote that he used to think that the individual voter didn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things. "But then I realized that the grand scheme of things was made up of individual voters. It is imperative that every single person vote. If none of the candidates appeal to your personal politics, then write someone -- anyone -- in. If you don't vote, you aren't counted. If you do vote, then you are counted."
But obviously it isn't that simple for me (and others), for reasons relating primarily to integrity, technology and culture. I have growing problems with the idea that the only way for me to be counted is to vote for "someone" or "anyone." Maybe it's time -- to be metaphoric -- to switch political OSes.
Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting. Elections shouldn't be about choosing which candidate we dislike least, or symbolic and pointless exercises in voting for people who can't possibly win, especially in the Corporate Republic's most corporate election. People would truly count if their political system offered them real choices and options, and gave them genuine ways to participate -- if their views were actually heard.
Democracy can be much more than our current incarnation of it. It was supposed to be much more. It deserves better than we're giving it.
Our two-party political system, no longer representative or legitimate, functions as a closed and proprietary system in an increasingly open culture. It represents the interests of three groups (corporations, politicians and journalists) while individual citizens have little role to play. They are merely asked to offer themselves for manipulation, then to support an unsupportable system by voting.
In the last presidential election, only one-third of eligible voters voted. Pundits tell us the non-voters are morally oblivious, stupid or apathetic, though since we rarely hear from them, we can only guess. The people who run politics and media have succeeded in trivializing non-voters, making them appear repugnant and irresponsible, the opposite of moral and idealistic. They are democracy's ghosts, invisible people.
Perhaps the non-voters are acting more consciously than that, their decisions worthy of more respect and more careful consideration. Gore and Bush will often urge people to vote in this election, but they won't talk much about why so many people don't. They don't dare.
Being a free-thinking individual doesn't mean taking a single position -- like the belief that voting is a moral imperative -- and always adhering to it. In part, it means recommitting to decisions, considering them anew each time.
The current political system doesn't promote democracy by encouraging debate and diversity. It stifles debate and diversity by limiting the participants to two people from two parties who espouse only slightly different versions of two ideologies: liberalism and conservatism, both to my mind equally discredited and outdated.
It operates by character assassination; it uses technology to promote negative and distorted imagery. Its elemental ideology is marketing, not morals. It's become possible to discuss ideas and solutions in the mediasphere. One day, perhaps, the Net will offer a new kind of space for a different brand of politics. I believe it will. But it doesn't yet.
People e-mail me that they'll vote for one candidate or another because of particular issues like abortion, gun control or legislation affecting the environment. That makes perfect sense, but that rationale is a far cry from the original ideas of the people who created the political process. Jefferson would have thrown himself into the Potomac if he thought that this would be the justification for participating in participatory democracy.
This election especially highlights an ugly truth about American politics, argue mathematicians and voting theorists Donald Saari of the University of California at Irvine and Steven Brams of New York University. In a Discover Magazine article called "May The Best Man Lose," Saari and Brams contend that the voting protocol used in America is fundamentally flawed.
The problem, the mathematicians say, lies in the voting system itself, and the way it thwarts the popular will. Voting theorists have recognized the weakness of the plurality system for centuries, argue the authors. Although few Americans learn this in their high school civics classes, there are many alternative voting systems in the world. And they tend to attract a much higher percentage of voters.
In our system, the winner often amasses only a plurality, not a majority, of the votes. Bill Clinton, for example, won the presidency with 43% of the vote; Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship with 37%. The plurality winner could be everybody else's least favorite candidate. As Saari puts it, "the plurality vote is the only procedure that will elect someone who's despised by almost two thirds of the voters."
This may explain why so many people feel it's pointless to vote. A majority of Americans, for example, have repeatedly supported abortion rights, yet their popular will is continually challenged. The system doesn't, in fact, respond to the majority will, often permitting a plurality to supplant it.
The current process personalizes civics, reducing it to an image-spinning contest between two camps who apparently have few coherent or consistent values, whose candidates' public personae change almost weekly to reflect the latest polls.
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
It would also be admirable if non-voters found alternative means to support a democratic political system -- running for office, supporting a better crop of candidates, founding and supporting alternative political parties, using technology perhaps to do all of the above. The Net certainly offers some new machinery for that, perhaps a real chance to re-democratize democracy. That won't be easy, though. The alienating nature of our politics is deep and destructive.
What's clear is that the two major candidates manipulate a handful of issues -- abortion, the environment and the judiciary come to mind -- to promote the idea that they have substantial differences when, in fact, they have few. Since both parties are dependent on the same sources of funding, read the same market research, both edge closer to the same positions all the time, at least in public.
Mass political marketers, using the latest polling technologies, and dependent on televised and other images, have driven ugly, fat or odd-looking people out of national politics.If you're not blow-dried, you don't make the cut. That means the prettiest people get to run for president, not the smartest or most idealistic. American political candidates all wind up as militant moderates, hewing close to the center. Neither party offers a radically different approach or vision of the future. Neither has any appetite for addressing expensive or complicated social problems, apart from pandering to parental fears about technology or the fears of the vulnerable elderly. What remains is a media popularity contest that focuses on two issues: Is George Bush intellectually unprepared for the job? Is Al Gore smarmy and obnoxious? So far, the answer to all those questions seems to be yes, but that's hardly a rallying cry for democracy. Or a persuasive argument for voting.
Both candidates continually exploit fears about children and promote ignorant, Luddite views about technology and culture. Both candidates and their running mates advance the dishonest idea that technology and culture are endangering the young, undermining values and education. Lieberman is demanding that Hollywood alter the nature of filmmaking and marketing. Gore is advancing the idea of "cultural pollution." Bush has lamented that the Net can turn the heart of a child dark and murderous. Cheney has criticized Lieberman for not being rabid enough in his attacks on popular culture. No one has made an intelligent or coherent statement about a single one of the many increasingly significant issues that revolve around technology. Their economic and other visions and policies and politics seem ill-suited to a virtual, hyper-connected world, the one that's coming.
I once loved going to my neighborhood polling place. I look forward to the day when I will have the chance to vote for a candidate who speaks honestly, who grasps the centrality of technology and culture in our time, and is willing to raise those important issues in a rational way. That person is unlikely to come out of Washington, or the existing political structure, and is more likely to have grown up reading a site like this.
This fantasy candidate will be neither a "liberal" nor a "conservative" but an original thinker, perhaps one who has used technology all his or her life to test ideas, and take advantage of all that liberated information. He will be an enthusiastic free-marketeer, championing environments that reward opportunity, individuality and creativity. He will offer sane and fair-minded solutions, resist religious and political dogma. He wll fight for the equitable distribution of technology and use it to re-democratize democracy. Instead of branding them stupid and offensive, he or she will fight for the mostly younger people who are building the Net and the Web. He will not be in thrall to corporate contributors.
Actually, I think that such a person will pop up, and pretty soon. When he does, he will generate a tide of money and support, and begin to transform politics into something people want to participate in, rather than a dreary duty. Maybe a person like Tristan Eversole, a college student, who e-mailed me his idea about using the Net to re-invent politics:
"In my opinion, the most amazing thing about the Open Source Movement is the fact that a whole bunch of people came together from different locales and voluntarily created something. No profit motive, no political support. The end product is superior. This is unprecedented. That people actually submit code, that that code can be integrated into a cohesive whole, that people voluntarily debug it ... I can't think of any historical parallel."
"People have many ideas about how a fair and just society can come to exist and govern itself. Your articles [and the responses] prove that. There is no good reason why we can't integrate, test, and argue these ideas into a coherent political system or public policy ... it should be possible to create a similar site [to Slashdot and other open source sites] dedicated to providing a forum for political debate, distilling the most important news about global problems, putting interested people in contact with experts on particular problems, providing an accurate and objective picture of the state of the world, and slowly creating an archive of really good ideas on how major problems should be dealt with. Many care enough to make such a site viable.
Tristan seems to have an intuitive grasp for big political ideas. He said he'd divide politics into two aspects: the ethical (what should we do about a particular issue in the moral sense), and the technical (how should we implement a rational policy?) This kind of thinking is in shocking contrast to the closed-minded and manipulative posturing that passes for politics in the other world.
"I'd love for there to be a site dedicated to finding the truth about the real state of the world; I'm considering creating one eventually," Tristan wrote.
If he runs, he's got my vote.
On the other hand, you could vote for Gore and send money to Nader, since all he (Nader) really wants is matching funds. Give him the money, but cast your vote where it will actually do somebody some good.
Spare us another Bush presidency! Please!
Only because you are afraid of him and do not trust him.
"Because you don't have the right to fire shots at me -- until you hit me."
Only because you are not willing to stop the pserson shooting by shooting back, with better accuracy. (I, like most people, would not be stupid enough to just take pot shots at people, that behavior gets you killed)
"Because the police and fire departments should not be privatized."
Only beacause you want to steal other peoples money to pay for this.
"Because the time for a strong national defense is before it's needed."
Only because you do not belive in the strongest national defense there is, armed citizenry.
"Because the gold standard is a stupid, long dead idea."
Perhaps, but unbacked money WILL devalue.
Your Sig said "Party is more important that person, vote party." A small party in Germany said the same thing in the 30's. (their name started with a N)
Read this: http :// www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/20000725_xex_ fascism_corr.shtml
It is about the Democratic party, but says the same thing you do. (about voting party)
==>Me
The duty of a politician in any representative democracy is to represent the views of his constituents in government. Even when they conflict with the personal beliefs of the politician.
e.g., If a politician is vehemetly opposed to abortion, but 50% plus 1 person in his voting district favor abortion, thet that politician OUGHT TO FIGHT AS HARD AS HE/SHE CAN to protect and legalize and support abourtion. That is the DUTY of a politician. If he/she can't do that or feels it "ethically wrong to do so" then fine, don't run for office.
The only real issue voters need to decide on, is who is better at getting things done.
But the way it seems to work today is, all politicians "state their views on the issues", and then if they win, they interpret their election to office as a full and complete sanctioning by the voters of all of their beliefs as being 100% true and correct and desired. But this is not so.
I like some things Bush has to say. I like some things Gore has to say. I like some things Nader has to say. Why don't the politicians seem to care anymore about what We The People want?
This is why America and the voters have lost their way. The system no longer represents those it was meant to serve. So, yes, why vote when NO CANDIDATE will represent me? Even if what I want is desired my a majority of voters. They don't care. Why should I?
Note that a similar concept was proposed in Robert Heinlein's book Starship Troopers (which was nothing like the godawful movie). Rather than competance though, it was military service which granted you full citizenship and the right to vote (other types of service might also have been valid, its been awhile since I read this). Thus, if you wanted to participate, you had to indicate it by your actions.
Part of the reason I have not voted up to now (and probably still won't) is that I do not take the time to full research the issues and candidates; consequently, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to vote on something I know nothing about.
Your logic is a bit off. One could argue in some cases that a lack of education/ignorance might actually increase the chance that a person will vote because they will be more easily swayed by the media and campaign propoganda, and consequently will feel they have more to lose.
What is more significant than education is the perceived value of voting. A person could have analysed the candidates in minute detail and come to the conclusion that none of them are really worth voting for (many people don't believe in voting for the lesser or 2 evils); thus they chose not to vote since are current system does not offer a reall ability to express a negative vote.
In a simpler case, a person might be have been out of the country, or too busy with work/family to adequately understand the issues. I don't think it is in any way fair to criticize them for choosing to not vote rather than vote for someone who could be a mistake. (its kinda like the some standardized tests, making your best guess can actually penalize you)
The end result of this is that you have to elect men and women whose independent judgement you trust, whose principles parallel yours, and whom you trust not to abuse the privleged position they're given. You must, in short, choose someone with good character. Good luck finding that person.
Well sorry guy, you got screwed by a hypocrite. I would argue that the person you describe is the exception but there wouldn't be much point. It wouldn't change your mind, nor would you be able to change mine.
On many issues, it is possible for good people to disagree. It appears that this is one of them.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
On the other hand, it is disgusting that a person's opinion could be so easily swayed as by a Kiss on television.
As time passes, I am forced to consider what could be done to change things. The politics of "Starship Troopers" have always intrigued me, particularly the viewpoint on the voting franchise.
For those not familiar with the book (which can't be many, considering how often it's come up on /.), in Heinlein's story, the voting franchise was reserved for people that had participated in Federal Service (Military, or some other form of Service). The idea was that only people which had put their own interests aside, for a time, to ensure the well being of the society, should have a voice in determining the course of that society.
Anyone could serve in some capacity. Even those with physical disability were offered the opportunity to serve in whatever capacity they were able. People which elected not to undertake such service were treated the same as everyone else... They lacked only the ability to vote.
Without turning this reply into a book review, this idea has merit as far as I'm concerned. Part of the problem with the voting franchise is that it comes without cost. If that franchise had to be earned, it would be more meaningful to those entitled to participate. Further, decisions would be made by people with a vested interest in the prosperity of the nation, which have also demonstrated a willingness to make a sacrifice to ensure that society's progress and survival.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
The reality is that undecided voters get on TV-- the ones two dumb to make up their minds. Were it not for all the attention given to them, they would otherwise be non-voters.
Katz has frequently mentioned how things like keeping abreast of politics and the news is something that is irrelevant to "kids today" (aw,shucks), and then he goes encouraging people not to vote. Maybe Katz is just feeding bad values down people's throats.
Let's look at some profiles of people that used that didn't/don't vote (for legal reasons):
o blacks
o women
o recent immigrants
And we all know how kind the legal system was/is _to them_. The fact is simply that not voting plunges one into irrelevancy. Which I suppose is ok, since I wouldn't want Jon Katz and his groupies running the country, anyway.
-Dean
Unfortunately, it's the latter. There can be an infinite number of parties, and there are more active than many Americans even think. (i.e. There is a ballot line for the Communist party - even today.)
However, as history has progressed (arguable, but bear with me...), the Democrats (liberals) and the Republicans (conservatives) have emerged as the two big ones.
Many "third parties" have led substantial campaigns for the presidency (Ross Perot is the most recent I can think of, not counting those in the current campaign), but voting for them is often referred to as "throwing your vote away."
Why, you may ask?
The confusing part of our election system is that the common votes do not directly count towards the finaly tally of the election. Rather, the states votes are counted, and that state has a certain number of of "electoral college" votes, based on their population. (I have NO idea where the name comes from - academia is nowhere involved.) So, say New York State has 40% common vote for Bush (Repub), 45% for Gore (Dem), and 5% for any number of other candidates, all of the state's (made up number) 24 "electoral college" votes go towards the official tally. The total of all states' electoral college votes determines the winner.
I'm sure that there was some reason that this was instituted, but good lord, why does it have to be so damn confusing?!
Sorry if that's more than you were asking... I was 90% through with the reply before I realized I answered your question (I hope) early on.
The voting system assumes that at least one of the candidates are acceptable. There should be a choice which says that none of the candidates are acceptable.
If most of the people choose that option then all of the candidates should be disqualified from holding office.
Deleted
Glad to see that the left-wing maintains their tradition of rational deliberation.
What about a baby's right to live? I'm not against a woman's right to do anything short of killing a child. An old saying goes something like "your rights end where my nose begins".
Anyway, how am I moralizing, a wanker, ignorant, selfish, and pious? Why is my candidate inexperienced or a dickhole?
I didn't accuse anyone of being PC, naive, sheltered, or wrong-headed, and I didn't accuse their candidate of being a government shill, bleeding-heart, and a Washington insider.
I find it humorously pathetic that prejudice and discrimination is frowned upon, unless your target is a conservative. Then, regardless of why they hold their opinions, it's fair game to say what you want.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Woohoo! I live in Missouri, which means that my vote is really valuable. I'm going to vote for Bush (not as blackmail - I was going to vote for him anyway). Anyone have something worth trading?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I love the way you state your opinions as fact, and then reach a conclusion not relevant to your ideals.
First, not everyone agrees that abortion rights are important. In fact, over one-half of the population (according to recent polls) disagrees with you.
Second, Gore has been Mr. Copyright for a long time. He's campaigned for every anti-competitive act to cross his boss's desk.
I don't like abortion, and I value my freedom, so I'm voting for Bush.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
This was my last Slashdot read. Posting quality has degraded nicely over the past few years. Now if Slashdot thinks it's necessary to let Katz expose his intellect by telling the world how important it can be NOT to vote, then obviously I don't belong here.
Howdy!
Ummm....actually there is. Duverger's law. Read up on it:
http://www.psqonline.org/psabra.html/a& gt;
http://www.voteexchange.org/vote001.htm
Being a free-thinking individual doesn't mean taking a single position -- like the belief that voting is a moral imperative -- and always adhering to it.
I guess you're not a free thinker, then. You seem to be adhering to the single position that you should never be tied down to any single position...
You wouldn't happen to be from Crete, by chance?
My god man. I have to say, calling the readers here "zealous pseudo-radical slashdot readers" hits the nail on the head.
Good post.
I will agree that many times you do not get the candidates you really wish were running, but do you think that you are the only person in this country? Where does someone get off thinking that they deserve a candidate that is a perfect clone of them as far as issues go? Who actually believes they will ever attain that? It's about voting for the candidate that you think will be the best leader for our country. I will not beleive that someone actually thinks that the two candidates are *exactly* the same and one would not be better than the other. You are lying to yourself if you beleive that.
Get out and vote. One of the candidates has to be closer to the way you believe than the other. They may both be *moderates* on the outside, but Bush is a conservative at heart, as is Gore a liberal deep down.
Look folks. Not voting is a sure way to break the system. The reason that politicians don't listen to younger voters is because younger voters DON'T VOTE. They have no reason to court our vote. However, if they voted in droves, then you bet your ass they would be listening to us. No canidate can possible be you ideal. There will be differences that you have to decided if you can live with. But at least choose someone. Also, by not voting in the presidential election, your also not voting in your local election. These elections have an even more profound impact on your day to day life then you think. So, vote. That's what makes the system work. And Katz, I think Jefferson would be more upset by the idea of people not voting then of anything else.
"Attention Citizens, 2+2 now equals 3.947547175. Please recalibrate your equipment now" --The Computer
Great, in your opinion.
I lean left on some issues, but my soapbox was not to stop the GOP from winning. If you throw the Reform Party, Natural Law, Libertarian, and Socialist in the equation, the wich way will the swing fall?
The last thing on Earth that I want to get involved in is 'working from within the Democratic party to pull it toward the Green positions'. I am not Green, nor am I a Dem. I want more competition and a coalition government in congrees.
pronoblem
The current political system doesn't promote democracy by encouraging debate and diversity. It stifles debate and diversity by limiting the participants to two people from two parties who espouse only slightly different versions of two ideologies: liberalism and conservatism, both to my mind equally discredited and outdated.
It operates by character assassination; it uses technology to promote negative and distorted imagery. Its elemental ideology is marketing, not morals. It's become possible to discuss ideas and solutions in the mediasphere. One day, perhaps, the Net will offer a new kind of space for a different brand of politics. I believe it will. But it doesn't yet.
Read Katz post again, and specifically the above and tell me that I am off-topic. DUH?
pronoblem
What was the actual popular vote that put Clinton in office? Something like 30% of eligible voters when he ran against Bush and Perot.
I would like to see 'none of the above' on the ballot where it would devalue the election if the winner did not get 50% of popular vote (plus eliminate the electoral college).
pronoblem
It would be nice if counted meant it would not result in a victory if one does not capture more than 50% of popular.
pronoblem
Who are the new totalitarians? By what name do they call themselves, and what is their dogma and creed? Nowadays they call themselves radical feminists, environmentalists, multiculturalists and radical homosexuals. They are anti-Christian and anti-Orthodox Judaism, they are against ageism, sexism, racism, homophobia, species-ism, and any number of causes and conditions.
PC is the new American religion, and it is more fanatical than any fundamentalist religion ever thought of being. It is more dangerous than any fundamentalist religion because it now has control of the court system, the trial lawyers, the media, and one of the major parties. PC-ism is dangerous because it demands equal conditions and, more importantly, equal outcomes. It does so by taking money and tribute from one group and handing it to the government or to some aggrieved PC entity. When an individual rises to prominence or wealth, the PC philosophy says it is because of some unfair condition in society.
PC has succeeded for the most part because it got control of the language, revised history, created division, destroyed the Bill of Rights, made traditional, or Christian, Western culture and values the repository of all evils.
The soldiers of modern PC have successfully put the establishment of Western tradition on the defensive. Meanwhile, they have effectively killed free speech at the universities, in discussion, in the mainstream media, and among various groups of Americans, and stunted the growth of creativity and art, as well as political discussion. The result is the balkanization of America and the growing radicalization of various groups of Americans fed up with the fact that their free speech and their belief in constitutional government and the Bill of Rights are being destroyed.
PC is more dangerous than communism because it has taken the moral high ground through manipulation of the facts and denial of the truth.
Grounded in egalitarianism, PC is of the same milieu as that of the French Revolution. Maximilien Robespierre, the French lawyer and chief butcher of that revolution, was probably the first adherent of PC.
The bloody terror of that time was not nearly as cruel and bloody toward the rich and the noble in Paris as it was toward the people in the countryside of France. The blood of ordinary French people who dared speak against the "terror" ran freely in the streets of every province and town in France; ordinary people were massacred by the thousands.
To the first soldiers of PC, "liberty and fraternity" were concepts applied to citizens who went along with its excesses and supported completely the leaders of the massive bloodletting. Even those who followed the new regime in sheep-like fashion were not spared. They died like everyone else, rich or poor, screaming their allegiance to the Revolution and to the leadership of the Revolution.
Whether it is the PC mind-set of today or that of the French Revolution, free speech is only free when it follows PC notions of what is or is not allowed, and even then you might not be safe.
Today PC culture and philosophy are doing a much better job of creating the New Age totalitarian state than communism or the French Revolution were able to do. It is succeeding because it uses the language and the innate sense of decency of most Americans and of the Western tradition, which they have absorbed through their culture, religion, and the tenets contained in the Founding documents.
The sensible and fair American understands that the country has never been perfect. Most Americans know that various groups of people have been abused and treated unfairly, and America has turned itself inside out trying to address those injustices and grievances. However, the truth is that addressing those grievances is not what PC is about. PC is about destruction and tyranny.
The leaders and followers of PC want complete and total capitulation. They want Western culture and tradition to go away. Yet none of them are quite sure what will replace it except some ephemeral PC platitudes.
This phantom utopian state considers all humankind to be perfectible if only there are enough rules, regulations and readjustment to new notions of right and wrong. The problem arises when the standard utopia varies from person to person, just as it did during the French and Russian revolutions. The American Founders gave us incredible concepts, in the basic documents of the Republic, that allow for anyone to believe what he will and for that belief to be allowed free expression. In the world of PC, communism, and fascism, the only "freedom" left is the decision to submit to the tyrannical state or die.
The great jurist Robert Bork defined what is happening in America very well: " our culture is now politicized our politics [are] culturized the idea that everything is ultimately political has taken hold. [I]t is [about] the oppression of women, Western imperialism, colonialism, and racism. Political correctness now assaults one's opponent as not merely wrong but morally evil."
PC is rampant even in the high culture of America. The Smithsonian Institution is not immune. At an exhibit in the 1990s that featured the American Frontier from 1820-1920, the Smithsonian's historians mutilated historical interpretation so badly that historian and former librarian of Congress Daniel J. Boorstin wrote: "A perverse, historically inaccurate, destructive exhibit. No credit to the Smithsonian."
Political correctness is neither objective nor inclusive nor fair. It condemns the brilliant and too often lauds the mediocre, inane and barbaric. Political correctness, in its demonization and vilification of traditional Western culture and philosophy, creates the eventual conditions for its own demise. Yet it does not recognize this as it glorifies non-Western cultures and conditions while totally ignoring their barbarisms.
The problem with PC is that what it seeks to replace Western traditional or classic culture with will not be egalitarian, fair or inclusive. What will fill the vacuum is a chaotic blend of banality, half-truths and political philosophy, based on primitive notions of good and evil, fair and unfair, justice and truth.
PC is more tribal and separatist than anything currently going on in the Aryan Nations, militia groups, skinhead cults and odd but still free associations of people in the United States and the world today. It will continue to do vast harm to the United States, which has been by far the most fair and inclusive civilization in the history of humankind.
If PC achieves final victory, American social, intellectual, spiritual and political life will become more tyrannical and diabolical than any yet invented by the dark side of human nature.
Words Matter
It wasn't that long ago that the language of communism sounded pretty ridiculous. Remember laughing at such phrases as "running-dog capitalists" and "exploiters of the poor and downtrodden"? These and other inanities were easy to laugh off.
It is another circumstance, however, to laugh off phrases like "despoilers of the environment" and words like "racist," "bigoted," "homophobes," "sexist," "chauvinist." It is much more difficult to laugh off such terms as "extreme right wing" or "white supremacist" or "patriarchal oppressors of women and minorities." However, such use of language is absolutely no different from what communists did from the 1920s to the 1990s.
Inherent in accusatory language is a value judgment based on nothing but hatred for traditional values. These days it is a safe bet to target Western traditional culture and values and those rights as defined in the American Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Those who honestly believe in the Bill of Rights would not for a second try to curtail the free speech rights of the proponents and followers of PC. I repeat, for the hardheaded PC types: Those who honestly believe in the Bill of Rights would not for a second try to curtail the free speech rights of the proponents and followers of PC. If such had been the case, Gloria Steinem, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, the Sierra Club, the Green Party, PETA, the National Council of Churches, members of the U.N. and all the other PC groups would be serving heavy-duty time in the slammer.
However, those of the PC faith in turn do not tolerate ideas or those who follow Western tradition, Christianity, or Orthodox Judaism. Intolerance is part and parcel of all dictatorial creeds, and PC is merely the most recent manifestation of that tendency of mankind to seek control over others through any means possible. Attacks by the PC crowd on targets from Dr. Laura to the Boy Scouts, from capitalism to farmers, from pro-life to Christmas displays, from guns to tobacco, from home schooling to parochial schools continues, and tyranny over these groups through legislation and the courts has been very successful.
The root of all stupidity, in all times, is pride, arrogance, disrespect and intolerance. Add a lack of forgiveness, envy, bitterness and self-pity, and PC is currently the ultimate in a pathetic religion of victimology and moral one-upmanship. It manipulates the facts and distorts the truth. Western society has seen this before, and each and every time it has led to bloodletting and tyranny.
If Gus Hall had been born today, he might have become a modern totalitarian. He probably would have been a disciple of PC or one of its subsets. PC is the most dangerous mind-set of our times because it is the modern replacement for communism and fascism. It has nearly won the cultural battle for the soul of America.
Gus Hall, however, was more admirable than today's advocates and disciples of PC. The things he stood for were plain, clear and understandable. We knew who the opposition was.
Once upon a time in a different America, we all knew that communism was a despicable philosophy that was used to condemn billions to slavery, poverty and oppression. It was clearly the enemy of Western tradition, particularly Christianity and Judaism, as well as all the great world religions. The enemy was definable and therefore the plan of action against it possible.
Currently, the followers of the Western tradition have no such luck. PC is winning the minds of kids in schools and perverting the understanding of recent immigrants to the United States. It destroys the intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It takes our liberty and replaces it with the new totalitarianism couched in religious terms. It gives back a black hole that will suck up the best and brightest and destroy everything it touches.
The problem with PC is that it is the New World Order religion
pronoblem
pronoblem
pronoblem
pronoblem
The standard reasons given for why I ought to vote really annoy me. The first, and silliest, is that "every vote counts." Nonsense. In fact, given a population as large as the US, the chances of my vote affecting the outcome of even a state race, much less a national one are, to many, many significant figures, zero. Whether I vote or not almost certainly doesn't make a difference in the outcome. You can make a plausible case that some presidential elections could have turned out different if a few thousand votes changed. I don't get to vote a thousand times.
Second, there is the obnoxious "if you don't vote you have no right to complain." Will somebody please explain the logic of that? I don't see any. In fact, the opposite seems true. If you accept the rules of a game and participate in it, but wind up losing, you have no right to complain: you lost fair and square. How, exactly, is it that refusing to play a game precludes me from saying that I think the game is stupid? Do I have to attend All-Star Wrestling events every couple years before I'm entitled to say that it's a stupid sport?
Third, there is "not voting is just apathy." This is nothing but a logical fallacy. Yes, apathy does imply not voting. Does this mean that not voting implies apathy? Would it make a difference if I marched down to the polling station, stood in line, and then didn't pull the lever?
I hope people see this, 'cause it's really interesting.
This is a great system, but I believe that it has been found to be a difficult problem computationally.
Check out: Computational Politics for an example
The Socialist Party is also running a candidate, but I couldn't find a good link.
Vote Socialist!!
Great article, Jon, liked reading it. I do plan on voting this year and have been bringing it to the attention, at least of people around me to do so. One of the frequent responses I get to questions about voting for Nader is "I don't want to vote for him, he doesn't have a chance at winning." So, from this, do people vote to be on the winning side or do they vote what they feel is right?
I don't know of this is a usual battle between external influences and internal drive, or maybe people view it as a social contest. Maybe these are the people who support their local football team only when they're winning. It seems like a support founded on insecurity to me.
pym
Why do you think businesses are more dangerous than an oppressive Government?
Because my right to publish articles about why congress sucks, and back it up with voting records and hearing transcrips has been upheld by the courts for centuries. I have no right, however, to publish an article about how much the new version of [some software] sucks, and back it up with disassembled code or even benchmarks.
Who seems more oppressive? Congress, which can do nothing and knows it, or a large corporation, who has the resources to sue me into nonexistence?
0 1 - just my two bits
I agree with Katz. I think you make just as important a statement when you don't vote as when you do. You're saying, in no uncertain terms, the system we are working with now doesn't work. Kind of like how Linux pundits deal with the rest of the world.
No, the equivalent to not voting would be not to use a computer at all -- or if you do use one, to use whatever OS it came bundled with.
Look, if you want to show how disgruntled you are with the system, do this -- go out and vote on every issue on the ballot *except* the Presidential race. Better yet, write yourself in for president. Heck, for that matter, vote for Buchanan and make your point through sarcasm...
I would suggest recondering the process we've become indebted to. Maybe if we downplay it enough, it will eventually change.
This is pure blindness. That process you're "downplaying" works just great for a whole lot of people. It's doing a bang-up job for Occidental Petroleum and Lockheed-Martin. For that matter, the process works pretty good for your voting grandmother -- one way or another, you can be pretty sure those pols are going to find some way to rescue Medicare and Social Security... And as much as I hate to agree with Libertarians, it's common sense that they'll do it on the backs of the non-voting majority. The idea that if you ignore the goverment it might go away isn't just naive, it's insane.
--
perl -e '$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00";
s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72,
$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00"; s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72, (74..76),(78..80),(82..85))[hex $1]/eg;
The "Libs" as you call them want to remove the Government from "turning the screws on people." You have choices, for the most part, when dealing with businesses. When dealing with the Federal Government you have no other options. Try to "opt out" of paying Federal Income Tax, or Social Security. Men with guns will come and arrest you should you try to do so. Microsoft, to use the standard Slashdot whipping boy, can not legally send out armed men to make you use Windows or Office. The government CAN legally send armed men to make you pay taxes etc...
Why do you think businesses are more dangerous than an oppressive Government?
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Ok, John, ok already. We get your point about not voting. If you think however that when 90% of the American population refuses to vote that some amazing good and political reform will come out of it you are dead wrong. You are letting your intense hatred of policitcs and corporate government (a hatred that I wholeheartedly share with you) cloud your judgement. Sit, breathe deeply like the Jedi, and then turn your brain back on. The current political system wants you to do one of the same three things this year.1) Vote Republican, 2) Vote Democrat, or 3) Not Vote.
:P
:P
The only way you are ever going to see any real change without throwing a very nasty revolution and destroying the government the hard way is to vote those asinine republicans and democrats right out of office. It's so simple I'm amazed that more people don't see it. You can lay 110% of all the problems in this country that you attribute to government to either one party or the other. In my mind they have both proven themselves too incompetent to be allowed to have any say in anything.
Just vote them out. How hard is it to friggin' vote? Just drop by the DMV or register online and you can get your voice heard. The only wasted votes this year are the ones not being made, and the ones going to the same assholes that helped to create the vast sucking black hole we currently call a government.
Get out and VOTE, but NOT for the republicans or democrats. Vote for Nader, vote for Browne, vote for Cthulu, hell vote for the bum across the street in the dumpster, any of them will make better presidents than we've had in decades. When it comes to the character of the man in office I don't care if he fucks chickens. If he can balance the budget, get people back to work, and put an end to this ceaseless yammering in the meda about our children, I'll break down the pearly gates of heaven for him myself to let him get in where he belongs.
The more votes the big two lose to the other parties, the more money and power they lose as well. It might seem like gnats fighting a tornado at this point, but hey isn't that way the pioneers of the open-source movement must have felt like trying to fight off the software moguls?
You can't destroy the system. Only those you put in office have that power. The republicans and democrats will never do it, no matter what happens. You'll have to put some people in there that have the brains and the guts to make these changes.
I'm voting libertarian, not because I like Browne, but because I find, to my complete surprise, that at least one political party has some of the same opinions and views that I do.
Personally I'd like to see about 50 political parties that are all about the same size. Once we get that kind of anarchy and choice we will see a lot less of those democrat-vs-republican bullshit adgendas and anything that gets done will only get done because it is necessary or wanted by the majority of the country. If there are that many parties they will all have to team up to get anything done. As it is we get nothing done just because both of our current parties hate eachother and won't even agree on the few good things anymore because they are out to spite eachother. The party of the candidate that proposes a bill or reform should, in a perfect world, have ZERO impact on how it is viewed by the other representatives.
Perhaps, one day in the future we can get this country to the point where we won't need the representatives. You'll probably be lucky to live long enough to see that start happening. Once we have given the sum total power of the political arena over to average joe american, we might be able to actually get something done in this world. It's all idealistic bullshit, but hey, fuck you, that's how democracy started anyways
Oh, and another thing. For those of you who keep saying "I choose not to vote because I can't support a corrupt system", will you climb out of your diapers and grow the fuck up? That makes about a much sense as not going to school because you feel the education system in this country is a joke (which it is). Even pacificsts had to fight wars to ensure peace. Lots of them fought to get the votes that you are choosing not to use. They fought them even though they had to put their lives on the line and all it's going to cost you is an hour of your time and a few dollars in gasoline. Until ALL of the people like you finally do VOTE and OVERRULE the morons voting democrat and republican this year we will see NO change.
The day that a third party president wins the popular vote, and the electoral college ellects a republican or democrat in his place, we will have won. That will spark a shitstorm in this country that will make the goverment think they have been dropped into the very pits of hell itself. I guarantee you it will also be the last time that the electoral college votes on anything ever again.
I know there are three or four justices that might be replaced, but frankly I don't trust Bush OR Gore to appoint any decent candidates. If the supreme court gets tipped towards republican, we are in for a universe of trouble in the years ahead. If it goes democrat, the software community might get a break but they will fuck it up some other way, liberals always do.
This election will be my first time voting in ANY election, at the age of 24. I was taking the no-vote stance but honestly it just doesn't make sense to me anymore. Too much of my future can be damaged by the decisions made by a few brain dead bitchwads that are running this country for me to sit on the fence anymore.
Besides, if you sit on the fence long enough, you get hemorrhoids. My butt itches already
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
As IF Bush's justices would be any more likely to limit government intrusions in other ways like (ta-da!) the Drug War or sexual practices (god knows we can't let the states decide to recognize homosexual marriage!! It's an ABOMINATION!)
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Of course, Drugs could not be outlawed at a federal level by any means short of a constitutional amendment either. Seem like there are some loopholes there, maybe?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I love how a reporter can put his belief into a worded sentence and try to make it a fact.
"A majority of Americans, for example, have repeatedly supported abortion rights, yet their popular will is continually challenged. " Is a nice lie cleverly placed. If this statement were true then the matter would be closed and done with. I doubt that the "reporter that wrote this actually researched this before making such a grand atatement. MAybe a majority of his friends support child murder. but it is not a fact that the USA is a strong supporter of this. (To quell the flamers I see coming, I support it in instances of need, NOT because some tramp can't keep her legs closed. and WTF is the need anymore? we have a pill to kill the child now.)
