Slashdot Mirror
At Long Last, Election Day
In 1996, a website called the Fray asked their readers to post election day experiences. Did they vote? Didn't they? How did they feel about it all at the end of another eternal campaign? The response was one of the better early interactive Web exercises, producing some real political thoughts, not the kind you get on TV pundit panels. Thousands of you have posted here recently about whether you should vote this time, or why you do or don't think politics is important. So here's our chance to happily close out our election coverage, and your chance -- all day long -- to by-pass the talking heads.
This guy sounds like Stockwell Day.
Ugh.. if you are sick of politicians dont vote for nader. His solution to everything is to produce more bureucrats... using money gained from ****ing over the economy by waging war on Big Business. No plans other then making an even bigger gov't.
libertarian = less gov't power, less politicians.
http://www.lp.org
Somehow I doubt that the countries in Europe with elections have a hell of a lot of citizens wondering if the US will like their candidate, and basing their decision on that.
:P It's our Constitution-given right to elect ineffectual leaders - they won't get uppity and try to attack Canada and Mexico :)
/. passwd!)
And if they are, then they're only catering to the US-centric world view.
Lord knows we've had some real winners out of Europe too
(blah on my
PROPS! I'm libertarian, which by the way, the voter registration office spelled wrong on my card. Four years ago, of a faitful summer night at 4:20 in the AM, I saw Harry Browne speak of CSPAN, and for the first time I saw a third party candidate that wasn't a complete whackjob. Ever sice I've been a good little Libertarian. This time around though, Nader has a real chance at getting that 5% he needs to ensure a 3rd party presence next time and from here on out. Nader's ok in my book, but Browne speaks more to me. I live in Delaware, which is a quasi conservative democrat state. Gore already has our electoral votes, so I'm not worried about Bush getting his slimy ass in because of us. So for the good of my party, the Libertarians, I'm going to vote for Nader. If Ralph get's the Green party's foot in the door today, Harry will get us libertarians in tomorrow! We will shine in 2012!
So who of them are worse?
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
And there are more than two candidates in the race (at least, there were 7 in my state). And more than one runs Free software. Harry Browne is one of them. IIRC he's running Apache 1.3.9 or some such.
That said, I think the US started producing Jeeps an awfully long time ago, so I don't really know who invented SUVs. :)
Werd.
So what you really have is the Green Party looking for someone people will recognize, someone people will listen to, and someone people respect. *hey!* that's what ALL parties do when they choose a presidential nominee. As soon as the Democrats or Republicans choose some lowly city counsilwoman with great ideas and no national exposure as their nominee I'll listen to your argument. :)
Werd.
You're right....population density is higher in Europe. BUt from an environmental standpoint, they're doing an average job. Urban sprawl is better in Europe and as a result mass transit and auto-emissions are years ahead of the US in general. At least on a per-capita basis. Add to that the fact that last time I was in England, there was more open country side than anywhere outside of Detroit (my hometown).
Werd.
You're the opposite of most people on this board. You get two thumbs up for having the balls to admit you voted for someone *more* conservative than Bush. Hip Hip.
Werd.
What third party? Libertarians hold over twice the amount of elected offices as the green party.. but you never hear about them because the media is so liberal... always seem to hear about the !%@^ reform party though..
www.lp.org
A program is a device used to convert data into error messages.
--
Here at SIUC, I slept, and I'm going to vote today. I don't even know where yet; I don't live on campus. This isn't even the first Presidential election I've been eligible to vote in; however, it will be the first I'm voting in. Last time, I was living away from home and registered in my home district. Ugh.
Anyway, I'm torn. Bush is a businessman; I'm still torn as to whether or not he's an idiot or just can't talk. I'm reasonably sure that Gore is insane. Nader? Dunno about that. Buchanan has no support. I'd like to write in McCain if the man would appreciate the vote...damn.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Erm
;)
Moderators are just regular readers who get moderator points randomly thrown at them. 'Course you wouldn't know that because being a trollbot means you don't get good enough karma to have moderator points randomly thrown at you.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I voted this morning. Apparently at 7AM there were long lines, but at 7:30 AM it wasn't bad at all -- voting is a lot more fun if you pick your times right!
So once again I find myself voting *against* candidates. I crossed out (on my sample ballot) any candidate that tried to garner support by calling my phone and playing a recorded message (to me or to my answering machine). This makes voting a lot easier -- just choose among the entries that aren't crossed out.
I should have kept track of the crap showing up in my mailbox, and used that as an elimination mechanism as well: more than one flyer per day, or any non-recyclable -> automatic disqualification. Next time.
Then I get into work... and discover that I've been spammed with a anti-Gore pro-Bush junkmail. Forged, of course.
*sigh*
I wonder if I will ever get to vote FOR someone?
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
I was first in my district in Minneapolis. I had to wait 10 minutes for the polls to open, but after that was out very quickly. My wife had to register(she forgot to check the box when she changed her driver's lic.) and was done in 10 minutes as well. As I was leaving, the line was starting to form.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
A little when Reagan was in the hospital - I recall that one of the humor shows at the time made fun of Bush, calling it his 48 hours of glory.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Man,
The voting tech in NYC is pretty old school. Today I have woken up to the fact that other voting channels need to be established/hyped. Folks should be able to log into a kiosk or home terminal and do their thing. I'm more cloudy on the prospects for the telephone, but we can't just have 'Net voting, because there needs to be access for lower income folks, too.
The ancient voting booths let a lot of otherwise capable people down. If they failed to drag the big voting lever all the way to the right, they were allowed to select votes, but then when they returned the big lever to the left, it showed an empty ballot.
That sucks. I think the U.S. voting public should know more about mailing-in ballots, etc. I think the one-day emphasis is only good for the TV networks.
You may not believe it, but I saw one application form with field sex having 3 options: male/female/other. Don't know what that was supposed to mean, but I thought that was funny.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Voted for Browne here as well...I don't get why the Greens are all excited about the 5% and matching funds, it didn't seem to do the Reform Party any good. But I suppose pseudo-socialists are always looking for taxpayer money ;)
Strangely enough, Nader is far more mainstream and less socialist than the Green Party (compare his issue points with the Green Party platform). I think he sees the Green Party as an easy way to get ballot access, rather than something he really believes in.
I thought it was funny when Nader was stating last night what Harry Browne has been saying for a long time ("what if Bush and Gore were put in jail for their drug use when they were young?") Nader is actually very libertarian on many issues (drug war, military, etc.) His concept of letting citizens sue the government for waste would basically shut down the government. I'm not sure think he realizes this.
Now get the hell out and cast one!
-M
"Life is all about strategy, mathematics and psychological perceptiveness."
I'm bettering more on Jesse Ventura running as a Libertarian. He definitely will get my vote unless he gets weird in the next four years. He shoulda ran this year.
See previous post.
Are you really surprised?
Face it -- the entire political process is about compromises, trying to pick between two or more ambiguous issues, about trying to keep most of the people happy most of the time, of deciding between what people want and what you honestly think is best for them.
Here's a clue: You will never find a candidate you agree with on 100% of the issues. Chances are, you will never find a candidate you agree with on more than 50% of the issues. Hopefully, you can find someone with at least some clue about the issues you think are important, and some sense of integrity and honor -- enough to help guide him or her through the morass of political deal making and lobbying and just plain difficult decisions that have to be made in any office.
I happen to have voted for Bush, though for the opposite reasons that you did. Frankly, I'm scared to think what he will do the DoJ in the MS case, but there are some other issues that I agree with him on. It's certainly not a perfect decision, but at least it's a step more or less in the right direction... hopefully.
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Truth be told, the outcomes of those local elections probably have more effect on your day to day life than does the presidential election.
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Neither does the governer of Texas; its largely a ceremonial role; he makes a few appointments and that's about it.
Never mind that Shrub has spent precious little of the past year fufulling his duties as TX governer, being far too busy planning his campaign. Oh well, I guess the citizens of TX knew what they were getting into when they electing this alcoholic moron.
---
Perhaps, unless you are the son of major figure in the US national security apparatus...
---
not neccesarily -- it may be illegal in some states, but I do not believe it violates any federal laws, especially since no money or gifts were exchanged, just a 'promise' to swap votes.
---
-=Bob
The fray's election story for this year was just posted !
FYI: The fray story from 4 years ago that Katz mentions can be found here:
http://fray.com/criminal/vote/
And stay tuned! Rumor has it there'll be a new one later this afternoon!
-- Derek
If we wanted to be European, thoose of us with European ancesstry would not have left.
It's great that those of you with European ancestry have left, because in Europe you would be regarded as a moron.
It is exactly this kind of ethnocentric thinking the one that makes the typical American so naive and ignorant.
I live in Argentina and I can name you your 50 states and at least half of the state capitals, I probably know more American history than your average school guy, I speak 4 languages and am pretty well informed.
Now the point is not that you can't name even one Argentine province, or that you barely speak decent English, but rather that you probably can't name half of your own states.
And from all this you can easily deduct how trivial it is wether you are or are not an American. Because, yes, you hold the world in your hands, and have the last word on almost any order of world affairs, but how bad can it be that the world (a better prepared group of people than yourselves) has an opinion?
Please, don't bother to reply until you go metric.
"Wit is the epitaph of an emotion." -Nietzsche
That's probably why they're called a 'minority', goofball.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Um..lots of people who aren't on the ballot do things like that. It's called the cabinet.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I feel great, I just got done voting. There was a bit of a line(inside) but it was good to see a lot of people voting. I also feel good for voting for "my guy". I know the system is not perfect, but this really is the best in the world. We all have freedoms that most countries dont have. If you dont vote, you give up the right that our founders fought and died for.
Please go out and vote, I dont care for which party. Even write in "your mom" or whoever, if you dont like the list of canidates, but exercise your right.
I went to the poll in the morning and think I forgot to flip a lever for the President
I went to work and a guy who does job training as part of a welfare-to-work program ordered me to vote Republican-- which would be voting him out of a job--
another co-worker voiced great surprise that the polls were still run on those huge crank-operated machines-- isn't it backward, he said? shouldn't we be using hi-tech styluses on computer pads?
in Jamaica, he said, once you voted you had to dip your finger in indelible red ink so they knew you'd been there, and you didn't want to vote anyway because they would shoot you coming out--
I went to the Green Party headquarters and a friend who had been volunteering at the polling sites in Brooklyn said that whole polling-areas-worth of machines were BROKEN and that as a result hundreds of votes in the area were lost
The talking heads yammered about how it was a dead heat at 242 votes for at least an hour; I am certain they knew who was ahead and only did that for ratings
nader didn't get his 5%, and gore looks like he lost, and I wouldn't be surprised if bush really is a functional illiterate.
some days are bouncers and won't let you in.
I waited until last night for voting. It was on my list of things to do. Things like redo the leaky connection on the new water heater, take out the garbage, review a web site that I'm rebuilding. After all that cruft I grabbed a beer (Deschutes Jubelale) and sat down at the kitchen table with the 430 pages of voter pamphlets and my ballot.
I needed the pamphlets because we have an initiative process here in Oregon that put dozens of questions before the voters. Stuff like repealing a mandatory sentencing law, prohibiting steel traps for hunters, prohibiting the presentation of anything homosexual in schools, and a few tax measures. I needed the pamphlet for information on the measures I hadn't decided on, like should we dedicate our tobacco settlement money to a specified list of programs.
It was also a source of entertainment.
You see, anybody with $500 can put a paid statement into the voter's pamphlet. The measure on presenting homo- or bi-sexual information in schools had several "for" arguments that were scarcastic. Like: "If we're going to teach personal religious beliefs in the public schools, let's tell students what Jesus had to say against homosexuality:
(a blank column, followed by)
That's right: Absolutely Nothing! . . ."
Other "Arguments in Favor of Measure 9" decried the practice of eating oysters - which is also forbidden in the old testament - and called for the firing of all oyster eaters from positions in public education.
After getting some laughs by reading the Measure 9 arguments I went through the rest of the ballot at my kitchen table. Sippin beer, listening to the radio, chatting with my wife, filling in the ovals with my #2 pencil. It was really pleasent. Then I drove over to the election office and added my ballot to the pile underneath the mail slot. The pile was about six inches deep and three feet across so it seems lots of people voted last night. My wife wondered why I didn't just take my ballot to work today and drop it off at one of the places downtown. I'm not sure why I didn't, not sure why I wanted to delvier the ballot last night. I've been voting since Carter was elected to office. Maybe it's just the vestige of the polling place habit from those years of voting.
I hope you have as good a time voting as I did.
There's more to it than this.
- the eventual winner they get to add your head count to the margin of victory and crow about the mandate from the people
- the second place candidate they get to see the base of support and hold that up and argue the mandate isn't so big so you'd better accomodate our viewpoint
- another candidate, maybe you get them 5% and some federal funds or maybe not. But you will get to send a message to the dominant parties that they are losing voters and need to listen to the populace
Yes, vote. It does encourage them - to keep things the same or to change them. It depends on how people vote.There's more to it than this.
There are two types of libertarians: those who believe in shrinking the government and staying true to the ideals of liberty and freedom; and those, like the Libertarian Party in the United States, who believe in radically cutting the government and pulling out of everything, leaving people to fend for themselves. This is not what libertarianism is supposed to be.
The first type of libertarian that I mentioned is similar to the republicans of old, those who believed in personal freedoms and privacy (I can't say that I'm very fond of the direction that the party has chosen to go, defining itself by snuggling up to megacorps). That's the type of libertarian I'd vote for. I could never vote for the second sort, and I never will; I don't believe that their selfishness will get them anywhere.
Summarized? Libertarianism is a wonderful ideology, but as usual, people have managed to fuck it up.
Nader: Al and George make me want to Ralph!
Bush: Vote Republican, cause you'll get a Bush and a Dick!
Buchanan: (little kid) I want make all the Hindus in my school pray to Jesus!
Plagiarized from KROQ this morning and The Daily Show.
Good point - touche! That's another reason for Americans to be a little more humble - because this, too, will pass.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I think you'll get different answers from different people. My perception as an American citizen is that the U.S. does a lot of meddling in world affairs on the theory that the Uncle Sam Knows Best, even when that has been demonstrated not to be the case. I'm talking about supporting totalitarian governments in South America, pushing the demands of American law enforcement into international law enforcement agreements, etc. A lot of this sort of thing is tolerated by the American electorate because many people here don't think much about the outside world and the effects of our actions on it. This lack of knowledge combined with the will and the ability to force the rest of the world into following "the American way of life" is what IMHO is very arrogant about this country.
Unlike some people I can see the good side of the USA too, but with regard to foreign policy we've never been a country to cultivate consistent or ethical (even from the standpoint of the average American's ethics) relations with other nations. Perhaps we need not so much humility as open minds, better information about the rest of the world, and the desire to learn from that information.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Interestingly, I heard this same viewpoint from a German journalist on NPR this morning. I have to say I disagree, though - regardless of how arrogant Americans are (and I'll admit that our foreign policy is pretty damn arrogant) the other nations of the world had their chance to become the economic and political leader in world affairs, and didn't get the job done (yet, at least).
And I don't recall the governments of Europe or Asia inviting the votes of the rest of the world back when the known world was ruled from Rome or Peking (note old spelling), or was economically controlled by Spain or Britain. Unfortunately, as long as there are nations it will be every citizen for themselves and their nation, rather than for themselves and the world.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
If you want to protest (i.e. think _none_ of the candidates are any good), the best thing you can do is cast an 'informal vote', i.e. an invalid one. The first time I ever voted, I crossed out all of the names.
don't believe that being poor means being lazy, but I believe here in America that there is one HELL of a correlation.
Wow, welcome to the land of stereotypes. Poor people are lazy. Lemme guess? Black people are stupid? Women are weak? Japanese people are very smart? Germans are war-like? People that make sweeping generalizations are complete jackasses?
My father was doing 80+ hour weeks and my mother was doing 40 so that they could put us in a 2 bedroom hovel in the projects. Do you work 80 hours per week? Do you work 70? This poor person certainly had more work ethic than anyone I've ever met. He did all of this, and I was able to get an education and a good job...now I can provide for my family. You argument proves you're in the upper-middle class.
If what you said was relevant, then we would see people who want to make a living wage and support their family would join the military.
Let's just break this down. The military has to travel, frequently to places that don't allow families. People in the military sometimes *gasp* die. You have to pass educational and physical tests to join the military. Malnourished family-men tend not to be physically fit. Undereducated, street-living folks tend to lack the education to join. Gee...you have the answer to everything...too bad it's short-sited, generalized, and wrong.
It's all in who the contributors are. Who is the largest contributing group? Microsoft. Not bad in the fact that it's the "evil empire micro$oft, etc etc". Bad in the fact that such a powerful organization can possibly have sway over a candidate and that said organization might benefit greatly from the Libertarian movement's success if it was to ever happen. This is not to say that they actually do have any control over any Libertarian, but I can just imaging the nice privitized corporate world that would come about.
Count me out of it.
Nice rant. I take it that you didn't actually read the Green platform (or catch their whole purpose). Maybe you should take the time to skim through Nader's recent book...
I too first thought "hmmm socialism in disguise". On further reading and investigation it became clear to me - these people really want to empower the citizenry and disperse democratic power so that all of us have a say. Hmmm. I tore my Libertarian label off and threw it into the shredder.
Now don't get me wrong - I believe that the Libertarian's dogmatic (and justified) stand by all things constitutional is great. I fear that power in a Libertarian world would allow the richest people and largest corporations to act without consequence. I'm sorry, but I can't live in a world like that.
Visit http://www.opensecrets.org sometime. Look at who is supporting the candidates. Take a close look at Browne. Scares the shit out of me (although the actual dollars in cash aren't much). So, my vote goes to the person who's focus is empowering our democracy and not letting it get watered down by money.
You're much better off trying to make it look like a "movement" by going early, then others will jump on. All the undecideds basically are just waiting so they can vote for the percieved winner (like it benefits them?).
The only place it would hurt is when people are voting strategically, like with Nader. The illusion of Gore having more strength then he does would possibly lead people to vote Nader who would otherwise go Gore, but you'd have to have a LOT of friends to skew the polls that much!...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
He's qualified to be the front-man for a committee, isn't he?
We already have a committee -- we call it Congress.
Being president means taking advice from a lot of people, but ultimately the ball is in your court, and when you're accross the table from Arafat and Rabin you better have a clue what's happening beyond "I remember Cheney saying something about Jews and some other religious people fighting".
That's what people outside the USA are concerned about -- domestic policy can quite frankly run itself (or by committee).
A whole lot of people didn't care that Hillary Clinton, who was not on the ballot, was being given a huge amount of power to determine the course of 1/7 of the nation's economy
What power? She spent unpaid time with a ton of advisors, made a proposal, and got totally shot down by Congress. She never had a job as the head of any health care system, and she never had any "power" beyond that of any other top advisor to the president. She never "determined the course" of anything.
To turn around and condemn GWB for taking the same role is, well, a little hypocritical.
No, condemning Clinton for lying about legal (but embarassing) activities, while forgiving Bush for lying about ILLEGAL activities, is hypocritical. Or to condemn him for smoking pot, and then forgiving Bush for snorting coke, is hypocritical.
Electing a president who can do nothing BUT head committees is very different than electing one who knows when to trust advisors...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Bush is the rural man's hero
That's certainly why he's popular in the US -- unfortunately as PRESIDENT, it does you little good, because you're dealing with non-rural people. You're dealing with foreign heads of state who know the name of the prime minister, who know all the college graduate stuff.
Yes, I'd rather take a bus trip with Bush, and I'd probably rather start a company with him too (hell, he's got connections!), but if I had to choose who would negotiate a peace treaty where just "being nice" doesn't cut it?...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Only really on the issue of how much power the government should have
since until we have a green or libertarian majorities (or at least much more significant minorities than we do now) it doesn't really matter -- just having a vote that disrupts the dem-rep hegemony is more important than whether they are voting for or against many issues (corporate welfare, abortion, etc) because of green reasons (hate corporations, feminism) or libertarian reasons (get the government out of business/personal lives)
At the point at which third parties become viable alternatives (I'm hoping that an influx of third parties -- any third parties, will help dismantle the policies that make it hard for third parties to gain foothold in the U.S. though I'm not holding my breath) then libertarian ideals vs green ideals will matter more
but honestly, people who follow either philosophy will come up with viable policies, and better policies than what the dems and reps come up with now
(yes there are differences, but either approach is more positive than what we have now, basically)
> Election day is not a holiday here
this is true (for most of us -- my friends who work for the gov't get today *and* friday off, the bastards), however, in most states your employer is *required* to give you time off to vote if you cannot otherwise vote...
Also, I believe it is now federally mandated that voter registration cards be available at all DMVs (or whereever you get driver's licenses in your state) -- btw, which state does your friend live in (I'm curious)
you can also (as others mentioned) think ahead next year and request a mail-in ballot.