Slashdot is supposed to be a place of truth, not news and commentary colored for the cause of the reporter's wishes and dreams.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
For the simple reason that the electoral college makes me feel as though my opinion isn't trully being heard. When you vote, all you're doing really is recommeneding which way your whoever in the electoral college should vote. I guess that made it easier back in the 1700 and 1800's, but we're in the 2000's... it cant be that hard to rig together a system which actually tally's votes.
It does seem screwey that someone can win the election even if they actually receive less votes than another candidate, simply by concentrating on the states with the most electoral college representation.
I also refused to vote nader, thinking that a vote for him takes a way a vote for Gore and therefore is a vote for Bush, but in the end, since Bush and Gore are basically the same on most issues, i'd rather now "throw away" my vote on a candidate who stands for more of what i believe in, rather than give my vote to someone i don't like just in the hopes that it stops someone i don't like even more from entering office.
This year, though, i've decided to go nader. I know my vote won't make a difference in this years elections, but what it will do is maybe help create a 3 party system in the future elections... All he needs is 5% of the vote and the green party gains access to a lot more funding in 20004..l
This is getting out of hand; yes, free software has had a definite impact on the computer industry, but citing the "Open Source Movement" as the source of the "information wants to be free" perspective is quite a logical jump that needs more evidence than a post hoc ergo propter hoc (i.e., after the fact, therefore because of the fact) approach.
A few obvious points repeatedly need to be pointed out in this country, which suggests that more ignorance or apathy than an inherent problem in the political system is at fault for problems in the government. Yes, it is true that every eligible voter has the right not to vote; but our government is run by those who participate, so if you are not going to participate by at the very least voting, do not complain.
Too many people cite solely the presidential election as evidence that the current political process has failed. I will concede that this year's election has been greatly influenced by corporate money. However, the president does not make campaign finance laws. Did that get through, or do I need to say it again?
The Congress makes the laws, the president only approves them. Yes, the president could veto campaign finance laws if he/she wanted to, but any president desiring a second term would not go against a united Congress, and especially populace, attempting such reform.
Pieces like this article only encourage people to not vote AT ALL, but a single vote does have considerably more power when it comes down to Congressional elections (Congress, you know, those people that made the DMCA).
For all I care, don't vote in the presidential election. Overall, a single vote for the president does not really hold much weight (if everyone thought that, which largely many do, than the situation does change). But in Congressional elections, your very much does count, so if you have complaints about the laws, at least VOTE, and if you do not like the candidates, then RUN for a Congressional seat--those are very possible to win.
>> Not voting is nothing more than a big "I don't care."
I can think of at least one reason not to vote that has nothing to do with not caring. I don't vote on anything that I don't have a clue about. Its not that I don't care, but often that it is to difficult to be informed about everything that comes up for a vote. In that way I won't damage the process by voting against or for something that I don't know about. The people that it affects the most will most likely vote for or against it. My vote in this matter would just screw things up.
>>All those other people lose their voice in the matter, and that one person gets to decide all by themselves. And if it happens again the next time, who are the candidates going to care about? The one person who determines who gets the job, or the rest of the population that has shown they're not going to be bothered to vote?
So you are saying that everyone should form an opinion even if it uniformed and vote on it? It doesn't make any sense to me. When the population gets pissed off enough believe me they'll vote. The current candidates are offering the same things in different packages. I guarantee that if one of them started touting genocide in their platform a lot more people would come out and vote for or against them. If the issue does not affect you by voting you are screwing up the process for the people it affects. People that are feel the will be affected by the vote will vote. If you found out that a highway was planed to run through your backyard and there would be a vote about it, I believe you would vote about it. Someone that lives across town probably would not be concerned enough about it to vote because it does not affect him.
>>Next time you're with a group of friends, and they're deciding where to go eat/what to do, try just not participating in the process, see if it does anything useful. It won't.
If I'm not hungry then voting here only screws up the people who are planning on eating. It does not mean that I don't care where we eat, it does mean that the people that are going to be eating will get to choose what they want. I might loathe Chinese food, but if I'm not gonna be eating it will it matter if we go to a Chinese restaurant?
People who are not informed should not vote. They are just screwing things up. If you vote for someone because they bussed you to the voting booth you're an idiot.
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
Perhaps a more viable solution would be to send out literature a few weeks prior to the election on websites and other places to contact each person running for office or find out what it is they plan to do.
That, and get rid of straight-party tickets. I hate that. You don't even have to look at the people's names you are voting for, just check a box, and it will vote for every single republican on the ballot. While most people would still vote all republican or all democrat or libertarian or whatever who had intended on doing so, we certainly should not make it any easier for them. What's next, a box on the front that says "vote for everyone pro-life" and you check that and it takes care of the rest? Blah.
Misinformation and an uninformed public are a few of the major problems with the elections.....
What?
I have said this before and I'll say it again:
all arms should be allowed including nukes.
The reason is that the population must have
more military power than the state so it could
overthrow government if the government
displeases it.
If you don't want to grant people the right to
have nukes then you must destroy or give away
all nukes that federal gov't has in its
possession.
I surely don't have the right to shoot at you,
but I have every right to plan your assasination
down to last detail. I cannot be guilty until
I commit a crime. Intellectual pursuit is not
a crime, regardless of its topic, purpose or
subject.
But they don't have to pay attention to what you say. If they don't now, what will make them any more likely to after the election?
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I haven't been able to convince myself that Gore is acutally enough less bad the Bush for it to make a difference. Gore is the one who has been pushing for more intelligence control of the internet, e.g. I think that Gore is just as much pro Centralized Control by Government as Bush is pro Commercial Conglomerate is Good.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
DMCA is poor legislation, misguided perhaps, but something that can easily be solved within the system if everyone here stopped whining about it to their groupthink-minded peers and instead whined about it to their congressmen. I wonder how many people are doing that around here...
MPAA is an organization, not any sort of legislation or what not, and has no direct tie-in to the government, so it provides no example to go on.
DeCSS is rather stupid as well, but it's simply, again, a case of a misguided judiciary, not an inherent evil within our governmental system. The solution is to do something about it within the system, not to whine about it and start with empty talk of revolution around here.
There is nothing inherently wrong with censorware, nor would I say there's anything wrong with having it on some (or all) public access terminals. Porn on a public terminal isn't a right. If you want unrestricted access to the Internet, it's still avaialable to you, you'll just have to find somewhere besides a library to get it. If you want to argue censorware doesn't always work properly, that's fine, but that's a different argument than saying it's a violation of our rights and a sign of an impending police state.
Was there anything else? My point is not that there aren't any issues that need to be addressed in American politics. Obviously there are... otherwise we could shut down the legislative branch completely since everything is just how we want it. The point is that none of the examples you mentioned are signs of an inherently flawed system, they're just problems that need to be and can be addressed within the system as it stands.
Alarmism will get us nowhere. If you honestly think the US is becoming a corporate controlled police state, formulate a nice good list of examples with concrete evidence to back this up, and go out into the real world and make it known.
But really, unless there's a pretty decent list of examples of a bought federal government, why does a law like the DMCA suggest that we need radical action to offset the "very large, very powerful" factions? All it suggests is that we either need to have a little talk with our current elected officials, and let them know that they aren't representing us properly when it comes to that single decision they made, or get a president in office who will respect the constitution and give us some more judges who will act accordingly. My biased opinion as to who that might be doesn't matter, but I'll give you a hint: I don't think it's Nader, because I honestly don't think he's too concerned about the constitution. Maybe I'm wrong... my apologies if this is so, feel free to correct me. I don't see how any of this is an indication of an oppressive or incorrect system, or an indication that Republicans and Democrats are inherently evil and we must have third party candidates at all costs.
My problem with this third party-ism I see here on Slashdot and a couple other nerd communities on the web is that people get so worked up about something that they decide they have to overhaul the system to fix any glitches it might show. This seems to be the reasoning behind a lot of people voting for Nader even when they don't agree with him. But I don't think the system is nearly as evil as most people around here seem to think. Are politics or politicians perfect or pure? Of course they aren't! But they've been working pretty darn well for a long time, as I'd venture to say that politically America has been very successful thus far. Thus, it seems politics can continue to do work as is if we continue to take reasonable (as opposed to radical) action about the things that matter to us.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I would say it was specifically set up to prevent spontaneous, perhaps overly emotional or radical, changes to the system that might not be beneficial to the system in the long run. The will of the people can draw change, but they can't, by design, make radical changes very quickly. You're right, it's for the sake of stability, but not for the sake of not allowing anything to ever get done. When things change slowly, they're a whole lot more likely to change in a reasonable fashion.
I guess my point here is that there isn't anything inherently wrong with American politics as is. People are screaming that we need more recognition for third parties because the Republicans and Democrats are going to destroy this country. From my perspective, third parties don't get high poll numbers, or a lot of press, because most people quite simply don't agree with their policies. When people do agree with their policies, they can get a fair amount of votes--Perot is a good example of this. There isn't necessarily a Republican and Democratic deadlock in the US. It just so happens that Republicans and Democrats tend to reflect the majority of the nation's views. If you disagree with them, that's great, and it's a good reason to vote for someone else, but it seems it's still important to accept the fact that most of America probably disagrees with you, and there's no conspiracy that goes along with that disagreement.
Hard to say, I suppose, but I really think examples are necessary, even in this crowd. From my perspective, I fear it's too easy to infer corporate control over issues which weren't influenced in that way. With regards to IP, which seems to be the major concern here, there are, I believe, some issues to be dealt with, but that by no means suggests a major problem with government itself, just with some of the legislation that has passed. Perhaps a few letters to congresspeople that represent you could make it known that you disagree with these policies, but I think it's also important to understand that there difference of opinion with you on the issue does not mean for sure that they were bought.
Are you sure this is why people don't vote? Another similar theory would be that most people feel that America is mostly headed in the right direction (there are polls to indicate this is the case, though I'm not sure how valid they are) politically, so they aren't too worried about things. Voter apathy, I would venture to say, increases in times of prosperity because when the economy is good, people don't feel they need to be bothered by politics. They'll just ride the good times, and get concerned when things start to go bad. It could be that people don't feel their vote makes a difference, and are disillusioned with an increasingly evil system, but it could also be the case that people think the system is just fine, and can run along without their help.
I'm not trying to be flamebait or anything, but our world is based on the notion of consensual reality. This means that we all agree to abide by certain notions, regardless of how we feel about them. I may not like the notion of government (or organized religion for that matter) either, but I recognize that they exist, and do have some effect on my life. A refusal to participate in consensual reality marks one as either irresponsible or insane, depending on the degree of disbelief.
Not believing in something that has a direct and major effect on your life does not mean that it doesn't exist. It does, however, seem to me, at least, to be a rather foolhardy and irresponsible approach, especially when it comes to making decisions that can change the very nature of our society (just imagine what three arch-conservative, luddistic Supreme Court Justices could to do the balance of power with respects to the Internet, and IP law as it stands). Voting is pretty much the only way we have to make our voices heard. One vote may not make that much of a difference, but neither would one voice among 265 millon others. However, if a substantial number of those voices were saying the same thing, it would be a lot easier to discern from the general cacophony. One vote may not make a substantial difference, but it sure as hell helps.
Any drug that only effects the person using should be completely legal. I don't care if it causes their intestines to dissolve. If they want to take it, it is their body, so more power to them.
However, a drug such as you are describing is , in many ways, similar to drinking and driving. Getting drunk is not, in and of itself, illegal. However, getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car IS illegal, and SHOULD be illegal, as you are endangering the lives of others.
Should this drug be illegal? Yes. The act of taking it seriously endangers the lives of others. And I feel that most other Libertarians would agree with me.
I think that you don't give Libertarians enough credit, and you have some bad preconceptions about them. Most of them seem to stem from experiences with people who are not Libertarian, but think they are.
It is fairly common to have people who don't like mainstream politics latch onto one group or another, and act as though they represent it. They take every opportunity to proclaim their views, and claim that everything they say is representative of the group. However, in most cases, fanatics are far from representative of a group. And in fact, most of them proclaim their allegiance to an outside party so loudly because they want to seem "cool" by "not conforming", and really don't know or care about the real beliefs of that party.
Anyways, my point is, try looking for the people who are actually DOING things in the name of the Libertarian Party, and stop listening to posers who want to be "cool".
Also, don't assume that everyone in a party completely agrees. Nothing pisses me off more than hearing someone say something like "I'm a [INSERT PARTY HERE], so of course I think [INSERT OPINION] about [INSERT ISSUE HERE]". They are just as bad as people who say "I was raised a [INSERT PARTY HERE], so I have to vote for [INSERT CANDIDATE HERE]."
Anyways, I'm ranting, and getting offtopic. The moral: you seem to know a lot of people who think they are libertarian, but are not. Or, they want to be, but haven't really thought about the issues, and just want a party other than the Republicrats to dictate ideals to them so that they don't have to think about it.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
I think that two things matter here:
1. Although I think it should be illegal, I don't think this should be mandated by the federal government. Let each state decide on its own.
2. My personal reason for saying it should be illegal is based on simple ratios. I could be mistaken, but I doubt that 1 in 2000 people who drink go on muderous rampages. In fact, I doubt many drunken people actively murder others PERIOD. Drunk driving is another story, and as I've said, that most certainly SHOULD be illegal, as the very act of it endangers others.
Also, taking it out of the public eye doesn't mean jack shit. If I take this drug in my home, unless I've locked myself in a room with no way out, what is to stop me from leaving home on a murderous rampage and killing 20 people? I hardly think your solution would work.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
And you're saying that the fact that the Libertarian party advocates violence only as an act of self-defense is a bad thing?
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Let me take a guess: he was 18-25 years old, has never really looked into what a Libertarian is, and thinks that Libertarian means "gun toting nut" (and thus he fits right in)?
Whoever said that is not a Libertarian. I don't even know if I'd call it anarchism. I'd probably just call it "dumbass teenager who has no capacity for actual reasoning".
The main tenet of Libertarianism is that the only time the Government should use force is to prevent one person from harming or infringing upon the rights of another. In other words, you can do anything you want, so long as you do not infringe upon others rights.
Firing shots at you [even if I'm missing] most certainly infringes upon your rights.
Go and actually read some stuff about Libertarianism, and ignore anyone like the one person you have already mentioned. They don't even know what the word means.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
OK, I think you are not getting what I'm saying. We're comparing two things here:
1. Drinking : leads to impairment of judgement. Could possibly lead to harm to others.
2. Hypothetical Drug : leads to muderous rampages
Let me ask you something: do you think 1 in 2000 people who drink alcohol end up killing someone? If so, you need to think again. Think about how many people there are in america, and how many drink every night.
Now, think about how many deaths that are caused by this drinking. Does that number approach the 45,450 deaths PER DAY that would occur if use of this hypothetical drug was as widespread as Alcohol? [assuming 33% of the population used it, and of those, 1 in 2000 killed a single person, so we aren't even talking about a real rampage]
I didn't think so.
There is a big difference in my mind between alcohol, which cause impairment and MIGHT lead to harm, and a guaranteed 45,000+ deaths per day. And I think that would be a reason for me to want the drug to be illegal.
There are points where idealism HAS to take notice of reality. And yeah, this is a hypothetical situation, but hey, this is how I would respond to it. Quite honestly, if there were a drug that consistently caused people to go on murderous rampages, I'd be all for making it illegal.
Alcohol, on the other hand, while not exactly the greatest thing, can only cause people to make bad decisions. And most of the time [in my experience] these have been things like sleeping with somebody they shouldn't have, or simply drinking too much and throwing up. That is a far cry from 45,000+ murders each day.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
I am glad to see some people with a well grounded sense of reality still post here. Slashdot seems to have a serious lacking if them.
I'd mod you up if I could.
This article reminds me a lot of the movie Bulworth. I just saw it last week and I was amazed at the issues it tackled. It takes on issues of corporate control on politics, the problems with a bi-partisan system, the problems with racial discrimination that still occur in our society, and other politically charged topics.
Even though the subjects are quite serious, the movie maintains a lighthearted comical tone throughout. So if you're interested in the issues Katz addresses in this article and you haven't seen this movie, run to your local video store and rent it!
Wrong.
If you write in a name on the ballot, it will not be counted in most or all states. It will be completely ignored. If 60% of the people filled in a different name, it might be counted, but that person would not be elected because you have to file for the election first.
If you don't select anyone for an office, it will be ignored.
In fact, the only option that actually does get noticed is not voting. The only problem is, not voting is counted as "apathy" not as a "protest." There is no protest vote available besides selecting some third party loonie.
Now, ther's another problem. People aren't voting their concience because they, like you, have bought into the two-party system along with the accessory package. Sure, it's going to take awhile to get things changed, but a vote for 'Gore' because you think casting a vote for Nader would be like casting one for Bush doesn't help the system one bit. The vote must be cast, and cast for the candidate that you think will do best, not the candidate that you think 'is most likely' to keep the candidate you dislike the most out of office. You go ahead and perpetuate the current system if you like things the way they are now. More and more people need to realize that voting for parties other than the Democrat or Republican parties is ok. The more people that do that, the more people will follow in the next election and do the same thing. All it takes is for people to stand up and vote for Nader, or Browne, or Buchanan. All this "I'll vote for Gore because I don't like Bush" is bullshit when there are other candidates available. As for the other parties having a voice... Once enough people start voting for those parties the national media which controls the process of who get's heard will have no other choice than to cover the other candidates. The voting system will not be reformed untill people like you vote for who you want in office instead of voting against who you don't want in office. Untill then you won't be a part of the solution, you'll continue to be a part of the problem.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Not voting is usefull in letting the old people out there vote for the candidate they most likely will increase Social Security spending, and taking away money more money from everyone else to fund that.
People who don't vote are dumbasses, and deserve every single tax increase, restrictive law, and dumbass porkbarrel budgets that get passed. People who don't vote have no legitimate right to bitch and moan about the government. When a person does not vote, they choose to have no voice when they do not vote, and so I don't wanna hear any bitching from those that don't vote.
-----
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
That's why you stop buying from big business and support local Ma and Pa businesses instead! It's a lot easier to stand up to big business than to stand up to a corupt government.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
You don't like abortion and you value your freedom? That's lovely. What about a womans freedom to choose? Fuck other people's freedoms as long as you have yours and can moralise and pontificate all you want. The trouble with this country is that too many moralising right-wing wankers like you will vote for GW and he'll get in. Still you get the govenment you deserve I suppose. I'd laugh if it wasn't so fucking sad that due to your ignorant, selfish and pious nature a totally inexperienced, conservative dickhole with no clue about foreign policy (in fact no clue about anything save self-serving, selfish poiltics) will probably get in.
Love, JohnLife sucks but death doesn't put out at all....
It failed because it wasn't a true "none of the above" - the votes would be discarded instead of being counted. We want them to be counted, for them to make a difference.
Nader is proposing that a valid "none of the above" be included on all polling slips, so you can voice your disgust and get it counted.
Ok, a few things...
1. By not casting a ballot, you are by default sending a message that you approve of the outcome of the election, whatever that may be.
2. I don't see why people bitch about how things are so damn bad, then don't cast a ballot. By planning to not casting a ballot, you are not doing a damn thing to change the situation that you are bitching about.
3. There are more things on the ballot then just a presidential election. While you may think that the current two parties' national platforms are pure bullshit, there is a lot going on at the local level that your vote will influence. To be perfectly honest, your vote is more powerful as you vote for the more local elections. There's more going on this year than the stiff vs. the fratboy.
4. Politicians look at the preferences of the people who vote. They will say that it is unfortunate that 75% don't vote, but they only pay heed to the 25% that do. If I were running for election, why would I waste the resources I have to get elected on the people who don't vote anyways. It doesn't make sense.
If you're really fed up with the system, you still should cast a ballot. Vote for the local people who have some impact on your life. Leave the Gore v. Bush section blank. A statistic that says something like 70% of the voters submitted a ballot and declined to vote for something like a president will is a hell of a lot stronger than a statistic that says 70% of the voters did not even get out to vote. The first one is a clear showing of disapproval of the current state of things, and the latter is simply a show of apathy.
Jon Katz, if you do read this, think a bit more about what you are doing. If you don't go out and vote, you have negelected to have your voice heard, and have no room for bitching. As I have outlined above, there is a better way to express your disapproval than just be a whiny, lazy fool who stays home on election day.
-Chris
Posted below, but I thought I would take this opportunity to expoit Slashdot to get this higher...
Ok, a few things...
1. By not casting a ballot, you are by default sending a message that you approve of the outcome of the election, whatever that may be.
2. I don't see why people bitch about how things are so damn bad, then don't cast a ballot. By planning to not casting a ballot, you are not doing a damn thing to change the situation that you are bitching about.
3. There are more things on the ballot then just a presidential election. While you may think that the current two parties' national platforms are pure bullshit, there is a lot going on at the local level that your vote will influence. To be perfectly honest, your vote is more powerful as you vote for the more local elections. There's more going on this year than the stiff vs. the fratboy.
4. Politicians look at the preferences of the people who vote. They will say that it is unfortunate that 75% don't vote, but they only pay heed to the 25% that do. If I were running for election, why would I waste the resources I have to get elected on the people who don't vote anyways. It doesn't make sense.
If you're really fed up with the system, you still should cast a ballot. Vote for the local people who have some impact on your life. Leave the Gore v. Bush section blank. A statistic that says something like 70% of the voters submitted a ballot and declined to vote for something like a president will is a hell of a lot stronger than a statistic that says 70% of the voters did not even get out to vote. The first one is a clear showing of disapproval of the current state of things, and the latter is simply a show of apathy.
Jon Katz, if you do read this, think a bit more about what you are doing. If you don't go out and vote, you have negelected to have your voice heard, and have no room for bitching. As I have outlined above, there is a better way to express your disapproval than just be a whiny, lazy fool who stays home on election day.
-Chris
I'm not voting.
Wow. That's pretty frightening. Do you at least vote in your local elections? There your vote does make a difference, and you are a participant in government.
IIRC, Florida has a substandard public school system because the senior voters don't want to fund the schools. Imagine if the seniors voted to change the laws to raise the legal voting age to 50. Sounds outrageous, but it could happen.
Sure, the electoral process is _not_ perfect, but consider not having a voice at all. I'd rather be a whisper in a crowd than silent.
Rather than piss and moan about a charade, get involved. Apathy is not the solution. Don't think about yourself, think about your children.
You can put whoever you want in office, and the net result is going to be the same - a small group of people slowly turning the screws on the rest of us.
If I gotta get screwed, I'd like to have the choice of the person doing the screwing.
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
I seem to recall that states have controll over how their electoral votes are allocated, and I think that Maine has a proportional system, where if the vote split 40, 40, 20 then their electoral votes would be spread around 40%, 40%, 20%, subject to rounding of course.
So if we don't want a winners take all system for the electoral college then try to the states to change their allocation schemes.
The correct choice is to go into the voting booth and give them a blank ballot.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Please explain how you confused lack of approval of the system with desire to change the system.
just because it was designed to "keep the status quo" does not mean
- we can't change it
- we shouldn't change it
so, what's your point? your assertion seems to be that things that were designed a certain way can or should not be changed.
if you want to be apathetic, or, in other words, keep the status quo, then please speak for yourself. i am just more ambitious than that. i believe that things can change for the better. and i believe individuals can make a difference.
besides, for keeping the status quo, i can think of much more cost efficient ways than democracy. your argument is just one of the better thought-out excuses to abstain the vote. still an excuse, though.
Under this system, how do you decide which district is represented by which party? If my state's political parties choose their most qualified candidates to take those seats, my district may not be represented at all.
Is there a way around this that I'm not seeing?
I've seen a lot of sentement here about less governemt=good. I think responsible government=good. That is, the laws that are passed have been written with the overall welfare of the society in mind and have been carefully examined by those in the know for the likelihood of effectiveness.
I see very little of this happening today. Rather, laws are written and passed based on popular layman beliefs. Riders are attached to sneak irrelevant legislation through. Party alignment can play a role, especially with the petty, but I lay the blame on doing what's popular rather than doing what's right. That, of course, goes back to voters making uninformed decisions (not just on candidates, but on issues as well).
-Jennifer
To spare people the search for the swing states:
Michigan
Missouri
New Jersey
Ohio
Pennsylvania
-Jennifer
What she is saying is that you have to ACTIVELY not vote.
Go to the polling station and mark 2 candidates or mark none or don't pull the lever. But do indicate that you went to vote and none-of-the-above was your choice.
That will show the voters' displeasure much more than just letting the Republicrats claim their spoils again.
You could always use PostGreSQL, not watch movies (did anyone die from not watching movies?), avoid going on cruises...
You also have a choice when it comes to CPUs. Think AMD is less evil than Intel? Buy an Athlon. Intel and AMD will get the message, and change their ways, if enough people care. Not all corporations are inherently evil.
The only time you really have no choice is if one company has a monopoly for an essential product or service (sound like government to you?)
Yeah, I'll start buying airplane engines from ma & pa shops. Or relational database packages. Or my AIDS medicine. Or only see movies that cost as much to make as "Blair Witch" did. Or take that cruise on Ma & Pa Cruise Lines. Or buy DVD players made by Ma & Pa Consumer Electronics. And my routers? Oh yeah, they're made by Ma & Pa. Same thing with my CPU. Ma & Pa got their EE degrees and are totally down with L1/L2 caches and branch prediction, as well as having a wafer fab set up in their garage.
That's asinine, and just as (if not more) idealistic than Communism. Government frequently plays a beneficial role in regulating the market. Deal with it. I prefer that to having Exxon-Mobil-Chevron-Texaco-BP-Amoco having carte blanche to do as they will. Fuck that.
- Rev.The only time you really have no choice is if one company has a monopoly for an essential product or service (sound like government to you?)
Whatever, man. What if every single producer of widgets that is out there decides that the best (i.e. cheapest) way of producing their product is to belch poison into the atmosphere? I have yet to see an answer from the libertarians to the Tragedy of the Commons problem that is worth a shit. Yeah, I can start up my own company that uses non-toxic measures, but the average mall-robot doesn't give a flying fuck about means of production, they just want cheap goods. 'Slave labor used by Nike? Fuck it, they make me look cool.' It's necessary for governments to step in whenever corporations collectively fail to address environmental concerns. Do you think that auto manufacturers would put in catalytic converters, or indeed have switched to unleaded gas, without governmental pressure? I don't fucking think so.
Which reminds me: What about Jim Crow Laws? If we stuck to the libertarian philosophy, those uppity niggers would still be sitting at the back of the bus and pissing in seperate stalls. 'But Jim Crow was backed by the government! Without government blacks would have been able to shop where they wanted to!' Bullshit. Instead of cops keeping blacks out of shoe stores it would have been the store owners and lynch mobs. The people of the Deep South fucking hated blacks. It took federal legislation, judicial oversight, and the fucking National Guard to get those asses to see the error of their ways. You wanna try and tell me that justice would have prevailed using free market principles alone?
Libertarianism damn near requires omniscience from consumers about the supply chain of the products or services they're buying. Governmental oversight is both necessary and just plain intelligent, even if it ups the price. Its a good philosophy to start from , but in the real world it rarely works.
Here's the deal: Government is a player in the economy. Since there have been goverments, they have been players in the economy. Governments will ALWAYS be players in the economy. This is a fact. It would serve well to keep it in mind.
- Rev.NONE OF THE ABOVE
Ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
I'll take Milosevic. Pol Pot's just plain crazy with that whole health care thing....
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Ok I'm not the only one who thought of it... eek.
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
If we limit contributions to allowing one citizen to contribute $100 to thier candidate of choice we'd have a win. Corporations should not be allowed to contribute (period) to a campaign in any way shape or form, unless EVERY employee has signed willingly a form that states that they too support their corporations choice. And then the corporation would be limited to the $100 dollar limit. Make a comercial for $100 bucks and I'll show you a fraud lawsuit.
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
The one problem I found was the inference that not voting was a statement in and of itself, and that MORE people should consider it as a form of letting their views be known. This is a dangerous form of expressing your view and contradicted by your own article.
The fact that 2/3rds of us do not vote now, and that some politicians hold office by a division of 40 or even 30% of the total populace who voted, is evidence that the the current 'statement' you advocate (by not voting) has been made already. And herein lies the danger.
If fewer people vote the target audience of those in power will narrow to those who do. Those who vote now are passionate members of one side of the two party system (what we the masses consider to be THE problem). The voting members of those parties then, by default, law, and lack of participation by the rest of us, have handed to them on a platter the power and position which they NEED to continue their hold on our current form of government. Back to this point in a minute.
This path would lead to one and only one logical/illogical conclusion - War. Many of us already think it's the only solution that will resolve our issues as Americans to find a system that works again (don't deny it, you've all thought and considered the same thing at one point). Some still hold the ideal that this 'war' can be done without bloodshed by changing our system - which would require your participation, or more directly your VOTE, which you have advocated NOT doing. I'm one who believes it's still possible, but not likely due directly to lack of participation by those who do not involve themselves in the current process. It's not likely because of those who refuse to be counted in protest to those who do the counting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating or suggesting we declare and go to war with ourselves, because of lack of participation, in order to save our nation.
Back to it, I'm trying to point out that as long as those with power retain or posess power passed to them by a non speaking public (no matter the percentage) they will pass laws to continue to protect their power.
The DMCA is a prime example. Protect the hold the media has on media, passed into law by those beholden to them, and allowed to pass because of the non caring public at large. Now, you - the non caring public - have fewer rights. Who cares? You won't obey this law because it's unjust, until you are brought to 'justice' by the system you didn't participate in or feel a part of. Then you'll care, and spend your lifes savings defending your position, shouting at the top of your lungs - while the non-speaking but protesting public pats you on the back for your stand - and does nothing.
This is a cycle that can only end by the overturning of laws and changing our current form of government through involvement by the masses, which is expensive, time consuming, and opens you to legal assult under laws already passed, pushed into prosecution by those who hope to retain their power.
If that willful change does not happen, the resolution WILL be an uprising of the masses, in violent protest to their incarceration and trampled rights. AKA - War.
Ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
If you want to 'fix' the election process the changes have to be made at the state level. The 'all or none' of the electorial college is actually a state mandated policy rather than a federal policy; if you get _all_ the votes of a state rather than just some you will try harder to appease the voters of that state, thus making that state more important than a state that casts its electorial college votes on percentages.
One big problem I see with the current popular implementation across the states is the missing requirement that a canidate have a majority of the vote to win the state. If you have two liberal canidates and one conservative (or vice versa), even if the majority favors liberal policies their votes could be split across the liberal canidates and the conservative canidate would win. The last two presidential elections this hurt the republicans, this time it's going to hurt the democrats.
I would like to see people encourage their states to require a majority, and therefore force a runoff vote of the top two canidates if there is no clear majority. Of course the democrat/republican parties like the way it is now. If there were runoffs they wouldn't be able to scare people into the status-quo with the argument that a third party vote helps the opposition.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Everyone raise your hand if you think the current system is moving too slowly and not doing anything. OK, all of you may now slap yourselves for forgetfulness...unless you never had a history class.
The founding fathers, despite the depraved attempts to paint them all as rapists, murderers or otherwise naughty citizens that just got lucky, knew the inherent dangers of group/mob mentality. They engineered safeguards into the constitution to prevent a runaway bunch of hooligans from taking over and rewriting the laws before the legal system could intervene. Think about it--would you really want the tree-huggers to pass sweeping legislation that forbade anyone from mowing their lawns with anything but electric mowers? What about laws that could force you off your land in the blink of an eye with no recourse, all because somebody found a cutsie wittwe fwog in your back yard?
Wake up, people. The system is supposed to work s.l.o.w.l.y. That way, any decisions have time to be mulled over by those of us that don't have a brain tap into C-SPAN.
One other point: the two party system can be broken down simply into two basic competing modes of thought. First, the left of center--believes in basic human kindness; believes that the planet can be destroyed by us bipeds; believes that you don't know enough about the way the world works to be given complete authority over your money, property and lifestyle (despite overtly pro-gay/choice/etc. positions. Second, the right of center--believes in the inherent moral struggle of the human soul and how it lends itself to selfishness, greed, sloth and hatred (and, thus, proposes laws that punish the act, not the potential); believes that you, the people, have been keeping the economy going all by yourselves (maybe with a bit of a nudge from the fed every now and then) and pretty much know what you're doing; believes that citizens should have the freedom to put their money wherever they want, buy the things you want and go broke, all on your own responsibility; believes that us puny humans canNOT destroy luna or gaia or whatever other fruitsy name the wackos have come up with for the planet earth.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility in every endeavor?
Loopvs Maximvs
He's already here, and running in the current election: Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate.
Here lies the fundamental fallacy in your argument. It is precisely because I want to live in society as comfortably as possible that I avoid dishonest and sociopathic behavior -- if I established that sort of reputation for myself, I would soon find myself shut out.
Actually, it is Big Government that tends to make dishonesty and sociopathy into the coin of the realm, everywhere from the top (one need look no further than the current President of the United States for a classic example) to the bottom (people who see government welfare as an entitlement act rather worse than people supported by private charities that expect their recipients to make a legitimate effort to become self-sufficient).
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The problem, the mathematicians say, lies in the voting system itself, and the way it thwarts the popular will. ... In our system, the winner often amasses only a plurality, not a majority, of the votes
The majority once thought that africans were property, later that they should not vote. The same applied to women. The majority is not always right, that's why the USA is a Republic, not a Pure Democracy. Pure Democracies make it easy to oppress those of differing beliefs, because the majority can set the laws, and their enforcement, without significant opposition. Multi-party parliamentary systems can go too far in giving minorities power, just look at the influence that small minorities in Israel have had on it's government where small religious parties can wield influence far beyond their size. Note that Britian has a two-party (for all practical purposes) Parliament.
Best Slashdot Co
I'd Give Orwell's "Animal Farm" A good reading. I think you'd like it.
It throughly illustrates What happens when one power is removed in favor of a better power, that ultimately ends up exactly like the old dictatorship.
uh, great thoughts?
;)
It's an interesting perspective to say that by not voting, you can complain, because you're not being represented.
The common retort to this would be, how can you be represented if you don't vote?
You cleverly answer that since democracy is a 'sham', you'll never be truly represented.
So it seems to me you have a couple choices;
1. Never vote and complain all you want, but don't be surprised when society shuns one who always whines, yet never does anything to change their situation.
2. Do something about it- be a radical, start a revitalized communist, socialist, or whatever-group-you-feel-works movement which you feel will represent you.
3. Get the fuck out* of my country and go live somewhere that you feel is a better representation of your beliefs. I have no problem with one less whiner in our masses.
*no offense, but I find your little diatribe completely self-serving, shortsighted, and without merit
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
"Of course it's self-serving" ;)
;).
Good point
I do agree, along those lines, and tis one thing that's bothered me for a while:
If the folks we elect are 'representatives', then they should represent my opinion. Or at least (and realistically), the majority of the opinion of their specfic constituents.
Thus, candidates should NOT be elected based on their personal opinions. Ethics, accountability, attendence, etc- no doubt. But their personal opinions should NEVER be a factor if they're to truly represent their particular voters.
However, pre-net, this was largely impossible.
With the advent of the web, however, soon it may be possible for a local representative to actually know the opinions of their constituents. Every time there's an issue before congress, a week before the candidates should have an opinion poll on their website- for their particular voters only- which would represent how those rep's should cast their vote.
True democracy! (given that everyone has net access
Would this take some of the wind from your argument? Would this make our system more truly representative?
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
What's the 'US of history'? ;)
;)
US as innovators? Then I totally beg to differ!
US as super power? ditto on the differ thing.
US as a bastion of democracy? Well, might give ya that one
And to your Asimov quote, it seems to suggest that the only time there is no stagnation is when there's a mediocre president? Then let's vote for Gore!
Nader and the third party are laudible competitors, and have lots of good things to say. But with his lack of forgein diplomacy, we'd go down a path of isolationism which simply cannot be afforded in this global economy.
Plus, he's a maverick- which is great and encouraged in these united states, but how well would such behavior and 'tude go over in China? Will they stand for his unrelenting speeches on human rights?
how about in the middle-east?
Now is not the time for Nader or the Greens, unfortunately, though I agree with alot of their stuff.
Now is also not the time for a man who is obviously in bed with the oil industry, and has little capability to make decisions on his own.
I wish Cheney was a democrat and was running with Gore, that would be a TEAM. But if it's Bush/Cheney, I wonder how much of the show will Bush run? Or will he be off partying at Camp David with his frat buddies?