2. this is so true. I voted third party for *most* of the races I could vote for today for that reason (the only ones in which I voted for a rep or dem [yup, I voted for one of each] were close races where I thought there was a significant difference between the two candidates) But even then I know it's a protest vote, only slightly more useful than writing in mickey mouse
I'm gonna add a third complaint, though
3. It's effing *hard* to get straight information about any of the candidates (except perhaps the presidential candidates -- but even there most of the data is so clouded by spin and politics that I'm not sure what to trust -- everyone is claiming the media is biased against them, for instance) -- and the difficulty increases as you get more local (except for some very local candidates -- I finally decided that if all I could find about you was two pieces of paper -- one from the booklet put out by the city and the one you put on my door/mailed to me that both are mostly useless in ascertaining your actual positions, even if you otherwise sounded good to me, you didn't want to be on the city council/whatever bad enough -- how hard is it to get one of your supporters to make you a web page, really! Some local candidates were great about this, though -- one showed up in person on my doorstep last month and several had homepages and/or email addresses)
So how do military members (and their families) who are from florida but not stationed there vote?
After all, it can't be assumed that they can have their absentee ballots sent to their mommy's house.
And as far as cops and law goes, I have to carry several pages worth of California vehical code around with me to occasionally thwack the local constabulatory, who haven't the foggiest notion what a moped is or what is legal to do with it. Cops, in my experience (and not just with mopeds) often do not have a really good idea of what actually is legal and not (beyond the obvious duh stuff)
I got the number of the woman manning (erm, womanning?) the table where they look at your card and check you off and such.
No really.
Turns out she lives across the street from me (I didn't know this)
I guess I'll just have to have her over for tea or something.
bah, I think anyone who is physically capable of indicating thier choice of candidate should be able to vote -- even 2 and 3 year olds
:P )
yeah, sure, most kids will probably vote for whomever their parents vote for (of course, coming from a family where my mom reliably voted democrat and my dad reliably voted republican I suspect this might be more complicated for some kids
But I'd hazard to say that most *adults* in this country vote on equally spurious grounds -- growing up, most adults I knew voted republican or democrat, rather than candidate by candidate -- in fact, the first time I voted (in virginia) the ballot actually had an option to fill in one box to vote all dem or all rep. Many adults that I talk to are ignorant about most issues (I respect people who look at the facts and come to different conclusions than I do, I have a hard time respecting people who don't bother looking for facts and/or spout spurious facts [kids are more likely to be killed by gunfire in school than graduate college sort of things -- yes, someone said that to me recently] )
In otherwords, there would probably be no real difference in the results of the actual election, but kids would learn from day one that they are citizens with responsibilities and a voice (however small)
not digital, but if you think ahead by about a month you can get an absentee ballot -- write out a request, address an envelope, put a stamp on it, mail it -- voila...no line
something to think about next year, perhaps
(personally I don't trust non-geeks to have enough of a security clue to do digital voting yet -- I'm not sure I trust the current system, but I do trust it more than I'd trust a website at this point -- not because the tools to secure it aren't there [they are] but because I don't trust local gov't to have nearly enough clues to actually use them appropriately)
Out of curiosity then, how do they deal with military service folks (and their families) who are from florida yet are stationed elsewhere (in the U.S. or overseas)
I believe (could be wrong, as it's been a few years since it's mattered to me) that florida (and every state) must allow service people who were legally residents of florida before enlistment to continue paying taxes there and vote there (by absentee ballot, if necessary)
Anyway, this all smells a bit fishy/oversimplified to me -- I have a hard time believing that if I go to disneyworld for two weeks I automagically become a florida resident -- I'd check how they define residence again. And see what exceptions they have (military and out-of-state student exceptions esspecially)
Considering that hundreds, if not thousands of teenagers are held accountable as adults for crimes they have committed (or allegedly committed) in this country already, I'm not sure that the argument that children are held to be less accountable for their actions than adults is an airtight argument. It has merit, but overall more people under 18 are being charged as adults than ten years ago, or twenty years ago, and as far as I can tell, the system is moving towards charging more juveniles as adults than charging fewer juveniles as adults or staying the same.
Certainly, juveniles charged as adults are being held accountable as adults without ever having been given the right to vote.
Considering that juvenile offenders that are prosecuted as juveniles do not get the guarantees of a jury trial and other rights granted to adult defendants I'm not sure that that the 'juvenile justice system' gives juvenile defendants any advantages over adult defendants and does give them clear disadvantages.
Considering that juveniles may legally be detained without trial in both detention centers and psychiatric institutions in many states, it's clear that adults are not held as accountable in their dealings with juveniles as they are in their dealings with other adults.
I think an argument could be made that an average ten year old is definetly capable of understanding that stabbing someone is wrong, and can kill them, and death is permanant. This cannot be said of a two or three year old. However, there are adults who do not understand these things either (because of insanity or mental slowness or chemical usage etc) and we do not unilaterally prevent them from voting. When they do stab someone there are already provisions in our laws and customs for them, I see no real barriers to extending those provisions to cover children who cannot yet understand (or even may never understand) why stabbing someone (or stealing, or whatever) is wrong. And deciding whether or not a child was capable of understanding that should be done on a case by case basis, just as deciding whether an adult was not able to understand the consequences of their actions (say, because of temporary insanity) is done on a case by case basis.
I do believe that children should have separate detention centers and psych wards and such, but that's more an issue of practicality and protecting them from bigger (physically) predators, just as women have separate prisons but do not have a separate justice system.
you know I think that was his point!
This isn't redirection. This is simply stating the fact that Dick Cheney provides all the foreign policy experience to the Bush administration that you could ever hope to say isn't there because Bush hasn't had much national experience.
The job of the president is not to do everything hands on. The man is an executive, and his job is to assemble a team of people, not deal with the entire executive branch by himself. This is the way it works. So yes, this is democracy in action.
Bush might or might not be a genuis. It doesn't matter. You don't have to be a genius to be president, you just have to know how to hold an executive position. Bush does. Live with it.
To a degree, although I honestly think Bush has a lot more executive experience simply because he holds the primary executive role in his state. While Gore has a lot of experience in the federal government, most of it is in the legislative branch. The VP doesn't do a whole lot... :)
I didn't intend to exclude Gore from my list, however, the topic of discussion just happened to be Bush. If you want to vote for Gore, do so over policies, not some kind of strange myth that Gore is more qualified to lead the country than Bush. That's all I'm saying...
A vote for the Nader is a vote to back the Green party. It'll have no effect on the Libertarian party, except to put a party whose principles are diametrically opposed to the Libertarians' into the national spotlight.
Nader will only harm the LP. Sorry, but you made a mistake.
I'd like to see a bubble for "Just say NO!". If you don't like what you see you can just vote no. It would be even better if every non-voter was counted as having voted no. After all, that is what they are saying by not voting. It would make the statistics that currently read "48 percent" or "56 percent" much more interesting. We all know it's 48% of those less than 50% that voted. Why not admit to the fact that more than 50% percent of Americans find the system so much of a sham that it's not worth their time to participate. My vote for a candidate means nothing compared to some large donor's contribution.
It annoys me when people say that non-voters are lazy. They are smart. They are smart enough not to have the wool pulled over their eyes by some shyster.
BTW: I'm still fool enough to participate.
I voted for CmdrTaco on the pro-moderation ticket.
I feel that america would be a much better society if it was a moderated (first POST!!!) society. He how did that slip in there... With such campaign topics as privacy (Natalie Portman), foreign policy (hot grits). I think that the slashdot crew will come through in the end.
And remember vote early, often and for slashdot...
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Reality has a liberal bias
Where I live I vote in someones home....
The same people who volintear to work the elections also give up some space.
It's a lot cheaper to pay a home owner some small token fee than to use government buildings.
It's still not enough.. the local churches still give up some space for the election..
However there are rules in place to prevent mixing of religion and vote... During the election all religous matereal is stored away..
I don't actually exist.
It is apparent to me that the only reason Gore is promoted as having any more stature than Bush is because: a) The press, being mostly liberal, is inclined to bash him as much as possible
Yes, the press is mostly liberal, and has bashed Gore as much as possible.
b) Gore has wankish mastery for quoting stats (this impresses many people, though god knows why) while Bush does not
Probably because people like to hear specifics, which Gore offers in abundance while its hard to get a strait answer out of Bush, even for traditional Rebublican stances. Does he support the Supreme Courts definition of affirmative action or not, does he favor banning the abortion pill or not, and what exactly is his stand on rights for homosexuals. And this is just from the debates.
All politicans answer straight questions with off topic answers to some degree. Bush Sr. did this, and of course so did Clinton. But Dubya can't do it for shit and its painfully obvious when he does.
c) Bush has made a few _verbal_ slipups (but so did his father) that has made him look like he doesn't understand.
The guy can't talk for more than a few minutes without an attack of verbal dyslexia. I've never really held this against him, everybody does this once in a while, but its pretty bad when you have a total breakdown trying to explain your own tax plan to a voter.
In other words, I think Bush is actually smarter than Gore. I find it really hard to believe that anyone that watched the debates was impressed by Gore's performance _any_ measure.
I doubt anybody watched the debates and decided Gore would make a great drinking buddy, but especially in the third debate he cleaned the floor with Bush. Too bad Gore was such a uptight jerk in the first debate and a submissive wuss in the second.
To make a long story short, a significant number of intelligent, educated, and politically knowledgable people are voting for Bush. I count myself amongst those numbers, thank you. Good bye
And you might have stuck us with a real boob for the next four years. Just have to wait and see.
It's not a lunch break- I don't feel like driving 30 miles through traffic each way. I think you missed the point of my argument (which was, amongst others, that physical voting sucks!)
My boss doesn't really care. I could take the whole day off to vote if i wanted. I just don't like waiting that damn long for old biddies to figure out what the hell they are doing.
for that matter, it's not crap. the candidates are crap. I'm going to vote for local elections and nothing else, maybe I'll throw my vote away on nader. ask me if i really give a damn about who's leading the corporate state... i don't.
EOM
Is there really separation of Church and State in the US? I only know that the President is sowrn in to his job over the Bible. How will it handled if the Jewish guy becomes Vice-President? Will he be sworn in over Jewish holy writings by a Rabbi? Would a (potential) Moslem President be sworn in over the Koran? How about an Atheist? I am just curious.