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
Bull. Individual citizens have the biggest role in it all: the vote. We talk about corporate money, journalistic bias, and so on. But except for few blatently illegal instances, it all comes down to the individual vote. All that money and power and press is spent towards the goal of influencing each individual vote.
With a vigilant enough citizenry, and corporation or politician or group can throw as much money as they like at an election, but it is still out of their control; they cannot make the vote.
People become disconnected because they are lazy. They dread the jury duty notice, change the channel to the WWF when the topic turns to government, and they can hardly spend the 20 minutes to swing by the poll on the way to the office. They certainly can't invest the time to reserach issues and candidates themselves and render any amount of money spent trying to convince them powerless.
Saari gives 2 examples and says that the Borda system is the only one that "correctly" produces a tie in both situations.
Here are the examples:
There was a 3 candidate election and a 4 candidate election. B = Bradley, G = Gore, M = McCain, W = Bush
Votes are listed voter1, voter2, voter3, total.
G: 3, 2, 1, 6
M: 2, 1, 3, 6
W: 1, 3, 2, 6
Votes are listed voter1, voter2, total.
G: 4, 1, 5
B: 3, 2, 5
M: 2, 3, 5
W: 1, 4, 5
Sorry, slashcode doesn't like a lot of nonbreaking spaces, so I can't format this better.
Saari correctly says that these situations are both ties in under the Borda voting scheme, and neither case would be handled well under our current system (with primaries, Gore would win in the first example, and McCain and Bradley were out of luck in the second).
However, I don't know that these should result in ties. If the rankings weren't limited to the number of candidates, but instead had a wider range, you might get results like this:
Again, voter1, voter2, voter3, total
G: 95, 5, -100, 0
M: 10, -90, 100, 20
W: -100, 100, -5, -5
Now, voter1, voter2, total
G: 77, -80, -8
B: 37, -70, -33
M: 34, 25, 59
W: -85, 100, 15
Again, I tried to format this nicer, but I couldn't get it just right.
Notice each of these situation keeps the strict ordering of the candidates as in the Borda example, but with the wider range of ratings, there is a clear winner in each election - no ties at all.
I need to get back to work, now, but can anyone think of any apparent downsides to this style of voting? One thing to watch out for is that you always have a much larger range than your number of votes. With my example, if you have 201 candidates and a range of 201 ([-100, 100]), then it would become a Borda style election.
As an aside, I just noticed that McCain won both my example elections, but that was purely coincidental. Of those four, I would have picked Bradely, but I digress...
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The other day I did a little calculation. I figure I'm currently bringing in about 75 dollars an hour for my work. I use this figure to help me gauge the value of my various activities.
:)
Not including the time it would take to actually figure out who to vote for, I figure it would take me a minimum of 30 minutes to actually go out and vote. I value these thirty minutes at about 38 dollars.
I figure my odds of my one vote actually effecting the outcome of the ellection are slightly less than the odds of winning the lottery with a single ticket.
If I had a million dollars I suspect I could use it to influence some government policy, or even better I could use it to some generically useful and benneficial purpose.
Come election day I'm buying 38 lotto tickets. I probably won't win, but my odds are better than yours
As far as I remember, it was only military service.
Actually, it was any civil service whatsoever. In the words of Heinlein himself:
Additionally, in Starship Troopers, no civil servant, military or otherwise, can vote or hold office until he or she has fulfilled the term of service and become a civilian once more. Thus, in order to acquire the right to vote or hold government office--and therefore the right to make decisions about society--one must serve that society in some capacity for a set amount of time. You're not forced to serve, you have a choice of what capacity to serve in, and you may quit early with no penalty if you decide it's not the way to go, but you don't gain the privelege of voting.
Your analysis is flawed because the market breaks down when faced with a decision between a long-term good and a short-term good. If we keep the park, it sticks around for the next generation, but the owner of the park isn't very concerned about this. Furthermore, if it is a public corporation, they want to see some short-term earnings. The bottom line is that it is an emperical fact that corporations almost always make decisions based on the short-term. The government doesn't have to answer to shareholders, so it can make more long-term decisions. Hence the government should own the national parks. Furthermore, there is the major problem of pricing. The cost of upkeep is relatively constant, so you want to have many people being able to use the park. However, a corporation would set prices higher than the government does in order to maximize profits, thus keeping away people who could contribute a smaller ammount, yet still more than their marginal cost. The government solves this problem in many domains by marginal tax rates. Read some basic economics and you will see that your vaunted lazeiz-faire capitalism isn't perfect (or even very good) in all domains.
I think this sounds like a wonderful plan. I think EVERYONE should stay home. infact, I would like everyone to stay home, so that way when I show up, I get to elect whoever I want.
The problem with your plan, is that it doesn't matter if you show up. If fact, for everyone who doesn't show up, my vote counts more. If only two percent of the eligible people showed up, I would have way more influence than if everyone showed up.
provolt
When your voting card looks like:
[] Adolf Hitler
[] Joseph Stalin
what do you do? Somehow, not voting seems like the least offensive choice.
The "representative" in representative democracy contains the enigma within itself. Does the politician simply pass on the will of 50%+1 voters, or represent them fully in the sense that he decides what's good for them. If the first way were the way we wanted it, we wouldn't need to elect anyone, we'd simply vote on everything. I agree with the other two responses here.
Cats know what you're thinking. They don't care, but they know.
For all purposes the army I served in was a complete waste of time and the people who have taken the 24 months or have gone to jail have been, in general, more intelligent, better educated and more productive members of the society than their counterparts in the armed service.
...more productive members of the society than their counterparts in the armed service.
That's a very arrogant point of view. I used to share it. I'll describe the thought process that lead to my abandonment of it.
First I figured I shouldn't join the military because I'm too smart. I thought, from a purely pragmatic point of view, that I would serve the country better in industry or planning or whatever and not dying on a beach from a bomb blast or something.
Then I thought about it some more. My next line of thought was this: if you had to choose between you dying or someone else dying, who would you choose to live? The smarter person? The more useful person? The more I thought about this the more I realized that you can only choose yourself to die, because you don't have the right to condemn other people to death, but you do, imho, have the right to decide your own fate. That made the question of military service different. Perhaps I should join so that no one else might die in my place. I can deal with my own death. But think of the sacrifice others might have to make for you. Could you deal with knowing you could've taken their place and saved a life, but didn't? I'm not saying all people who don't enlist should feel guilty, but they should respect the sacrifice others are making for them, even if those making the sacrifices are motivated by goals other than altruism. So when I think about it that way it seems to me that it's just as much my (as a smart person) duty to serve as it is Joe Blow's duty. Perhaps being in the army can make you a better person if you learn from it that on some level, everyone's equal, and IQ doesn't grant you a special elevated place in society. Hitler probably had an above average IQ.
Productivity can be measured in terms other than dollars. If someone "dumb" could've taken your place, wouldn't that seem mighty productive to you? Perhaps it was productive for you to serve because it left someone more humble to work in the civilian sector.
Cats know what you're thinking. They don't care, but they know.
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
I really don't think that will make any difference whatsoever. You stated in your article that on one-third of eligible voters turned out last election. Did the beltway buckle? The only way to affect real change on the system is work from within the system. Elect candidates that you believe in to local offices state offices and even to congress. The top-down approach (which is amusing considering Nader's history of grassroots efforts) of backing a third-party candidate for president will not work. In 1992 Ross Perot received 18.91% of the popular vote. In 1996 he only got 8.4% of the vote (stats from uselectionatlas.org). It didn't work for Perot and it won't work for Nader. And it especially won't make a bit of difference if you don't vote. In the small races for things like state houses and even congress, 500 people can make a HUGE difference. Especially if they are actively involved in the campaign.
Don't let country be run by this man. Vote Gore 2000
Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
Thank you for posting one of the few head-sans-ass commments I've read today.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
I'm in Washington. That swing enough for you? I'll go Gore if you'll go Nader.
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
I mean they have to earn money by producing stuff people really want to pay for, not by buying monopolies from politicans.
Now that I think of it, the term "honest work" doesn't really imply that the person doing the work is honest...
Today your life is controlled by big business, through government. They buy or stop legislation thought campaign contributions and other lobbying, as we all know.
In a Libertarian state, there is no government coercion for the politicians to sell, and big business will have to make a living through honest work, like everybody else.
I think voters should have to prove that they are competent before they can vote in an election. On the ballot should be some simple questions like: Which of the following people are running for this office? or... Match the following platform positions with their respective candidates. Only votors who can competently answer questions about the candidates should have their votes counted.
Actually, there is one very important view that cannot be expressed by voting: "I disapprove of the political system"! If you vote, you are implicitly saying "I agree with the political system as it stands - it is good enough."
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Hmm. You have some good points. Certainly, not voting is often interpreted as tacit acceptance of the status quo. But there really is a deeper problem: what if you fundamentally disagree with the system. For example, I personally disagree with partisan politics. There is no party, and there never will be one, that represents my views simply by virtue of its existance. I don't believe in one-party politics, I believe that zero party politics is the solution. So what am I to do? My voting is tantamount to acceptance of party politics. Another example is that I believe that I should be able to vote for literally anyone. This is because I believe that the system of nominations and campaigning is inherently subject to corruption. If I vote, I cannot truly vote for the people I believe should be responsible for the governance of the nation. This is to me a severe restriction on my freedom. Again, voting (either for someone who is on the ballot, or abstaining or spoiling my ballot) is tantamount to supporting the system of nominations and campaigning. There is no way for me to register my specific complaints. You mention three options: leaving the country, revolution, or starting a new party. For me, leaving the country is no solution. For one thing (and this may be an issue of my own ignorance) there is no country that has a political system which conforms to my ideals. For another thing, there are other good things about where I live which amount to me accepting a tradeoff: I have no political voice, but I have access to education and healthcare that is nearly unparalleled in the world. The option of starting a revolution turns out not to be necessary. In fact, I belong to an international organization which has implemented a system very similar to what I have described which works effectively to govern millions of people from every country in the world. Since I am in it for the long haul, I'm not too worried about the current systems, except insofar as they are contributing to strife and dissention for human beings everywhere (and for that matter, animals and plants!). For what its worth, I should mention that I am actually Canadian. Not that it makes any difference as far as politics is concerned...
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Interestingly enough nationalism is one of my biggest problems with current systems. Have you read Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson? Very good historical and philosophical analysis of the origin and evolution of the concept of nationalism. As it happens, I am slightly on the side of activist, although in a very moderate manner. I belong to the Bahai Community which has as one of its fundamental tenets the unity of humanity. It is crucial to recognize the global scope of most of our current problems (economic, social, environmental), and that these problems can only be solved after people have recognized their fundamental unity. Technically, there is a way out of the dilemma presented by partisan politics: vote for an individual. Interview the candidates, learn about their character, and in particular their record of service to humanity. Vote on that basis and hopefully it will be sufficient. Realistically, I'm pretty doubtful about any politician in today's culture... By the way, I am Canadian. Not that it matters as far as politics is concerned...
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Actually, for what its worth, the reason I remain in Canada is because I pay higher taxes there than I would in the United States... WHAT!!!? Yup. That's my way of contributing. I am by far in the highest tax bracket in Canada which means I pay more than 50% of my income into taxes. Taxes which support universal health care, and relatively inexpensive, very high quality education. Yes. Fortunately I am easy to ignore...
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
- Partisan Politics. The default mode of most political systems is that an individual who wishes to participate in governance must align with a political party. Political parties are designed with the idea of opposition which is supposed to be part of a system of checks and balances. In reality, the opposition is usually only done for the sake of appearances, is not applied rationally, and actually hinders most honest efforts at governance. What is the alternative? Certainly not single-party politics! Rather, no-party politics: every politician runs independently and on their own merits. Which leads to...
- The system of nominations, and campaigning. This system severely limits the ability of individuals to participate in governance on the basis of merit. If I am able to vote for any individual I choose, even myself, I have the proper degree of freedom. Every adult in "good standing" should be eligible, and obligated to server their electorate if chosen. And, campaigning should be forbiddens as it leads to many of the worst aspects and abuses: only those with money (or serious partisan backing) can hope to "win".
Another major problem is people's attitude towards governance as the holding of power. Rather, governance is most effective when it is considered service. And the more broad that perspective of service is, the better! Demonstrated service to humanity should be the most significant factor in our decisions about who must govern. In this time when globalization (the good kind - and yes there is such a thing - Linux is only possible because of it) is a fact of life, when environmental and economic and social problems influence every human being on the planet, we are just being perverse if we think that we can afford to vote on any other basis than demonstrated service to humanity. My two cents.Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Speaking of Harry Browne...there's a round table with him going on at kuro5hin all week; he's got an account and he's answering questions. Seriously.
--jbWhat I do know that that Nader is not a very good choice. After some time of observing him in the news and on his own website all I remain convinced of is that he has made a very good living for himself by complaining. I'm also not very convinced that he is an honest man. I would much rather elect for president an honest man that I disagree with than someone who tells me things that I like to hear.
________________
They're - They are
Their - Belonging to them
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
... and how many FOB's (Friends of Bill) are pushing up daisies right now.
However, since assasination is a) very difficult and b) counter-productive (since it causes a backlash against the benefiting party) I think the change would not noticably increase the risk.
I have thought things through, in depth. I also don't allow a knee-jerk bigoted view of my opponents to color my thinking.
www.eFax.com are spammers
What should be done, especially in places that doesn't allow a "None of the Above" option is to create a new political party and get it on the ballot in all 50 states and have a candidate named "Nonov DeObov" as your presidential candidate.
Maybe then CmdrTaco would have someone on the ballot he feels he could vote for with pride.
:)
-Vel
Welcome to Darkwind
50/50> viking Christtrekker
You turn Christtrekker into a little viking!
50/50>
>;) Couldn't resist...
He's been chastened. That is, he's now less likely to try to destabilize the whole region by invading somebody else, or lobbing missiles willy-nilly. His military is now meek enough that it tolerates -- it has no choice but to tolerate -- repeated invasion by Turkey (which has pursued Kurdish rebels across the border).
There also aren't that many good candidates for replacing him yet... and a UN/US-run government would NOT sit well with the rest of the Middle East, methinks.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The problem is that Heinlein possably saw ST as a polotical theory dressed up as a novel.
Also , a lot of the civil service jobs in the book where dangerous and remote. Military service was the quickest way of getting citizenship.
>>>>>
Heinlein never met Oliver North. This is the problem I have with a lot of political/social/economic utopian fiction. Everyone from Henilein to L. Neil Smith sets up these perfect societies. The inherent flaws and challenges are never expressed. It is much safer to think of these utopias the same way one thinks of ray guns and FTL travel, interesting fictional devices to advance the plot.
Reality is different. Even in a non-military service, regimentation would occur. While all communities force at least some order upon individuals, a Federal service would have much more power to do so. This is nothing new. In the late 1800's, Russia conscripted many Jewish citizens in an effort to secularize them.
While it seems like a nice idea to send the unruly masses to 'military school' in order to 'earn' their full rights, the truth is that a truly free society should not be afraid to extend these rights to every citizen. While almost every society has some cultural or economic caste system, withholding the franchise would mean ceasing to be a democracy.
In a more practical vein, consider the effect on the working class. If one is forced to choose between supporting one's family and volunteering for a service, is that really a choice. Such a system would be biased towards the middle and upper classes.
It was a fun book to read, but in practical terms it bore as much relation to reality as the fictional Mars and Venus found in 1950's space movies. Personally, if I had to choose between Libertarianland and the Amazon women of Mars, I know what I'd pick.
***************************************** Spice is the spice of life. Chiles forever!
Bravo, Bravo!!!
I must agree with you that many radicals (and probably many of the /. readers) have idealistic ideas that are not clearly thought out. Most people forget to esablish and cement their ideas. They rarely have any form of philosophy or ideology to support those obsurd thoughts of theirs. However, what abut some of the ideas that ARE legitimate. Totalatarian forms of government are clearly designed as well to calm radicals and extingquish their ideas. But we (we being the majority of what could be considered 'civilized' world society) have moved away from that. The American Revolution was a case of us being fed up with the 'status quo' and as a whole we decided to change it.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that while the system may be designed to eliminate radicals, that doesn't mean that if the radicals become the majority (AND have legitimized ideas) that they can't change the system.
The Government is currently taking in more money than it is putting out (Social Security included, both benefits and payroll taxes) and it is required by law to reduce the national debt whenever that condition occurs. Bipartisan rhetorical nonsense aside, the Social Security system has always been just another fungible revenue source.
Do you seriously think that when the Social Security funds "run out" the Government is going to just sit there and turn its pockets inside out? They'll make those payments (or reduced versions thereof) somehow, which will mean borrowing money, which is why it's good that the national debt is being reduced now.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Libertarianism reduces to no one controling your life - except you.
Your voting system could be worse - you could have proportional representation. Hung parliaments, new general elections every couple of years (see Italy), cranks from minority parties holding the deciding vote and so wielding influence out of proportion to their constituency etc etc...
In some ways, our system's division of power is responsible for producing politicians with no balls.
As it stands, there is no motivation for polititians to be arbiters of constitutionality. Why do you suppose unconstitutional laws continually come out of the beltway? Because they are passed in response to popular opinion, fears, and hysteria. Not because they are consitutional.
Why take the political risk of sinking a bill due to constitutionality when you can pass it, reap the popularity dividend, knowing full well that the courts will sort it out.
The problem is that constitutionality is rarely, if ever, an issue that the masses care about. If the public cared about consitutionality, then passing popular, but unconstitutional, laws would no longer reward the lawmakers.
Raise awareness, and fondness, for the constitution. Could you imagine, during a presidential compaign, if candidates were asked such questions as "Did you indeed sign off on the following laws, which were subsequently struck down as unconstitutional, and if so can you explain your reasoning at the time?"
Mojotoad
"To topple the government, first make the population apathetic. Next, expose the criminal nature of the government. The people will treat it like any common criminal, a criminal they don't care about in the slightest, and would like to get rid of. They will kill it."
Now how is that going to work? Make the populace apathetic. If they're apathetic, they don't care what choices that the government makes. This doesn't include any "so long as" statements. Flat out, they don't care. Expose the criminal nature? Come on, what's the criminal nature of our government? It provides safety, security, stands up for our rights (please, oh please dispute me on this), and stands for the general rule of law that people AND society need to function in large, complex sociological entities.
oh, and btw, if they were truly apathetic, they wouldn't try to get rid of it or kill it. They'll simply site there and let it rule their lives.
"Your friends cannot, in a society which respects human rights, use deadly force to compel you to eat where they please. The government can and does."
please, stop. Your friends cannot force you to, but if you're truly apathetic, when they ask you for your opinion and you say "i don't care", chances are you'll go where they decide to go. If you choose not go to, that's called abstaining, but atleast your action is being heard. Abstaining is not apathy. Abstaining is taking an action to declare that you're not happy with the choices presented and do not wish to offer your own.
And you ask what kind of friends are those that make the decision for you when you don't choose to vote or make a decision? What kind of friend ARE YOU for not being an active member of the group of friends? What could THEY possibly gain by such an association? If they always want to go to chinese for dinner and you hate chinese but go along anyway and never voice an opinion, how would they know that you don't like it? If instead you wanted to go to Italian and they never considered it, they'd never try it unless you VOICED YOUR OPINION.
join a party whose sole platform, upon reaching a point of power, is to dissolve party politics.
their foundation will be based upon the strength of their convictions to end the party politics in the system upon reaching the point that they are able to make this conviction reality.
outlines which are considered battleground, the history... you just have to find the exact numbers elsewhere
you might need to fix the URL... it's putting an unneeded space in there for no reason.
sound suspiciously like the Judicial branch of the U.S. government?
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Is this in fact the case? I thought they would be counted, but not have any effect on the election. Am I wrong?
...the electoral college exists.
Because us common folk aren't smart enough to make such an important decision, like who should be president.
Where did you get the idea that the deficit is being payed? There _is_ _no_ surplus! They're stealing money from Social Security and calling it surplus. And instead of paying off the debt, they are looking for more things to spend it on. They might even put some of it back into Social Security, but not if they can help it.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
But I would like to point out that enough people have already abstained from voting in the last election, and Ralph Nader _is_ using it as ammunition. What we need to do is rise up and vote for who we want. Who knows, we may end up electing someone else!
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
I'm not sure about the States, but many jurisdictions count the number of "ruined ballots", which most people consider a protest vote. I have written "none of the above" across my ballots before.
Imagine that ringing endorsement applied to cookie advertising: The good news is that so far, we've never had a ballot with only Hitlers to choose from.
We're lucky I guess...given the current crop of mediocre candidates, we can at least hold our noses, pick the least evil of the bunch, and expect that the winner won't turn out to be a ruthless dictator.
Surely, we want more from our vote than that?
This is most certainly not the job of a politician, though it may seem so in recent years. Its IS in fact the job of a politian to follow what his own personal judgement tells him is the correct thing to do. It is also his job to tell us those personal beliefs when he is running in the first place. This purpose of this is to prevent "mob rule" or "government by gallup pole" as the other responder to your post mentioned. Another way to llok at it is that the average joe just can never have the time to be totally informed on the issues and thier nuances, thats a full time job. SO you elect someone you think would vote the same way you would. He does the research, and votes in the way he believes would be the best for the country
I was one of the vast non-voting majority, until this election. I attribute my apathy to two things; first was my lack of good choices in the candidates running (leading). Second was my lack of trying to find out more about the options out there. Our current system plays up the two major parties candidates, and tends to shun the fringe players. I believe that if the truly apathetic put in some effort to check out all of the candidates, they'd find someone out there that is saying something they can believe in. We need to give up our notion that we have to vote for one of the "winners". I know too many people who say that they won't vote for a minor candidate because he/she has no chance of winning. Every vote does count, and now more that ever it counts when you vote for someone other than the status quo boys. This year Nader gets my vote because he really does have some good ideas that need to be heard. Hey, he won't win - I know that already, but if I don't vote for him then I'm just counted as another non-voter, instead of a voter who's dissatisfied with the usual offerings
"You can't play with my yo-yo"
Yeah have MTV standing out there shoving big piles of liberal bullshit down the throats of our youth, and basically telling them that this is the one true way and that to believe anything else makes you a totalitarian.
No thank you, I'll pass on that.
Seriously though, what needs to be done is somehow getting the point across that voting is a socially responsible thing to do, wait a minute, most people have no idea what social responsiblity is, unless of course it has to do with them holding society responsible for *their* actions. I guess in such case, if your too damn dumb to realize you should vote, maybe then your not intelligent enough to make a decision at all....
Aaron
(Watching his karma go to nil)
Personally I believe by not voting you really end up foritting your right to bitch about the state of affairs in our government. Vote for the candidate you(I said you, not your neighbor Joe or anybody else, but you) feel would be a good leader for the country, regardless of whether your think he has a chance of winning or not. At least then when things with a leader are going shitty at least you can say, "I didn't vote him in, did you?"
By not voting your basically saying that your not able to make a decision about government, therefore I'll let somebody else make the decisions for me. But then again the majority of americans tend to like it this way. Consider how many people between 18-30 still live at home with their parents(No I'm not one of those people living at home...I'm 20 and I'm out on my own, not in a dorm either). You know why most of them are still there? Because why should they, somebody will take care of all of their needs and desires, so why should they have to work for it. I personally find it repulsive, but it seems to be the American way these days...
Of course, the real problem is the voting system, as Katz points out. Until we get this sorted out, nobody has a chance of making a meaningful change to the American political landscape. All those third parties with such interesting thoughts? Forget about it until it's actually possible to get them elected, and that means removing the fear aspect* from voting.
I don't know if it will make a whit of difference, but I wrote a letter to the editor (Des Moines Register) yesterday concerning this very issue. We need to change the system, and get Instant Runoff Voting in place by 2004. Only then will the machinery be in place to effect real change. Maybe the letter will actually get printed. We'll see. In any case, I urge you to do the same. Get involved, even if it's only in a small way. Go to the polls November 7.
*Fear aspect: Being afraid that supporting a third party candidate as a matter of conscience will help elect the "mainstream" with ideals most unlike your own, a direct consequence of our stupid plurality-wins voting system.
Constitutionally Correct
Well, if you're going to be a loser and not vote, fine. If you want to change things, try to change them. Sitting in your house on election day doesn't do anything. All a third party needs (as one person already mentioned) is 5% of the vote to get going.
You say you don't like any of the existing parties? Create your own or change an existing one, or at least try. Don't sit around like a lazy bastard and say "This country doesn't work the way I like."
That's a loser's attitude. If you don't like the way the government works, there's free speech. Try to push your cause. Get a candidate. If you haven't at least tried to fix something, then you're just blowing hot air.
We are, by most standards, the most free nation in the world. People can change the system. They have. If our forefathers took your lazy attitude and said, "I choose not to do anything", we'd all still be British subjects. That'd sure be nice, eh?
And that would probably mean we'd be the largest province in the German empire.
The fact that we broke away from Britian and created what has been the longest running democracy in modern history, is what has made us THE leader of the free world. It took people with guts who said, "I don't like the way this is working." To go our and actually do something about it. Not sit around and whine sour grapes and ignore an election.
I think people who don't vote to make some sort of statement are just complete idiots. It makes no statement at all. It's what a loser does. If you want to make a statement, then you have to actively do it. Do something to change the system if you don't like it. Otherwise be quiet and go uncounted, because that's what you're doing in the election.
I'm not strongly in favor of any one candidate in this election. But more importantly, I'm strongly against two of the candidates. One who's not qualified to be a student government president of a high school and another is an ego maniac. The third choice may not be a Thomas Jefferson, but I think he's a smart guy with a good heart and a lot of experience. He won't make all the problems go away, but of my choices, he is the safest bet that our country won't go to shit, and that's enough reason for me to go out and vote for him.
Now, I could sit around and bitch that the process didn't produce my perfect hero, but I didn't go out and try to find my perfect hero and try to change the system. I accept the system for what it is, because as far as I'm concerned, it's the best in the world.
If you're really so sick of the system, leave the country. Find one more to your liking. I did leave the country for a few years, and it's definately changed my opinion of politics.
People bitch and moan about how shitty politics are here. Try living in a third world country for a little while and get a little fucking perspective. You have no idea what you've got.]
Personally, I think anyone who "chooses" not to vote should be given exit papers and sent on their merry way to Iraq or some other place where your choice not to vote is actually encouraged.
But it fails. And there's nothing voting will do about it. A very wise man (wish I knew how) once noted that if voting could change anything, it would be illegal.
I wrote this in 1996, and not one word needs to be changed:
Voting Rites.
Not voting can be a serious political statement. Unfortunately, I think most people who don't vote do so out of laziness rather than for respect of a principle. If there are no candidates you can support in an election, you shouldn't hold your nose and pick one. But you should go to Polling Place and cast a blank ballot. By doing that, you are making an affirmative choice not to vote. Anything else looks like laziness.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
I have a major problem with Libertarians.
I understand what they are for. On a basic level, I agree wholeheartedly with them. Individuals should be free to live their lives however they choose.
However, economically, the libertarian platform is foolish at best. Laisez-faire capitalism works on a small scale with an active and involved populace. Large multinational corperations, who are responsible for making profit are not going to self regulate.
A corperation with enough money and a large enough product base can easily make any attempt to attack it through boycott infeasible at best. Corps like proctor and Gamble are immune to such actions because they can hide behind so many brand names that you are sure to be buying some of their products unknowingly.
Small government is beautiful. If it was up to me, there would be no government at all beyond the local city level - small enough where an individual can make a difference - or if they really don't like it - can move elsewhere.
The type of world where deregulation (especially economic) can possibly work is definitely not today - its at least a few generations off.
The idea that we can just cut off the regulations and let buisness regulate itself today and now is foolish at best - its downright irresponsible.
If they would stick to the relm of decriminilizing "consenual crimes" like drugs and prostitution, and other such things - I would be all for them. These are goals that will work in the short term.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
One of my friends maintains that democracy fails when
We're pretty well on that track now, given that both major party candidates are using artificially rosy economic projections in combination with plans for increased spending and/or decreased taxes when, last I heard, we still have a US$5,000,000,000,000.00 debt hangover from which to recover.
BTW, the whole premise of hoping to hear news from non-voters suddenly acquiring a fervent desire to express themselves appears fundamentally flawed.
At least this election year, the 2 major party candidates are so close in the race that we can at least hope for them to more adventurously pursue the remainder of the electorate. That will be entertaining, at least, even if the result will still be depressing in the end.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Well, amazingly - when I read the first paragraph of this on the main page -- I thought this little blurb was good -- IF it ended there, Katz would have suprised me and contributed something decent to slashdot. But then he goes on with his mindless drivel, as usual.
Well.. he did get me thinking (from that first paragraph). Why do I vote? Well... I really don't like either candidate in this case (and it has happened before), so, instead of not voting at all (that doesn't do ANY good), I vote for the person who is the least bad. In this case, I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT want George Dubbuya as our prez. I mean, he is a bumbling fool -- daddy's little rich boy. That is why am planning to vote for gore -- so that I can contribute to ensuring that Georgeie doesn't get into office. There are a number of things that I don't agree with Gore on (which Bill Bradley seemed to fit better), but he is miles ahead of George.
Basically, the argument is that in-action is action. That to not to vote, is in fact a vote. (That to be silent, is in fact to scream.)
There is also the argument in "support" of not voting that states simply that actions don't have consequences. "Voting doesn't matter". Hmmm ...
To those who chose not to vote, fine. Don't. I would say, "more power to you", but the truth is, its really more power for me.
Finally, I don't really care what you think. I don't really have to, see, because you don't vote. You can spin whatever rationalization you find necessary for this decision not to vote; it really, truely, doesn't matter. You may think to yourself (or even outloud for that matter) that what I think doesn't matter either. Fine. Keep telling yourself that. The problem is, is that I vote, and you don't.
See, as far as I'm concerned you not voting is one less battle I've got to fight. One less set of opinions I need to take into concideration. Whew! and God Bless America.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot ... the only reason one needs to vote:
You ROCK!
Find someone in a non-swing state who is rational, but pro-Gore. Tell them that you will vote Gore if they vote Nader.
I live in a swing state (Michigan) and I intend to vote for Nader. I would love to read the headlines: "Bush wins, Nader blamed". That would make my day.
If Gore really wanted my vote, then he'd answer concerns about corporate welfare and corruption, as well as the other unheard issues that Nader wants to solve. Instead, Gore has done his best to dodge those issues, re-invent his record, and ignore Nader. My primary concern is to see reform in the election process (I mostly much agree with Katz's observations about how hopeless it is). However, Gore has demonstrated that he will continue to represent the very worst that I hate about elections: scumming votes from the most impressionable voters through TV ads funded my massive soft money contributions. Gore's actions and his record have failed to convince me that he will be significantly better than Bush.
How long must I vote for the second-worst candidate in exchange for nothing? Four years? Eight? Twelve? How many more times will I be betrayed by the Democrats? It's time to send a "tough love" message to the Democrats who are so busy scraping votes from potential Republicans that they forgot that there's a job to do and work to be done.
40% of the voters in this country will vote for the GOP candidate no matter what, 40% vote for a Dem candidate no matter what, and 20% swing back and forth. A strong Green party in the future will do nothing to the GOP base of voters.
But a strong Green party will splinter the Democrat party into two smaller parties, neither of which will ever be able to win a National election.
The GOP will still get its 40% of conservatives, but the 40% of current Dems would be split over the Dems and Greens. This would cinch electoral wins for the GOP for many years.
The more prudent course of action for the progressives to take is to work from within the Democratic party to pull it toward the Green positions.
A 3-party system in which two of the party's are to the left-of-center will guarantee that the right-of-center party, though a minority, will rule.
The 2-party system prevents these silly coalition governments that we see in other countries like France and Israel (to name two). There, you have the third-largest parties dictating the direction of Government by forming coalitions with one of the biggest two.
Matching funds for the Green Party will lead to decades of the GOP holding the Presidency. Any "progressive" or "liberal" person who advocates matching funds for the Greens is advocating the death of progressive and liberal politics.
Do progressives really want that?
-----------------------------------
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
The loser (in your scenario, the VP) and his party would have an extremely strong motive to knock the winner out of office via impeachment and/or assassination.
How rabid do you think the GOP woul dhave been in 1998 to throw Clinton out of office if Bob Dole were the VP?
How many nutcases in the Militia Belt would have had a strong desire to assassinate Clinton in 1994 if George Bush Sr. were the VP?
In your scenario, partisan politics would become even more vile and dangerous. There are enough nuts on both sides that the President would be in constant danger of assassination or otherwise removal from office.
Please, think things through before you advocate a position.
-----------------------------------
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
How very capitalist of Mark. You are absolutely correct. If the public parks are sold eother the demand for them will increase and they will be protected or they will be mined, deforested, etc. And I think that that is exactly what would happend, the natural minerals and resources would be removed and the land de-"pristined". But you are wrong about one thing. There will not be enough parks for ME. I will not be able to afford to visit a (formerlly) National Park. I won't be able to afford it.
Do you ever feel like there are people watching you? You're not alone.
No, the Libs just want to remove gov't restrictions on Big Business turning the screws on people. Sorry, I won't have that.
I do agree with your second point (I am so happy that the /. crowd is *so* damn sharp this morning). But my self-interest simply cannot be served by anyone running on a national platform. You want to know my agenda? Localized, free association is a good start. As it is, though, I don't feel motivated to get into electoral politics....
sig not found
I agree up to a point; the process of voting should give the powers that be an overview of the will of the voting population. In an ideal situation, every person should go out and vote on his/her conscience. If enough people go out and vote for the candidate that they think represents their interest, then that should get translated into a rough view of where the pulse of the public stands.
However, not voting because you don't like Gore or Bush is no kind of political statement whatsoever. Go out and read the platforms of other candidates. I did that and found a candidate behind whom I am happy to give my support. I am so f*&%!# tired of people telling me that I am wasting my vote if I don't vote for Gore or Bush. If enough people show their dissatisfaction with the paltry offerrings of the 2 major parties that exist (if they indeed feel that way) then a large enough number of votes for a candidate that truly represents their political ideals will make an impact. After all, these people care primarily about getting re-elected, so it is in their best interest to find out what people are thinking. Not voting sends absolutely no message whatsoever.
In Japan, where conformity is the rule rather than the exception, there is a concept of a democracy based on "Giri", or obligation voting, meaning that even though a person agrees with a third party candidate moreso than one of the main parties, they feel obligated to vote for one of the main party candidates. To me, that is somewhat akin to bending over for the major party system and sacrificing your own beliefs for the status quo. Choosing the "lesser of two evils" is to me a much bigger waste of a vote than voting on your conscience. If you don't like what the major parties are giving you, go out and find the candidate you feel best represents your point of view and vote for him/her - that will say more than abstention or compromise ever will.
P.S.
Before people tell me that my argument relies on the action of many people doing something, keep in mind that your vote with respect to who wins/loses doesn't mean a thing (no presidential election has been decided by one vote) the only context in which to talk about these issues is in a macro sense - "if enough people did things this way" as opposed to discussing the impact of one vote in particular.
For the love of $DEITY, loose != not win!!!!!
So you've determined your vote based on a single issue? Wow, how incredibly stupid. I could search the world over and never find a candidate that I agree with on every issue. Now maybe that's the most important issue to you, which is fine, I guess. Of course, have you ever considered the possibility that 3rd party groups could buy that land for the sake of preservation? Nah, prolly not, you're obviously too hung up on the 'park issue' to consider anything but "immediate destruction" once National Parks are deregulated.
Anyway, you are free to worry about the things important to you. In the mean time I'll go back to Corporatism, gov't intrusion of rights, national debt, and all the other things I'm worried about this election.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
the Britney Spears of presidential candidates, Ralph Nader
Hm, let's see. Britney has millions of fans, has sold out concerts, appears on countless talk shows/tv specials/interviews, has the IQ of a very large grape, and is a household name across the US. Ralph is an extremely intelligent man who can even get into the debates as a spectator and typically gets the response "Ralph who?" when brought up in conversation. Britney represents corporate manipulation in the music industry while Ralph is vehemently opposed to corporate interference. Britney=mainstream, Ralph="radical".
Now what exactly are you talking about? Seems to be a troll pot-shot if I've ever seen one.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
you've managed to accuse ralph nader of being both a communist and nazi, great strawman...
Ummm, I don't see him calling Nader a communist anywhere, do you? Oh, maybe you meant socialist? Big difference pal, get your "isms" straight. And you also seem to be confused as to what a "strawman" is. Here's a quick lesson: a strawman argument is a weak argument you present and then easily tear it down to make your side look better. That post wasn't tearing down any weak arguments, either. Calling anyone a "Nazi" or a "Communist" doesn't constitue using a "strawman". Back to PHIL 101, moron.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
only the Green platform calls for consideration of a binding "None of the Above" option on the ballot.
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that in Australia, voting is mandatory. If you don't vote they fine you a considerable amount of cash. Is this true? What do people think about this. What do Australians have to say? On the one hand, making it mandatory would put it in a similar epitome as taxes or jury duty (the average person doesn't like it and would rather it weren't so). On the other hand I believe voting is just as important a duty as the other things mentioned, and like them, should be mandated. I am proud to say I have voted in every single local, state and national election for which I am eligible since turning 18. Despite the overwhelming discouragement from the media saying how I belong to a group that doesn't vote and doesn't (implied shouldn't) care. And despite overwhelming discouragement of the choices offered. Even when California had the open primary, the second stupidest voting idea to ever be purposed, I still voted. Rarely has there been candidates I wholeheartedly supported. But I still voted for someone in every box, sometimes for the lesser evil, but often I felt it necessary to write-in a name. I think the "None of the Above" option is the stupidest voting idea to ever be purposed. We already have the write-in option to express our displeasure with the choices offered. Many times I have voted for Cynthia Ann Crawford, and in each case I absolutely stand by my conviction she'd do a better job than any of the choices offered. I've been know to lose my temper when I get a phone call asking for my opinions for a poll and I'm offered only two choices, both of which I disagree with. Here's a conversation I had (names changed to protect the guilty):
"I'm conducting a poll for the upcoming gubernatorial race. Will you be voting in this election?"
Fighting a monetary urge to giggle at 'gubernatorial', I exclaim, "Absolutely!"
"Uhm, Good. Will you be voting for [A] or [B]."
"My choice is not on the poll," I say.
"So, you're undecided?".
"No, I've decided. You just haven't listed my decision in your poll."
"I don't understand," she pleads.
"It is quite simple," I say, "I won't be voting for [A] or [B]. I've decided to vote for [C]. If you want to include me in your poll, you'll have to add [C] to the list of choices because that's who I'm voting for."
"Uhm... [A], is the Democrat. [B], is the Republican."
Her choice of words, much more than her lack of understanding, miffed me just a bit. So I got just a touch sarcastic, "The Democrat and the Republican? I suppose that would make [C], the American?"
"So... I guess I'll, uhm, put you down as not voting. You won't be included in our poll."
"If the accuracy of this poll is that unimportant to you then go ahead. But it'll be on your conscious, knowing you lied and said someone was not voting when they clearly stated [extremely short pause] five times now they are voting, and four times now, stated the name of [C] as the person they are voting for."
"Sir, your being very rude."
"I'm trying to express my opinion when asked to. This is a poll right?. I guess Democracy just sucks-for-you." With that I hung up. I figured the call, at that point, could only turn nasty and accomplish nothing.
Later that evening on the local news I see the results of the poll. 49% [A], 51% [B]. No indication of undecided, not-voting or an "Other" option.
The other problem is the 'winner take all' system of voting, where 51% of the voters can select 100% of the representatives, which isn't therefore very representative.
What would help immensely is a 'fractional representation' system, where if a state had 10 reps, and the votes went 45% dem, 45% rep, and 10% independant, then they get 4.5, 4.5 and 1.0 votes. The fractional votes would be reps that only get to cast a fractional vote, but are represented by a whole human. So the dems would get 4 guys with a whole vote each, and one guy with a 0.5 vote.
That way all of every citizen's votes count(except you might set a floor of 0.1 vote and round to the nearest .1 vote to keep things manageable)
Daniel
But they don't have to pay attention to what you say. If they don't now, what will make them any more likely to after the election?
Why do I feel like I'm feeding a particularly dense troll?
They would be likely to listen because it would be ammunition for their political enemies and the press, that's why. And it's something that the independents can use as ammunition in campaigns in the future, which none of the candidates wants to happen. That's why.
I can't believe I have to explain boneheaded stuff like this.
Democracy seems to be a defined as whatever Jon Katz wants the mob to believe. How can this fantasy candidate be both a free-marketeer and fight for the equitable distribution of technology?
Who is going to pay for this equitable distribution? Sorry Jon. A=A. Words mean something. There is a difference between a democracy and a constitutionally limited republic. In your democracy the mob forces me to pay for your free lunch. In a constitutionally limited republic equitable distribution is called theft.
I know that no person in thier right mind would ever run such a platform. But what I wouldn't give to have the option on every ballot "None of the Above."
"I'm making perfect sense, you're just not keeping up."
...even though gridlock *is* golden. abortion rights and intellectual property laws are just too important to leave to Dubya's "strict constitutionalist" nominees. vote Gore, then go puke yer guts out on the nearst patch of green green grass.
Subj. For as long as I can remember (I left the country four years ago, and it may be different now) the Russian government did pretty much the same thing - they would set up stands with very cheap food, drinks, etc. next to the voting places, so lots of people came... (Before 1990s you only had once choice when you voted - funny, isn't it - so the only thing they cared about was to have enough people vote so that some sort of minimal percentage (25 or 50 - I don't remember) was reached).
:)
It tends to work much better with older and poorer voters, so it is more beneficial to the communist party, but, fortunately, it hasn't helped them much so far
So you don't believe in computer programs? I don't mean code listings, which are just ink and paper, or RAM chips and CPUs, which are just plastic and silicon. Sure, you can see the effects of the program, the words on your monitor or whatnot, but you can also see the effects of the government (the guys with guns kicking down your door when you don't pay your taxes). Obviously, then, computer programs don't exist, since I can't see them or feel them. People may "abide by the notion" that C++ exists, but that doesn't make it a "real" part of "objective reality", eh?
BTW, I'm not saying that you should vote or even change your views. I think the belief you hold is fascinating and contains some truths that a lot of people don't get; but I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
I read in the Economist that Florida (which also carries quite a lot of votes with it) had the potential to go either way, but that was a few weeks ago so maybe it's shifted now.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
Although I agree that you should vote, you're wrong to say that it's the only say you have. Use any forum you have to air your views - that's your fundamental right, (one which I would stand beside Voltaire in defending to the death) and you might make a bit more of a difference, particularly if you arm yourself with facts, rather than the made-up statistics etc which many people on /. are currently using. According to standard deductive logic it often only takes one fact to scupper a whole theory, and in a discussion it is often all that's needed to break a huge and convoluted emotional rant.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
> divided evenly among the 50 states (not realistic, but not wholly unso)
/. contains representatives from all over, I'd be very surprised if some marked trends didn't show up (were it to be looked into) with regards to place of origin, and that could very well reveal a fair bit of voting power within a swing state.
/. is not the sum total of those whom articles and messages on it can reach so that what comes up here tends to float around into other discussion groups, mailing lists and even the regular media from time to time. So save the fuzzy stuff for arguments with 5-year olds and credit us with a little intelligence.
What exactly do you mean by 'not wholly unso'? The suggestion itself is v. misleading - although I'm sure that
Plus the direct readership of
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
"Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting."
No, what you want is a "None of the above" vote. I hear Russia has this.
That's better than rule by committee. Most committees can't even write a sentence in less than 3 months (think about creating a corporate vision statement).
This is why we have the House of Representatives. A large group of congressmen with differening viewpoints. We can't go about trying to create laws by taking a vote from every citizen, for every law. That would never work.
My suggestion is close to this, but I call it 'Proxy Democracy'
That is, each citizen can vote on all technicalities, but most of the time you don't want to, so you assign your vote to someone else--a proxy.
This might not affect a presidential election as much: I think we'd still need an executive branch, but with voting proxies, there would be direct citizen participation instead of one-size-fits-all "representation" from the legislative branch.
This proxy assignment could happen just a couple times a year (for stability), or it could happen continuously, kind of like the stock market, with political figures rising in power dramatically as they appealed to more and more citizens. This system has the potential to recognize and even create leadership on an important issue in virtually no time at all.
Harry Browne's article (the link was posted yesterday) about why you should vote (for him)? If you don't vote, you're going to get raped. And no one will care because you didn't do anything to stop it. There is a serious difference between passive resistance (refusing to do your job, refusing to you leave your location, etc) and not doing anything. Not doing anything is not a political statement, no matter how romantic you want it to be. Everyone who does vote will get their way, and their policies will exclude the lazy fuckers who didn't vote.
I like the Discovery article because it quotes A. Urken, one of my social studies professors =)
All Tristan needs is a copy of slashcode, a high capacity server, lots of bandwidth, and a decent moderation system. And even then, the truth will be hard to get out to everyone, it doesn't work all the time right here on slashdot. And one man's truth (Linux 0wnz J00) is another's falacy (I tell you FreeBSD is the civilized man's OS).
The voting protocol is flawed, so are alot of things that the politicians are clamoring that they want to fix. The problem is, the current electoral system is a game that's well understood, while the full ramifications of other systems aren't well known. When the stakes are this high, no one likes to play a game with untested rules.
There is no excuse for not voting, even if you think your vote won't count. Think of all the people who think their vote won't count, and imagine if they voted for Nader.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Two points about voting for 3rd parties.
First: Its been said 'Why vote for someone that has no chance of winning?' - well if enough people vote for those canidates this year, in four years maybe they will be perceived as having a chance of winning. A 3rd party is probably going to have to break the 5% threshold before they break the 25%. If you make any one of the 3rd parties closer to 5% then you are not wasting your vote, you are simply making a long term investment.
Second: If you vote for one of the two major parties. Your voice is one in millions. If you find a 3rd party that you like, you voice becomes one in thousands! It seems to me that that would make it more valuable.
Finally: I vote Libertarian, because I like their ideas and I want to give them my voice. But if they ever become a serious contender I will definatly reconsider who I am voting for.
Thanks,
Mark
There are many local offices that you can run for that will let you keep your job. Start with 'Election Official', you only have to work three or four days every couple years (election day, primary day, and one or two other days, depending on your specific duties). Most of these do not pay anything, but you do get to go to the post election party and you will become familar with the other offices available. Finally if you are motivated by money and are not willing to break the law for it, then political office is probably not for you. (but then again neither is teaching children, nursing, being a judge [good money but not as much as a corprate or private lawyer], coaching, or being a fireman, but most of those jobs are filled with people who could make more money if they wanted) Mark
Yes interesting observation, one made by our forefathers in the 18th century, and precisely the reason for the legislative architecture today... Ever wonder why we have a Senate and a House? Well the Senate is supposed to be a more educated and exclusive bunch, who tend to be more rational and whos purpose is to balance out the House which is made up of ordinary citizens who through ignorance could make mass irrantional descisions. Yes a direct vote is scary and thats why any internet based political system should have some equivalent of a Senate to keep things from going crazy.
Ughhh werd. And Britney for President!!!
If only one person voted, the government would be a de facto monarchy. The government persists so long as it is thought to be legitimate. A monarchy is widely thought to be illegitimate. Thus a monarchy does not persist.
How, exactly, will this monarchy die? Are you seriously suggesting that these citizens who can't even be bothered to push a lever every few years are going to rise up in the streets and "take back" their country?
For those of you who are humor impaired, this is not entirely serious and besides the major parties would never pass such a law, because that would force the unwashed masses to vote and god only knows what would happen then, why they may vote for someone who has radical ideas like a flat tax or reducing governement spending. Or they may vote for someone who has a real grasp of the issues and fresh ideas.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
if you don't bother to vote come election time, then you have absolutely no right to bitch about who gets into office. so, if you wanna bitch about the pres over the next 4 years, i suggest you get your butt in gear come nov 7th. just my two cents...
I don't know the technical name for it, but I've heard the idea punted around a bit. Let one canadate run as the nominie for more than one party. Under this system, gw could be the guns and ammo and republican party canadate. And gore could be the stick it to the man and democratic party canadate. The basic idea would be that, george, gore, nader, they don't know WHY you voted for them. But by voting for a major party canadate via a 3rd party platform, the informational content of you vote gets to them. It needs a bot of work, but it gives someone both a mandate and good reason to do something if they want to get re elected. A good example of this today would be with the green party. If say gore was selected as their canadate people could send the message we're supporting you as being better than bush, BUT we've got some diffrences so listen to us. Any thoughts as to this?
Nice how you can take 5 pages and compress it into a sentence. Which idiots moded this up? If the poster had enough integrity to fit in a thimble he would have at least posted a link to what he is refuting. No - he'd rather say, "The Libertarians are dumb - look, my one sentence proves it."
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Your points on voting within a large population are well taken. When I vote, my focus is not on Presidential candidates. When the Electoral College is added in, my vote there is nearly worthless.
Instead, concentrate on the local issues. In every election there are numerous ballot issues asking useful things like, "Should we tax everybody so we can have lights at the local softball field?" For these issues my vote is relatively important, because there are not that many people eligible to vote on them. Also, these issues are often some of the most significant for the local area I live in.
In one area I lived there was an issue to have the local city no longer use the city next door's water system, but build our own. The issue passed, narrowly. The immediate effect was that water bills went up 500% for 20 years. The longer term effect was that the extra expense made it impractical for many local businesses to remain local, so they moved to nearby cities. The local shopping malls all died.
So I won't sweat my vote for President, but I'll be studying the local and state issues in detail.
"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot
Not to belabor the obvious, but I put up a page several months ago explaining why anarchists won't be voting in November.
Choose and Lose 2000
the lamest excuse for not voting I often hear (disturbingly, apparemtly semi-legitimized by Slashdot itself) is that due to whatever reason (corruption, money, two-party dominance, etc.) "my vote doesn't count and not voting is a political statement".
rubbish! do some simple math, you fool.
if voter turnout is 25%, the franchisees' votes count MORE. You now have a small majority dictating for the majority - what if only the right-wing Christian conservatives ever turned out to vote? welcome to the United States of Pat Buchanan :(
and what about the remaining 75% of voters who don't vote? well, suppose some fraction of X% is not voting to make a political statement. Do you actually believe that (100-X) is not significantly greater than X ? How will that statement be distinguished from pure apathy? The statements, "my vote doesn't count" and "not voting is a statement" are two related, but NOT equivalent statements. In the end you just get drowned out by the apathetic.
if you don't vote, you are driving the system towards failure, because voting only works when eth majority participate. The Tyrranny of the Majority is more just than the Tyranny of the Minority - this is the basic premise of democracy and why people tend to immigrate to the USA at great personal risk from places like Cuba.
it's the actions of the majority that are critical - and that includes you. If you don't vote, you're the reason the system isn't working the way it was supposed to, so stop blaming the evils of politics. If you intend to not vote, then at least accept responsibility for your part in the decay of our system. If you are whining about how the system is broken and intend your lack of voting to be some big statement to draw attention to it, you are a hypocrite, because not voting breaks the system worse.
the REAL way to address issues like corruption, campaign finance, etc is to VOTE! vote anyone who disagrees with McCain-Feingold in Congress the HELL out of Congress! not-voting just lets teh problem persist because the check and balances the abuse of power are not being utilized.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
Katz, sometimes you actually are a menace to society instead of simply a public spectacle. This is exactly the kind of misinformed conceited viewpoint that is a danger to our democracy, and will lead us to the Tyranny of the Minority. How egotistic for anyone to think that just because you DIDN'T do something, that this is noticeable?
by NOT voting, you do not implement the check and balances that serve to restrict the elected officials. If officials only have to pander to likely voters and have no fear of the Masses' ability to throw them out, then what reform do you actually expect to take place?
its absurd to say that Politician A will think, "hmm, I was unscrupulous this term. The voters did NOT remove me from office. I guess that means they are upset with me and I shoudl mend my ways!"
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
I think The Gulf War/oil situation is one of the best reasons for looking for alternative energy sources I've ever heard. (And the pollution problem's a pretty big one in itself). If we weren't dependent on oil, a huge chunk of our dependence on butting our heads into the affairs of others would disappear.
Why do you think so many terrorist groups have our number? If we could get out of their affairs then they'd have no one to blame about their situations than themselves.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Well, what if we had non-profit organizations that would check into how safe drugs about to be released are? I know I wouldn't buy drugs from a company who didn't have them tested by outside forces beforehand. If some big pharma lied about what was tested or released something they knew to be unsafe, then I'm fairly sure a Libertarian would consider that to be punishable criminal activity. (That's why I feel that tobacco companies should be punished for lying about the dangers and addictiveness of their products, but not be punished for marketing them to kids. Either parents or the kids can take the time to evaluate the risks. If they don't, then it's their problem.)
FDA or no FDA, if the general public knew that a pharmaceutical company was trying to pull the shit that you mentioned then the public at large would be outraged, and their business would take a serious hit. One way or another, if people keep themselves informed, greedy people who don't play nice get theirs one way or another.
Just thinking out loud.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Well, as an Anarchist myself, I consider the Libertarian Party as the best step to take in the right direction. I agree that if people are not enlightened individuals who can be swayed easily by propaganda then libertarianism doesn't work. But that's a social issue, not a government issue.
:)
Me personally, I want to push a Libertarian agenda on the government front and put a lot of support on non-profit organizations and other causes I feel are worthy on the other front. If enough people can get involved and are convinced to care about how things are run then, who know?, we might not need a government at all after that.
Call me a Neo-Anarchist.
Happy people make bad consumers.
This is pretty low. Even if you don't like your choices, you can write in someone, support a third party that's out there, vote for the lesser of two evils...
But don't try to justify your couch-sitting with lame words about how you're waiting for someone you'll really like.
The Greens have this weird thing for environmental issues: regarding clean air, water and soil as important!
I've never had that much confidence in corporations to do the Right Thing. Personally I think grassroots direct democracy is better.
Warning: really read about X before you vote for X.
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
How about 10 votes? That way you can split it 2, almost 3, and 5 ways. Mrs Bos votes 5 Gore, 5 Bush; Mr Bar votes 10 Nader; Mr Baz votes 7 Libertarian, 3 Bush; Ms Qux only votes 2 Nader (with her remaining 8 going to the binding "None of the above"). Any vote with more than 10 is spoilt going to the binding "None of the above".
Complex yes, but wouldn't the logistics be worth it? The illiterate and those who can't count can ask election officials to help them weight their vote for their favourite tv politicians.
Why is your single vote for a small party wasted, but that same single vote so powerfull for the whores?
Who's line is that originally anyway?
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
>>So powerful and rich corporations are
>>gonna take care of the handicapped and
>>homeless?
>
>Yes, in a sense. Since the government isn't
>taking any money from you, there's no excuse
>"Well, I pay for charity through taxes!", so
>the average decent man will feel compelled to
>give to charity.
The problem is that you are giving people more credit than I do, you see average people as decent, I see them as destroyers of the environment for a quick buck: "Fuck the air, water, soil - in the long term I'm dead."
>would you pay for the Drug War? The
>Libertarians won't make you. Can you say that
>about Nader?
Erm, yes, see: http://votenader.org/press/000908d rug war.html, http://votenader.org/press/000906 tvl etter.html, http://votenader.org/issues/racei nam erica.html.
>To me, and end to the War on Drugs means
>legalizing all chemical substances. Not just
>the ones Nader likes.
Greens differentiate between hash and cocaine, if you don't, by all means vote Lib.
>I want the right to life, liberty, and
>property. Absolutely. Without any
>restrictions.
That's great if you own the media and means of productions, it doesn't mean anything if you have to work at McDonalds to survive.
>You're voting for that?
Yes, it means that you may not treat nonrenewable resources from the earth like capital available only to you. It means you buy a van from Zero Pollution Motors, and they recycle it after you're finished with it.
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
Both the Libertarians and Greens say that they are above left/right pollitics. But what happens when to try to squeeze them in there?
This depends on how you decide how left and right differs. To me, minimizing government and putting power in the hands of powerfull companies puts the Libertarians on the right: From the left: Communist Party, Socialist, Green; and on the right Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and way the hell over there Pat.
Vote for yourself.
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
Re voting systems: Why not give every person 3 votes? Mr Bos gives 1 vote for Gore, 1 for Bush, and 1 for Nader. Mrs Bar votes all 3 for Nader. Mr Baz gives 2 votes for Browne, and 1 for None of the above.
If however their single vote is so powerfull for some bribed big wig, why is their one vote wasted for a 3rd party? Please explain this to me without giving the "better lizard" bleat.
Any representative system fails whereas grassroots direct democracy would have administrators executing the will of the people, instead of doing things to them.
Vote for a binding None of the above option
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
Hear, hear.
Same episode, when Homer revealed the aliens' plot for what it was:
Alien: It doesn't matter, you still have to vote for one of us!
Person in crowd: No, wait! We can vote for a third party!
Alien: Go ahead, throw your vote away! Muahahahaha!
Cut to Ross Perot punching his hat out in frustration.
And Homer's comment at the end of the episode: "Don't blame me, I voted for (insert name of alien who didn't win, I don't remember)."
Of course, it didn't matter which way Homer voted, the same result would've happened. He and everyone else would've had to have voted third party to stop the Evil Alien Plot.
Who's gonna vote third party? Only someone who's seriously dissatisfied with the results being produced by the first two parties.
And what happens if the people who are seriously dissatisfied simply don't vote? Well, those folks aren't going to be saving the world, that's for sure.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
You ask an interesting question: why nationalise anything? Here are some answers:
a) for certain industries, it can be more efficient. For instance, the UK gets its healthcare for 6-7% of GDP, while it costs more than 15% in the US. The UK achieves 99%+ coverage, the US c85%.
b) there's no point in privatising an industry where efficiency gains from competition can't be realised. Good examples are natural monopolies such as rail transport. The UK experience in rail privatisation is a chastening reminder of the bankruptcy of ideologically-driven privatisation.
c) economic concerns may not be paramount. It may be more important to retain public control and accountability over, e.g., power supply, the police or air traffic control than to run these services on a profit-driven basis.
There are, of course, many more reasons, but there is also this challenge for everyone in favour of getting the gummint off your backs: you've shown you can be clear-sighted about government abuses. Will you do the same for private, corporate abuse?
In the UK, it's common in student elections, where it's called RON -- ReOpen Nominations. It's not nearly as good a solution as reforming the voting system thoroughly, though. AV, AV+, PV, Borda, the choices are legion. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages, but most are better than current systems (both US and UK).
There are actually many more candidates in this election, and there really is variety, even if there are not as many candidates and sensibilities as in France.
The real problem and the main difference with France stems from the fact that it's a one-round election. In France, during the 1st round, every candidate gets his share and the votes are very dispersed. And then only two candidates (typically a moderate left-wing vs a moderate right-wing, as in America) remain at the second round. But voters have had a chance to fully express themselves during the first round, without worrying of whether their favorite among the big ones would be hurt. As a consequence, the "big guys" (ie institutionnal politicians) are quantitavely informed of the strength of ecologists, ulta-conservatives, communists, etc...
On the other hand, it's pretty easy to find out if your state is a swing state -- if you see DNC or RNC ads on TV, you live in a swing state. (I'm in Texas, so I haven't seen a single presidential ad.)
Haven't you heard? Clinton is going to declare martial law on Nov. 6, and there will be no election! He is going to make himself dictator not only of the U.S., but of the world, with the help of organizations like the UN, who have secretly inteneded this all along! The problems in Israel are the beginnings of WWIII!
...Or so my born-again christian/conspiracy theorist friend tells me.
Personally, I'm voting for Nader or Brown, I haven't decided yet.
I also think that basing foreign policy on religion is a bad idea, though I can certainly believe Dubya would do it. I think the U.S. government should stay out of it.
When books burn, people are next.
But it's those same stupid people who vote and make the government that has been unbelievably stupid of late. What's your point?
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
I'm sure when mandatory library filters are voted into law in 2 years, your technocrat utopian anti-vote will be given it's due consideration by the president...the same, and appropriate, consideration with which you ponder helpful suggestions from spammers to stuff grits down your pants.
lilnobody
Not voting is more than "I don't care."
In my informed opinion, the system is broken. It does not work. Worse still, thinking that using the broken system to fix itself seems rather insane, doesn't it? What if I voted communist? Vote? Communism?
Somebody please explain to me how voting for Snoopy is going to eventually lead to a better system? I don't see it.
Until I "see the light", I'm just going to ignore the whole thing. The alternative is revolution.
- ave
...or maybe not.
The chances of my vote counting are minescule. I've got more important things to do.
However, If I can convince 10, 100, 1000 people to vote for my favorite issues, then I've multiplied my voting power immensely. So, hey YOU, go vote NADER while I sit home and play video games. :)
Exactly. I will be voting for Harry Browne. It would be nice to have a president that coucl see to it where we can truly be free. Not have our lives descided for us like a herd of sheep as the current republicans and democrats wish to do. Vote Harry Browne!! to be free today.
Elections shouldn't be about choosing which candidate we dislike least, or symbolic and pointless exercises in voting for people who can't possibly win
That is the main reason why the identikit Democratic/Republican candidate always wins. Yeah realistically you know it only a two horse race, so pick the lesser of the two evils.
But what if we stopped thinking like that and shock actually voted with our conscience. In the short term you're vote probably won't count, but if enough people follow it will change the voting culture enough to break the two party system.
People like Nader won't get elected for the sole reason that voters think they don't have a chance of being elected, its a vicious cycle that will take generations of voter education to break.
Here in the UK we also have a 2 party system. But minority parties have started to get round this through tactical voting and sheer perseverance, by getting involved in local poltics more and actually showing they really care about the voters.
Sorry John I know your hearts in the right place, but encouraging people NOT to vote is so wasteful.
Encouraging people to vote according to their beliefs, aspirations and their conscience picking the party that supports them should matter.
Please vote, make your vote count, vote for who you really believe in irrespective of whether or not they are electorally viable because in the long term your vote will matter
Personally, I think the best thing that can happen is that power is fragmented more ways. I live in Minnesota, where the Independant Jesse Ventura controls the executive branch, the Republicans control the senate, and the Democrats control the house. For me, it's perfect. Getting three distinct groups to align is even harder than getting two groups to agree, which means less gets done. In my book, the fewer laws that get passed mean the least amount of damage done.
OTOH, I specifically want one party to control the government. When it comes time for the electorate to assess the government's performance at election time voters can easily determine that the government has or has not done the job voters wanted it to do (and throw da bums out if they haven't). With power being highly fragmented it's easy for each party to lay blame for the government's failings on the other party and sufficiently confuse the electorate to the point where no one can make a clear choice.
The elections in the U.S. depend on two things:
Let's be blunt. The differences between Gush and Bore are miniscule, and growing smaller. Candidates race to the center as quickly as they can.
If you're sick of the two major party candidates, then check out the candidate list at Vote Smart . If nothing else, writing in the National Barking Spider Resurgence Party , Church of God Party , Lettuce Party , the Anti-Hypocrisy Party, the Hephzibau, the Corrective Actions Party , or Mike's Party.
A large groundswell for sixth-party candidates would be far more effective of a protest than not voting.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. Or a juggernaut.
The political parties we have extend back under different names to the beginning of politics in this country, and I imagine trace their roots all the way back to the major parties in England. Basically, there's always been a "right" and a "left", regardless of what they've been called. (I think Tories and Whigs at one point?)
There's nothing "official" about the two-party system - it just sort of grew that way out of convenience. In fact, in his farewell Presidential speech, George Washington warned against the evils of forming political parties. He could already see factioning taking place among the founding fathers. Despite his warnings, the two-party system still emerged.
In the past, there have been other third parties that have achieved some level of success -- Bull Moose (is that right?), more recently the Reform Party, etc... but America has largely remained two party, perhaps out of tradition (and fear of "throwing your vote away" on a third-party candidate) as much as anything else.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
It's just that I would no more go and vote for a fictional entity like a government
Ummm...you wouldn't be voting for a government; you'd be voting for the people representing you in that government. There is a big difference. If you can't see that, you have a bigger problem than being subjected to some set of laws that you don't agree with.
Furthermore, you're contention that the government doesn't exist is patently ridiculous. The government of the United States exists just as surely as you do. It exists because the people in Congress assembled declared that it does. You may not like it, and you may not want to admit it, but the government certainly does exist. See what happens if you pretend that it doesn't.
Finally, I'm curious as to what you think would be a better system? In my opinion, while there are some things I would like to see changed (instant runoff elections, for example, abolition of the electoral college, fewer local, elected positions, revamping of the civil service, etc...), I think that, in general, we in the US are quite lucky to have the system that we do. No system the size of the US could exist without a governmental hierarchy, and the system we have is about as close to genius as I think any government has ever gotten.
Just insert a "None of the above" choice on the ballot. If none of the above gets more votes than the top canidate then all canidates that ran on that election are blocked from holding national office for a period of (say...) 10 years. This includes everybody who ran in the general election as well. Bet you it only has to happen once before they will put someone worth voting for on the ballot. In the meantime I vote for Browne. Effectively the same thing ;)
Pithy, yet ultimately meaningless, phrase expressed with gusto!
My pet theory is the anti-vote. Maybe I don't feel very good about Candidate X or Candidate Y, and I don't want to provide a mandate to either of them (because you know the day after the election they'll start talking about mandates of the people), but I do know that I despise candidate Y. So, I use my anti-vote and one vote is subtracted from Candidate Y's tally. Then if Candidate X wins, we can see how much of it is on the basis of people voting for Candidate X, because they like Candidate X, and how much of their tally was because people couldn't stand Candidate Y. Alternatively, there could be an "I showed up box" which would let people indicate that they made a conscious decission not to pick either candidate. This would distinguish from those who go to the polls and only vote in specific races and might have skipped voting on say the County Clerk, because they didn't know who those people are, or didn't care.
There are (arguably) good reasons to ignore the Presidential election, although I don't personally agree with them. However, that doesn't excuse not voting at all, especially in State and Local elections that often happen on the same ballots. My ballot will not only include the Presidential election, but also candidates for County Sherrif, District Attorney, and several important State offices and bills that will have a huge impact on my daily life.
Even if you don't vote for president, it's in all of our best interest to vote intelligently on the local positions that will make a huge difference regardless of what happens at the national level.
Always remember: The difference between "good" and "better" is much smaller and much less distinct than that between "bad" and "worse."
After living under oppression family can't *believe* that people in this country don't take the time to vote on the choices that *do* affect their lives. Politicians, organizations, and corporations wouldn't be spending so much money on this stuff if it didn't make a difference and telling yourself that voting doesn't matter is utter bullshit. You don't *want* to take the time to vote? Fine. It just makes my vote that much more valuable and my opinions and choices more weighed and I can push for the policies I feel are best for this country. You push for the status quo, I work within the confines of the current system to better my life and the lives of others. That's what your selfishness can lead to. While you wait for the ideal candidate to tailor a message to you and stand on the sidelines complaining about the system, those of us voting will be pushing toward working, active policies with goais of attainable, sensible solutions.
The major candidates have to be practically identical, make outrageous campaign promises, and change with the latest public opinion polls. Unless the American public's intelligence suddenly jumps way up this is the only way to get elected. As for the statements concerning Hollywood and the net, these are the kinds of things "swing" voters like "soccer moms" want to hear. Weather or not either candidate truly believes what they say, it still must be said or the other candidate will have an advantage. In other words the candidates HAVE to behave this way if they want to have a chance at winning.
If I read one more article from J.K. that is so full of meaningless words,I will hunt J.K. down and smother him with his own words,one by one.
This country has enough problems with voter turnout without you actively discouraging them.
(Sorry, I don't have time to kill to read the whole article)
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Decree
noun
verb transitive
I don't believe you're in a position to claim high intellectual ground on anyone, including 'zealous pseudo-radical slashdot readers'.
I say we have a double-elimination system! No party primaries! If there are, say, 32 candidates (it works best with a power of 2) interested in running, then let there be 16 2-candidate races. Everybody gets to vote in all 16 races. The winners progress to the next round of races. The losers get a second chance in the "losers' bracket" races. No candidate is out of the running until he has lost twice. Just like the Pinewood Derby races you remember as a cub scout! ------- On another note, Who the heck are these people wasting money posting "Just Vote" signs all over my neighborhood? Just Vote? Are you crazy? If you are unable or unwilling to be acquanted with the issues, or if you just don't feel like voting, then Just DON'T Vote! Who are the idiots that think everybody ought to "Just Vote?" What do they think we gain from such arbitrariness?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
-------
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
-------
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
-------
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
Our two-party political system, no longer representative or legitimate, functions as a closed and proprietary system in an increasingly open culture.
Open Source the Government! Hack the Planet!
Our two-party political system, no longer representative or legitimate, functions as a closed and proprietary system in an increasingly open culture.
Open Source the Government! Just please not Janet Reno...
Anon coward, if you are representative of the masses, we are screwed. I prefer to believe you are an anomaly, a mutation and that your genetic code will not be passed on to another generation. If you can't comprehend what is being debated, shut up, listen, and learn. Better to be silent and let people think you're an idiot , than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
I am horrified at the suggestion that anyone not planning on voting should vote Nader. Do so only if you support Nader's platform!! Although Nader has no hope of winning it would be reprehensible to show false support for his platform. I suggest anyone wishing to cast a vote should vote their conscience. Personally I think I'll be going with the constitution party this go round (http://www.constitutionparty.com). Also, finding a political party that matched your views is easy!! In fact, you can try this handy political party matchmaker form. http://www.3pc.net/matchmaker/index.html .
Damn, man.. why the hell would someone type "opposite of a geek" when they meant Luddite? Try typing both of those several times and see if you can figure out which one is easier to type. Extra credit if you don't drool on your keyboard.
--
--
Pay no attention to the errors in my post. I am the great and powerful Oz.
I work with some people that live and breath politicts, and they always seem to be in "Elect And Re-Elect" mode. You never here them talk about the actual work that gets done between elections or how the issues are handles once an office is "won". They are either celebrating a victory or planning another campaign (or crying in their beer). The only time issues come up is when they are used to compare where someone stands during election time, and not what someone has done once they have been elected. For these "Political Fans" it becomes more of a game than anything else. A game where these political neophytes garner personal victory when their candidate takes the stage and office. Sadly, a game in which "Joe Six Pack" does not play -- because Joe Six Pack cares about what happens after the election....I mean hell, look at the amount of time is spent on fund raising and baby kissing...how could any real work be done....It would be like me spending more than half of my time interviewing for my job (after I had been hired) rather than actually doing my job...
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Surely you don't believe that the mere absence of a federal government will turn everyone into crazed, gun-shooting maniacs?
No, that's in reference to what a particular Libertarian tried to convince me of one time. He felt that anyone has a perfect right to take shots at anyone else -- until they hit them. You see, you have the right to do anything you want until it infringes on someone else's rights, and the infringement didn't start until the bullet hit.
That's the flaw in Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. It's all built on negative feedback. You can't perform any preventative measures, because to do so has to infringe on someone's right to do something.
Now, I will grant you that my example is rather absurd, and I hope the rank-and-file Libertarian believes some preventative limits on freedom is necessary. But apply the same thinking to a lot of Libertarian positions, and you see the same thread of problem.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
If you knew any actual facts about the Libertarian Party's position, you would know that they do not believe in any form of violence.
I think it's time to review the Libertarian Party's web site. I quote: "The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force."
I think defense qualifies as a "form of violence".
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
As soon as the Mexicans and Canadians start raising a modern military by all means we should keep ahead of them.
Let me pick on this one. Have you heard of ICBMs? How about long-range bombers? The world is a lot smaller than it was in 1776.
But let's take a specific example that I'm sure you were not in favor of: The Gulf War. Should we have just let Saddam Hussein take over the middle east and control a huge amount of the world's oil (also known as "The World Economy")?
Again, this is the flaw with Libertarian philosophy. It's all based on reacting after the fact, rather than spending 1/10th the effort in prevention. We do have vital national interests that are not within our own borders.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
No, I was just taking issue with the poster's arrogant cluelessness.
But on the subject, advocating "violence only as an act of self-defense" really means nothing. Everyone believes that. The rub is in the definition of "self-defense". In the Gulf War, we were not directly attacked, but our vital national interest was attacked. In a very real way, defending the free flow of oil at market prices is defending our economy.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
[...] And I feel that most other Libertarians would agree with me. I think that you don't give Libertarians enough credit, and you have some bad preconceptions about them.
While I agree that individual Libertarians can disagree on various subjects, the Libertarian web site does NOT say any of this about drugs. Basically it says that you are responsible for any harm you do to others -- after the fact. Which is my point. The "official" Libertarian policy is all negative feedback, and is not interested in any prevention.