In Germany, where I am originally from (lived 17 years in Japan), there is no separation of church and nation. If you are catholic or protestand, you pay your 10% church taxes like in the middle ages and Sunday is "holy" in the "base law" (Germany doesn't have something called a constitution due to historical reasons) and therefore a law exists that forbids shops to open on sundays. Of course there is freedom of religion and I, as a atheist, have never been discriminated but it feels still odd.
Same story here pretty much (in Vadnais Heights, Twin Cities suburb). Did you get the same lame red "I voted" sticker? I'm really dissapointed with the sticker.
heh... and there were no exit pollsters..
It occurred to me on my way back from voting that I tried to "design" how the electronic voting system might work. I tried to think of ways to prevent subversion and disruption, etc. The more I thought about it, the more I wondered how the system worked as it is. I was curious what kind of third-party evaluation took place. Are we justified in the faith we place in our voting system?
I was speaking metaphorically. Of course there are rural areas in Europe. But the overall population density is much much higher in Europe than in the US. In the US it is not a big deal to drive for three hours to get to the nearest big city to go shopping or see a show. In Europe it is more likely to be half an hour away.
I must assume you mean arson-related deaths. If a firman is killed in the line of duty, and the fire is arson related, the fireman died as a result of the deliberate actions of an individual. If the person is convicted of arson, they will also be responsible for the charge of wrongful death.
The legality has nothing to do with liking or disliking firemen.
Lowmag.net
Neither of those cases criminalise thought or make the point of stiffer penalties for what cannot be proven. In the case of insanity, psychiactric tests can be run on the accused. In the case of self defense, they have to prove accused has to prove it was an action of defense, or the prosecution has to prove malice (depends on if you are a pessimist or optimist in your views of the courts.)
Not being sane, or acting in self defense in these cases also doesn't make you less guilty, but rather less punishable. In the case of thought crime, something unprovable beyond doubt is what goes on in your head in regards to your emotions and thoughts at the time. They can send you to a head-shrinker, but you cannot witness against yourself (5th amendment), and the shrinker cannot testify against you. (Doc-pat privilege)
Lowmag.net
I wonder why I pay a higher percentage on my money now than 3 years ago when I was in a lower bracket. Based on that, I would postulate the take gets higher as you make more money.
Lowmag.net
I showed up to vote, as usual, at 6:10am. The lines were very long. During our September primary (statewide offices in Arizona) I was the fifth person to vote. Today, I was 67. The polls had been open since 6am. Looks like there will be a lot of people.
If you are in the US and registered, get out and vote for candidates and ballot propositions that you care about. Remember, the world is run by those who show up!
Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
The conclusion I drew from reading this book is that my voice does matter. If for no other reason than preventing another catastrophe like the holocaust, I will go to the polls and vote.
Well, I haven't read the book but it seems that you drew the wrong conclusion (am I arrogant or what?). The lesson seems that being able to influence a lot of people leads to political consequences, some (most?) of which are unintended and unforeseen. I still don't see how you conclude from this that your individual voice counts.
In other words voting doesn't count as self-expression in my book and I am not arrogant enough to belive I personally will have any political impact.
P.S. Sorry about the dropped thread on Kuro5hin about Reformation. I had a week from hell and message boards temporarily dropped under the radar.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
we don't have a choice that seems anywhere close to Adolf Hitler.
Heh. I run across some hysterics by Hollywood Democrats and according to them the election of Bush will inevitably lead to the collapse of the Western civilization within the next four years.
the act of me voting my conscience does indeed voice my opinion, however small that voice is.
Sure. If you treat is purely as self-expression I have no problem.
the concordat with Hitler was only effective because Catholics in Germany chose to obey.
Of course. But that goes to resistance to unjust authority, does it not? It's not a question of voicing your opinion, it's a question of doing what those in power want you to do.
General systems theory (and its bastard child, chaos theory) teaches us the opposite, that small actions can and do have large impacts on the system.
Under specific conditions, usually involving tight feedback loops. I don't think US politics qualify.
If you want your voice to be heard, go run a political site, write an editorial, draw a cartoon, publish a book. "Just" voting is a cop-out for people who want to claim they participate in the political process.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I'm for Nader, looks like the wife is voting Bush. She might switch to Nader, though, as every time the debates get mentioned, she flies into a fury over why third party candidates were denied the opportunity to participate in the 3 corporate funded dog and pony shows. For some reason, this alone just bothers her more than anything. Around the family there's quite a lot of Bush voting, and a few conversions to Nader. The folks who are voting Nader switched because they heard him speak. He's one fired up dude. It's the non-typical mix - green, and republican, but no-one in this small group takes the democrats seriously for anything other than massive corruption, sell out, and toilet morality. Things that clinched the Nader vote for these religous, typical republicans? Bush's record of executions, pollution, and that honkin' denial of the minimum wage. Folks, poor people just stay poor on $3.35/hr. I don't mind paying a few bucks more for my produce if it means there's less incentive to steal my car.
As far as the oil issue goes, I guarantee Europe would be a lot more over the barrel (pun intended) than the US would. The US has enormous oil fields in Texas and Alaska, to name but two. Currently, it's more efficient to harvest from the middle east, with well-established drilling technology to get the easy pickin's under the desert. The Alaskan fields are particularly tricky. Don't think for a second that they wouldn't be exploited if the Middle East became unfriendly.
Like it or not, America is the biggest kid on the block. America has been much more, well, neighborly than a lot of countries that have had that distinction in the past.
Wise Americans do care about what goes on in the world...but not enough to let the world vote in our elections. We'll fuck that up all by ourselves, thank you.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Here's the deal...
I would not be opposed to this if the system went both ways. Ok, let Europeans vote for Pres. Let Americans vote for European positions. The catch is that the Europeans cannot come back whining because someone contary to the socialist ideals of Europe is elected and does away with all those nice welfare programs in favor of deregulation and free markets.
I have no problem opening our system as soon as you are willing to do the same. You don't like the idea of the money-driven Americans turning your country into another infection of Walmarts and McDonalds, then quit bitching.
(Plus, looking it from a population position, I think you have a losing position and we would overtake you that way. *insert evil laugh*)
-Chris
This is irresponsible nonsense.
"Try post WWI Germany for a fine example of how idiotic multi-party systems can become."
And therefore all multi-party systems are a 3rd Reich waiting to happen? Please.
"When they start digging Nader's skeletons out of the closet, you'll see how creepy he really is."
Please, fill us in on all this revealing information that you're privy to! Oh, you have none?
"Simpering in the corner and moaning about how big companies are hurting you is weak and feeble behavior."
Mr. Nader has done precisely the opposite of simpering and/or moaning. He has, for many, many years, led the fight to hold those corporations responsible for their actions. Obviously you think these corporations are beyond reproach, but were you more of Nader's mind, what would you suggest he do? March into the headquarters of GM with an automatic weapon? No serious person would contest that Mr. Nader's work has saved lives. Can you say the same for yourself???
"If you had any real conviction, you'd quit voting for losers and start influencing the hearts and minds of those with a legitimate chance to win."
Are you a high school football coach or something? Look back through history and tell me how many real instances of social progress started with people supporting/voting for losers. Just about all of them. Real change doesn't occur because the powers-that-be get a pang of conscience. It happens because when movements like the Greens get too big for them to ignore.
WhatEVER. Of course it'll change SOMETHING. No, not everything. Yes, people should do more than just vote in terms of community/political involvement. But to suggest that it won't change anything is a non-voter's cop-out.
Doesn't the Reform Party (the party Perot started) get government funding right now? Why wouldn't the green party turn into something like the circus that has become?
I'd rather the libertarian or Natural Law party get that 5%, especially since the Green party as a whole seems to have many ideas that I don't like.
Perhaps next time the libertarians could push for a good national candidate like Nader or Jesse Ventura, enough to get the 5% for funding so a more serious candidate would have a chance later on. Or, perhaps one of those parties could take over the Reform Party. If all libertarians started calling themselves "Reform Candidates", would they still get the money?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Are you sure you want to encourage him?
:)
I really hoped that no one would read that part...
But seriously, he's posted a few flame arena articles the past few weeks - no 8k to 12k blurb, just a flamable topic and let us flame eachother to death. I kinda like that, debates always show us different points of view.
--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
In fact, I've been so energized by politics as of late, I'm not just a Computer Science major, but a Political Science major, as well. I believe in the progressive movement, and will make it happen, through voting, discussing the issues with people, and by helping out on some level in my home state.
I thought on election day, after my incredible transformation into a fervent Nader supporter and learning all the issues, that I could come onto Slashdot and make a great statement or something. But chorder beat me to it. Even down to the minute details, like being up all night for no reason. But that doesn't really matter. He(?) speaks for me. I, too, read the Michael Moore letter of the day and was inspired.
I hope every out there feels as good about voting as I did.
Happy Election Day!
-----
-----
"Be kind to your local milkman... you have his eyes." -Mother
> I had to wait 1 hr. 15 min. to vote. And later
> I noticed my fly was down the whole time
That's a good way to comment on the American political system. I forward the motion that everybody should unzip their flies when standing in line waiting to vote.
After all, Bush is the only candidate who knows "how hard it is to put food on your family," and he's pledged to "make the pie higher."
If you don't vote, don't bitch!
Yup, no matter how stupid the law or policy! I don't care if the FBI confiscates your mother's computer because they have a tape of you talking about a Microsoft hack! No matter what stupid thing the US government does between now and the next election it obviously doesn't matter to you, so keep your mouth shut!By not making a choice you give up all rights to complain about the choices made by others for you!
The point of this type of law is to discourage voter fraud. If you move in the blackout period, you can still vote in your old precinct. Like many crimes, the penalties are severe enough to make sane people not do wrong things. Unfortunately, where power lies also lies corruption, and vote tampering is an unfortunate reality in many localities.
There really is no difference between what happened in Chicago in the 1960's and what happened this year in Yugoslavia. Fixing elections by voting with "unused" voter registrations is just plain wrong. I don't mean to imply that you were planning to vote more than once, but this law is to discourage people from voting twice.
In the 1996 election, in California, a large number of absentee ballots were submitted from a nursing home that had many incapacitated elderly citizens. The director of this particular institution was curious about the "Election Party" on the calendar where all of the invalid patients were ushered down to the cafeteria to vote by absente ballot. Many of these poor people were unable to speak, walk, or eat by themselves. Upon further investigation, he found that all ballots there (about 80) were voted as the same straight party ticket, all signed in the patient's name, with the same handwriting of the organizing therapist. This episode had solved his mystery of how this one employee was always invited to high-roller fundraisers for this particular party (she could guarantee at least 80 votes every time).
I won't mention the particular party, but will offer that they don't mind using cigarettes as currency.
-- Len
Yeh, and it's been a complete mess, (at least here in So. oregon) Mis-printed ballots, lost voter registrations (Really, I WAS going to vote for Harry Browne, but the county lost my voter registration and I didn't find out about it till AFTER the registration deadline)
Yaaaarrrghhh. Honestly if i was the conspiricy type, I'd be wondering who decided to f-up the the voting in the state w/ what has to be the highest level of third party support in the union.
What really pisses me off, tho, is not just the presidential vote, but the more important bit... All the state refferendums.
-- -- The Dragon De Monsyne
Hip HIp! I'm as quick to bash Americans as the next guy, but Land Rovers are British, and they've been around about twice as long as Ford Explorers and the lot. That said, I think the US started producing Jeeps an awfully long time ago, so I don't really know who invented SUVs. :)
:( Next time, though, I'm requesting an absentee ballot.
Otherwise, though, I would probably vote for Nader (Browne's not on the ballot here in Arizona; it's some other LP candidate).
(OT) Don't forget Toyota; their Land Cruiser has been around *forever*.. since the '30s, IIRC. And GM's Suburban has been around since '36.
As for voting, I didn't vote. I have a flu and am too sick to leave the house
Whoa. That sounds pretty harsh.
It's really too bad that over half of the electorial votes (you know, those things you need to actually become president) are given out.
Translation: All the votes on the planet couldn't change the fact that either Al Gore or Bush is going to win. Nader doesn't have a chance in hell, neither do Brown, Buchannen or whoever else thinks they have a shot.
People bitch about us not voting (and the fact that we're proud of it), but they never ask why.
So, why, you ask? Because it wouldn't make a difference.
So we can all get down on our knees and give thanks that the campaigns are finally over.
James
If the only part of the political process a person takes part in is voting then they are indeed copping out. However, I imagine you and I have different notions of what it means to do more than "just" voting.
For me, voting is but one aspect of living out my ethos. Saying that voting doesn't matter because its just one vote is to misunderstand how democracy works. (Although if one wants to argue that the one vote doesn't matter because its really the electoral college that does the picking and choosing, that is another matter altogether. Personally, I hope that we have a repeat of 1888 where the winner of the popular election was not the winner of the electoral college election. Such might just be an impetus to some much needed change.) OTOH, to claim that voting is the only excercise of the conscience needed to live a moral life is also a miscontruation.
My life declares what I believe by the totality of all my actions. Some of my actions declare me a hypocrite. Some of my actions declare me just. Some of my actions proclaim my faith. Some of my actions proclaim I don't really believe what I say I do.
Talking to friends, family and co-workers helps, too. A few books (but not many) have actually changed my thinking on one issue or the other. Most of the reasoning that has had an impact on my life has come through dialogue with acquaintences of one sort or the other. I don't think it incorrect to assume that the same is true for others as well.
have a day,
-l
On my ballot he was first. First or last, he had my vote sewn up a long time ago. I wavered a bit after reading about some of the skeletons in his closet at realchange.org, but OTOH its not like his opponenents in the race for president don't have their own skeletons.
have a day,
-l
It's simple. My vote represents my conscience. Granted, in the current elections we don't have a choice that seems anywhere close to Adolf Hitler. However, the act of me voting my conscience does indeed voice my opinion, however small that voice is. The Roman Pontif may have encouraged the Catholics in Germany to do (or not do) certain things, but the concordat with Hitler was only effective because Catholics in Germany chose to obey.
Your argument seems to be that in any system where the result is generated by by a large number, the individual events that contribute to that number are inconsequential. I would dispute this. General systems theory (and its bastard child, chaos theory) teaches us the opposite, that small actions can and do have large impacts on the system.
While a single vote does not change the system, the combination of many votes does. If your vote is never cast, it makes it that less likely for anyone with similiar views to make his or her voice herd.
And don't sweat the Reformation thread. I know how it goes. I dropped off the economics/entropy thread. I'm currently doing a bit of homework on the latter to submit a full fledged article on my ideas on how monoplolies in a free market relate to entropy in a thermodynamic system.
have a day,
-l
I remember seeing a 'TV ad' version of this where the voice over said 'Designed on computers, built by robots, driven by Italians' and the vision that accompanied the last part was of all these cars crashing.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Even if you don't agree about everything and even strongly object to something, you should still vote for the party closest to what you feel is important.
Noone has to know everything about their party or agree to everything. Just find your important issues.
This is simple statistics, the huge number of voters justify this kind of behaviour. The numbers will even this out and the candidate America wants will be elected in the end.
Also this earns you the right to bitch and complain later, because you did your part of the job in a democratic way.
StormyMonday wrote: "If you don't vote, you've got no right to complain about the Gov't for the next four years. So get your sorry arse to the polls or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!"
... filled out my ScanTron form) for the only pres. candidate I consider worth thinking about and a few seemingly less-evil local candidates. But people who don't vote because the choices are insane (forcing myself to vote was a big struggle, but I did it) have a legitimate reason not to.
I disagree. This morning, I left the house at 6:50 a.m. and pulled my levers (well
Put it this way: if your community was having a vote "Do we or do we not burn StormyMonday's residence, what with all of his constant bongo playing and seditious views?" would you believe you had no right to complain unless you were one of the few who voted No? I think you have a right to complain about being screwed even if you refuse to designate the exact form of the screwing.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I was about the fifth person at my poll site this morning - no line at all... more elecion workers than voters by a good measure. Using MN's same-day-registration, I was able to register and vote in under ten minutes... and I got a little red sticker.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Now that I can agree with... I look at it from the other side of things... I'm conservative, I hope Bush wins. But I do think the best thing for everyone is for gridlock to occur and nothing at all gets done.
:)
Just think how much better our economy would be if we had gotten nationalized health care on a grand scale... whoohooo... just sooo looking forward to that day
Brian Macy
wow, that's two people who have equated holding (voting) stock in a company to being a citizen of a country.
Nah, we don't need campaign finance reform, the corporations don't have too much influence ...
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
I think that's the problem, according to the "rest of the world". You belong to corporations.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
OK....
I can only conclude that you have a much lower fear threshold than I do./.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I was having trouble getting through, so I thought I'd post what early poll results they are listing:
DRUDGE REPORT... TUE NOV 07 2000 14:15:01 ET... UPDATED BY MATT DRUDGE...
CAMPAIGNS GET FIRST LOOK AT RESULTS...
SQUEAK: BUSH TAKES SLIGHT LEAD
IN EARLY VOTING; HILLARY PUSHES
PAST LAZIO BY 8 POINT MARGIN, SAY
SOURCES
Pennsylvania and Florida
dead heat, campaign sources
tell DRUDGE...
Gore up by 3 in Michigan, say campaign sources...
Bush takes lead in Ohio and Missouri, say campaign sources...
Tennessee and Arkansas, Bush leading, say campaign sources...
I'd be tempted to razor blade off the
"Don't" and leave "Blame me I didn't vote".
They cannot be recalled, only impeached for gross misconduct. They can of course choose to retire.
How many of you that voted:
A) Pulled a lever
B) Pressed a key or button
c) Filled in a little arrow
+-- (Score:-1, Moderator on Power Trip)
and voting for a third party candidate seems to mean so little when even if a third-party candidate was elected president, the republicrat house and senate would fight his legislation every step of the way.
the solution? write in Bill the Cat. at least his 'Ack' means something.
Ralph Nader fights corporate crime and welfare. Corporate crime kills far more people and costs taxpayers far more money than street crime. Corporate welfare siphons hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars away from where they are needed to rebuild America's bridges, schools, health and recreation centers, drinking water systems, mass transit systems and other public facilities
Every vote for Ralph Nader is a vote towards the creation of a watchdog political party that will empower civic groups and send a clear message to the two major parties: "shape up or shrink down." If you agree that Ralph Nader is the only presidential candidate capable of reforming politics, vote Nader. Do you expect your members of Congress to vote their conscience? Shouldn't you?
http://www.votenader.com/
Ralph Nader is not for sale. Millions of corporate dollars and twenty-two thousand corporate lobbyists are choking American democracy. Nader is the only candidate running a clean money campaign. While Bush and Gore rake in millions of dollars in soft money and obligations to special interests, the Nader campaign refuses soft money, corporate contributions or PAC donations.
I very, very rarely point out spelling problems. But the words "troup" and "troop" mean quite different things.
A troup is a group of performers. A troop is a group of soldiers or scouts. I hang out with both, and they get real upset when you get them confused. There was a pretty good movie made about confusing the two - A Bug's Life.
If you were making a point, it was a bit subtle for this forum.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
I went down to my local town hall and attempted to vote. "i'm sorry", said the old man. "You are not registered to vote." I had mailed in my registration form several months ago, and was disappointed to learn that it was never processed. I guess i will have to try again next time. I was really looking forward to vote in my first Pres election (Vote Nader!!).
Ah, the last peanut -- overflowing with the oil and salt of its departed brothers. -Homer
The thing to pay attention to today is that the anti-political correctness movement is much bigger than political correctness ever was. It's gotten to the point where it's more acceptable to be a racist/bigot than to try to tell people those kinds of viewpoints are wrong. The first is almost honored for "fighing against political correctness", while the second gets you in trouble for promoting that evil PC stuff...
Besides, for some of us, it's not about "doing what we're told", it's about giving a shit about the feelings and thoughts of others and not needlessly offending and insulting them. But then again, so many people are busy being "strong" by fighting political correctness (usually by doing anything they can find that is supposedly wrong under PC) that they neither realize anti-PC is more common, and that they're pissing people off in the process.
Most of the people who do things that are considered "politically correct" don't do the because they're considered that, they do them because they think it's right.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
True, they make things more lenient for something that cannot be proven.
It's not like I don't see the reason to be against hate crimes. I'll be honest, I think the stiffer penalties should be handed out for HOW the crime was performed. After all, hate crimes almost always result in more vicious crimes, because the criminal is releasing the anger in that way. So if we penalized for that, it would catch most of them, and they wouldn't need to continue to list what qualifies as a hate crime.
But I think there are plenty of hate crimes which are more obvious in what they are then many self-defense and mental defect cases. For example, what happened to Matthew Sheppard, or that guy down in Texas - while you can't prove it 100%, you can easily eliminate any reasonable doubt it was a hate crime.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
You're right, but...