I would have a lot more respect for Libertarian philosophy if they would come at and define exactly what limits they are in favor of. But the web site is noticeably absent on any limits on personal behavior. This is why they will never achieve power, because it's all theory, and no practicality.
I used to be Libertarian, so I think I know more about them than you give me credit for. I've even read TWO Ayn Rand books all the way through. Well, except for the part in Atlas Shrugged where the radio show is broadcast. No human can possibly read those 5-page paragraphs and survive still mentally sane. :)
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Firing shots at you [even if I'm missing] most certainly infringes upon your rights.
I agree the example is absurd. But it's illustrative of the flaw in Libertarian ideals.
Let's take drugs for a second. Now, I agree that criminalization is WAY too far, but let me take another absurd example just for argument.
Let's say there existed a drug that caused a huge euphoria, but also unpredictably caused a psychopathic, murderous rage about 1 in every 1000 times its taken. The drug has gotten popular, and we've had a couple of cases where people just went crazy and took out an entire schoolhouse full of children (just to make it extra emotional).
This drug should be illegal to the full extent of the law. The reason is because taking it is the equivalent of firing random shots at someone. Just the act of taking the drug violates the rights of those around you because you have intentionally created a situation where you could lose your mind and start blowing people away.
The point I'm making is that Libertarians see drugs as "all drugs should be legal" without any thought to whether some drugs SHOULD be illegal.
Just as with weapons. I agree personal weapons are good. However, personal nukes are bad. There are lines that need to be drawn in a lot of cases, and unfortunately too often Libertarians refuse to accept that.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Pundits tell us the non-voters are morally oblivious, stupid or apathetic
And they're right. You'll find a great deal more on the ballot than who is going to be working in the Oval Office for the next 4 years. If you don't like any of the presidential candidates, then don't vote for them. But make sure you scroll down on that ballot and vote for things that are local and that you DO have more of a voice for. Using the notion that you don't like Bush or Gore is a pretty piss poor excuse for staying at home on voting day.
Secondly, on the subject of the "fantasy" candidate's arrival:
When he does, he will generate a tide of money and support, and begin to transform politics into something people want to participate in, rather than a dreary duty.
Yes, and some people are still expecting Jesus to return any day now from his 2000 year hiatus. Hoping for the day when this "perfect" candidate will arrive is all fine and good, as long as you don't let the world fall to pieces around you in the meantime.
Also, I doubt very likely that the Chosen One is going to find money and support rolling in like never before. Without slipping in to troll mode, I'd just like to state that the vast majority of Americans (like everyone else in the world) are politically stupid. Take a look at how many people are still "undecided" at this point. Look at the polls to see how well Bush, a man who is clearly unfit for office, is doing. Oh sure, people may love Mr. Smith Goes to Washington but that does NOT mean that they'd vote for him on election day, or even care if he announced his decision to run. While people may think that both political parties aren't doing the best job of representing them, the vast majority will keep them in office because they're afraid of change.
The only way Katz's fantasy candidate will ever win is if all people actually go out on election day, and actually THINK before casting their vote.
Why not simply make it easier _to_ vote? If people can do their banking online, and by telephone why cant we build a system of civic participation based on these technologies? Why not simply issue everyone a 'voter registration' number, and allow them to vote electronically? The ICAAN model is terrific, register to vote, receive a letter vial snailmail, then vote online (for the computer-challenged; vote by telephone).
The suggestion above may be even more complicated than necessary - how about just allowing people to vote by calling a 1800number. To confirm their identity they will enter their social security number and the amount of their previous years income (or income tax, or some other commonly known variable that changes yearly).
Why arent our governments building systems to include people and provide more choice? How has the political system North America (Canada & US mostly) become so exclusive? The people who control the system have no interest in including citizens - because they have built themselves a system of aristocracy together with the corporatists.
Loosen the 'central' control method - it is not as necessary as it was when communication was slow and expensive. What about 'hyper-referendums' where decisions like "What mix should we spend the budget surplus? Socialprograms/debt/taxcuts - enter your 3 integers now:" or some such - we should be able to participate.. not just every 3 or 4 years.
America: Free yourselves and do the rest of the World a Favour(TM), tell your friends/neighbours/relatives/coworkers to:
Cities and towns can prevent businesses from moving in (and possibly even revoke corporate charters), and they can enact their own minimum wage laws (Santa Cruz, anyone?) The power of the people is local, not vested in two Corporate Clones...
I agree with you that smaller more local/specifically focused governments may be a better system. But the problem exists that the Corporatists have nothing stopping them from pitting community vs. community - or threatening... you see it is much easier to move a business than move a whole town of families. Corporatists have learnt the best thing they can do is reduce barriers to trade set about by citizens. NAFTA/FTAA/WTO/WorldBank are all puppet organizations by Corporatists to reduce/remove any rights you have as a citizen - the time is coming when communities (countries) will be negotiating treaties of employment with big business. Unless there is a central government (a world government) that can say 'this will not happen anywhere' we will be in a 'race to the bottom', with each 'community' desperately trying to whore themselves and their environment for the fleeting promise of short term employment and questionable 'gain'.
I think people are seeing this, Nader is pulling a very strong campaign.. but the economy is based on this foundation of exploitation. When the Corporatists feel the heat (as they do now based on popular public opinion regarding capitalism in its present state) they know whats good for them - the economy will have a downturn, and people will say ' this is what happens when you dont let corporatists run a free market!'. This is sheer and utter bullshit.
While you boobs are out picking your noses in the streets, we will be putting George W. Bush into office and his first move will be to sweep all you degenerates into jail!
Amen!
http://www.truechristiansunite.com Home of the 1st TRUE Christian AI -- Hal!!!
While many of you may not put much Faith in Revelations and the signs we have been receiving around the globe as proof the Rapture is near... soon it will be hard for you to ignore. Israel is poised for disaster. What happens to the Temple Mount shall soon affect us all!
Governor Bush has made it clear: "We are and will be the friend of Israel". However, if we allow our official stand in the world to be against our ally Israel, then the Father will swiftly and with surety come against the United States in judgment which will rival that of Sodom and Gommorah. The only hope is clear, and I call out to you, the children of the Father, don't be found silent and still on November 7th, 2000.
Amen!
http://www.truechristiansunite.com Home of the 1st TRUE Christian AI -- Hal!!!
One of the most interesting points raised in the Discover article is that Americans seem to like to vote on just about anything but elections. Millions of people vote for All-star sports teams with the results debated much more actively than any political discussion I've ever heard. The same with just about any other opportunity for giving your opinion. Seriously, think about how many people have taken the time to write long-winded comments on virtually anything on Slashdot. This suggests there is something fundamentally different about politics. Any thoughts on what that might be? By the way, I don't buy the apathy/uninformed viewpoint - the least informed people are usually the ones most eager to make their limited viewpoint heard.
"Add in some racism, take out some technophobia, and you basically have a good copy of the Nazi party platform"
Well... they're both on paper- I'm guessing that would be the only thing left of the Nazi platform, though...
And by the way, if Americans are even half as rational as some of the trolls i've seen posting, then I'm all for socialism too!
Actually, you still have to be careful. This is a close election where no candidate has any clear statistical lead- or of they do it evaporates by the next day. The fact of the matter is that even if your state isn't a swing state now, it could very well be undecided by election day (Nov. 7th). Now, for all of you who are hoping to vote for the alterative candidates, let's consider a scenario:
Let's say that the only person you hate more than Al Gore (besides Bill Gates) is George Bush, but you like Ralph Nader, and so vote for him. Let's say that what many fear will happen does, and Nader pulls enough votes away from Gore so that even your liberal home state goes to Bush. Guess what? Repeat this a few times, and George Bush is your president! This could go the same way with Buchanan (I won't mention Browne because, like it or not, most polls exlude him and their numbers add up to 100% anyway) hurting Bush- so next time you think you're sending a strong message to the "dominant abusive parties", keep in mind: They're laughing all the way to the ballot box.
With the possible exception of their supreme court nominees, there may be little difference between the corporate lackey on the left and the corporate lackey on the right. This does not excuse you from making a choice.
When your mom/significant other/trustee asks you "Hon, you want Chunky or Creamy peanut butter for lunch?", you have at least four choices.
So you think proportional representation, national socialism, or direct democracy with a *nix backend is the way to go. You're unhappy with the current system. So instead of using the limited tools you have at hand, you're going to deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make [your] reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
Bullshit. Failing to vote doesn't tell those in power "I want to go out for crepes," it wimpers "I guess peanut butter's ok." Unless you have the money to buy a member of the house or senate, voting is one of the most powerfull tools you have to effect change in the system.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
Is there anyone, living or dead, that represents your views? David Ben Gurion? Alabama's Bull Connors? FDR? Margaret Thatcher? Danger Mouse? Write them in. If enough people list that name, someone might stop to wonder why.
Ok, you've voted. But you're not done now. None of the parties are representing your views, and this is something you can work on. Write letters. Get involved in local issues. Help Ralph Reed capture another school board. Lobby for better homeless shelters. Whatever. Just accept that your involvement in the political process needs to be more than punching a card every four years followed by an evening of drunken CNN viewing.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
Just a word of caution that the federal government is not the place to reinvent democracy, other than getting out of the way.
The states of the United States used to be called labratories for democracy. Please understand that ideas are just ideas until they are proved valid or better than another idea. Without the ability to compare the results, all we have are good intentions. And good intentions are without substance.
Reason Online Magazine handles many issues involved in the above debate, including "Violent entertainment doesn't neccessarily mean a violent society" here
Check out Reason Mag. And check out this for a breakdown of where Gore and Bush stand on technology issues.
Why should we vote for someone that can't even get his face out in the public's view. This media bias stuff is garbage, if he had something interesting to say Brown could be all over the web. His people could push onto public access cable if need be. How about going to different Universities and talking to people like Nader is doing.
At least Nader is trying.
Choosing not to vote as a conscious choice is part of our freedoms, regardless of whether its the right thing to do.
----------------------
Or, amusingly, at St.Hilda's College, Oxford (the last remaining all-female Oxford college) it's called TESSA - This Election Should Start Again.
:-)
True!
arnald
You, my friend, are not an idiot on your own. Console yourself with the fact that your lack of concern for society is indiciative of a long social decay which we are in the midst of.
I think that most of the Socalists are actually going behind the Green party, as they've semi-united behind the Green movement in Europe.
So people, stop saying not voting is USEFUL for anything!
Saige is correct. As far as I know, only one candidate is trying for the vote of the "non-voters" (Nader), and his strategy seems to be to make the 5% goal rather than even try to win. The candidates are all going for the "undecided voter", the operative word being VOTER, even though the non-voters outnumber them 100 to 1. They will consistantly ignore the opinions of the non-voters, because it is a waste of time and energy. The declared non-voter's opinion would, from a political perspective, be about as worthless as a random foriegner's opinion.
There is even evidence that both sides like the low voter turnout. I've heard the opinion that the Clinton centrist strategy developed by Dick Morris works only in a low voter turnout situation, and that rain on election day hurts the candidates who are challenging incumbents (some people won't bother going out and voting during a storm).
I think it's noble to try to send a message, but these are politicians - subtlety doesn't work that well. Instead, send a message by voting for the candidate that best suits you - and then write letters or email, telling them what doesn't suit you. Anything else is an ivory (or electronic) tower idea, that may look good on the screen, but doesn't translate well to real life.
did i say that out loud?
NEWS: cloning, genome, privacy, surveillance, and more!
NEWS: cloning, genome, privacy, surveillance, and more!
Damn Straight! It sounds like you're talking about Jesse Ventura. Can we elect him even if he doesn't run?
In general, it would seem to me that people who voluntarily join the military care more about the direction that the country is headed than your average Joe Sixpack.
I've known too many people who have volunteered for the military to believe this to be true. Please note I am not trying to make a blanket statement about soldiers, but the people I know who have volunteered have without exception joined because they didn't know where they were going with their lives, and the military seemed like as good a route as any. These guys are Joe Sixpack.
Pardon me, moderator, but I'm not sure how this is a troll. I was responding directly to the point the original poster made, and he even thought I made good points. Or is it because I am passionate about this?
Whatever. It's only karma.
Only congress has power to declare war (Article I, Section 8).
Libertarianism reduces to letting big buisness control your lives, as opposed to the government control that you seem to fear. For all of its problems government at least has an apperance of democratic regulation associated with it, whilst business has none. It seems nieve to me. Changing the form of the dictatorship does not really change anything meaningful. Phil
I'd say Cheney. Lieberman's a jew. We know Isreal is fucking nuts. Who knows what they'd try with a jew vice president.
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
They are both complete fucking assclowns and nitwits. I cringe at seeing them say anything because it's always so horrendously stupid, and I shudder to think one of them will be leading our country.
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
In Kentucky, at least, you can't write in anyone in a Presidential election. (I know because I once was refused the right to write in a candidate for governor. I called the election commission to complain, and they told me that the only office that doesn't take write-ins is President.)
I'd be willing to bet a (very) small amount of money that it's the same way in most states, since technically you're not voting for President, you're voting for a member of the electoral college..
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
You got yer maths the wrong way round. When you've deducted those not in the US, and those under age, then you have people eligible to vote.
Of THOSE, one third are Rebuplican or Democrat, or misc minor party (given stats at the previous election). That leaves about 660 per state according to my quick calculation.
Those extra 160 people make all the difference.
---------------------------
'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
but i don't think there was ever any danger of that.
pezpunk
Internet killed the video star,
i could live a little longer in this prison
politicians are whores. if his politics were popular enough to get that many votes, then the politicians would do as he said. that's their whole purpose, and give em credit, they DO try to give the appearance of giving "the people" what they want.
pezpunk
Internet killed the video star,
i could live a little longer in this prison
Being from a country (France) where there are around 50 parties, ranging from extreme right to ultra-communist, and even a "natural law party" (new age bozos) and a "hunt, nature and traditions party", I draw two conclusions when I see Al Gore and Georges W. Bush debate :
- I'm convinced they belong to the same party
- I won't lend my wallet to any of them
I'm glad I can't vote, I'd be sad to have to chose.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
That's my favorite word now, too.
Axel
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
The arguments in favor of voting seem to break down as follows:
- Every vote counts. I respond by wanting to see a single election where a single vote would make a difference in the outcome. Even if you find one, I think you're going to find it wasn't a very important election.
- For change to occur, those who feel disenfranchised must vote. I say that they don't vote, I don't have the power to make them vote, and so my vote remains, just one vote.
- Each vote is as important as any other vote. I say this is only true when the vote is on the winning side. Call me a poor loser but I fail to see what a vote for a loser has accomplished. Of course a vote for a winner is also a questionable accomplishment, unless the margin of victory is your one vote.
- If you don't vote, you can't complain. I ask, why not? I prefer to limit my actions to those I think are effective. Are you really any more righteous for having taken an ineffective action?
- Voting is a civic duty. I think that the claim that your vote is important is a sham. From this, I conclude that this process is a fraud. I choose not to participate in fraud.
My response, as you see, to all these arguments is basically the same: the individual vote is meaningless.The usual response I hear to this is that one must, then, get involved. Take, for instance, Ralph Nader, who some believe might deliver the election to George Bush by cutting into the vote which might otherwise go to Al Gore. But not all of his career has been so Quixotic.
Ralph Nader, for better or worse, has devoted his working life to consumer advocacy. He has attracted some support and proven somewhat effective, because he has come to represent so many.
Nader has done this by devoting his entire life to this cause. Obviously, not all of us can do the same. Influence, for which you may read, the ability to take effective action, therefore, is forever limited to the few. This is true regardless of the form of government we choose.
But now I must urge you not to let this truth spread too far. I must, in fact, participate in the very fraud I have sought here to debunk.
For there are these simple little questions: If democracy is meaningless, why are we, in the United States, better off than in so many other countries in the world? How is it that we retain any portions of those freedoms (albeit diminished) we cherish? Can I really argue that our system of government is really no better than that of a number of petty and corrupt regimes throughout the world (some sub-Saharan African nations come to mind)?
Keep those politicians as scared as you possibly can! Vote early, vote often! Above all, vote!
People should realize that the system we have no has been carefully balanced with the needs of the many in view not the needs of the few.
Respond to s
strike that reverse that
Respond to s
If we elect GW or Gore, we are making the same choice. They are both the same. They both are funded by the same people. The only difference is that BET funds Gore, so now he loves blacks more than other minorities. Whoopty. Our politicians represent SIG's and PAC's. They do not represent the people, no matter if we vote them in or note. We are not represented anymore. Remember how this Country was founded. Taxation without representation is what? What? Tyranny. It is grounds for a rebellion and an overthrow of the system that is our government. They need to Amend the Constitution yet again, so that there is a separation between Business and State. Where Church once was, now Business is. We need them to have been gone yesterday. They are ruining this Country and Planet.
Chalk it up to me watching C-Span every once in awhile, but I believe there are two or three 'independent' repesentatives. Not that that is a number to brag about, but, with the numbers of Republicans and Democrats so close in the house, a few independent votes may or may not decide whatever is beind voted upon.
Method: To cleverly disguise myself as an apathetic idiot who doesn't care enough to vote.
Result: Nothing. Not even a blip on the evening news. Not even a post on a conspiracy-oriented website. The status quo continues.
Goal: To change the (broken) system.
Method: To organize others to vote for George Washington (or Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, whomever)
Result: What percentage of votes would have to be for dead former-presidents before we made the evening news? Perhaps that might even wake up a few people who truly are apathetic idiots.
A true anarchist does not abstain, he votes to screw the system!
Gee, I'm gonna have to go with the apathetic idiot disguise...
Pick a random signature from http://winn.com/bs/signatures.html
Thats not particularly true.
Traditionally, low voter turnout tends to benefit Republicans. Why? Because the Republican constituency tends to be very responsible about voting.
The Republican party is essentially composed of two primary segments, the religious right, and the fiscal conservatives. The Democrats, in comparison, are a hodgepodge of interest groups. The potential base for Democrats is larger, but its a lot harder to bring them together than it is for the Republicans. Typically, when they speak of low voter turnout, the mean young students, blacks and other minorities. People who, as a demographic, tend to vote democrat.
There are some doubtful assumptions in this presentation of this topic.
1) Most non-voters are acting thoughtfully: I seriously doubt this. There are many reasons that a person does not vote on a particular occasion, varying from 'my car broke down' to 'boycott of the current system' to 'i am completely satisfied with whichever candidate is chosen.'
2) An intelligent, open-minded, free thinker is what we need: on the contrary, a person who is ready to introduce radical change probably would have a hard time getting others to go along with their vision.
Our society changes gradually, usally over whole lifetimes. After all, where is the "revolution" of the 1960's now? That tremendous upheaval's consequences are still with us, but have been moderated and changed through its interaction with the political and social opponents.
In the worst case, a person who attempts to perform such intellectual changes is likely to be overthrown by a 'Napoleon' or a memeber of the old guard.
I will vote. From personal experience, I know that individual people can make a difference...it's just that most people don't bother to try or even know how.
Mr. Xray Test Department
This month's Discover magazinehad a good article (Election Math) about various voting systems, discussing the pros, cons, and how/why's, for anyone interested.
The reason people think their vote doesn't matter is because that is what they have been spoon fed by the media. The media that sold out to the same corporate crap that the two big parties sold out to. That is why people don't vote. Non-voters don't like any of the candidates they see. The problem is they don't see all the candidates because they don't get coverage. None of the third party candidates get coverage. People don't know they are there. That is why they don't vote. People think they have two choices. It is the fault of the media. Often, third party candidates are made out to be extremists by the media. If the media took them seriously and gave them equal coverage, people would, too. Just vote! A non-vote is not a protest. It is submission.
this is a left handed sig
If you hate all the candidates, then why don't you just cast a write-in vote? That is one of your rights as a registered voter.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Everyone who abstains from the election is involuntarily voting for the winner. Make your vote count, screw up Al Gore's master plan.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
It's my belief that, someday, America will find it's own Martin Bell, and that such a person could begin to restore credibility to politics. But that is not today. Today, the best the US can hope for is damage control. And, frankly, I don't blame anyone for thinking that's a futile exercise in itself.
America needs it's own Screaming Lord Sutch before it can have a Martin Bell.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
But the important thing is that the attempt was made.
It may, at this point in time, be as futile as Don Quioxte attempts to slay the giant, but this is how grass roots movements grow.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Getting three distinct groups to align is even harder than getting two groups to agree, which means less gets done. In my book, the fewer laws that get passed mean the least amount of damage done.
:)
Amen, brother!
Heinlein proposed the idea of a house of the government whose entire job was to repeal laws passed by the other house. The idea was to keep the bad laws off the books.
Too bad it couldn't happen in real life.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
As long as they don't endorse one candidate over another, I think it's fine. I know that there is a rule about campaigning within so many feet of a polling station, but I can't remember what it is.
:)
Back when I was in collage, we were planning on giving away free beer coupons for Student Goverment elections... But we couldn't find a local bar to sponser it...
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Yes, the situation we're in now sucks, but not voting this time out is a cop out. Don't forget that you have local elections wherever you are. Educate yourself about those candidates also. Some may be worth voting for, some may be worth voting against.
Candidates aren't going to believe you if you say "I never vote, but if you do so_and_so, then I'll vote for you." Within the current system, you are only going to have an influence on candidate selection and action if you are perceived to be a voter that they want. Imagine developping a product for potential consumers who have no money. "If I invent a better product, then they'll get jobs in order to buy it!" Yeah, right. Your vote is your money in the political market. You have to prove you've got something to spend.
Yes, there are other systems. Yes, I love watching the Prime Minister's Question Time from the Brittish Parliment. (Just imagine Regan getting horribly grilled and confused. He would have been forced into retirement within a year) But look at Italy. They have anyting but a two-party system. If I remeber correctly, they have a mix of direct local and proportional representation, and the result seems to be the constant inability to form stabe governments and general chaos. Be carefuly what you wish for, you just might get it.
I believe that Austrailia fines people for not voting. How's about that!?!
That belies your naivate. The simple truth of the matter is that most people "want" to do the right thing, and "try" to do the right thing, but in practice, utterly fail.Most people, left to themselves, do the wrong thing and rationalize it to themselves as the "right" thing, or at least as something they "had" to do.
As one example(I couls provide many), I worked for a man in North Carolina who considered himself a godly, caring individual, always willing to lend someone a hand. However, this man cheated his customers, employess, and subcontractors, as well he defamed his competitors. He caught me pointing out these salient flaws in his charachter to a fellow employee, at wich point he denied everything and said to the other employees, "Don't listen to him!! He's eeevvvilll!!!". Those were his exact words, he then fired me and tried to dick me out of my last paycheck.
You can argue that people like the one I descibed are the exception, not the rule, but you would be wrong. I admit it is an extreme example, but people do similar thing every day to a lesser extent.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Libertarian Party, but not because I have some naive belief in the "fundamental goodess of humanty". There is a fundemtal of humanty, there is also, however, a fundemtal base animal selfishness of humanity, and the majority of humans are far more controlled by the latter that the former.
How the fuck is Ralph Nader a Britney Spears?
The Britney Spears of the presidential race would be if Brad Pitt ran for office, and no one liked any of his opinions, but people thought he was cute, so he had 80% of the vote.
Ralph Nader is in no way Britney Spears. Many people like his stance on the issues, and he is popular among those who dare to swim outside the mainstream.
WARNING: rant
And why is everyone saying it's the Nader voters' fault that Gore doesn't have enough support? It's Gore's own fault for being too conservative (supporting the War on Drugs, the Death Penalty, etc.). And if you like Nader but are afraid of Bush, at least say you are voting for Nader in polls! This will help garner support, and if he has enough support before Election Day, then vote for him. And like it was said before, don't not vote because you don't like either mainstream candidate, vote Nader (or someone else who supports your views): make it shown that you want your views to be akknowledged. If Nader gets enough votes, Gore also might swing further to the left to pick up the vote.
It was also a good excuse for Katz to use the word Luddite again.
Defecation occurs.
Wow, the other day I was in class and the instructor kept talking about "ghettoizing the opinion page" and how the media never interviews non-voters..... It seems to me that Jon Katz uses his class at the U of M as an initial test for his posts - if no one makes them seem foolish there, he writes them up and posts 'em. I could pre-post all Jon Katz stories by transcribing his lecture and posting it within 30 minutes. The benefits would be quite subsantial: 1) You would never have to see a Jon Katz post again - they would all be rejected as "redundant" due to a RandomPeon post. 2) I would condense the posts - I'll write down key repeated phrases from lectures, connect them, and post that instead. 3) I will include my reply with the post so you don't even have to wait for a reader to respond before someone tells Jon he's wrong. Any thoughts?
Also, he's amounted to very little since the election
Anyone else see a contradiction here?
Example:
A few years ago, everyone was screaming for Colin Powell to run. I've got nothing against the guy. BUT no one knew any of his positions! And when polled, many still said they would vote for him!This happened despite the fact that no one really knew anything about him.
When you get an apathetic voter population who is willing to vote for anyone outside the uninspiring 2 candidates, you have a dangerous situation. When people are desperate for a change, they do dumb things, like voting in that short guy Adolf who shouts so much. My point is that the voters' desire to change may lead them not to do something constructive as Katz hopes, but instead something stupid that they'll live to regret....
The problem I see with this working is money.
Some English guy (I forget his name) said Well, our citizens have figured that out. When I see interviews with random people on the street and they are asked who they will vote for and WHY, it always comes down to Because he will put more money in my pocket.
As compelling as Heinline's political argument is, I see nothing to prevent this same effect in his system, and worse, it would probably be done mostly at the expense of the non-voter until his society had conscription in all but name.
The problem with OUR political system is not corruption at the top -- that is just a symptom. It is that the average voter has no ethics and has traded his integrity for a few dollars.
Scratch Monkey
I stopped reading the article after about the third time he stated that the US is supposed to be a "democracy". We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. If you don't have enough political knowledge to get that right, the rest of your statements are invalid to me.
"My job is being right when other people are wrong." -- George Bernard Shaw
More people watch the Televised Debates than vote. So it's not complete indifference.
:)
I say we replace the elections with an ABC News poll. That way we can account for people who otherwise wouldn't vote
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Spokesmen usually dont bring Supreme Court Justices to power, nor do they have a say in choosing representatives to other nations. Spokesmen cannot declare war (or declare that a war is not a war). I think that declaring the President a spokesman is VERY simplified and not accurate. And besides, voting isnt just about electing officials, its also about determining local laws as well.
And that's just from the first paragraph.
Anybody got the time to make something sensible from the whole article?
No, Jon, you've had your try.
If you are suggesting that 1 individual's vote is not important, maybe you should run for president. :)
As for me, having a true understanding of how our Republic works, I will be voting for George Bush as I believe he will best represent my beliefs.
My Vote's On This Doofus
great comedy company.
We'll see.
open mind: teaching computers the stuff
this is the place for me all right. I'm not going to write an insanely long note because I don't have the time, but let me just say a few things. First of all there are only a few people in the world that I would like to be president, me, people in my family, or other people that might agree with me on every issue. There is nobody on the ballot who agrees with me on every point. SO why should they get my vote? They shouldn't. However because I don't vote doesn't mean I don't have a political opinion. I urge everyone who feels the same way to not vote, instead to voice your opinions on the internet and in public. Protest, Petition, etc. It all comes down to campaign finance. The only people who can possibly become president in the current system are rich people. However they don't represent us at all, you aren't rich are you? They don't represent 18 year olds like me either? These are all old geezers. And what about 16 year olds who have jobs? They pay tax and don't get to vote? Isn't that why we had the revolution that started this country? I just brought that point up cause I think it's pretty neat. IF YOU DON'T AGREE COMPLETELY WITH ANY OF THE CANDIDATES DO NOT VOTE AT ALL. I'm not saying any particular candidate is good or evil, but if they aren't representing you don't vote for them. The only solution I see is the following. First campaign finance reform. That means a law that says "You may not spend more thatn X dollars on a presidential election". Step 2 elimination of political parties. People will run as individuals. So it would be George W Bush for president and Cheney for Vice President. NOT Bush/Cheney (Republican). Don't replay to this on Slashdot because I wont come back to read it. If you want to talk about this e-mail slr2777@cs.rit.edu
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
The answer is to get more involved, not less. In my lifetime I have seen people force enactment of civil rights laws and stop our involvement in the Vietnam war. This was accomplished by people who got involved, not by the government, who only reacted when it was politically expedient to do so. In years past, changes like this could only have come about through civil war or revolution. This is a testament to the power of Democracy and to the power of people who are willing to get involved.
On a side note:
The thing that made the above changes possible was a combination of the right to free speech allowing these people to speak these unpopular (at the time)ideas and the power of television to spread the ideas espoused by these movements. Do I need to point out how much more the Internet empowers us to get involved in the shaping of government policy?
Politics 101 teaches us that "government" is formed when the whole of the citizenry gives up a few rights in order to benefit the whole.
Too many people forget this and polarize themselves against the government. Stupid, stupid. Thanks for the post - I hope more Slashdotters read it and think a bit more about their civic duties.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Apparently Australia has a null-vote option built into its political system... you just draw a big "X" across the ballot. The "null" vote actually gets counted as such, and apparently has been significant in past elections in getting a message across to political leaders. Of course, the null vote is more important in a country where voting is compulsory (like Australia) than in the US, but I still think it would be a useful option in the American elections. Some would argue that voting for a 3rd party (read Nader) accomplishes the same thing, but I don't think that that's entirely true. A vote for a far-left party takes a vote only from the moderate-left party... a vote for Nader is more useful to Bush than Gore. The other difference is that a null vote is entirely politically neutral, whereas voting 3rd party entails endorsing that party's platform. I might consider voting Nader as a protest, but his foreign policy is so awful that I find Gore more palatable...
Patents will be the end of our scientific and technological advancement.
Since the beggining of time, when most people discovered something, they didn't keep it a secret.
Imagine if the first guy who discovered fire had patented it, and only those that bought a license were allowed to use it.
Imagine if Boole had patented his boolean arithmetic. If other people would not be allowed to use it, would we have such a widespread use of computers today?
I can go on an on with stupid examples. The idea is the same. Patenting something is a ridiculous idea. Patenting is theft from the public domain. Patenting is an insult to our intelligence. It's saying "I'm smarter than you, I thought of this first now you're not allowed to think of it too". Patents will slow down our scientific and technological advancement. Down with patents!
One should vote only if they "know" the views of all the candidates (or else they are not making an informed choice: "Oh thats a nice sounding name... I will vote for a Bush- I hate blood and Gore"). If a citizen is informed of the choices then they really *should* vote for the person who they think will do the best job (or at least botch it the least). Not voting just might get "satans spawn" elected and you did nothing to stop it. Our government is not the best and a democracy is not perfect but it does *try* to tap into the "collective intelligence" of our society and if you don't put any effort into "the collective", it isn't fair to complain if "the collective" acts like an idiot! In other words "If you don't vote, you really have NO right to complain about what you get".
I miss the Karma Whores.
That's just brilliant. The whole thing sucks so I'll just ignore it. I'm going to close my eyes so you can't see me...
As for a small group turning the screws on everyone else...you're wrong on that too. There is one party that at least isn't trying to do that: Libertarian.
Finally. Politics is supposed to be selfish dammit! You don't know what's best for anyone else, and you have no right throwing your electoral weight around on their behalf (unless they gave you such a right by voting you into office). The only thing you know enough about to have a right to try to influence is your own self-interest. That's how it's supposed to work. The problem isn't that people aren't being altruistic enough; it's that people often don't think they can have an impact and those that do don't actually understand the principles behind the politics they espouse.
what is the primary goal of the American government? To further the nationalistic goals of the American Citizenry. Who are these Americans? An amazingly diverse group of cultures and races who got here under varying circumstances with the belief that hard work and education would allow either themselves or their children the ability to rise above their current status: POOR. Some governments accomplish the goals of their mostly Homogenous cultures without the need for a vote. We do not. Any of you bright slashdot readers ever been a candidate for the presidency of the most influential government on the planet? I think not. That person gets to be crucified upon the altar of Media INCLUDING SLASHDOT. What I'm trying to say is that it is a futile exercise to find ONE PERSON out of 270 million who is going to embody every value we as individuals hold dear except one: GREED. So quit your bitching about Bush/Gore and be thankful that no matter who you vote for, both will continue to line American's pockets, especially those who type away day after day, and make way for all those little american corporate startups who are ready to do battle with the market forces of the NWO.
It's geek code...look up the decoder here, and look up the source and key here. Go make yourself one :)
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
It's painfully obvious to even the casual observer that the US voting system needs some serious overhauling. I read the article Jon Katz was referring to, May The Best Man Lose. And I have to say I agreed with a lot of what the article has to say. We SERIOUSLY need a better way to vote. One that will let people be informed and make intelligent decisions. There's one big problem with this though. Joe Public out there is S-T-U-P-I-D and L-A-Z-Y. The "average" American is so caught up with themselves and mired in their own pathetic self-centered lives that they really don't CARE who gets elected really. A lot of them vote out of FEAR, not out of intelligence. They vote to keep someone who will pass policied they don't agree with OUT of office, instead of supporting someone they really believe in. They see the whole voting process as hopeless because every single time, no matter what happens or who's running, one of the "Big Two" get elected. And it's not even the one who's most qualified, or even the one who the most people feel would do the job properly. It's turning into an anti-vote! Most people know so little about the candidates other than what their cousin Joe down the street who knows everything about politics mumbled to them one day passing passing on the street that they'll almost believe everything they hear. Similar to what was mentioned in the SDMI discussion yesterday, counting votes more accurately is a technical problem. Getting people to CARE and LEARN and vote more intelligently is a social engineering problem. Just my $.02 -----Begin Geek Code Block----- Version 3.1 GCS/MU/S>AT d? s:-- a-- C++++ UL++>$ P- L+++ E---- W++ N-- o- K+ w--- O+ M-- V-- PS++(+) PE-() Y+ PGP- t+++(*) 5--(-) X(-) R+ tv(@) b++++ DI+++ D+++ G++ e+(*) h---(++) r+++ y+++(*) ------End Geek Code Block------
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
Call me the most radical of them all. But I agree with Mr. Katz... why vote at all when NO one.. even the best candidate (for me) stands for all the issue (I stand for). Sure one representative may believe the same as myself on one or two issues, but not them all. Government doesnt even need politicians anymore. In todays digital world each persons vote could be tallied instantly about ANY issue brought before government. Some will argue that everyone doesnt have access to computers to vote. Make them as readily available as ATM's that are on every street corner. Vote about any and every issue at every level of government. Voting will be rampant and turnout will be much less because anything and everything is being voted on BUT... the end result is that people will search out and vote for only the things they feel important. Ex. something up for election at the local level only gets 150 votes total.. but winning.. the turnout wasnt high for that particular issue but the people that cared about it voted... AND THEY are the ones that should make the decision anyway. I dont need a politician to make my decisions for me because he feels it is in my best interest
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
Saddam was the sole cause behind the Gulf War, yet he is still around to cause trouble? WHY? The United States continues to punish the Iraqi people instead of punishing the one person responsible for the mess.
Unfortunately right now everyone is in a bottom-dollar way of thinking.
You don't like the way the CPD froze out 3rd party candidates? Call AT&T and cancel your long distance and tell them why! Call up Palm (3com) and tell them you are boycotting their product (along with handspring and every other company that uses the palmOS)! Call up US Air and tell them you are flying other airlines! Call up Anheuser-Busch and tell them you are no longer buying their products and tell the grocery store manager where you shop you aren't buying their products!
Today people complain about corporations but continue to buy their and use their products! I know because I've done! It takes balls to cancel that great rate you have with AT&T, or not to drink your favoriate beer, or buy a different car...but its the only way changes get made! One consumer at a time!
I can guarantee you if the Sierra Club started buying up the government owned land in the Pacific NW clear cutting would end right away!
People always think the government is the solution, but they are part of the problem. Take for instance the artic drilling so recently discussed in the debates, that would happen on FEDERAL land. Do you think if the 'Coalition for cute fuzzy animals' owned that land we'd even be having this discussion? HECK NO!
Now the only question I have is how do you prevent 'big oil' from buying all the land instead of the Sierra club? If you truly want the market rate, everyone has to bid. If you exclude oil from bidding you won't get a 1/5th of the value. Of course I don't have the answer, but I know the gov't ain't it.