Whoever becomes President is sure as hell going to think about the rest of the world! Perhaps you should at least consider it. While the US President is primarily the President of America, he also exerts a staggering amount of influence in the rest of the world - way out of scale with the population, and even the economy of the USA.
Your comments about the President simply stopping Congress overreaching indicates that perhaps you don't appreciate the power (and influence) he actually exerts...
The US President used to be described as the leader of the Free World, whatever that meant. When the USSR dissolved, there was lots of hand-wringing in the US about what being the only superpower meant, and whether you wanted to be the 'Policeman of the World'. Like it or not, the US President is the closest person we have to a whole world leader.
I don't think that other countries should have a voice in who your President is (we in the UK have enough problems with the implications of joining a 'non-political' European Union), but I think that it wouldn't do the US any harm to be less parochial that it often seems to be.
James
I got up a little early so I could vote before work, thinking I would beat the rush. When I got to the polls I was surprised to find that I still had to wait almost 20 minutes. I guess I wasn't the only person who thought they could beat the rush. As I stood in line, I noticed that the room had a different feeling in the air than most places people are waiting. Everyone seemed to be content to be there, even though we were all wanting to finish so we could start our day. It was like we were all taking a break from the day, doing something different, and I really enjoyed that feeling. Maybe we were all proud of doing our civic duty, or maybe it was just doing something different in the morning. Whatever it was, it was the least selfish I had seen a group of strangers in quite some time. That alone was well worth my 20 minutes this morning.
For e-mail, s/DONTSPAMME/lmco/
As long as they didn't force you to kneel down and pray to The Lord Almighty to not strike you down where you stand for voting the wrong way, I'd say you're OK.
----
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
And why am I doing this? To make sure Nader gets his 5% and to be a part of the new permanent reform party that this country desperatly needs.
The result of the actual Reform party getting its matching funds is that the Buchanan forces took it over so they could get those funds. What makes you think the Greens will do any better?
If you don't believe in the canidates fill in None of the Above. If that wins all the canidates get thrown out and we get new ones.
Not where I live, and not where most people live either.
Right, Hillary is considered to be a strong candidate in 2004 only if Gore loses. The logic is that if an incumbent is unpopular enough inside his own party to lose a primary challege, he's unpopular enough in general that the electorate will take it out on his entire party. In 1968 and 1980, the only recent times that the incumbent had a strong oppostion, the other party ended up winning. (Johnson pulled out early in 1968 after a strong showing from Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire.)
You're right, though, that if Gore served 2 terms, Hillary would have a potential shot in 2008.
Don't let this acquiescent fool you into thinking that the only way to bring about change is reform. The US government isn't controlled by your "elected leaders", it's controlled by the people that created it, the ruling elite. Reformism as promoted in the parent posting will never fix the real problems of the world today.
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
That is an executive position and far more analogus to the responsibilities of the President than any of Gore's offices.
WTF? Being governor is more analogous to President than Vice-President??? Surely you jest?
People made similar accusations of Reagan, yet he had an undeniable ability to persuade Congress and the Press.
Reagan had charisma, Bush does not.
Part of Bush's problem is that much of the reasoning behind his policy doesn't take well to soundbites.
So what you are saying is that he fails to communicate his ideas to the people.
That's an opposite view to a few lines earlier: but he communicated his (somewhat hard to stomach) ideas across relatively well.
So, which is it? Does he or doesn't he communicate well?
I fail to see how someone who 'counts [oneself] amongst.. a significant number of intelligent, educated, and politically knowledgable people..' can make such a poor argument for his/her chosen candidate?
--
Just because it is written does not make it fact.
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
Well, OK, I don't know if I would call a Land Rover an SUV. Maybe a UV. Maybe a British upper-class twatmobile. My mum used to have an old short wheelbase diesel, it went about 45MPH downhill, and you needed a new set of bones after every trip. Not exactly a sporty vehicle.
:)
But we don't have billions of the fuckers.
Anyway, they're owned by Ford now... You USians are just lapping it up...
BTW my Mum is not an upper-class twat. She used the Land Rover to move logs. Just to clear that up.
You know, for a moment I thought you were voting for Ali G ...
Maybe the Staines massive can annex some new territory...
Booyakasha!
It's a pity that your republicrat two horse race is marginalising Nader & his Green Party.
Because, let's face it, the US of A really needs to start being responsible for what it's doing to the environment.
The country that gave us SUV's...
You lot produce something like five times as much CO2 as anyone else in the world.
Nice one.
Anyway, I was watching this documentary about Hillary Rodham, and I was wondering about something they said... Of course, if she gets the NY Governor job, then she becomes a potential candidate for President in 2004. The thing is, they reckon she only has a chance if the Democrats lose this time. What's the deal with that? Is it extremely unlikely for a Democrat to beat another Democrat (ie. Al Gore) after a bad first term? What about if Gore gets two terms, surely it's not a given that the Republicans will be in next?
Sorry, I'm not USian, I'm just curious.
PCWorld's 2000 Voter Guide
I thought Libertarian Harry Browne's comments were hilarious. Whoohoo! A politician who's against government! He also makes it clear several times that e-mail is a form of speech and that it should be protected as such
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
fuckin a dude
pre election day drinking
one last drunken chance to to change each others mind
total madness
my ankle is twisted and my front teeth are sore
also burned a massive container of slim jims
They used to run "omnibus" candidates (war heros, whatever). Worked fine until the Republicans ate their lunch.
=googol=
Back when he was just an Indiana politician, his statewide media image was of a smart, young, ambitious, yuppie. That was the stereotype of all neo-conservatives elected ca. 1980 and the media played it to the hilt. The young Turks (anti-Carter, post-Watergate conservatives) were more focused, more ambitious, sharper dressers, slicker hair, and were more intellegent than Liberals. It played well until about the mid-80s and the Iran-Contra hearings.
I strongly suspect most politicians are smarter than they affect or come across. It's very hard to both be intelligent and yet not to appear dumb on TV. I even gave Danny the benefit of the doubt until the overwhelming evidence of preponderance er, wasted a terrible thing. He has a mind--I mean had a happy place to keep his thoughts happy. Yes.
Of course, in national office, you couldn't hide the "real" Quayle any more than you could hide the real Clinton or will be able to hide the real Al/Dubya/Ralph/Harry. Most of the time you can, but little bits and pieces of the truth filter out. Kinda like the part in Jurassic Park about Chaos theory.
=googol=
I've never had a relationship with a boy as geeky as I am.
I have to admit, I hesitated a moment and considered hiding my pent under my shirt before going in for fear I'd be given problems while signing in at the church to vote. In the end I didn't. I got some funny looks from some of the people running the polling place, but that's all that happened. I have a feeling they are quite aware of how much jail time they'd spend if they gave me problems.
That's enough separation of church and state for me. A building is just a building, and I don't care which building it is that I vote in as long as no baggage comes with that building.
Each case has a similar history. Problems begin to develop, state government does nothing. Problem gets severe and voters become alarmed (something like 70% of registered voters polled say that growth needs to be channeled -- not stopped, just organized in some reasonable fashion), state government does nothing. Grass roots movement collects the needed votes and gets an amendment to the constitution on the ballot. They used to do this with citizen initiative laws, only to discover that the legislature was willing to repeal those laws next session. The legislature can't repeal an amendment!
The published campaign contributions on these point out one of the root problems: out-of-state developers spent $5.5M (large money in a Colorado campaign) advertising against the growth control amendment. I suppose that if I were a semi-pro politician (being a state legislator here is only a part-time job), I would be reluctant to piss off groups who might spend that money campaigning against me if I took action that they didn't like.
I'm a supporter of representative democracy -- the issues are often big and complex and I don't have time to understand them in enough detail to make reasonable choices, so I want to elect someone with some brains and some judgement to go make decisions on my behalf. Too bad those people aren't doing the job and we have to resort to the initiative process, where there is no room for discussion, give-and-take, compromise, or any of the other flexibility that the regular legislative process has.
I chose not to vote for Dweedledum or Dweedledee. They both support continuing the disasterous "War on Drugs" and its attendand wholesale destruction of individual rights. Gore is too much of a statist control-freak imho opinion and has set some thing concerning ecological policies that I find quite irresponsible. Bush is a good old boy and quite likeable but seems to blame the Internet for all ills and would be pretty draconian in internet policy and in enforcing IP stuff.
Neither party and neither candidate has much of a record in truly doing what elected officials are supposed to be doing in this country - enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Republicans want the government in your bedroom and Democrats want the government in your boardroom.
Fie on both of their houses. I voted Libertarian across the board. Futile perhaps but I couldn't stomach voting at all otherwise.
Last night, I was watching Raw is War. I love wrestling. I really do. I have been impressed by the effort that the WWF has gone to, encouraging people to get out and vote.
Vince MacMahon came out to the ring last night, despite the "danger" that Stone Cold Steve Austin would assault him (they have "history), to make an impassioned plea that we vote.
He pointed out that all the PACs and special interest groups and unions and suchlike that vote in a block for one candidate or the other essentially cancel each other out, and that Average American, the WWF fan, was going to decide who the next president would be. He ALMOST convinced me to go out today and vote. It was a good speech.
Then I remembered that I believe it doesn't matter who wins... it doesn't matter which laws are passed... we're all fucked anyway, so who cares?
Still, Seagis made me think that maybe I should go vote anyway.
Then I remembered that I'm more than just a geek: I'm an uber-lazy geek.
So, I've admitted it. I don't think voting matters enough to overcome my laziness.
But I hope you win!
Failure is not an option.
Failure is not an option.
It comes bundled with Windows.
As requested:
15 Libertarians were elected to local offices yesterday, as well as making a strong showing in several national elections. True, we may not have won the high-profile races, but it's more than just a "moral victory."
Harry Browne finished only slightly behind Buchanan, in fifth place, despite Buchanan having $12 million in federal funds to draw on.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized. -AC
The Libertarian Party, unlike other "third parties," is not just a cult of personality for one man, like the Reform party for Perot or the Green party for Nader. We are a real political party, running 1420+ candidates at all levels of government - local, state, and national. That includes 256 candidates for the U.S. House of Representative and 26 for the Senate.
So we are running more than just a "gasbag who want[s] make speeches that nobody listens to." Maybe you should do some research before you make blanket statements.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized. -AC
After months of inner turmoil, plagued by doubt, I cast my vote this morning...and felt, immediately upon leaving the booth, CHEAP. Dirty. As though I had just sold my soul. Somehow I really suspect democracy was not meant to feel this way...