Housing and Urban Dev - Are downtowns more or less safer than 50 years ago? Are government run housing projects better than their private counterparts? Has affordable housing increased in the past 50 years? Has homelessness been reduced? Have people and communities been 'empowered'? Has public trust been restored? (Yes those are all missions of the HUD!). Now explain to me why they have a $32 BILLION budget!!!
FDA - Are drugs cheaper? safer? Is food cheaper? safer? What justifies their $1.3 BILLION budget? Who did more to regulate the meat packing industry in the early 1900's: the federal government or the media? Who did more to get Food Lion to make reforms in the early 1990's: the federal government or the media? The simple answer to food and drug safety is FULL DISCLOSURE. If I know how my food was grown, what pesticides were used and what studies have been done I have enough to educate myself. Ditto with drugs. Give the consumer full disclosure and let it self regulate. Nobody (including libertarians) is for trying to defraud consumers. One of the main tenants of libertarianism is NOBODY is allowed to use force or fraud against an individual. Failure to disclose harmful effects is FRAUD. Make the penalties (at the state and local level) severe enough food and drug companies won't even attempt it.
Let me pick on this one. Libertarians and Harry Browne are all for a strong ICBM/missle defense system, and any system that can destroy a warhead flying at 20,000mph can take out a long range bomber. Again, how do having troops stationed in 100 countries across the globe protect us any better against the threats you mentioned?
Ok, let's take the Gulf War - I'm all for ELIMINATING dictators who use force against others. You want to know how Harry Browne has said he'd handle it. Quite simple, he'd give an ultimatum to Saddam to get out of Kuwait or he'd put a price on Saddam's head....say $1 billion to the country or organization that could 'off' him. I can tell you Saddam would think twice or he'd be dead. Instead of the United States killing a few hundred thousand Iraqis who happened to be following orders (on penalty of getting shot for disobedience) we would have killed the one person responsible. Instead of wasting hundreds of billions in a war we'd spend only a billion. Instead of continue to have Saddam as a thorn in our side, he'd be gone. Why do we continue to punish the citizens on a country like Iraq with sanctions instead of punishing the sole individual (Saddam) who is responsible?
RM 101, if your so much for prevention what in the current system is preventing a ICBM attack on the US? What prevented Saddam from invading Kuwait? What prevented Milosivec from slaughtering tens of thousands? That's right...nothing did!!
They want more individual rights which is against what our founding fathers wanted! Our founding fathers didn't want corporations telling us what we can and cannot do!
There is a big difference in my mind between alcohol, which cause impairment and MIGHT lead to harm, and a guaranteed 45,000+ deaths per day. And I think that would be a reason for me to want the drug to be illegal.
You're obfuscating the difference. The use of alcohol statistically causes a certain number of deaths per day. If you're talking statistical chance of killing, there's no qualitative difference, and certainly no "mights". Just numbers.
Your community agrees on a level of acceptable carnage, and makes laws to enforce it. On this we agree.
And I think that that is exactly what would happend, the natural minerals and resources would be removed and the land de-"pristined". But you are wrong about one thing. There will not be enough parks for ME.
Yeah. The market distributes resources based on total demand, not based on your idea of what's important. That's why it works!
You should move to Alaska. There are still lots of forests there. You could probably even buy one.
This drug should be illegal to the full extent of the law. The reason is because taking it is the equivalent of firing random shots at someone. Just the act of taking the drug violates the rights of those around you because you have intentionally created a situation where you could lose your mind and start blowing people away.
By the logic of the "firing the Howitzer above my head is not acceptable" argument, the act of taking this drug in public is criminal. Taking it locked in your basement is not.
In reality, there's some consensus on how much risk is acceptable. There's a real chance that your car could suddenly break on the highway and carreen into a schoolbus full of kids. Yet driving is not illegal.
I'm not sure if a one-in-a-thousand chance should warrant illegality. I would think it would. A one in ten thousand chance probably wouldn't. It's a subjective judgement.
In any case, the illegal act is exposing the public (the non-consenting public - taking the drug at a party where it was known that people would be taking this drug would not be illegal, because of implied consent. the illegality starts when suspicion of intoxication would not be warranted) to the risk of this drug, which steals your reason, just like firing a gun near someone (without their consent!) is illegal, because it exposes them to a risk.
Although this raises the question, "Should being really angry in public be illegal?" By this logic, yes! Angry people can't control themselves as well as calm people.
I don't know. It's subjective. Ban the most flagrant offences (shooting guns in my vicinity, etc.) and tolerate the rest.
The point I'm making is that Libertarians see drugs as "all drugs should be legal" without any thought to whether some drugs SHOULD be illegal.
No drug should be illegal. In your example, the act of exposing the public to the risk of your likely maniacal behavior was illegal. The drug, in and of itself, is not illegal -- that's absurd. It's the classic "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" banality.
ust as with weapons. I agree personal weapons are good. However, personal nukes are bad. There are lines that need to be drawn in a lot of cases, and unfortunately too often Libertarians refuse to accept that.
My litmus test is "Can the nuke be detonated in a manner which does not infringe the rights of others?" The obvious reply is, "Well, I do not intend to detonate this nuke. It is for show." Or, "I intend to detonate this nuke in Antarctica." Either way, it seems reasonable to ask that the nuke be disabled. If you aren't an extremist! :-)
Should this drug be illegal? Yes. The act of taking it seriously endangers the lives of others. And I feel that most other Libertarians would agree with me.
By this logic, alcohol should be illegal. A comparable percentage of the people who drink a lot of alcohol will become uncontrollable and violent.
The drug should not be illegal! Taking it in public should be. The act of taking the drug is benign, but the act of taking the drug is public is not, and should be banned. Just like drinking and driving. The risk is agreed to be too high, just like our "Howitzer shooting right above your head" thought experiment. Howitzers should not be illegal, either. But that's just my opinion! You see, the great thing about the Libertarians is that the federal government would not make laws! You can choose the community with the laws you like!
(I brought up the really difficult question earlier: when driving on the highway, there is a real chance that your car will suddenly break, and that you will crash into a car full of kids. Should driving be illegal? The lives of others are seriously endangered! What I'm getting at is that there is risk in everything, and the definition of an unacceptable risk is something very controversial. The federal government has no place making that definition. That's a Libertarian view. One city could ban cars, because they are too dangerous in their opinion. Another city could allow them. You choose the one that fits you best. Or you start your own! Ain't freedom great?)
I would have a lot more respect for Libertarian philosophy if they would come at and define exactly what limits they are in favor of. But the web site is noticeably absent on any limits on personal behavior. This is why they will never achieve power, because it's all theory, and no practicality.
The Libertarians would not make or enforce any federal laws. That's why you can't find any particular limitations to personal freedom on their site. They won't limit it!
But wait. That's a good thing. You can choose to live in a state that allows everything, or you can choose to live in a state that prohibits everything. Prevention is the domain of local government.
These arguments about what constitutes a threat to public safety belong at the local level. Ideally, I could drive out to a city a few miles away, a city with permissive drug laws, and smoke a joint. That's freedom.
Why do you think so many terrorist groups have our number? If we could get out of their affairs then they'd have no one to blame about their situations than themselves.
Nah. They would still blame us. It's simple jealosy. Our culture is more free than theirs, and that pisses them off.
Terrorists should be trembling with fear at the prospect of injuring of killing an American.
If you don't want to grant people the right to have nukes then you must destroy or give away all nukes that federal gov't has in its possession.
Yes. This is a sane option. Destroy them all. Nuclear war is never legitimate. It's too indiscriminate.
Are you seriously suggesting that these citizens who can't even be bothered to push a lever every few years are going to rise up in the streets and "take back" their country?
Yeah. People have been pulling levers for a long time, and nothing seems to change. Because half the population still votes, however, the government can still claim to be legitimate. When the people stop believing it -- when nobody votes -- it will be easily replaced with something better.
No...if you make the population apathetic, they won't *care* if the government is criminal. That's what apathy is about. The more odious agencies of our government chronically engage in criminal behavior and nobody has "killed" them.
But because half the people still vote the criminals in out of fear of the Other Guy, nobody has the balls to kick them out. If virtually nobody voted, putting a stop to them would be a morally simpler process.
You're right, though. Better to be actively involved than wait for conditions to be right for revolution. I'll never understand why all my stupid comments are moderated up! (Yes, I have better ones occasionally.) :-)
But I still don't know why anyone would support the Greens. Have you read their platform? A government that could enforce all that would need to be twice the size it is now! And his position on the War on Drugs is contradictory. Note the "we endorse true-cost pricing" statement -- do they really intend to fix prices! If not, then why bother endorsing it. That's typical of the Green platform -- a lot of endorsements for good things, but no real policy. For example, they make a big case for a "living wage", but give no details on how exactly everyone will be guaranteed one by the government. They've got lots of feel-good positions, but few solutions. I suspect they would find two solutions very quickly: more taxes, and more laws. Neither would work.
Yeah, I'll start buying airplane engines from ma & pa shops. Or relational database packages. Or my AIDS medicine.
That's how big corporations start! Ma and Pa decide to take out the chemistry set and try to make some AIDS medication. Other people say, "Hey, there are a lot of people who would pay for AIDS medication -- I should help them out, for a share of the profits!" Soon you have a serious effort.
Government frequently plays a beneficial role in regulating the market. Deal with it. I prefer that to having Exxon-Mobil-Chevron-Texaco-BP-Amoco having carte blanche to do as they will. Fuck that.
How can a people too sheepish to keep a few corporations in line ever hope to keep their government in line? Straw man.
I think nothing would change, and the Monarchy would tighten its grip on the American people.
That's no argument for Nader. Here's my argument:
Reductio ad absurdum.
Nader's platform is not only whining, it is mindless whining. It is stupid, romanticicized, Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor bullshit.
if we're all out for ourselves, and dishonesty and sociopathy are the coin of the realm, then why should we, as social creatures of the same cloth, believe anything you say regarding the basic rights you're proclaiming as fundamental?
Is government good? If you say no, you're a libertarian. Libertarianism does not imply solpisism.
Property rights are a fundamental part of liberty. My right to monopolize my property does not mean that I will. I also have the right to give food to a starving man.
Do not try to argue that:
It's a straw man. Property rights do not preclude consensual communistic behavior. Rather, they check the power of people who want to have everything.
Basically, if a new government were formed upon the basis of libretarianism, it would ultimately fail when mass propaganda, err, media were introduced. Stupid people do not deserve and a libretarian govt, and vice versa.
When the federal government is abolished, it will restore competition between states. Don't like Illinois? Too many stupid laws made by stupid people? Move to a state with libertarian laws! Better yet, start your own state, with the government of your choice! (Isn't freedom great?)
Actually, I'm curious if a libertarian federal government would defend us, if everyone who reads Slashdot moved to Antarctica and created a new state. I think they would have to, as we're still American citizens.
No, the Libs just want to remove gov't restrictions on Big Business turning the screws on people. Sorry, I won't have that.
Yeah, right -- the Evil State and the Evil Corporations are going to destroy each other? Come on. They will work together! Corporations will petition the state for laws favoring their business by restricting others' rights, and the state will demand in return that the corporations enforce their will for them.
The answer is to bankrupt the government (the Libertarians want to do this). That removes the corporations' biggest ally! Corporations will have to respect others' rights, just like you and I!
Then, even more important is your state government. And then, even more so, the local gov't. Those of you who might scold me, remember these two things. Cities and towns can prevent businesses from moving in (and possibly even revoke corporate charters), and they can enact their own minimum wage laws (Santa Cruz, anyone?)
And I can move to another city, one that allows free competition, and buy cheaper, better products and services! (Right now, I would have to move to another country to escape the federal government's laws -- a far more difficult thing to do.)
You just summarized the Libertarian position.
In fact, I doubt many drunken people actively murder others PERIOD. Drunk driving is another story, and as I've said, that most certainly SHOULD be illegal, as the very act of it endangers others.
Yes, but if drinking impairs judgement, then drunks cannot fully judge the legality or safety of driving. Thus, drinking should be forbidden, because once a person is drunk, they are not capable of making the decision to refrain from driving.
Far more than 1 in 2000 drinkers drive home drunk. (I can't substantiate that, but it seems reasonable, considering the prevalence of drunk driving.)
If you drink in your house, what's to stop you from driving away drunk?
There's going to be some risk to society posed by a person with impaired judgement (whatever the cause -- drugs, innate stupidity, sex drive, etc.). People who, like the hypothetical mad gunner shooting bullets past your head, act dangerously with impunity. Any argument for prior restraint in these matters can be taken to the extreme, i.e., mandatory leg shackles for everyone, to prevent any sudden violent outbursts.
I think centuries of living under heavy federal law has made us stupid. You're right. Let each state decide on its own. A homogenous law of the land does not suit a heterogenous population.
The idea that there must be one universal set of laws probably grew out of personal immobility -- the idea that a like-thinking group of people might seperate themselves from the mass was laughed at, because people were tied to their land.
America no longer works that way. It's time the laws reflected that. States will be nothing more than corporations, competing for my business, trying to sell the merits of their unique product. That's elegant. I like it.
You seemed to have left out all of the regulatory agencies that the LP wants to dump:
dept of education
dept housing/urban dev
SEC
FDA
privitize education?
dump the urban dev dept?
if one was starting from scratch, this overly idealized system might work dandy...
but we're not, and it won't.
This might not be the best idea, but what about a coalition party made up of Libertarians and liberals, i.e. Green Party. This new party would IMHO balance the current duopoly by creating a fiscally conservative yet socially progressive party that would give the 3rd party people a real chance at winning. I for one would love to see Nader and Ventura on the same ticket. Best of all, because of diversity, hardly any issue would go untouched. For each election cycle the Greens would nominate a candidate and the Libertarians would nominate one. There would be a run off and the winner would be President while 2nd place got the VP slot. Like I said, not the best idea, but at least it'd be interesting. Let the Democrats and Republicans have the center!
Like other /. posters, I'm a little confused as to how NOT voting is "political". Not voting may be ethical, but is still apolitical. The Internet--specifically the Web--is a great forum for a new rationalist perspective for people who want to vote for a good candidate instead of to vote with apathy or not vote at all. Is anyone else interested in forming a new Net-based movement formed on open debate? I have been for several years. This new Katz column was the push over the edge for me.The drive of the /. community and other online forums could make it successful. Visit The 20th Perspective at http://www.geocities.com/gotscheme if you're up for this online debate process in formation of a new (can you say name-in-progress?) Rationalist's Party. Currently, I'm taking suggestions on the message board system for this "grassroots" movement. Within the next seven days, I'm shooting for a full-steam ahead debate on one mainstream topic and one publicly unaddressed issue. It's time somebody do something...And do it right. I want a movement, and I hope you do, too.
Have you actually read the Green Party platform? Add in some racism, take out some technophobia, and you basically have a good copy of the Nazi party platform. Nazi was short for "National Socialism," after all, which is pretty much what the Greens are all about.
Why nationalize anything? What is wrong with the idea of each individual state being a different animal -- some liberal, some conservative, and some radical? Where does this impulse to force everyone into the lowest common denominator come from?
Based on his past rhetoric, I believe that Ralph Nader thinks, like Bush and Gore, that ordinary citizens are not wise enough to make decisions for ourselves. He thinks that we are sheep, and need to be managed as such. He will receive not vote from me. I'm thinking I'll cast a little protest vote for Harry Browne.
Voting is not where the individual citizen can do the most good, in any case. Try putting your money where your mouth is -- give to the ACLU, the Institute for Justice, the EFF, or your favorite think tank. These individuals do far more good than any legislator or executive, because they must answer to those who provide their funding -- they cannot just gloss over past failures in the knowledge that the average viewer has a short attention span.
HJ
-- A New World, Unordered http://www.anwu.org/
((( I look forward to the day when I will have the chance to vote for a candidate who speaks honestly, who grasps the centrality of technology and culture in our time, and is willing to raise those important issues in a rational way. That person is unlikely to come out of Washington, or the existing political structure, and is more likely to have grown up reading a site like this.)))
I have issues with waiting for some white hat hero to come along and save me. Are you really comfortable consigning your fate to the off chance that someone who agrees with your own goals will come into a position where they have a realistic chance of winning an election? I am not.
On a larger issue, I don't think that our current system of being forced to choose some politician to run my life is valid. As voting theorists have noted, our system of elections is not at all rational. I think that it is time to look to alternate political systems.
I would be much more accepting of a form of direct democracy. Given that we now possess the technology to perform large scale internet voting, such a system could replace much of our dependence on elected canditates. Another alternative would be the concept of election by lottery; that is, choose at random a rotating sample of perhaps 1000 Americans to act as the legislative body for 5 years, perhaps with assistance from trained moderators and the like.
I am in favor of any movement that puts people in greater control of their own political destiny. Arguments to the contrary claiming that ordinary people lack the training necessary to make such decisions could be similarly levied against a republic (such as ours) or virtually any system other than complete fascism. -gaffney
If you, like most of us, are disenchanted with your so-called options for public office, I believe that its' valid to vote for "None of the Above". Make it a write-in candidate. This way your vote is counted and could serve as a signal flag that the people ain't happy. I even feel that a spoiled ballot is valid, but I'm not sure if they're counted or just tossed out.
danbeck,you are missing one thing aside from a good spell checker!I am quite "informed" and "educated"...and have served my country in the armed forces, but refuse to vote for a candidate whose platform has been carefully devised to attract voters and has little to do with what that candidate will actually do if elected...regardless of your idealistic(read naive) views on voting ,THIS COUNTRY IS GOVERNED BY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS...period.Politicians merely follow the flow of cash....so remember ,it may be you who is ignorant ...
I didn't have him in mind, but he fits the bill exactly. It's too bad he didn't run. He could have kept the Reform party together, and had some $$$ to work with. He certainly would have been a much more viable 3rd party candidate than Nader. He'll have my vote if he ever runs.
Yes the two main parties benefit most from voter apathy, but only relatively to the minor parties. In fact they are all weaker for it.
There is no absolute law of nature that states that the US government must exist in its current form.
There exists a very strong trend towards apathy and non-involvement in our society. Perhaps things need to get worse before they get better. I don't think the libertarians or any other third party can effect meaningful change in the system.
But a real threat of the collapse of our democracy, OTOH, could effect real change. That probably won't happen this election, but given current trends it is inevitable at some point. The sooner the better. That's what I'm voting for. That's why I'm staying home on the 7th. Voting for a 3rd party is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
I see this sentiment throught these boards, and it's flat out wrong.
.3% of the vote. People DO care about the fact that 60% of the voting public stayed home. Trust me, if you read the paper or watch the news after the election you will NOT hear how many write-ins there were, but you WILL hear what percentage of the public voted.
Nobody cares about write-ins. Nobody cares about Buchanan's
And believe me also that there will come a time when that percentage is low enough that there will be real problems. The smaller the voting population the more easily it is manipulated by big money. It works great for those with money... until everyone says fuck it and tears down the whole system. Representative democracy doesn't work anymore when you are only representing a few people. Then there WILL be real change.
The idea that tossing a vote away on a hopeless 3rd party will have any real impact isn't insane, but it certainly is naive.
The root of it lies in disallowing voters to
vote for multiple candidates simultaneously.
This brings in the scarcity mentality and the
whole slough of issues related to 'electability'.
A friend and I were debating some time ago how
to better survey the collective values system
using a preference run-off (1-10) ballot but
well, this just sort-of hit me as being the only
simple, elegant solution that could address all
the problems at once.
Now, does the Constitution, which many believe
to be inspired (including myself), specifically
prohibit this type of multi-party voting? After
reading through it I don't exactly see the word.
Normally I don't post on slashdot, but it seemed
like we were nearing a really important issue
this time. Would love to discuss it further in
another context (say, mailing list?)
Apologies for the late post.
- Dan
You don't actually think that your vote, in today's political system, is relevant, do you?
There are mathematical ways of demonstrating that your little vote gives you minimal control over the output of the political machine, but James Bovard puts it in blunt terms that anyone can understand: Voting is Overrated . Next week the article will be moved to Bovard's Archives.
A democracy fundamentally depends on an informed electorate to hold its representatives and public officials to account, but what if the electorate not only is uninformed, but is incapable of being sufficiently well informed to exercise control? Jeffrey Friedman of Harvard University argues that this is indeed the case: poll after poll shows that, on any given significant political issue, the majority of the American public is profoundly ignorant of the most basic relevant facts. This phenomenon is even more pronounced for women, who tend to be more unaware of national issues. The majority of Americans base their voting on non-factual criteria such as blind loyalty to party or social group, or to whether a candidate is sufficiently "caring", "trustworthy", or "presidential," and the oft-lamented spin-doctors and sound bites are an inevitable result. This is not to denigrate American citizens: since the 1930's, the politcal sphere has expanded tremendously, and is now beyond the ability of most educated people to fully understand. If the educational system cannot prepare citizens to control their government, the sphere of government must be reduced to be within their control.
I'll re-post this here since the leading subject line is more relevant: There are mathematical ways of demonstrating that your little vote gives you minimal control over the output of the political machine, but James Bovard puts it in blunt terms that anyone can understand: Voting is Overrated. Next week the article will be moved to Bovard's Archives.
Jon Katz wrote:
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
If large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to vote, than large numbers of Americans will be completely ignored by the system. Nobody who matters reads not voting as a sign of dissent, they read it as a sign of apathy.
What they count as a vote of dissent is a vote for something other than the main candidates. The people in charge listen to large third party turnout. The third parties don't get any closer to real participation, but the major parties lean closer to the third party positions to try to coopt a vote they consider "swing". Nonvoters aren't swing voters, they are ignored.
This year, there are four third-party candidates with significant campaigns, check them out, see if you like any of them more than Al Bush and George Gore:
Ralph Nader, Green Party
Harry Browne, Libertarian Party
Pat Buchanan,, Reform Party (a good chunk of it, anyway)
John Hagelin, Natural Law Party (and the rest of the Reform Party)
The Socialist Party is also running a candidate, but I couldn't find a good link.
If you don't like the two big-party candidates, vote for one of these, any of these, I don't care who (personally, I like Nader, but I'd prefer seeing votes for Buchanan than people staying home). If you don't like these, just decide to pick whoever ends up in the last column of your ballot (the Democrats and Republicans usually vie for the first two columns in most states); or write in a vote. Just don't stay home, and don't leave the ballot blank (some states throw blank ballots out uncounted). This is the most effective way to say you are unhappy with how things are, in a language that the media and the candidates actually understand.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
There are a lot of parallels between being an alternative OS users and a 3rd party candidate backer. Both ways, you are exposed to a different way of viewing things, not just how the big guys want you to see it. Take your own path.
As for who should be in each branch of the government, I like the idea of having the House, Senate, and President as different parties. The Founding Fathers wanted each part of the government to keep watch over the other parts. They wanted the government to move slowly, so that the laws that did get passed were good laws. (One reason why I'm opposed to Gov. Ventura's idea that the Minnesota Legislative branch should become only a single house, rather than House and Senate).
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Instead, we have a sort of republic, geared to put up roadblocks to the unrestricted dominance of the largest factions. The intention is that, if you are a small faction (like Linux users, for instance) you are supposed to have stronger representation than just the level of awareness for your cause in the general public.
This does go against social Darwinism- that's why it works. It was pioneered by early American political types who were looking at a number of other cases in which democracy was attempted (on the 'just count everyone' system) and had failed due to the 'evils of faction'. It turned out the problem wasn't to make everyone uniform and identical, but to give the smaller factions enough clout that they don't get so marginalised that they end up desperate and go on the attack (which weakens the overall system).
The vote must be cast, and cast for the candidate that you think will do best, not the candidate that you think 'is most likely' to keep the candidate you dislike the most out of office.
You're looking at it as if I can have only one candidate that I think would be satisfactory. Just because I think Nader is the best choice doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion on the others. It's not a black-and-white question. That's the real problem here. Take this example:
Perhaps 30% like Gore, but consider Nader preferable to Bush. Perhaps another 30% like Nader, but consider Gore preferable to Bush. Now that leaves 40 percent (or slightly less if you take out votes for other obscure party candidates) that want only Bush. Now, the majority (60%) want either Nader or Gore, and definitely don't want Bush. The way the election system works today though, they'll end up with Bush. That's just plain wrong. That's why we need to change the way the voting system works. People could then vote for their first choice without worrying about bad side-effects of that choice. Either approval voting or the Boorda count would work well for this.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The problem is that voting our conscience can have disastrous results. If I were to vote for Nader, I might as well be directly supporting Bush in this election. Yes, perhaps my vote will help the Green party get some cash next time around, but it will also help put the candidate who is most antithetical to Nader into office by reducing Gore's total count (since Gore would be my next choice). Until the voting system is reformed, there can be no fair election since we can't vote our conscience and still have a clear conscience. How do you get an election system reformed when it's controlled by parties that are determined to keep other parties from having anything approaching an equal voice in the election? The only answer I can think of is "very very slowly." Until such time as we can vote in a fair election, we have to choose between not voting, or voting for someone who really isn't the person we want in office, just to keep the person who we really don't want in office out. Some choice.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Can you explain something to me about the US system? Is your system inherently two-party, is it just historical happenstance that there are two mainstream parties who dwarf everyone else?
In the UK, the Labour and Tory parties are indeed the two major influences, but the Liberals always get a respectable number of seats; the Greens generally get a couple, as do the various Irish, Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties: these influences make sure the major parties gon't go out on too much of a power trip.
--
Such things happen. People =can= scream for honesty so loud that it will rock Governments and the powerful.
It's my belief that, someday, America will find it's own Martin Bell, and that such a person could begin to restore credibility to politics. But that is not today. Today, the best the US can hope for is damage control. And, frankly, I don't blame anyone for thinking that's a futile exercise in itself.
(If the US Government in it's entirity can't even get it's own agencies to tell it the truth, then how is the President, as a lone individual, in a position to control anything?)
As I've said before, if US citizens could ACTIVELY vote against ALL candidates, rather than having to passively abstain, we could start to see a difference. If all the candidates combined were out-voted by a "re-open nominations" ticket, the parties would face two options - find CREDIBLE people that are half-way honest, or risk the total collapse of the Government, from a lack of President.
I think that there's enough self-preservation there that the parties would rather learn honesty than learn ruin.
Of course, that option will never appear, so we're left Waiting for Godot, as always, in the hope that what has happened in the UK can happen in the US.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
""Just wanted to drop my 2 cents in and say that maybe those who are thinking of sitting out the election should vote Nader," e-mailed Wade."If enough people vote for another party, maybe, just maybe, someone might take notice, and in the next election things could be different"
Yes, they might just take enough notice to add some of his ideas to their future election manifestos. Great idea that.
Personally I think that American politics could do with a real national alternative... Britain's Monster Raving Loony Party springs to mind as a starting place. It's interesting how some of their ideas have actually been adopted in some form by the major parties. And... that they've had a couple of people voted into local government. Refreshing!
If everyone that agreed with Katz decided not to vote in the upcoming presidential election then we would almost certainly have a better outcome. After all, every idiot that believes that abstaining from the vote is more likely to influence government than voting clearly is a lunatic, and their vote would merely cancel out the vote of a rational person.
People, if you agree with Katz, please do society a favor and stay away from the polls.
If you really believe this way, then you are perfectly free to excercise your own particular brand of "faith" and not vote.
In fact, anyone who feels that voting for President is akin to voting for Santa Claus should most definitely not vote, if only for the good of the rest of us.
While it is certainly true that belief does not make reality, disbelief can not affect reality either. Unless, of course, you are the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, in which case I think that I am going to wrap a towel around my head so that you will believe I have disappeared.
I don't feel like being eaten today.
In the meantime there is going to be a real election in just a few days, and the person that gets elected will have the power to send other heavily armed real people all over the world to blow things up. If you choose to believe that the selection of this person is not important (or not real) then don't come crying to the rest of us when the decisions made by this individual affects your life.
We probably won't believe that you exist.
Who ever said that dishonesty and sociopathy were the coin of the realm? You certainly didn't get that from me, nor from any other libertarian. Your premise seems to be that left to themselves, people will do the wrong thing, most of the time.
I don't believe that for a minute, and I certainly don't go about lying and cheating as a means of conducting my affairs. Further, I don't expect that most of the people I interact with in the course of everyday life are out to cheat me.
People that advocate government intervention in personal affairs, or tremendous bureaucratic social safety nets tend to have a very dim view of humanity.
Whether you like it or not, you chose to be born into a world of social interaction. You may choose to deny the responsibilities inherent in that choice, but I do not, nor does anyone who professes any honest moral position.
Well for starters, I didn't have much choice so far as being born is concerned. Maybe you did.
I certainly don't begrudge the life I was born into. Like most people in the United States, I have it pretty good. I recognize that. But exactly what responsibilities come along with that? In a free society, no person may be forced to accept a debt against his will. All I ask of my neighbors is that they don't interfere with my ability to live my life. They can expect the same from me. I won't ask them to support me in any other way.
I am not such a 'rugged individualist' (interesting that you hurl that like an insult) that I think I can live off the land, or that I see no benefit to cooperation. I recognize and champion the division of labor. I know that people make certain goods better than I could, and I will purchase those goods from them. I also know that I can provide some services better than they could, and they buy from me.
Each of those interactions is for *mutual* benefit. They sell their labor at what they determine is a fair price, and I do the same.
This outlook hardly qualifies me as a hermit or reckloose.
My obligation to society is fulfilled when I act with it's other members in a fair and honest manner. Their obligation to me is the same.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
Nuts.
The Republicrats and the Demolicans don't care a goddam about how many people don't vote.
The present system is set up such that if only a minute percentage of the US population votes, one or the other of the only two controlling political parties will still win.
And the game goes on, because the politicians and the bureaucrats all still have a job on Wednesday after the election.
I'm increasingly coming to think that the only thing to do is vote for Nader.
A vote for Gush or Bore is meaningless.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
It seems people have been bamboozled into thinking that democracy==voting. When I went on the freedom trail tour in Boston, one of the things that struck me is that the revolutionaries (at least in Boston) had a much more radical idea of democracy. To them democracy was about town hall meetings, about mass civic participation. For example, in the Boston Tea Party, although only a handful of people committed the sabotage, 1/3 of the town of Boston marched down with them to support them! That's a big protest! If, in my lifetime, 1/3 of any town is ever gathered in the same spot to do anything but watch a football game (or go to the mall), I will be (happily) suprised.
In Seattle, we all chanted, "This is what democracy looks like". I think that's true. In response to Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts (those radical Massuchetts people again), Jefferson wrote: "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
How did women get the right to vote? Ever see the the pictures of the suffragists picketing outside the white house? How did blacks get civil rights in the south? Remember the Montgomery bus boycott? Democracy is when people take power over their own lives, by taking to the streets or, on a more day-to-day level, by getting involved in school boards, in city councils, in town hall, in the local co-operatively owned grocery store.
With due respects to Laurence J. Peter, going to the voting booth doesn't make you a (small "d") democrat any more than going to the garage makes you a car.
Don't vote. Or do vote. Who cares. If you want to make change, tho, don't whine -- ORGANIZE.
I would no more go and vote for a fictional entity like a government than I would go to the North Pole to hang out with Santa Claus.
"Fictional entity"? Who do you think is taking all your money, then?
The people who don't vote are not trying to make a statement. They are uninformed (read uneducated, not stupid) and ignorant. They don't really care about the candidates and never would be, even if our political system was different. They are more concerned with sitting on their couches watching Alley McBeal than they could possibly be with the future direction of our country. They have no idea what the issues are, nor do they even understand the magnatude of electing supreme court justices. Their parents were ignorant and they will teach their children to be ignorant.
pronoblem
Virtual International Conglomerate Organization
Introducing a different kind of concept in social and commercial organization. 'Virtual International Conglomerate Organization' ("VICO"), is simply a concept I've been playing with for a while now to free us up. I've modeled it after large conglomerate corporations like ITT or Diagio that seem to have their hands into everything. In contrast, VICO is a way for us all to be independent but connected as legal entities in a highly efficient international marketplace. Below is a bit of a manifesto.
VICO MANIFESTO
We work independently. We are incorporated for ouselves. We work together on the internet. We meet in comfortable club/cafe style workplaces or we work from home. Ninety-five percent of membership is initiated by showing up; the other five percent (the leadership) happens if one's ideas are compelling. Our ideas are our tickets to the party. We build our own internet infrastructure. It enables us simultaneously to possess and publish our literature without possibility of relinquishing control. We build our businesses on it and gain the largest distance from large corporate and governmental controls available on the planet. With portable computers in our briefcases and secure servers locked away in a place of our choice, we can operate our businesses with maximum freedom.
We meet where we want. We collaborate when we want, with whom we want. Our wants are limited but specific, and our needs are clear. Neither nation nor border can prevent us from working together at any time. We find ways to make our ideas happen, and our ideas ruffle in the bitstream like leaves in a dense rainforest alluring eyes and minds. Every leaf is easy to find and appreciate. We can gather them at will to make newer and lovelier forms. We are engineers, artists, architects, financiers, writers, organizers... the skillful people. We are the Virtual International Conglomerate Organization.
Outstanding Issues:
Of course, Drugs could not be outlawed at a federal level by any means short of a constitutional amendment either. Seem like there are some loopholes there, maybe?
No, there are no loopholes there.
The courts have simply decided to ignore the constitution when it is convinient to do so. The constitution explicitly states that, except for those powers specificly granted by the constitution, the federal government has no authority to regulate anything.
The (in)famous interstate commerce clause has often been cited as an excuse for the federal government collecting new, unconstitutional powers, but with respect to drugs even that falls down.
California, Oregon, and Washington (among others) have all legalized the medicinal use of marijuana.
Right or wrong, that is their consititional right. However, a man growing marijuana in California, for lawful consumption in California, is not involved in any kind of interstate commerce. Nevertheless, he will be arrested, tried, convicted, and put in jail (it has already happened numerous times -- indeed a volunteer at a clinic is currently living in Canada, seeking political asylum from the US, because she was present when medicinal marijuana was being dispensed, even though she was guilty of nothing more than pushing the wheelchair).
Flagrantly unconstitutional, but that is little comfort when you're being raped by your cellmate during your years of incarceration, waiting for the appeal to work its way up to the supreme court (assuming they'd even be willing to hear it).
With all three branches of the government ignoring the constitution at will, the constitution means very little. Indeed, with half the bill of rights basically eliminated and the other half under concerted attack, this is little surprise.
I may disagree with much of the Libertarian agenda, but one thing they are absolutely correct about is this: It is past time to return our government to the constitutional boundries our founding fathers codified in the constitution. Then, if we really feel we need government to step in and do something (such as healthcare) we can do so as was originally intended: with a consitituional amendment granting the government said authority. Until then our politicians are little more than thieves, stealing money from our pockets and usurping the constitutional rights of the people.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Non-voting could really be gaged by adding an explicit "NO OPTION SELECTED" to everything on the ballot. I believe this has been occasionally tried in a few countries. Otherwise we cant really know if "non-voting" is really an excuse for physical and intellectual laziness. I highly suspect laziness is the real reason for young people not voting.
One simple plan will do more for democracy than any other. It may seem counterintuitive to the afore-described apathetic voters, but trust me on this one:
Bring back political parties.
In years past, political parties were defined by their platforms, and candidates were defined by their party. The party provided discipline in advancing legislation and accountability in local involvement.
This went away, replaced by a generic "independence" that candidates have advanced as the new ethos. It resembles the development of classic 20th century journalistic neutrality, which in reality was a way to sell newspapers to a wider audience. In the same way candidates sought to define their own agendas and sell their personality to the electorate.
One of the main reasons this happened was television. Television provided a mass-media market for political advertising. TV ads became a necessity for almost all candidates, save a few iconoclastic safe incumbents like William Proxmire (who famously spent as little as $200 on his Senate campaigns). TV ads, however, cost money.
A lot of money.
The candidates running for office in the last 20 years have fallen more and more into two categories:
The independently wealthy candidate. This person sells his or her "independence" from the political system, and despite the obvious conclusion that someone with a large personal fortune will tend to represent mainly the interests of those with large personal fortunes, they are immune from the depredations of the other kind.
That other kind, representing an easy majority of national offices today, is the money-grubbing candidate. The money-grubbing candidate is not personally wealthy, or not to the same extent, and as a result must finance the re-election kitty with a steady stream of political appearances and favors. Financing a "small" $1 million House campaign means that a candidate, during two years in office, must raise $10,000 every week. That's a lot of luncheons, or a lot of favors. Unsurprisingly this type of candidate becomes beholden to political contributors.