It was a "lesser of two evils kind of thing" for me as well; being in a swing state, I just couldn't bring myself to cast any kind of vote that might help get Bush elected (his particular brand of evil scares me more than The Other Guy). And so: as much as I dread to reveal this, I have just irrevocably commited my vote to...Al Gore.
There, I've admitted it! I'm going to be working this out in therapy for years, I just know it....
After all, I keep hearing your politicians talk about the American people, and you tell me that you are an American [and if being American means you are allowed to vote].
:-).
So lets have government for all *Americans*. That means folk from the USA, Canada, Mexico, Purerto Rico, Cuba...
Oh wait! Perhaps you guys were actually meaning to day USA the whole time you were talking about America?
If I lived in the other American countries I'd probably get real angry about this, but being Australian I just find the arrogance amusing.
Luckily where I come from, our country is our continent
How about Gore's 5 F's at Vanderbilt?
7 -2000Mar18.html
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3739
I also voted for Harry Browne. I voted yesterday, via absentee ballot. Like Delaware, my state (NY) is about as solid a Gore state as you can get, so I felt good about making my Libertarian statement with my vote, without worryign about my vote helping Georgie Porgie along.
God, Bush is such a half-wit.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
yea this is the main point in the parent post that i didn't understand at all, and i'm surprised your the only one who pointed it out? i know i've heard many conservatives complain about the liberal media, but the only vaguely liberal (closer to moderate really) mainstream media i've ever seen or heard is public radio. local news shows and papers are incredibly conservative on almost every issue. can anybody actually give a convincing argument that 'the press' is liberal?
No, you're wrong. And i can say that b/c i'm 22, going on 23...and i've been opposed to these thigns since i was about 15, not b/c i couldn't vote or buy alcohol, but b/c i knew that these arbitary age limits were insane.
If you learned everything you could about politics in one year of your life then your a better man than I am!
I learned everything i could about the issues, and who was for stuff and whatnot. I don't claim to knw everything about every issue. I also don't think its a process that stops.
This is the first year I really feel comfortable about voting, and I've been able to for 6 years now. It took most of the time I spent in college for me to begin to develop anything that remotely resembled a decent Mature view of the world.
Well, that is you. I feel i could have made an intelligent choice at 17 if given the chance.
As for taxes I hate them as much as anyone else, but if you are able to work you should be paying them. It's our duty as citezens of the US to help chip in for the daily runnings of the country.
I don't hate taxes. I hate that people without representation have to pay them. Odd that these under 18 'citezens' get to pay taxes but have zero say in anything about our country, and are more heavily restricted then even prisoners i bet. To me its simple,if you are truely a citizen, then you pay taxes, but you also get a say in the governing of the country. It seems very lopsided to make someone pay but not give them a say...what reason do they have for paying taxes then? Isn't that one of the main reasons this country was born to begin with?
Maybe if teens didn't constantly get the shaft...
Adults take away their rights, and then expect them to pay taxes. Tell me, why should someone with no say in the gov't be forced to pay anything to it?
Besides, whast the difference if a bitter, disgruntled immature adult voting and a bitter, disgruntled immature teenager?
You'd be bitter too if you had selfish, idiotic, and defeatist people running the country.
Do you think you should be able to vote at 15? How about 12? I worked at 16, but it was a part time job, didn't care much about politics,and a vote from me would definatly have reflected my parents views and not my own.
Maybe, maybe not. At 16 i learned everything i could about politics, and i was able to form my own opinon on it. Besides, the other solution would be to exempt those under 18 from taxes. You shouldn't be taxed if you have no say.
You realize half a day of work is 12 hours, right? :-)
After going to the city hall and taking a peep at the ballot, I ran to the local church. :-)
You saw that bumpersticker too?
I should know, seeing as how that's what I did.
I'm glad to see someone else feels this way. After watching SNL Presidential Bash 2000 I got the distinct feeling that It would be a lot more fun to make fun of Bush than Gore.
hmmmm...what? Oh, I left this stupid
If you learned everything you could about politics in one year of your life then your a better man than I am!
This is the first year I really feel comfortable about voting, and I've been able to for 6 years now. It took most of the time I spent in college for me to begin to develop anything that remotely resembled a decent Mature view of the world.
As for taxes I hate them as much as anyone else, but if you are able to work you should be paying them. It's our suty as citezens of the US to help chip in for the daily runnings of the country.
If you don't like it MOVE to Canada.
hmmmm...what? Oh, I left this stupid
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
It's hard to create jobs without a climate that's friendly to capital. Gore's policies don't seem to be all that capital-friendly, unless you are talking about mega-capital able to hire the guns to get around the arcana of the tax laws. Big corporations LOVE big government, because they can talk turkey and freeze out the competition. Little capital, like the people who need a million bucks to take their garage operation and try to make it a player, gets screwed. Nader would be worse than Gore for employment. I think his policies make sense for some environmental issues, but that makes him awfully narrow; it suits him for Sec'y of the Interior, but not president.
It would be nice if we could get someone in office who would be friendly to everyone except the people whose aim is to boss everyone around, namely the power-hungry. Harry Browne is the natural for this job. I'd say Jesse Ventura, but he doesn't want to seek national office and I can't say I blame him; every time he talks some sense the press and the bluenoses try to pillory him. 'Tis such a pity that sanity is Politically Incorrect these days.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Now if we could just get rid of the electoral college...
I got up and went over to the local YMCA to vote. Then I realized that (1) that's not where I'm supposed to vote, even though it's the closest poll and (2) I forgot to change my registration when I moved last year, so I can't vote anyways. Sigh. And I was psyched to vote this year, too.
I just hope someone implements secure internet registration and voting by 2004.
I can't vote. Because of a mistake I made 5 years ago,(ok so it was a BIG one) my right has been suspended for 7 years. So in two years I can try to register if they haven't made legislation to make it a permanent restriction. So when you're out there making your choices, please think of lil ole me and vote for someone who's against taking away my right to vote...
"Most of my heros won't appear on no stamps..." Chuck D from Fight the Power
I did violate someone's right, but I have PAID my debt. I did jail time, I did community serivce, and paid my county $15,000 in fines.
Losing my rights was my fault in two ways, one because I hurt someone, two becasue I neglected to register earlier.
However I am a damn good person who made a mistake. I don't get the urge to rob or rape people often. It's generalizations like that that screw masses. I'm sure that most criminals could care less about voting but I DO. I'm not like most criminals. My summer of celebrating before I went to YALE got out of hand. It was a mistake. We all make them.
Thanks for being open minded.
"Most of my heros won't appear on no stamps..." Chuck D from Fight the Power
I've grown up in a very politically opiniated family, and have always been active in politics, even when I was too young to vote. My sister, who is also my best friend, has always encouraged me to be politically active in whatever way I can, and has had me participate in literature drops, telethons, and the like. For a long time I've wanted to be able to vote, so my opinions and views that had been shaped by others, as well as myself, could be voiced. This year I got a chance to do that with the upcoming presidential election. I decided that the candiate I thought would best represent my views belonged to a third party, and I had made my mind up about this. My sister on the other hand, thought it was her responsibility to make sure I voted for the "correct" major party candidate who I believed would best represent me, because with a third party, I would just be "throwing my vote away". Maybe I am throwing my vote away in the eyes of others, but the point of the election, so far as I understand it, is not to vote for the person MOST LIKELY to be able to win, but for the person you genuinely think would do the best job. I was also under the impression that it is very rude to ask others who they are voting/voted for in the election, be they stranger or family. All this harassment coupled with the pain-in-the-ass that is the absentee ballot, I'm glad this is all over now.
-- From my Best Friend (Written to me over ICQ): "i was gonna go to a party...but i had to reinstall windows"
talk to your boss.. get a long lunch break. vote.
don't make lame excuses like this, man. when an election comes around once in every 4 years, people _make_ time in their day to vote. why don't you cut the crap and do the same.
if your boss gets pissed, fuck 'em.
you will _not_ lose your job for voting in a presidential election.. no boss/company is that stupid these days.
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
You fail to take into account the following:
1) The two parties are very close to each other
(at least in compared to other democratic countries).
2) The two parties politics are right in the middle of the political spectrum.
3) There are lots of people whos views are not right down the middle so they always prefer the same party they always vote for.
This doesn't mean that they don't think about their vote. It means that every time, the things that are important to them result in the same conclusion.
If you are pro-Union, which party usually has your choice in it?
If you are anti-Gun Control, which party usually has your choice in it?
You can check voting records all you want, but you will most likely reach the same conclusion.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
how many public places that you know are able to hold large crowds? the only real places that are located in every town and city, non-commercial, that I can think of are churches, schools, post offices. oh, guess what? those are the places that are used for voting every year.
if you can think of a better idea, why don't you say something.
hell, I've voted in a synogague... however, the jewish population isn't always the largest and might not command a large public space.
Today I went to vote in the 42nd Election District in Brooklyn, NY. The line was out the door. It took 45 minutes to complete the voting process. It turns out that the 40 year old voting machines for districts 40 and 42 were out of order, so everyone was filling out paper ballots. Needless to say, while in line, everyone was talking about how we should be able to vote online, or over the phone. It's really annoying, and it makes me feel like someone wants to make it harder for me to vote. All I nkow is that you can pay your taxes online and over the phone, so you should be able to vote the same way. Those voting machines are artifacts and should be moved to a museum where they belong. It's rediculous.
-NiS
"Designed by a computer, built by a robot..."
Was an advertising slogan in Britain for German cars a few years back, and a lot of them had this displayed on a sticker on the back windshield.
Someone else spraypainted the "driven by a moron" just after the sticker on one of these cars.
The car in question had been driven through a shop window...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Well, this is (in my mind) where our electoral system breaks down. On the one hand, like you said, it's becoming more and more common for third party candidates to "steal votes" from one of the major candidates. In the case of this election, many people want to vote for Nader, but wouldn't mind if Gore won. But they do NOT want Bush to win. So by voting for their first choice (Nader), they split the votes between Gore and Nader and cause Bush to win. (We'll see if this actually happens, but I wouldn't be surprised; it happened with Perot!)
On the other hand, voting for the major candidate (your second choice) because you don't want to split the vote is also bad. How can a third party candidate ever break into the system (which is an eventual necessity in my opinion) with this?
I think the entire electoral system needs to undergo some major changes to solve these kinds of problems in the future. Perhaps being able to cast a half-vote for "second choice" or something along those lines.