There are very few candidates today who feel beholden to their political party for very much.
The simple lesson is that with television remaining ascendant, and political parties considered important mainly as a production staff for presidential conventions, candidates become bought and sold. The few who aren't have their own interests first at heart.
Nobody works for the people.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
As I understand it, Russia has a "none of the above" choice in their voting system. If NOTA wins, then new candidates must be found and the whole thing run again. This, plus one of the two better voting systems (ranking the candidates like the ICANN process, or giving one vote for each candidate you feel is qualified) would greatly improve our chances to get a good president elected.
In 1984 it was low, in 1996 it was low. It's low every time a sitting President runs for a second term. It also tends to be lower for the regional races when the governor or congressperson is running for a second term.
We have mandatory voting in Australia. What's good about it? Well, it means that every single adult in the country got out of bed and trundled down to a polling booth. Every adult is partially responsible for the current set of people governing them. I believe that the USA has about 30% voter turnout, and it's my personal opinion that more than 30% of the population of both countries have some idea of whom they'd like in power. In Australia, all the people who think "This seat is going to the Liberals no matter what, why should I bother voting Labor?" get out and vote anyway.
Also, having 100% voter turnout is a huge stabilising influence. The preference of the person who supports a party, but isn't exactly marching through the streets over it, is just as important as that of the person who has absolutely rabid support for someone. It's great to hear from them. In the last elections we had a party called One Nation which may have even made the news slightly in the USA. They had very strong policies on immigration, welfare and race relations which would probably have been rather damaging if they'd won power, but because we have 100% turnout, any candidate needs a majority of the actual populace in his seat to support him, not a majority of the people who can be bothered to vote. This keeps our government stable.
Of course, if you really think all parties suck equally, and you can't find even one to support (there tend to be about 6 lower house candidates for each seat, and about 100 upper house candidates for each state) then you can put a big line through your ballots, or leave them blank, or write a charming message for the scrutineers. But you've consciously said "you all suck!" Your opinion will be counted and noted. Unlike not voting at all, this really means something.
Why is your single vote for a small party wasted, but that same single vote so powerfull for the whores?
Not to put too fine a point on it, if Bush gets elected, he will use his majority in the Senate to appoint judges who will have strong Republican views (Gore will be hampered by Republican strength in the Senate). This will accomplish a hat trick, with Republican idealogues controlling both houses of congress, the executive branch and the judicial branch. This is not necessarily a bad thing, if you are a Republican, but if you're a Green it's going to be a disaster. Gore may not be strong on Green issues, but the Supreme Court will be ruling on many issues of privacy, civil liberties and environment. The substance of their decisions will be very different depending on who is elected President.
I appreciate that voting for a minor party candidate is not a symbolically meaningless. However under the circumstances, if you are to the left of Gore, you'd better truly appreciate the strategic implications of undercutting Gore on the left.
If you are sufficiently disgusted with government, you may find it best to let the pendulum swing entirely away from your cause so that you can polarize the electorate and attract more people to your cause. But Green priorities will be in for some tough sledding for a decade or more.
>It's bad luck to be superstitious.
Who's line is that originally anyway?
I thought of it myself years ago, but I'm sure it's been floating around for ages before that. It's an example of a kind of expression called an "Irish Bull" -- a statement which undercuts its own logical underpinnings. Yogi Berra was famous for them, as was Sam Goldwyn. The best of them make you ponder a bit -- as someone once said, "an Irish Bull is always pregnant."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I don't see that you've really shown that the approval system is any better than Borda (instant runoff has always been my choice, but then I didn't know about any of these others ;-)). Surely, it's just as likely that A=X:y;Y:y;Z:n B=X:n;Y:y;Z:y C=X:y;Y:n;Z:y. This allows the same ordering that led to the Borda tie, but it also gives a 2:2:2 approval voting tie.
I believe my explanation was not clear enough. If you go through the example I presented, you'll see that the candidate ranking is irrelevant to approval voting. For example suppose voter A ranks the candidates X > Y > Z. This is the basis for assigning points under Borda IIRC. However it tells us very little about the approval situation (other than that, for example, Y cannot get more points than X). Consider the following scenarios that are consistent with X > Y > Z.
(1) They're all bums. A doesn't approve of any of them. Each gets zero points.
(2) They're all more or less OK. A likes X better than Y better than Z, but in his opinion even Z will do a pretty good job. Each gets one point.
(3) Some of them are OK and some are bums. A likes X, but dislikes Y and hates Z. X gets one point and Y and Z get no points.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
OK, I understand you better. Let me take each point.
1) none of the choices are really very good in this situation, and
Maybe yes, maybe no. The inability to discern whether you have a bad situation or not is one of the problems of the Borda and plurality scheme. It might be that all three choices are superb; or all three are horrible; we can't tell by ranking or by each voter choosing the "best" candidate. Think about it with common sense. The fact that 2/3 of the people prefer someone else doesn't mean a candidate is bad -- 90% of the people may like him but just like somebody else more. This would happen in a strong field of candidates. In a weak field, the fact that a candidate is preferred by 1/3 of the people to the available alternatives doesn't mean that anybody particularly likes him. It's not only that current voting systems cannot express the strength or weakness (in the voters' estimation) of the field of candidates: all preference based voting systems are attempting to decide the undecidable -- chasing a phantom goal which mathematically turns out to be meaningless.
The upshot is that it is a certifiable calamity when somebody is not the preferred candidate of 50%+ of the vote -- you know the system is verly likely going to give an essentially arbitrary result. This is why the XYZ YXZ ZYX split strikes people as a disaster -- because under the most voting systems it very like will be.
2) it will be quite a while before people start doing anything but voting approval for their first choice and disapproval for all the others.
I disagree. Their are probably many folks who are going to vote for Gore who would like to vote for Nader too (I'm one). Their are probably quite a few Nader voters who would be willing to give Gore the nod if it meant stopping Bush.
In our current political culture, why would they do otherwise? They might help their second choice defeat their first.
Yes that is absolutely true, but only under certain circumstances. For example if I like X and Y who are in a close race, and detest Z, who is far behind, I might vote for X only because I'm confident that Z won't come close. Clearly I am not "voting my conscience", because at the end of the day I'd really be pretty satisfied with a vcitory by anyone but Z. Mathemtaically, I don't believe there is such a thing as a voting system in which such strategic voting does not come into play at some time or another.
The effect of strategic voting given your scenario(witholding my approval from my otherwise acceptable second choice to the benefit of my first choice) is minimial in my opinion. It can only benefit a candidate who is very widely acceptable to begin with. You might even say that in a tight race between similar candidates, I could afford to narrow my approval criteria; in a race where there is a strong candidate I disapprove of I can't afford to be as picky.
Not that the Borda system wouldn't be an improvement on what we have, which is about as bad a system as you could devise and still get by being called "democratic". The current system is extremely dangerous because it can routinely give ambiguous results, and either totally squelches minority opinions or occaisionally allows them to hit the strategic jackpot and become the tie breaker between two large coalitions (like the extreme religious parties in Israel). The combination of approval voting and a much larger field of choices than just two would mean that the opinions of minorities would always count, but their opportunities to become kingmakers would be curtailed (although not entirely eliminated) if their support made a candidate unpalatable to many people.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re voting systems: Why not give every person 3 votes? Mr Bos gives 1 vote for Gore, 1 for Bush, and 1 for Nader. Mrs Bar votes all 3 for Nader. Mr Baz gives 2 votes for Browne, and 1 for None of the above.
That's a very interesting system. I would say it would be even more interesting if you could use any fractional number adding up to three total! After all, the fact that you are valedictorian doesn't make you twice as smart as the salutarian. Of course you run into the problem people have with addition -- you'd have to normalize every ballot to exactly three.
This system has some merits to be sure, but I don't think they are enough to merit the additional complexity. The problem is that you are reaching again for that idea of the "most preferred" candidate, which I think is mathematically meaningless. If you give the voter a sufficient number of votes, you can begin to treat the data as parametric, which isn't utterly hopeless from the git go as ranking systems, but it is still possible to construct the same kind of rock/paper/scissors scenario. The relation is still non-transitive, which is in my opinion a necessary property of any criteria which decides between three or more candidates.
If however their single vote is so powerfull for some bribed big wig, why is their one vote wasted for a 3rd party? Please explain this to me without giving the "better lizard" bleat.
Your vote is wasted because (1) it will have no effect on the outcome of the election and (2) it is futile as a party building vote because you won't be able to convince the people who can live with exactly one of the two major candidates but who would like to help build some viable third parties to throw away their opportunity to effect an close election. And, by the way, the "lizardness" of the candidates is the result of the voting system they have to succeed in. If it's irrational mush, then the candidates must also be irrational mush to succeed.
Any representative system fails whereas grassroots direct democracy would have administrators executing the will of the people, instead of doing things to them.
Sure, but the you get the same thing in spades when it comes to legislation. There is not an infinite supply of candidates, but there is an infinite number of variations of a bill that can be drafted. This happens all the time in the legislature -- alternative versions of a popular bill "split the vote", leaving the field to an unpopular one.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I wonder if there are legal ways to encourage voting. Say, for example, MTV stationed people at polling stations and gave out discount coupons for use at local record stores.
Does democracy fail when the population reaches a critical mass?
Think about the "economics" (in the most general sense" of voting. Carefully considering all the candidates takes a substantial amount of time. Getting to a voting booth and voting takes more time. Your opportunity cost for voting is your time.
What do you gain by voting? A very small chance at influencing an election between two fairly similar candidates. Your effective benefit is the benefit you would gain if you swung the election, times the chance your vote will actually be significant.
As population increases, the power of your vote decreases. At some point, your effective benefit from voting becomes less than your opportunity cost, and it is no longer rational for you to vote.
So should nobody vote? Not necessarily. As less people vote, individual votes become more important. Some people have more to gain from influencing an election (or their time is worth less), so they're more likely to "stick with it" and vote. The result is an equilibrium, where a bunch of people don't vote because it's not worth their time, a bunch more do vote because it is, and a few people are right on the fence...
This suggests that the non-voters could be just as rational as the voters (or perhaps more so)--they just value their time more and their vote less than the voters.
The scary thing is that the people for whom it makes the most sense to vote are those whose time is worthless, or who don't bother to carefully consider the candidates... Explains a lot, doesn't it?
Which reminds me: What about Jim Crow Laws? If we stuck to the libertarian philosophy, those uppity niggers would still be sitting at the back of the bus and pissing in seperate stalls.
You totally don't understand the libertarian philosophy. The heart of the libertarian philosophy is personal freedom. Blacks would never have been discriminated against if everyone was libertarian. You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchism.
Here's the deal: Government is a player in the economy. Since there have been goverments, they have been players in the economy. Governments will ALWAYS be players in the economy.
Yes, government has a role in the economy, but it's a small one. Government should ensure that there are no monopolies, that trade is honest, and that there are no externalities in markets (or that, if there are, they are compensated for). Externalities are when someone other than the buyer and seller are affected by trade, i.e. kids breathing in lead from leaded gas. In cases such as that, government should impose economic penalties equal to the cost of cleaning up the pollution (and actually clean it up). Personal and corporate responsibilty are keystones of the libertarian philosophy.
Read up more on libertarianism before you bash it. Yes, there are extremists. Ignore them. Every ideology has them...
ok... lets see here... you've managed to accuse ralph nader of being both a communist and nazi, great strawman... by usenet rules, this should end this thread...
Based on his past rhetoric, I believe that Ralph Nader thinks, like Bush and Gore, that ordinary citizens are not wise enough to make decisions for ourselves. He thinks that we are sheep, and need to be managed as such. He will receive not vote from me. I'm thinking I'll cast a little protest vote for Harry Browne.
oh geezus ... nader is trying to protect us sheep from being abused... the corporations and big parties are dictating law from a very minority viewpoint. he's trying to give the people a chance to manage themselves again, and not let some large bureaucracy control everything. nader is for much more sum total individual freedom by freeing us from corporate influence.
I mean come on, individuals can not compete for the attention of the political process when their competitor has so much lobbying money and influence that corporations do. companies and industries routinely buy laws and politicians so that they will get the most profit.
these same companies dont have any accountability to the general populace, only to themselves, and therefore dont care about the overall good of the population, only their bottom line.
by supporting the status quo, democrat or republican, you are supporting default enslavement of the populace by the corpocracy. harry browne will only make this worse by allowing corporations to run amok without ANY limits.
tagline
... hi bingo
I don't happen to agree with you. But I guess, since you have labeled the issue beyond debate, I must be some kind of hard-headed person for disagreeing.
The fact is that governments, like corporations, partnerships, and organizations (I could go on here, but I think you get the point) do not exist apart from the beliefs of some individuals. They are all just social conventions. Some people believe in the existence of the entities, and that is the only extent to which they can be said to exist. Anything done in the name of one of these entities is done by individuals acting on behalf of the entities.
I pay my taxes. I would rather not be thrown in jail, thank you very much. But my belief in the existence of people who will make my life a living hell if I don't send a check to the appropriate people does not imply that I, in any sense, believe in the existence of the entity on behalf of which all of these people are acting.
I never set out to be an anarchist. For years I attempted to fit governments into a logical view of the world. But I failed, and I am simply admitting that I don't believe in the government or Santa Claus. I am not even sure that my state of mind is what is commonly meant by "anarchist", so I don't generally apply that label to myself (but feel free to label me as you wish).
I also want to point out that not believing in the existence of government does not imply a lack of appreciation for positive things done in the name of that entity. My life is certainly rather posh, as measured against the lives of most other people in this world. I appreciate that. I just don't happen to believe in the existence of that organization.
Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
I keep responding to essentially the same question, so you may find the answer to your question answered elsewhere in this thread. In short:
People exist. Organizations exist only in the minds of people. People do things in the name of organizations, but such actions are not actions of the organization -- they are actions of the persons involved. One effect of recognizing organizations (such as governments) as real entities is to relieve individuals of responsibility for some of their actions (i.e "the organization did it, not that person").
I never said there was a "better" system. I just said that the government is a social convention -- we don't have to pretend it is real.
Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
The fact is that governments, like corporations, partnerships and organizations ... do not exist apart from the beliefs of some individuals.
"Reality, Elisa, exists only in the mind. That does not make reality any less real."
-- Doug Moensch
Money is also an artificial construct. That dollar bill in your pocket only has the value which you believe it does. If you don't believe your dollar is worth anything, you're more likely to use it for toilet paper than for purchases. (Don't laugh. This actually happened in China during the Second World War, in Europe after the Second World War, and in Russia today.) It's only your belief in the value of a dollar that gives the dollar any value.
And, in turn, other people's belief can affect your life. If the newspaper vendor on the street thinks a dollar is worthless, you aren't going to be able to buy a newspaper from him with it. You might have better luck offering English pounds or German deutschmarks or an Ecu or two. But if you want that newspaper and the newspaperman thinks your dollar is worthless... well, guess what; someone's belief has just affected your reality. The reality is, you don't have a newspaper.
Much of reality is created from our beliefs and has no existence, a priori, of those beliefs. Religion; currency; even basic civilization is all predicated on ideas and beliefs which are as, in the words of one theologian, "impossible to believe; yet without, belief is impossible".
Is government anything more than a collective hunch? No, not really. But then again, reality isn't anything more than a collective hunch, either. So if government isn't real, then it's built on the exact same foundation that reality is and may well be so close as makes no difference at all.
If you really believe the government is a fiction, may I respectfully suggest you stop paying your income tax?
When the IRS comes after you and turns your life into a living hell, it might change your mind.
Government's relative good or evil is certainly debatable, but its existence is not.
That was exactly the way it was done in the beginning. However, with the development of partisan politics, it became obvious that this system just wasn't working out.
First, the 1796 election gave us bitter political rivals as President and Vice President (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson).
Next, the 1800 election produced an electoral college tie when the Democratic-Republican electors all voted for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Everybody knew that they meant to make Jefferson President and Burr Vice-President -- it seems that they all thought that somebody else was voting for Jefferson and not for Burr. The election went into the House, where there was quite a bit of bickering; some of the Federalists, who controlled the House, would have been glad to screw over the opposition by voting for Burr. My understanding is that Alexander Hamilton (who considered Jefferson wrong but honorable and regarded Burr as a threat to the Republic) pulled strings to prevent this.
After all this, the Twelfth Amendment, setting up the current system of separate voting for President and Vice-President, was ratified in 1804.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
EXCELLENT (wishing for mod status). ;)
I agree. I'm in MD. I'm a big supporter of Gore. MD is pretty much a sewn-up Gore state (woohoo).
If anyone out there in a 'swing state' wants me to vote Nader, I will if you vote Gore.
Man, I could see an entire website for such a concept. Where were you last year?!
Votes are indeed close to wasted in locked states, but those of you in the swing states, please set aside your rebellion and vote Gore. The damage Bush will do to the environment, our IP laws, and general societal advancement could very well be irreversable.
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
IF this were editorial on how President Elect Gore (OK that's a bit of optimism there I know) is going to affect the Internet or technology companies then this would make sense - but it's an internal politics debate much more suited to the news pages of a domestic news site.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
This reminds me of the old quote "The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory there is no difference, and in practice, there is."
If we both grant there is a problem (which you seem to do), then saying it is the electorate gets us precisely nowhere, because we can't fix the electorate. Or at least, it is a grody brute-force problem. We can however tinker with the system.
On an important level, what you're saying is that the problem resides in real people not behaving like the idealized people the system was designed to accomodate.
I agree with you 100% that organizing and getting out the vote is effective, and I have written extensively about that here in the past. However, it seems obvious to me that any system which requires organizing and "getting out the vote" has some pretty fundamental flaws. Quite simply, it is biased and easily manipulable in unjust ways: any time someone (or some natural circumstance) tips the balance against some demographic's ability to participate, they get screwed.
The classic case of deliberately doing that is the Poll Tax, instituted in the South to keep poor Blacks from voting (since banned as an impediment to democracy). But one need not deliberately manipulate people's legal recourse to polls to mess with the electorate. Just about any issue winds up aligning along class, age, and/or employment status. If any of those factors bear on one's ability to organize politically, it will tip the balance.
For instance, retirees have more leisure time to follow political issues, so are more likely to vote in a coordinated fashion than, say, busy single moms who work two jobs -- who don't have the time to get more than sound bites out of the news. It may not seem like a big deal, but small trends like that add up big time at the polls.
Our system is punative against people who cannot or will not organize, who do not have the time or information access.
Some democracy.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
They don't have to listen if the average citizen is uninformed (either willfully or not). Certainly it is every citizen's duty to be informed, but it is just as underhanded for politicians to dodge, and bury the important issues, and blow smoke. Democrats and Republicans *haven't* been listening. That's why there are third parties.
I don't think that necessarily follows. Even if it were so, the political system is far too polluted by large amounts of money, which usually come - you guessed it - from large corporations pushing an agenda. Corporations are not people. They shouldn't get a vote, and they shouldn't be able to influence government (other than individual employees/stockholders voting independently).
OR...because people are not even *aware* of them, and the issues they are bringing up. Perot (not that I supported him) got a huge jump in the polls after he was on the debates. I'm absolutely sure Nader, or any other third party would poll much much higher if they got the same exposure as the Democrat and Republican party. Hell, all I hear about the New York senate race is Lazio this and Hillary that. Not ONE mention of Mark Dunau, the Green candidate. Nada, nothing. How could somebody *possibly* make an informed decision if they are not even made aware of all the candidates? Of course this awareness is not something the Democrat/Republican duopoly really wants to push. They're happy with their monopoly on "free" network exposure.
I challenge you to go up to somebody on the street (first of all, find a voter), who is voting Republican and Democrat and ask them *why* they are voting that way. Ask them about their opinions of the alternative views of third party candidates. The fact is, most Americans pick their candidates like soda beverages from 30 second commercials, or the "debates" (which is really just a set of prescripted answers to prefiltered questions). I can guarantee you that if third party candidates were ever to get as much exposure as the other two parties, you would find that a much higher percentage of people agree with them. It's a vicious cycle that those in power have (at least indirect) control over the media, and over the voices of those not in power (*cough* Commission on Presidential Debates *cough*).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It could be said that voting for a person who doesn't have a chance to win is futile (disregarding the power to build up support for a third party and gain federal matching funds/funding), because of the electoral college. If only we could implement a Borda count as described in a previous Slashdot article. But of course, who decides these things? You guessed it - people you elect! So you *MUST* vote differently to change the system (well, if you want to change the system). There is no chance in hell that a status quo candidate is going to reform the election process (perhaps maybe a decent soul like McCain, but of course he didn't win the primary -- see how things fall in place?).
If you want to change the system, you have not only a moral obligation, but a practical obligation to vote your conscience. Right now the two party system has a duopoly on your mind and on your vote. Don't let them take your power, or take you for granted.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Sure, you don't have to believe in the system. You don't have to participate in the system. Perhaps you are fighting the system from outside.
But short of an external military coup (which ain't gonna happen), there *is no* effective way to change the system than by participating in it. You might hate it, but you will have to participate in it if you want it changed. And if you think that the government is fictional (at least the US one), your friendly IRS audit agent, or cop will quickly remind you otherwise. As stated in a recent article by a libertarian:
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so SICK AT HEART, that you can't take part; and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop." --Mario Savio
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
No...if you make the population apathetic, they won't *care* if the government is criminal. That's what apathy is about. The more odious agencies of our government chronically engage in criminal behavior and nobody has "killed" them.
Every time somebody opts out, the system says "Ha, sucker, just one less to interfere with us". It's a gigantic positive feedback loop: people opt-out, bastards get elected, people get disgusted, people opt-out... Hey - opt-in! Opt-in BIG TIME. Or, as Nader says: "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you."
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Today, if you'd ask a random person if they think there's a credible possibility that their rights will be significantly erroded in the next four years, probably at least 95% would say No.
--
Or at least, that's my rationalization about why politicians refuse to entertain the idea that statistical polling could be accurate.
--
I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the implementation of democracy in our country. So much so that I feel that participation in it is consenting to the process, and I do not wish to consent or approve to the US system of governance.
So please explain how your lack of participation does anything to change that system?
I think a vote for someone who wants to change the system is a clearer message of unhappiness with it than not voting. It's surely not easy, but there still is a way to use the system to change itself, should enough people desire to do so.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
People who don't vote are dumbasses, and deserve every single tax increase, restrictive law, and dumbass porkbarrel budgets that get passed. People who don't vote have no legitimate right to bitch and moan about the government. When a person does not vote, they choose to have no voice when they do not vote, and so I don't wanna hear any bitching from those that don't vote.
I woudn't put it so bluntly, but yes. It's been said that in a democracy (or whatever facimilie we currently have), "people get the government they deserve". If they don't care about who gets elected, whoever gets elected won't care about them. If you don't want to fight for your individual rights, the government won't fight for them either.
When you think of it, the people who get elected are reasonable versions of who's voting. There's a large amount of conservative Christian polticians, because there's a large amount of conservative Christians voting for them. Politicians don't care about half the population because half the population doesn't care about them.
A well-educated, interested, active public is probably currently the enemy of people in office, because they'd know enough to vote them out.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Fortunately, the Supreme Court may actually be moving towards enforcing Constitutional limits, as shown by the striking down of the Violence Against Women Act. Government lawyers made the ridiculous argument that violence against women should be a federal crime because it indirectly affects interstate commerce. Of course using that reasoning, everything indirectly affects everything else, so the federal government can regulate absolutely anything...hmm, very convenient. Fortunately the SC shot them down, but only by a 5-4 margin. Which means if Gore gets to appoint any justices then any hope of constitutionally limited government is gone.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Regarding abortion, the "strict constructionist" position is simply that the Constitution gives no power to the federal government to either legalize or prohibit abortion; thus it should be a state matter. Abortion could never be outlawed at the federal level by any means short of a constitutional amendment, a process in which the President and Supreme Court have no authority. I personally believe abortion should be legal, but I recognize that Roe v. Wade was a blatant overreach of judicial power.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
for that there's the NULL vote: go to the voting booth, but don't fill in the form (or fill it in, but make the vote invalid). You will be counted as having voted. You didn't vote for anyone. no vote is also a vote in this case.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
nope.. you won't be thought of as stupid, since you went out of your way to go to the voting booth. get enough blank forms coming in, and it'll definately be seen as a form of protest against the established order. ofcourse.. a single blank vote won't do much.. just like any single vote. at least the blank votes get counted, so people start noticing how many are unhappy with current US politics.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I know this will get lost in the already 3 pages long of submissions, but I would like to ask this anyway.
I have been thinking that I would like to run for some type of political office someday, but my question is basically, what political office out there will pay me the same as I am getting paid now? Without taking bribes mind you.
I think this is a pertinent reason why many techies dont try to run at all. It costs money just to run, then you dont get paid jack. I bet a lot of the professionals here get paid as much if not more than the president, and thier job is much easier than that role. I know I for one wouldn't be able to keep a straight face during those mideast peace talks, I think its all a joke.
If anybody has any insight on useful offices to run for that either pay a decent amount or let me keep my current job, then please inform me.
If you don't vote, then you shouldn't bitch.
Democracy is an active process, if you sit around passively nothing will change.
You can't get anymore passive then not voting,
There was an example of this effect on one episode of Gilligan's Island (of all places): The castaways were voting on who to make the leader and second-in-command of the island. Everybody voted for themselves as leader, but for second-in-command everybody voted for Gilligan.
This of course begs the question of whether we want a Gilligan running things.
However, compared to the current crop....
s/No Fear/No Brains/g
www.eFax.com are spammers
Considering that they have differences on military spending (how much to spend on R&D, for instance); health care (prescription drug coverage); foreign policy (use of military for peacekeeping); energy policy (how much, where to drill); social security (pump in taxes versus overhaul); taxation (degree of "progressiveness", tax credits versus tax cuts; also, if memory serves, differences regarding the AMT); gun control (registration, use of trigger locks, et al); balance of power (Federal vs state); education (mandatory standardized testing or no, etc) and so forth, it's arguable that you haven't been paying attention AT ALL.
They are NOT identical. If you think they are, you just haven't been looking.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
If the legislative and executive branches can't agree on major new programs, or major new wrinkles in the tax code, the current situation has the budget surplus paying down the deficit. It would be nice if we could actually clean up the tax code and delete useless programs, but given government tendencies, this may be the best we can do.
The fact that I am a 44-year-old who will be needing Social Security just as it is expected to run dry (and thus I want the national debt to be as small as possible, so it will be feasible to borrow money to handle the downhill side of the boomers) has nothing to do with my wanting this, of course.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
I guess I'll take a lesson from Disney, "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all", except I'll apply it to politics instead. I'm not informed of all the hot political issues and I don't care to be, so I don't see a reason to vote. Somehow the goverment has gotten the idea that I don't care about the system, well, there right. More and more I feel the goverment is corrupt and there is very little one can do without some major redesign, not to mention a few assult riffles. I'm not advocating that we overthrow the goverment, just update and clean things up a bit. For starters the goverment has way too much power, the entire election process was designed to make sure that no one belief would rule forever. However the 4 year term limit is too long, in the current era a president can sieze power and do some real damage to this country and the world (for example, it no longer takes months to send troops into battle, it takes hours). Then there is the argument "do we really need elected officials anyway?" After all a politician usually doesn't make a move without checking the latest polls. Why not elminate the middle man and vote on the items directly? Then there is the legal system, what a mess! An accused man could die before every having his day in court. Why do we need a system of lawers anyway? The original greek system, which our court system is based off of, used to make the two parties argue their case before a judge, instead of experts who spend their time finding loopholes in the law just to get a client off, talk about poor ethics. I could go on but I've got better things to do. So what is my point, simple "we need change" and no canidate is going to agree with the required changes because it would limit their power or remove them from the system entirely. Why don't I vote for someone who will make a change, you may ask. Because I don't see anybody that seems all that devoted to the cause, instead I see a bunch of greedy politicians who need me to do something for them who will then toss me aside like a used rag when it's all over. No thanks! When I see a canidate that is serious about doing something, not just talking, voting for, or urging change, but someone that is making change, then I'll support that person. As of yet, that person does not seem exist. Until that day I'll just sit back and watch the circus we call politics.
"In the last presidential election, only one-third of eligible voters voted. Pundits tell us the non-voters are morally oblivious, stupid or apathetic, though since we rarely hear from them, we can only guess. The people who run politics and media have succeeded in trivializing non-voters, making them appear repugnant and irresponsible, the opposite of moral and idealistic. They are democracy's ghosts, invisible people."
why do you think there are so many campaigns right now to get people to come out and vote, especially among the younger crowds?
there's Rock the Vote from MTV, the Presidential Smackdown from WWF, Pearl Jam's encouragment to vote, as well as tons of other programs trying to get higher participation.
And hell, the candidates themselves, especially the democrats want more people voting because they fear that the republicans are able to get their voters out to the booths easier than the democrats. Right now it's the christian coalition against the unions, the soccer moms vs the rich elitists, etc... but both candidates realize that by bringing up new issues they might be able to get more people to vote for them.
don't feed us the bullshit that nobody cares about those that haven't voted because they do. Hell, walking around NYC two weeks ago there were TONS of people with the forms you needed to fill out to vote. ENCOURAGING people to vote.
Here's the best representation/explanation of the battleground states (though it is flash):
http://www.thepu lse 2000.com/interactive/keystate/html/brand.htm
-----
A measure to require an option of None of the Above was on the ballot in the primaries in California. It's lost overwhelmingly. Maybe if all these people who claim to not have any good options would show up to a fucking election we'd be able to make things better. Maybe they'd have better choices if they voted in the primaries.
Failing to vote because it doesn't have any effect is rational. I wouldn't vote if politics wasn't my hobby (I hang out with both the libertarians and the republicans on campus).
Failing to vote as a political statement is idiotic. All politicians see is the results of the election. You don't vote, you don't matter. "Oh, we can make our disagreement known in other ways" say the non voters. No, you can't. Honestly, no one pays attention to those who don't vote.
Saying, "I don't vote because there aren't any good options" is bullshit. You aren't voting because you don't want to take the time to figure out how you should vote, and go to the ballot box and vote that way. It's a defensible position, but defend that position, not this bullshit "I'm making a statement by not voting" position. You aren't. Qui tacit consentit.
I see no point in voting because technology has this amazing ability to make the inefficient irrelevant. You see it everywhere in regards to the internet. Middlemen in every industry are feeling their belts tighten due to the 'net. Why do I need to pay some guy a commission to enter a stock trade, when I can interact directly? The internet has changed most of the old rules. Brand recognition is almost meaningless, since the cost to try a new brand is usually infinitesmal. Competition is a click or a few keystrokes away.
This is why we hear the RIAA scream and whine. When it comes right down to it, they're just middlemen. Glorified distributors that are quickly becoming very irrelevant. If you stop and think about it for a moment, all they really do is make deals to get artists' music to the stores where it's purchased by the consumer. Those fine retail establishments are actually just middlemen as well, and as such, tend to get along with other middlemen. But I digress.
This government was built apon the notion that the laws that govern us should be what the majority seems necessary. But due to the crude forms of communication available at the time (by today's standards), there was really no way to design the government to be truly democratic, and directly refelct the desires of the people. And so, in a vastly over-simplified description, a system of representation was devised. This worked like a big pyramid, with people who represented groups of people, and people who represented other representives, and so on, and so forth. Until you get an aggregate of the peoples will, and what should be a good approximation of their interests.
But now, we really don't have that communication barrier. Obviously it still exists, but it's deterioration is proceeding exponentially, and will eventually be gone. And when it's gone, we'll eventually see the inefficiency of "representitives", and they will become irrelevant. This will be a good time, when we can actually experience a more pure version of democracy. Imagine for a moment that companies didn't lobby politicians to forward their interests. Imagine that money being spent to educate the public on issues they find important, since the power is directly in the public's hands.
Imagine a government where each citizen could vote on every trivial obscure technicality they so chose. Imagine companies actually trying to create educated consumers, instead of mindless drones with credit. It's Utopian, its fuzzy tree-hugging crap, but there's no need to feel ashamed daydreaming about how great it would be. It's going to happen. There's no avoiding it. the government can't stop it. Simple.
Which is why I don't vote. It's just my way of chuckling and saying, "Hey, I really don't give a damn what you guys do, it won't mean squat in a decade or two, so enjoy it while it lasts."
That's because Katz is a troll.
Katz is a humongous public-money-sponsored AI project. Katz-bot works by scanning the news media looking for random sentences which seem to be on the same subject. The algorithm tends to give preference to statements made by the lunatic fringe over mainstream discourse. It then picks these sentences and arranges them together along with a whole bunch of other garbage to create a compelling illusion that the last paragraph can somehow be inferred from the previous paragraphs.
The aim of the Katz project is to elicit the most extreme reactions possible - mainly from people who know it's wrong but can't say how and from kids who believe it to be the gospel truth.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I don't think so.
/., and about 75K of them are active and those users actually read this site daily (more or less). Of those users, GUARENTEED 1/3 are either Democrats or Republicans. That leaves 50K.. still with me? Of those 50K left, I'll wager that 15K are outside the US (no flames, please) and 10K are under the US voting limit: BANG BANG, 25K gone. Those that remain, divided evenly among the 50 states (not realistic, but not wholly unso) you have only 500people in each state.
:)
Let's do some quick math: say that there are half a Million accounts here on
How many people are living in each state nowadays? I know that in the Va Beach/Hampton roads/Richmond area alone, there are 1 MILLION (Pinky to mouth) people. 500 is a drop in the bucket.
Just wanted to point out the futility.
Rami
--
rJames.org - illustration
It would be cool if there was a "None of the Above" check. The Russians have a good idea with that.
The President is NOT the end-all/be-all of "power" in the US. In fact, s/he may always be the most tied up of any figure. Congress wields a good deal of influence over your life, true, but Congress is a different beast altogeter, as those people are people you might actually know.
Then, even more important is your state government. And then, even more so, the local gov't. Those of you who might scold me, remember these two things. Cities and towns can prevent businesses from moving in (and possibly even revoke corporate charters), and they can enact their own minimum wage laws (Santa Cruz, anyone?)
The power of the people is local, not vested in two Corporate Clones...
sig not found
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
And you think that voters staying away in droves will somehow differentiate itself from business as usual in what way?
Perhaps you didn't bother to read what you quoted. The difference here is that not only would people be staying away, but they'd have an effective manner of communicating why they stayed away.
Much of the advantage to politicians is the opportunity to blame low voter turnout on apathy or bland acceptance. If there were some way for the non-voters to communicate their reasons, that advantage disappears. If it is known that a significant portion of the electorate chose not to vote due to an extreme dislike of both candidates, for instance, or in protest of the corporate nature of the campaigns, then the politicians can no longer effectively claim the "will of the people" due to a less-than-50% turnout. And the media would love it.
Of course, like most ideals I don't expect it to happen. But it would be nice.
Why does it seem as though all the early posts on any Jon Katz article are by ACs and say "you suck" or "what crap"?
Personally, I find Katz's articles interesting and thought-provoking (even if I disagree with a part/all of the article).
Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting.
To quote a post in a previous political article;
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. -- Jason Earl
Nobody cares if you don't vote. If non-voters mattered they would be counted in the Gallop Polls. If you don't vote the only message you are going to send is that your opinion doesn't matter, and believe me, the political machine will hear you loud and clear.
Democracy can be much more than our current incarnation of it.
That's true, and the beauty of our political system is that we can change it. All we have to do is participate and convince enough people that our way is better. How exactly do you propose to change the system without participating in it?
The people who run politics and media have succeeded in trivializing non-voters, making them appear repugnant and irresponsible, the opposite of moral and idealistic.
Wrong, the non-voters have trivialized themselves. Stupidity should be repugnant. Responsible people, by definition, do things. Voting is doing something; not voting is doing nothing, and therefore irresponsible. If you don't like the way things are, do something about it. Participate. Vote. The easiest way to change any system is from the inside. If you aren't going to do anything then shut the hell up. You've already decided, by default, that your opinion doesn't matter to you, why should it matter to me?
People would truly count if their political system offered them real choices and options, and gave them genuine ways to participate -- if their views were actually heard.
I've got news for you, our political system is Open Source. There are plenty of genuine ways to participate, whether it's sticking a sign in your yard or manning a phone bank, organizing a benefit or rally for the candidate or cause of your choice, or even running for office yourself if you can't find someone else you can support. Just like any other open source project, the direction is determined by the people who do things. Just ask yourself this: "What would happen if everyone who felt like I do voted?"
This may explain why so many people feel it's pointless to vote. A majority of Americans, for example, have repeatedly supported abortion rights, yet their popular will is continually challenged.
A majority of Americans choose not to vote, and so their popular will continues to mean nothing. Words without action are meaningless.
What's clear is that the two major candidates manipulate a handful of issues -- abortion, the environment and the judiciary come to mind -- to promote the idea that they have substantial differences when, in fact, they have few.
Actually there is only one difference between the two major parties: Wellfare for individuals Vs. wellfare for corporations. Of course, the Green Party adds wellfare for trees to the list, Libertarians say "fuck everybody who isn't me" and Pat Buchanon says "fuck everybody who isn't a white male protestant bigot". Who says there aren't choices?
The rest isn't worth responding to since you apparently have already decided not to vote. As I said before; why should your opinion matter to me when it obviously doesn't matter to you?
I used to know a woman who had writen in "Mickey Mouse" in 15 consecutive presidential elections. If you choose not to vote those two words repeated 15 times will have more meaning than everything you have ever writen or said on the subject combined.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I'd assume that a fair proportion of people reading and commenting on this article have at least some interest in politics, seeing as they chose this article to read and comment on. Now, if you're interested, you've probably gone to some lengths to become informed, and are probably the last person who shouldn't bother voting. It's like if I'm asked to vote for 'Candidate A' or 'Candidate B' belonging to party '1' or '2', I wouldn't bother. However, where I've been presented with an enormous and partly indigestible barrage of information, which I've filtered for the parts relevant to my own interests and beliefs, I think that I have a little something to contribute. Admittedly the voting might not make as much difference as protest marching, organised canvassing, etc. but the point remains that it might tilt the balance to be a little more representative of you yourself. And if more people do it, there's less of a culture of apathy for all the sheep to follow. Particularly this applies to minor candidates - voting for a minor party who won't get in in the short term but whose share of the votes you thus increase gives them more credibility and legitimacy, thus giving them more opportunities to get their views across. Positive feedback.
But despite advocating small parties, if I was an American living in a swing state I'd still vote Gore just to hope it might stop Bush.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
The courts say that political contributions are a form of free speech, thus equalization schemes (no candidate can spend more than another) are illegal.
I've always thought this violates one man, one vote...when the corporatists can flood two candidates with money, and as others have pointed out, they are both the same party.
Once again, the masses are asses, we choose between dumb and dumber, or tastes great/less filling.
Thus, just as thousands of Microserfs will vote for Bush, in an attempt to derail justice, I am placed in the uncomfortable position of being "Pro Gore" -- that is, I have to serve my own interests, ahead of what would be morally correct, which for be would be Nader, since he is anti-corporatist, but can't win.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Right on the money here! Seriously, its not the system that's broke. If you look around at things and come to the conclusion that something is broke, that something has got to be the electorate itself. There's nothing that says there has to be a two party system. The headway the Greens are making is a good example. However, the bottom line is that if the people do not participate something will move in to fill the vaccuum. That something is special interests. If you think things are going the wrong way, take a good look at who's participating in government. The system is designed to do two things: 1) Reflect the will of the people participating. 2)Keep any one party or person from getting a monopoly on power. So now look at who's participating, and the US government in all of its nonsensical contradiction begins to make sense. If it seems as though the government is not reflecting your wishes and is not representing you, there's a good chance it because you and your peers are not particpating. Look at some of the people who actively and reliably particpate: The AARP, the NRA--you bet they go out and vote--, the wealthy elite, and anyone with a narrow, focused agenda. If you're upset because college funding is going down, then just realize that a good part of the electorate is over 60 and votes reliably. If you're upset because gun control isn't happening, then just consider the fact that NRA members vote reliably, and even more reliably contact their reps. If you're upset that abortion and the right to generally have control over one's body is being threatend, then remember the Christian Colation and their ilk have been very good about getting their people out to vote and to write letters. Frustrated that affirmative action still skews hiring and college admissions, then look to groups like the NAACP. These forces are even more important than the parties because they communicate to political leaders, incumbnant, and candiate alike the views of the American people. Granted its a skewed and contradictory view, but its all a politican has to go on. No can read the collective mind of the majority that does not vote or otherwise participate.
PS. The issues I cited were just some that I could dredge up from memory of recent news stories locally and nationally. The fact that I included them in my comments does not indicate how I may or may not feel about them.
This is going to be a political rant, a long and drawn-out one which will challenge the length of the article. I would give it a chance.
This article only talked about the Republocrats and Democritans, the corporate party with two heads. This is a common view that people have.
There are two other parties with candidates drawing statistically significant numbers; Buchanan and Nader. Now, I don't care for Buchanan; he's a refugee Republican who's a Reform to be on the ballot.
I'm going to talk about the Greens. I ask that you not moderate to Flamebait until you read this.
I will talk about many different facets of the Green Party's views and what was presented at one of the SupreRallies that were held for Ralph Nader.
Some big issues are election reform and camaign reform.
Let's talk about voting. Several concepts were promoted, among them proporational representation, instant runoff voting, and same-day voter registration.
Proportional representation is pretty much the only way a Republican could come from a Chicago district, or a Democrat from the highly conservative collar counties. Based on the raw percentage of people for the parties, the representation was altered to reflect those ratios. So if it's 40 % Democrat, 40 % Republican, 7% Green. and 3 % everyone else, and there are 20 seats for grabs, there would be 9 or 10 each Republicans and Democrats and 1 Green.
It's the only way that different voices get heard, because winner-take-all pluralities mean a minority can get the district. Not only a minority of voters, but a super-minority of voters, if the turnout is less than half.
Instant runoff voting is a simple system used to assure a true majority victor. People vote 1,2,3 for the candidates. (Example: Nader 1, Gore 2, Buchanan 3.) All the first-choice votes are counted, and let's say it ends up Gore 32%, Nader 30 %, Bush 25%, etc. The candidates who aren't in the top few are dropped, and the second-choice and third-choice votes are counted, if need be. In this way, no votes are wasted, no calls can be made for "spoilers" like Perot and Nader, and people are freer to vote their conscience; after all, you can vote for your favorite and a back-up in case s/he doesn't make the cut.
This also decreases election costs; no separate run-off elections need be held. And this system has been upheld in the courts.
The third concept is used already in six states, and "Da Governor" Jesse Ventura owes his election to it. Day-of-election registration is now feasible due to technological advances, like computers! Most states have multiple-week cutoffs, like Illinois which cut off registration at day minus four weeks and New York which cut it off at day minus three weeks, four days.
Same day registration lets people who were not interested prior to the election, so uninterested they did not reister, go to the polls and let their choice be heard.
As far as campaign reform, there are two basic reforms which, if applied, would immensely open up politics to the people: public financing of elections and freetime onair.
As Billionaires for Bush or Gore puts it, it would only cost $8 per person to publically finance elections. This means that the government pays for the costs of campaigning instead of monied interests.
This also means that the Billionaires and corporations' pull on the elections is significantly diminished. After all, the money isn't as needed.
The other reform, which works best in tandem with public financing of public elections, is onair freetime. Translation: If you run with public funds alone, you are entitled to a chunk of broadcast time on television and radio to put your platform, your agenda, your candidacy in front of the people of your district, your state, your nation. This airtime was free as long as you didn't take outside funds; and once you did, you lost the freetime.
Ideally, it would be made a broadcaster's responcibility mandated by the FCC as a public
service requirement.
As far as the "Supreme Court" argument, both candidates' probable candidates for the possible holes in the Court would be the same: pro-business, anti-civil-liberty, anti-worker, pro-death, and pro-censorship.
Finally, one vote DOES count. In 1994 with the Contract On America, 19 districts were swung by 1,000 votes or less each. Those 19,000 votes or so equates to one vote per school district in this country.
--
There's a great call from Nader's Raiders. His campaign is amazing; there's $5 million plus that has been raised from people - real humans - following all federal laws with regards to fundraising. No PAC money, no soft money, no corporate money, no donations over $1,000, and the average donation was less than $100.
Something, ain't it.
If you live in a state which is "tied up" for a certain candidate, and you have a fear of being a "spoiler" voter, don't worry and vote your mind.
The lesser of two evils leaves you with two evils.
Click on the link below. It's the dotted octet address of votenader.org.
For those of you with Dish Network: Check out channel 254. A speech by Ralph Nader is on the air.
For those of you with DirecTV as well: Check out Free Speech TV, channel 9415 on Dish and I know not which on DirecTV. They still show Ralph's acceptance speech. It's good viewing.
Here endeth the lesson.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Reporter: "How do you feel about abortions?"
Krang:"Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!"
People:"Yaaaay!!"
Any way, the point was, it didn't matter which one got elected -- whichever one you voted for, world domination would ensue.
At times, it feels like it doesn't matter which political spin factory we hire to blow sunshine up our skirts -- they're just going to spout a lot of rhetoric and try REALLY hard to preserve the status quo while pretending to have the least offensive opinions possible.
No (major) candidate in 30 years has had the initiative of a JFK. Tell me that you're going to put a man on MARS by the end of the decade (ala JFK's man on the moon) and I'll vote for you.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
In the same vein, I believe mandatory voting, as required in some nations, is ridicuoous. I don't want people voting simply to keep themselves from getting fined.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Mr. Katz is obviously very passionate about issues such as abortion and something about corporations really frightens him, but when he tried to speak in the language of geeks to "reach out" with his message, his words contain about as much authenticity as the rap groups that can be heard of Christian radio stations, shouting about how they're "down wit' Jesus".
In the long view, our form of democracy has worked out fairly well, voter apathy and all. We've been having these elections for over 200 years, and no Hitlers so far. Sure, we occationally have voted in a Polk or Harding, but will it really matter to bored 5th-grade history students 50 years from now whether Bush or Gore wins this November? My suspicion is no.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
By not voting you are giving a green light to those who would call you lazy, ignorant, stupid, or whatever other juicy adjectives may come up...and they would be partly right. You do not send any sort of message by not voting. Show up at the polling station, take you ballot, and then send a message...spoil it. Write in Donald Duck or Hulk Hogan, check all the name, don't check any names at all, whatever just do SOMETHING! Spoiled ballots "count" as protests, sitting home and complaining over IRC does not.
I agree with Katz. I think you make just as important a statement when you don't vote as when you do. You're saying, in no uncertain terms, the system we are working with now doesn't work. Kind of like how Linux pundits deal with the rest of the world.
My grandmother, on the other hand, literally told me that she liked George W. Bush "because he had a serious face". I'm not making this shit up. And since older Americans, who I'm not, decide the crux of most elections through voting, this might be the mentality most "voters" share.
I would suggest recondering the process we've become indebted to. Maybe if we downplay it enough, it will eventually change.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Are you honestly unable to tell at a glance, Anonymous Coward, the difference between "4 lines and a link" and a long JC post?
Allow me to express my condolences and to inquire further, Anonymous Coward, as to the specific nature of whatever malady it is that causes you to be either:
*Sigh*
I guess you don't merit all this, kid, but I'm just titanically disgusted at the gross lack of responsibility for one's own actions that I see out here every damn day.
I'm done with you, Anonymous Coward. Go play.
--
--
Pay no attention to the errors in my post. I am the great and powerful Oz.
The primaries are where you pick from multiple candidates. Between the two parties, there were at least 10 candidates to choose from. They lost.
How many people here who are whining about only 2 choices didn't vote in the primaries?
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Why not Libertarian?
Because my neighbor does not have the right to mount a howitzer on his house, and he does not have the right to a personal nuke.
Because you don't have the right to fire shots at me -- until you hit me.
Because the police and fire departments should not be privatized.
Because the time for a strong national defense is before it's needed.
Because the gold standard is a stupid, long dead idea.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Of course this was in rural Montana where a weird sort of conservative Democratic belief system exists so I grew up with some very odd concepts on the duties of the government. But what really came out of these experiences, whether it was a Presidential election or school bond levy, was the sense of duty, patriotism, and self-satisfaction that came from participation in the process of citizens voting.
I was so enamored by this process that I went on to get a degree in Political Science and a degree in Philosophy. What came from my education is an amazingly simple yet powerful concept called legitimacy. Every governmental structure, from the most horrific fascist institution to the most benign club, derives its power from the consent of the people. This consent can be coerced or tricked out of the people (think 'Divine Right of Kings' or propaganda) but without the support of the people, the government is really just a few people claiming they have the right to make laws.
The United States derives its legitimacy primarily through the fact no significantly sized group has come to question the basic framework of the government since the Civil War. And why should anyone? Our system of government is grounded in very sound philosophical and political principles. Except one thing. George Washington in his farewell address, realized that the one thing that would prevent the government from working effectively is factions and parties. Yet, everyone ignored his warnings, and we have now been effectively brainwashed in believing we need a party structure to have our government.
Party's have prevented many 'good' candidates from being elected. Some states allow a voter to push on button that will select all the candidates of one political party or the other. I am not going to blame political parties for our present condition, but by the mere fact that all my political beliefs are spread between the two major parties makes me feel alienated from the process. How can I sign up to be a Republican and help map several issues that I strongly support within the Republican platform when I will then also be supporting with my donations, planks that I find morally and personally offensive? The same holds true for the Democrats.
So I am caught, trying to choose the person over the party, applying contributions (this is the first year I contributed money to a campaign - Bradley's...money well spent - not) to the person I think will do the best job, yet, even on that level as an individual, I am ineffective.
And oddly enough, as a single 29-year-old white male living in Chicago with a centrist-right leaning political viewpoint, neither candidate wants my vote. Let me rephrase that, both candidates expect my vote, but won't alter their positions to get it. All of this makes me feel like if I do vote, I am legitimizing a system that I increasingly find hollow. The people I want to be able to choose between can't make it through the primary system (Tsongas in 92, Bradley and McCain in 2000) even if I would have actively campaigned because the primaries are done state by state and without party money backing them, if a candidate loses in one or two of the first states, the level of donations decrease to a point that to continue running would be budgetary suicide. Thus, a small percentage of the population who votes in the primaries actual decide who the Presidential candidates will be. This is just another way in which political parties actually strip options and choice away from the voters.
Obviously, I can go on for a long time on this subject. I even can present, once again my call for a national primary to pinpoint the top four candidates and a public-funded run off election using one of the alternate vote tally systems that guarantees a clear MAJORITY, not plurality support for one candidate, but it is moot. These changes cannot even be considered within Congress as it would require a Continental Congress III to make this alterations, and even I, as disgruntled as I am with the system, do not want to open our Constitution up to the crack pot fundamentalists and hippie hyper-socialists.
So I use my one vote to cast a vote against the system by a. not voting (1992) b)voting for a third party (1994-Perot) and c)voting for the person least likely to support prayer in school, least likely to support a pro-lifer judge on the Supreme Court, most likely to support constructive internationalism through current political structures (G7, IMF, World Bank, UN, NATO), likely to apply some common sense to the concept of the rights of gun owners, and who has a chance to actually win (2000-Gore) while voting for Republicans for Congress to keep him in check.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
At the same time the press is already making a big deal about how few people go and vote, so there is no real difference. I would instead reccomend gathering groups to protest voting outside of a large polling station, be prepared to speak to the media (they will be on you like flies on shit) and give reasoned arguments for your non-vote. Picket signs, flyers, anything you want, but be on the defensive, you're arguing an uphill battle against the doubleplusgoodthink that has been fed to people about their government since childhood.
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
-Jaron Lanier
The American form is the most intriuging: Every four years, we go off and participate in the largest demonstration of mass psychology ever been attempted, and then spend the next four years thinking that individuals make a difference in the world.
Except, of course, I shouldn't be saying this: It's necessary to maintain the delusion in order to keep the people working in society, right?
I nod my head in respect to you. That was laugh-out-loud excellent.
Basically, if a new government were formed upon the basis of libretarianism, it would ultimately fail when mass propaganda, err, media were introduced. Stupid people do not deserve and a libretarian govt, and vice versa.
What about those of us who believe that nationalism is wrong?
Vote Libertarian! The choice that makes the success of the govt. depend upon the large groups of stupid people in the US suddenly having society's best interest at heart (or having their self-interest coincide with the interest of society).
No kidding. With the US having a population of 250 million nitwits, who wants the Libretarian party in power?
Society based upon people having the best interest of society at heart can only succeed when people are enlightened individuals. Propaganda destroys libretarianism, so let's destroy propaganda! Anarchists of the world, unite!
Tell your boss you're taking the day off to vote. Then, spend the day with a copy of "Walden" (and other major political-philosophical works) and contemplate the political system. Then, write about how you feel.
Face it: The US of history is dead-or-dying. Neither Bush nor Gore will make a dent in that. To reapply what Asimov said about the falling Galactic Empire: In times of strong presidents, the legislative branch simply deadlocks with the president, and stagnation furthers. In times of weak presidents, the legislature is overwhelmed with petty lawmakers with visions of glory, and stagnation furthers.
I come from Minnesota too, and Jesse's got my vote the next time around. I don't agree with a lot of his ideas, but he does a great job of keeping the two big parties in check!
science is a religion
The problem is that too many people who vote use it as an excuse to not do anything else. If a life times supply of democracy really is 12 crosses then it means nothing. Voting should be part of our democratic involvement and not all of it. Of course if you can not be bothered to vote then I can understand this. Voting is probably the least important way of expressing yourself politically. But it does not take long to do, does not cost anything, so why not....
Some of you are just as bad as those who will only vote for one of the two big parties.
You say "I'm not going to fall into a mold and vote for a Republican or Democrat, so by default i'll vote for Nader, the one you vote for when you want to be different."
Vote Libertarian! All the personal freedom, none of the communism.
OK, well, that describes me. I have objections to every candidate running this year, and cannot, in clear conscience, vote for any of them. Yes, that includes Reform, Libertarian, and Green party candidates, all of whom have some valid points, and some points that scare me. (No, I don't want to get into a political argument about your pet candidate -- you like 'em? good for you, but let's stick to the topic, please).
So, how does the conscientious non-voter "make their reasons known"? Serious question. What is the right approach to take in such a case so as to make my objections known? Or does the fact that I will be lumped into the lazy, ignorant, non-voter group mean my reasons will disappear into the void of Washington apathy?
Suggestions?
________________
________________
Private Essayist
Current polls have Bush/Gore getting roughly 45%. With less than 50% of the registered voters voting, that is roughly 22-23% of registered voters.
All it would take is one out of four registered voters to cast a vote for one of these guys. Your vote CAN make a difference, but only if you use it. I will bet that 25% of registered supporters will be more than enough to defeat Bush or Gore this year, but it isn't going to happen :(
And we aren't counting citizens elligible to vote, but not registered.
Protesting something means going out and being active about it, not opting-out.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Don't believe me? What happens if only one person were to go and vote? All those other people lose their voice in the matter, and that one person gets to decide all by themselves. And if it happens again the next time, who are the candidates going to care about? The one person who determines who gets the job, or the rest of the population that has shown they're not going to be bothered to vote? Of course, that one person.
If only one person voted, the government would be a de facto monarchy. The government persists so long as it is thought to be legitimate. A monarchy is widely thought to be illegitimate. Thus a monarchy does not persist.
To topple the government, first make the population apathetic. Next, expose the criminal nature of the government. The people will treat it like any common criminal, a criminal they don't care about in the slightest, and would like to get rid of. They will kill it.
Next time you're with a group of friends, and they're deciding where to go eat/what to do, try just not participating in the process, see if it does anything useful. It won't.
Your friends cannot, in a society which respects human rights, use deadly force to compel you to eat where they please. The government can and does. Bad analogy -- why would you befriend people who would force you to eat where they want you to? What kind of friends are those? What could you possibly gain through such an association? Good question.
They say that "the buyer would own something so beautiful and pristine, that they would have no incentive to damage/ruin/commercialize it".
This is logical. You're concerned that the demand for oil or timber is high, so the owners of the land would want to sell its resources, right?
If the demand for beautiful, pristine parks is greater than the demand for oil and timber, the owner of the land will keep it beautiful and pristine. If the demand for oil and timber is greater than the demand for beautiful parks, then the owner of the land will sell his timber and oil. It self-regulates! There will be enough pristine parks, and there will be enough oil and timber. If too much land is raped for oil and timber, then the market for pristine parks will be very lucrative, and people will plant trees and restore the natural state of their land.
On the contrary, your brilliant analysis is the reason why one should think before accepting noble sounding environmentalist decrees. (The obvious reply to my post would be, "But nature is innately good, and oil is innately bad, so human interests are not to be listened to!". I would ask you to substantiate why nature is transcendentally superior to man's other interests. The discussion then degrades to pure emotion.)
Look, there are a ton of people out there who are disgruntled with politics. A significant chunk of the voting public wants another option. Everyone hates Gore and Bush. So why is it such a struggle for Nader to get a miserable 5% of the vote? Because everyone hates him too.
A little advice, if you are trying to supplant the two major parties you'd be well advised not to pick a candidate who is falling off one end of the political spectrum. There is a real opportunity for a centrist libertarian.
Someone who will try to reform government and limit government power (pull the Republicans) and limit corporate power (pull the Dems). AND who is fiscally responsible and has sensible moderate policies on health care, labor, education, foreign policy, etc, etc. Not some isolationist, commie extremist. Someone who can play the middle without being beholden to corporate or special interest money could do very well. Someone who doesn't have to pander to the jesus freaks or to the labor unions or to the oil companies or the health care companies or the gun lobby or the entertainment industry. Sensible, honest, straightfoward. That's all. You don't have to go to extremes to find votes.
Oh, and try finding someone with an ounce of personality and character. Maybe some leadership ability. As much as I despise Bush and Gore, I would vote for either of them before I'd give my vote to Nader. As it is, I don't think I'll give my vote to any of them.
It is more than a little irritating to listen to people whine about my choice to not vote. I am a grown man who is able to look at the world and make my own decisions -- I don't need this "Oh, but you've just got to vote!" thrown at me.
The fact is, people don't vote for a variety of reasons, some of which are quite compelling. I don't believe in the system. How would my taking an active role in the system (i.e. by voting) be consistent with my beliefs? Regardless of what they taught you in school, you don't have to believe in the system. I am not protesting anything. It's just that I would no more go and vote for a fictional entity like a government than I would go to the North Pole to hang out with Santa Claus.
Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
*Yawn* And? This was news to who? Yup, our government was set up to effect change like a glacier. So? Are you saying this is an absolutely good thing? The problem is, the factions are not balancing each other anymore. There are several very large, very powerful factions, representing only very few of the population, that have a gigantic influence over the government, over the media, etc, while there are many other smaller factions which don't have a chance of effecting any change. The glacial responsiveness of our government is partly why we haven't had another revolution or civil war, but it is also why our country is in the shape it is (socially at least; and might as well chuck all the tomes of ridiculous copyright/patent/ip law that was instigated by our favorite RIAA/MPAA).
Remind me...*what* are we trying to protect against these days? Hell, Republicans and Democrats *already* can't get anything done. It's not like having a third party president would change that. You're right, the U.S. system of government is not broken. It was specifically set up to resist the will of the populace for the sake of "stability". I don't see this as a good thing anymore.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
But even so, if the system is not "broken", then why do we have things like the winner-takes all electoral college (I believe in every state but one...perhaps it's California). That seems directly against citizen representation. Why do we have two major candidates that are telling us that voting for a third party is "wasting our vote"? If they were such public servants shouldn't they be glad to have people participating in a vibrant democracy? If the system is not broken why are people made to feel that their voice doesn't count? If the system really isn't broken, then why would we have a CPD controlled by the Democrat/Republican duopoly, barring third party candidates from the debates, limiting exposure to the public?
You're right - people should become active in politics. This includes allowing people hold heterogenous opinions without being marginalized.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm not voting. I can't, as a matter of conscience, participate in such a charade. Even voting for Nader/Browne/Buchannan/Haeglin is out of the question (and where's the SP-USA this year?)
My main grief with politics this year is how amazingly selfish everyone is. "Well, we need to vote so that we get to keep gun/abortion/speech/hacking/music/sexual/gender rights the way we want them!" It doesn't matter who it is, everyone has only one thing they care about. How can one of two (or ten) men or women hope to represent the views of 300 million Americans? (I am, of course, rounding up). You can put whoever you want in office, and the net result is going to be the same - a small group of people slowly turning the screws on the rest of us.
sig not found
I am writing this as a creature of politics. I have been interested in politics since I was a kid discussing it at the dinner table with my parents. I read about politics everyday. I watch The Capitol Gang, McLaughlin, Meet the Press, etc for enjoyment. I majored in political science in college. Heck, I even have a political campaign sign in my front yard this year.
From reading your epistle, I have come to believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the American political process. Politics 101 teaches us that "government" is formed when the whole of the citizenry gives up a few rights in order to benefit the whole.
In the States, we have a representative democracy, in which we elect representatives to protect our interests for us. (The Founding Fathers believed that the individual citizen would not have have enough time to govern and that the process would become unwieldy, so they chose to use representatives to work in the actual machinations of governance). As I and many others have commented before, the system isn't perfect, especially since we have moved away from the original model and have devolved to a place where we expect representatives to follow their own agendas and not ours.
But please remember that in "the system", "the process" or whatever you want to call it, was designed for CITIZEN INPUT, we are supposed to be involved in politics on days other than Election Day. For example, I personally believe that voter apathy results not from a "broken system" but from the fact that our kids aren't being taught about the civic duty of being involved in politics. We don't teach it in schools and it certainly isn't being taught by most parents. We have come to think of politics as dirty, and as fodder for late night comedians.
Politics is not an elitist endeavor. Politics is not only national concern, but state and local. Politics is honorable. Political involvement by every citizen is critical for a democracy to survive. So to answer your charge that the coporate republic is running both political parties, the reason is frustratingly simple, because there's a vacuum of power, and someone has to fill it. That's why.
Is the two party system broken? I don't necessarily believe so. Does anyone remember the '92 election? I do. I was excited. I went to a political rally, had a campaign sign in my dorm room. I was excited to vote. Although this year is different for me and alot of others (I was more excited about voting in the primaries than I am about the general election). This year's election seems to be more about personalities than about issues, with a certain flawed but politically brilliant figure in the background.
But Jon, I have to say before I end this, I believe in the process and I know that I will be in the booth on election day with my toddler by my side.
This is another view of the world.
Yes there has always been gridlock. There has always been corruption. There has always been backroom political scheming.
BUT:
-Has voter turnout always been so low?
-Have campaigns always been so pre-fab and lifeless? (the accounts of the early conventions and debates in Walter Kronkite's autobiography are highly recommended)
-Has mass-marketting always been so influential?
-Have elections always had so many people who are voting AGAINST a candidate, rather than for one?
-Have large corporations always held this degree of control over politics and legislation? (I don't think examples are necessary in this crowd)
-Has the mass-media always played such an influential role?
Sure there have always been problems with our democracy, but to pretend things today are just the same as they always have been is to completely miss the real lesson of history. Things are always changing. The world is not static. Nothing is as it always was. Politics is continually evolving, and not necessarily in ways that are good.
Our government is steadily becoming less and less representative of the people. Fewer people vote each election, because they don't feel their vote makes a difference. And by and large they are right. I don't think that's the way it was in Washington's day.
Is Ralph Nader the answer? No. I'm rather more inclined to think Ralph Nader is an asshole, but that's beside the point. You need not be a zealous pseudo-radical to think that something is wrong with our government today.
I've been advocating the approval based voting system for years. I prefer it to the Borda count because it is simpler to understand, has useful practical properties and is not based on a mathematical fallacy. This fallacy means that our system often produces unpopular outcomes and effectively disenfranchises people.
Consider the following situation. You have three voters(A B and C) and three candidates (X, Y and Z). A ranks the candidates XYZ, B ranks them YZX and C ranks them ZXY. The Borda system correctly says that in terms of preference, this is a tie.
The problem is that the very idea of preference is nearly meaningless in this situation. The following table shows this.
+____________________+
|___|rank|X>Y|Y>Z|Z>X|
|_A_|XYZ_|_Y_|_Y_|_N_|
|_B_|YZX_|_N_|_Y_|_Y_|
|_C_|ZXY_|_Y_|_N_|_Y_|
+____________________+
Table 1. Voter preferences
(I apologize for the table formatting -- slashcode doesn't accept table tags).
What does this tell us? That if you ask if X>Y, 2/3 will say yes; if you ask if Y > Z, 2/3 will say yes, and if you ask whether Z > X, 2/3 will say yes. What this is is a proof by counter-example that the relationship of public preference is not transitive. Therefore our intuitions about preference which we use when we think of our own, singular personal preferences do not apply to group preferences. I believe that any system which tries to pick out the most preferred candidate, no matter how subtle, is bound to have non-intuitive bugs because lacking the transitivity of the individual opinion, group opinion on this matter is a mathematically and logically different animal. The Borda system is better than plurality voting, because it takes into account second tier preferences, but adding up nonparametric statistics should give any mathematically inclined person a queasy feeling.
In particular, if the situation above is extrapolated to a larger number of voters, it is clear that any preference based system is going to sometimes yield a result that the majority did not want. This is part of the reason why people feel disenfranchised, because the voting system we use is seriously buggy. More of the reason is discussed below.
Messing around with the details of a system that attempts to come up with the "most preferred" candidate means that the specific situations in which a bug emerges will differ. This may be of great practical import, but is not ideal.
Now lets consider the same election, but ask instead the question of whether the candidate can do the job.
+____________________+
|___|rank|_X_|_Y_|_Z_|
|_A_|XYZ_|_Y_|_Y_|_Y_|
| B |YZX_|_N_|_Y_|_Y_|
| C |ZXY_|_N_|_N_|_Y_|
|sum|____|_1_|_2_|_3_|
+____________________+
Table 2. Suitable Candidates
In this case, voter A thinks they're all more or less OK. Voter B and voter C agree that under no circumstances should X get the job. Voter C also thinks that voter B's favorite (Y) is almost as bad as X. So, if you phrase the question differently, it is clear that we don't really have anything like a tie when it comes to voter esteem. Everyone agrees Z is a good candidate, whereas The majority of people think that X, who was tied in the Borda system with Z, is unacceptable.
The approval based voting system corresponds to the last line in table 2. In practical terms you would go into the voting booth and check off every candidate you were willing to live with. The approval system will not produce counterintuitive results, because it is not based on a mathemtical fallacy -- rankings of candidates by breadth of approval is transitive and thus not abiguous.
Furthermore, it corresponds to a basic political principle outlined in our Declaration of Independence, which is that governments rule by the consent of the governed. The approval voting system measure which candidate has the widest consent.
The final issue is that, literally speaking, approval voting is not "one man, one vote". Let's dispense with that right away. "One man one vote" is a very simplistic slogan, which assumes plurality voting as the only possible system. What is really being aimed at is equality of all citizens. Under approval voting, everyone gets the same number of votes, but may choose to withhold them. Furthermore, approval voting goes far to equalizing political power. Political power can be mathematically measured by the number of winning coalitions you can join; share of political power is that number divided by the total number of coalitions.
Under plurality voting, Nader supporters are effectively disenfranchised, since they must vote against their preferences to join a winning coaltion -- they have a power of zero. The "Reagan Democrats" however have a power of two -- they can join Gore or Bush. You can see this in action when you see how much attention is paid to Nader's issues (practically none). Why? because people who care about Nader's issues have a slice of the power pie equal to zero. They can vote, but unless they are willing to join the Gore coalition, their vote is meaningless (at least in the practical sense of influencing the outcome of the election).
Ironically, switching to a system based on getting the widest possible approval would reduce the need to pander to the middle, since you could build a winning coaltion out of a minority of the middle and several minority groups. The media's job would get harder though. Candidates would no longer be obliged to put themselves on the artificial and simplistic left/right spectrum, but could form coalitions out of many different groups whose view of things may be orthagonal to the great organizing principle of liberal/conservative.
I think this would make campaigns more substantive and civil too -- tactics of splitting or polarizing the electorate would be ineffective.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is addressed to people who like most of Nader's politics (I'm not sure anyone likes /all/ of anyone else's politics), and who are afraid of Bush.
My mom told me not to throw away my vote on Nader, and that even if I don't like Gore, I should fear Bush more. I thought about it, and decided on a compromise, which I will impart to Slashdot: If you're not in a swing state (look on the net, you'll find a listing), vote for Nader. If you are in a swing state, trade your vote:
Find someone in a non-swing state who is rational, but pro-Gore. Tell them that you will vote Gore if they vote Nader. They will, of course, accept this, since a vote in a swing state is actually worth something. It's also good for Nader, since all he cares about is the popular vote. Be careful who you pick. This is a classic example of The Prisoner's Dilemma. If you pick someone who is rational, and who knows that you are rational, then you'll be OK - see Metamagical Themas, by Douglas Hofstadter for the reasoning.
ObOnTopic: Why woud Gore appoint people who would be any more anti-IP than Bush? He's owned by the entertainment industry.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
And you think that voters staying away in droves will somehow differentiate itself from business as usual in what way? First, the candidates themselves want low voter turnout. Low turnout means less chances for the wild cards. If only the party faithful turn out, no real changes will happen.
Personally, I think the best thing that can happen is that power is fragmented more ways. I live in Minnesota, where the Independant Jesse Ventura controls the executive branch, the Republicans control the senate, and the Democrats control the house. For me, it's perfect. Getting three distinct groups to align is even harder than getting two groups to agree, which means less gets done. In my book, the fewer laws that get passed mean the least amount of damage done.
I personally think the power split we have in the US today is responsible for our country's current political "success story". The executive Democrat at the top prevents the legislative Republicans from implementing their absurd policies, and the Republican congress refuses to support the Democratic president's absurd policies. Nothing gets done, the status quo remains, and the world has a nice, safe, predictable environment to exploit.
Toss in a Green president, give us a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, and Washington will be in for another four-year bowel blockage, while the rest of us continue to prosper.
John
John
Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting.
Wrong, Mr. Katz. Not voting is nothing more than a big "I don't care." The only message it sends is that you approve of ANY candidate, and that you approve of them all equally. Why? Because ANY OTHER VIEW can be expressed by voting. If you prefer one of them, you vote for them. If you don't like any, you write-in another name, or just don't select any of them - because going to the polls and not picking one still counts as voting.
Not voting only means that you don't want to put any input into the process.
If you plan on not voting to "protest" the system, then you're going about it all wrong. You're not protesting anything. Protesting something means going out and being active about it, not opting-out. Sitting at home on voting day will accomplish nothing but to perpetuate the system. Don't believe me? What happens if only one person were to go and vote? All those other people lose their voice in the matter, and that one person gets to decide all by themselves. And if it happens again the next time, who are the candidates going to care about? The one person who determines who gets the job, or the rest of the population that has shown they're not going to be bothered to vote? Of course, that one person.
Next time you're with a group of friends, and they're deciding where to go eat/what to do, try just not participating in the process, see if it does anything useful. It won't.
So people, stop saying not voting is USEFUL for anything!
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
It's obviously apparent that you and most of the zealous pseudo-radical slashdot readers who so richly denounce our traditions have no clue about it. The fact is, the U.S. government was designed to be ineffecient, and despite the anti-factionalism of George Washington, the two party system has been a mainstay.
Why, you ask? Simple: stability. Aside from the Civil War crisis, the U.S. has always has a pretty stable and functional government. That's not due to heavy bureaucracy, but our well known system of checks and balances. The whole idea is to prevent the damaging effects of foolish blind radicalism by keeping a system which does not deviate from the status quo.
And as for the interest groups and two party system, perhaps you should read James Madison's Federalist 10. In it, he gives a good explaination about factions, but ultimately decrees that people inherently tend to band together in groups and that varying groups nearly balance each other's influence. We're trying to prevent tyranny of the majority, here folks, (or in the psuedo radical Slashdot zealot's mind, tyranny of a tiny minority). And besides, even if the Britney Spears of presidential candidates, Ralph Nader, were to be elected... what could he accomplish? You think a radical Green president could get any of his idealistic proposals through a Congress made up almost exclusively of Republicans and Democrats? Dubious at best. Sorry to break it to you folks, but the U.S. system of government is not broken at all: it was intended to keep radicals like you and Nader far far away from office.
One of the libertarian parties' goals is to sell the national parks.
They say that "the buyer would own something so beautiful and pristine, that they would have no incentive to damage/ruin/commercialize it".
That brilliant analysis, in a nutshell, is the reason no person should ever vote for a libertarian.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.