I don't have all the answers, but something needs to be done.
kugano
If you think you can't make a difference you're just lying to yourself. At 50/50 every single vote counts. Even yours. Period.
Thomas Miconi
The 26th amendment gives 18 year olds (and sadly, so many immature, ill-informed pseudoradical college liberals and nader zealots) the right to vote.
It's sad that none of you slashbots who replied could even realize that "she" actually means the 22nd amendment. Yeah, you guys know everything about American government and can't even be bothered to know your own fucking Constitution. Idiots.
Good job, Ann... or should I say Sig... or should I say...
You know you read /. too much when you look
at the ballot and fully expect to see "Hemos
the Hampster" on there...
J
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
This is so totally true. It's like some people think they're voting for their favorite football team. As if any one party is totally right, or wrong! And that's who's in the voting booth punching out those little dots with the most confidence, the true fans!
"You can't play with my yo-yo"
It's the quintissential dilemma of the election: vote strategically or vote your conscience? I say vote your conscience because if you don't, you're validating the current duopoly system. By throwing your support behind Gore because you're afraid of splitting the party, you're saying that it's OK for democrats to abandon the progressive wing of their constituency in favor of corporations and the middle class. Think about it: you don't want to split up the "left", but that's what the Democrats have already done! If you go and vote for them now, you're simply endorsing that.
Also, as much as I hate to get into this fray, what if the Republicans did eventually get a real whacko elected (say, B-1 Bob Dornan or Dacid Duke). How long do you think that would last? Dubya is already pushing the margins of acceptability for the Republicans. If they make the mistake of pushing a demagogue on the American People, they will lose big time. I can't think of anything better to unite the left wing with the progressive forces of this country...
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Funny you should say that. As I rode my bicycle to work this morning (I voted absentee), I saw that the local polling place was in a union hall...talk about playing into the Republicans' hands...
But seriously; I live in a union town (San Francisco) and it won't be noticed here.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Am I the only one who thinks Bush deserves to win? He may form sentences poorly from time to time, but he really is a good person. Yeah, he has a few silly mistakes in his past, but he's always been up front about them, even if he didn't enumerate them like Gore apparently wants.
The thing is, Gore is a blatant liar. I don't even mind the fact that a candidate lies so much, but Gore doesn't even do it cleverly! I think we can all just let that "I invented the Internet" line slip by, but it's not even close to being his only fib.
Nader is semi-cool, but if you don't believe in every single one of his ultra radical opinions, it's your duty to vote for bush.
You people make it sound like this whole election is a massive heroic effort to keep Satan from coming to office. I wonder how many posters to slashdot have directly received funds from Gore's campaign?
Austin is more fun than Dallas.
Now can the rest of the known universe please be allowed to get on with its own business without having to put up with two grown men squabbling over who has the biggest dun-dun ?
Thank you & goodnight
--- This meme is memory intensive
Because there is no separation of Church and Satan!
rhino
Because it feels like something I've done before, yeah I could fake it but I'd still want more...
How the hell could I not vote? Indiana is a seriously Republican state, and only recently (12 years) has it gone with a Democrat governor and congressmen. The GOP has fought like hell to get it back, and I cannot allow that to happen. I did, however, write in Nader. This is simply because I do not like only two major parties, and Indiana was Georgie Jr.'s by double-digit points.
Ciao
nahtanoj
I'm not a US citizen, but I'm a legal permanent resident of US. It seems to me that when there is poor economy, people vote Democrat because they want Democrats to put more money into social programs, to help those in need. When the economy is going great, people vote Republican. Republicans usually give a big tax cut, by trimming down the social programs and then the economy goes back to where it started.
If I could vote, I'd vote for Ralph Nader. Why? Because I think he is left of our Democrats when it comes to the economy.
Oh, yeah, and some have said that he is a communist? I don't think so, he does not belive in government control of means of production, so that pretty much does not make hime a communist. I think he belives that a Democratic Republic like US can work for both the wealthy and the poor, in times of good and bad economy. I think that his fiscal policy is much more important that his views on social policy.
Please flame me, I need feedback. I know my spelling suck...
This space intentionally left blank.
It is a pain. You have to sort through all the election materials. You have to go out and *find* nonpartisan information. Then you have to go to the polling booth! The humanity!
When you figure that the US President is essentially the most powerful person on the planet (don't give me palaver about Gates - he can't send in the Marines or lob Cruise missiles at anyone), it's very important, not only for us here in the US, but for people all over the world who gets elected.
Then think about what people before you had to do *just to get the right to vote*! The Revolutionary War was about taxation without representation, among other things. The Women's Sufferage Movement, the Civil Rights Movement - essentially all these tremendous efforts were about giving people the right to vote and thereby influence the direction of the nation.
If you think that voting is too difficult, think about why all those people fought for the right to vote.
Finally, if you think that the system is flawed, get active in the political process. Find someone who would be a good candidate at the local, state, or federal level, and commit yourself to working your ass off to get them elected.
Sharpshooting from the sidelines is easy, but making democracy work takes work. It really is a responsibility as well as a gift. Pining for a more perfect form of democracy without using the tools you've already been given makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I checked out your rather vague and intellectually slack site, and my question is:
Other than simply protesting the current system, what would you do to create a better method that would allow Americans to govern themselves?
Seriously, I'd like to see what this better system would entail. You've got an open forum here, go for it.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I realized that this is the same reaction we all have to voting- you get all excited for the event, anticipating all the great things that are going to happen after the election, and then (no matter who wins) nothing of any importance happens...
Fortune favors the bold. -Virgil
In many countries, there is electronic voting. I know for a fact that Brasil is one of them. We have electronic voting everywhere. Not only in the major cities, but in the middle of nowheres too. I believe some U.S. states have electronic voting too. I think that New York is one of them. Or is it a county thing? (as opposed to state. Some counties might have them in a state that doesn't. I truly don't know.) Well, anyways, Brasil has digital/electronic voting, which also means that the results are usually released the same afternoon. (We don't have that many time zones, as our landmass is mostly spread in a North-South maner.)
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Did anyone notice that this is a JonKatz article? What happened, people? Where is all the flame? Is it cause he didn't write much? Must be some kind of truce....
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
If public schools are not supposed to advocate one political stance or another, why is my high school closed today to be a voting place?
It's a public building that has the necessary space. The church is playing a non-religious community role, like the daycare center in my neighborhood.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Information:
pbs
Speakout
NY Election
Voted for Harry Browne. I was one of the first people to vote at my polling station. I feel a vote for Harry Browne is a vote for net rule. National governments need to take a lesser role in the global system. There are no boundary anymore. If you can't do it in the US then you can go do it in a country that doesn't have any laws against it.
You should had gotten an absentive ballot. I normally do that, anyway.
You might want to give your local board of election a call.
I don't really see at all how the press has been hostile to Bush. You keep saying they are, but give no examples to back it up. The press has not persued Bush on his past drinking and drug use with anything like the ferocity that they hit Clinton with during his first campaign. They have not investigated why Bush did not show up for his assigned duty with the Air National Guard. They did not make a big deal of the fact that he didn't remember how many people he was putting to death in the Robert Byrd case (remember the second debate? He said all 3 men were being put to death. Only two were. Way to take the death penalty seriously huh??). If Gore had made a similar slip up, his campaign would have been over in a heart beat. And yet it wasn't even a problem for Bush, because the standards have been set so low for him that if he can just avoid fucking up he is thought to have done a good job...
It's pretty easy to figure out why you have not received anything in the mail. The last poll I saw Gore was leading Bush 3:1 in Massachusetts, so both candidated did absolutely no campaigning in Massachusetts. Ralph Nader did campaign in Massachusetts a couple of times. In the end though, there are plenty of online resources to help you make up your mind.
Idol Star Astronomer
I'll probably be flamed for saying this, but I voted for Nader and personally, I hope that Bush does get elected because of that. I feel disillusioned by the current Democratic Party, what happened to the "Leftists"?
I agree wholeheartedly that if Bush gets elected, maybe some true Democrats will re-emerge when they see how bad things have gotten, but then again, that's just my "bleeding-heart" opinion :)
By the time the Democratic Party "gets the message" from a Bush win, every issue that you Greens care about would have been decimated by a Bush presidency.
Are you willing to take 4 to 8 years of the environment being raped to make your point?
Are you willing to take the responsibility for all the pain and suffering that will result for poor people in this country because of your protest vote?
In 1980, I thought I'd send the two main parties a "message" by voting for John Anderson.
The 7% of us who voted that way were rewarded with 12 years of Reagan/Bush. The results of which, we are just now starting to recover from.
If you Nader-ites turn the Presidency over to the GOP for the next 4 to 8 years, it will take 30 to undo the damage that they will cause. Splintering the left does nothing positive...it only allows the GOP to hold the reins of power for decades to come.
But at least you registered your "protest" vote.
-----------------------------------
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
XML causes global warming.
I'm just glad that I won't be spammed by the candidates any more. At least not until next time. . .
Actually, the outcome is determined by the media conglomerates who report the outcome. Votescam has the details.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
For the love of god, his quotes aren't even factual! Gore had HIGHER sat scores (1355 total for Gore, 1206 for Bush)... just see http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.htm l.... additionally gradewise, Gore's lowest was a (singular) D in Natural Science, and highest were A's/A+'s in English/French. Bushes lows were 70 and 71 (out of 100) in sociology and economics (more important to presidency then natural science), and his highest was a "pass" in history/japanese....
Anyway, Bush is dumber, but that doesn't necessarily matter.
to quote MC Paul Barman, "you've got academic and smart confused."
although i have not been following who is smarter than who, just because someone did not do well academically does not mean that they are stupid, or dumb.
instead of basing his intellectual inferiority on academics, base it on what he believes in. i don't really know what he believes in, so therefore i have no opinion on him.
'Mullethead. A hairstyle that's a way of life'
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Hah! Who do you think I am? Paul Milne? Write yer own. ;)
Voted for Nader. Not because I agree with all his positions, but because I feel he is the least likely to to screw me, and then lie about it. In my more cynical moments I tend to look at the current state of politics in America as close to the end of the cycle- namely the fall. Read your history, boys and girls, particularly the the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. Read the following and see if *you* can draw some interesting parallels. (the following taken from this site. III. The British historian, Gibbons, identified the primary reasons for the collapse in his "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". IV. Social Causes. 1. Slavery had weakened the moral fiber of the citizens and a large discontented mass of people had become disenfranchised. (how many of you own property? consumer culture) 2. There had been a decline in the traditional Roman citizenry. any of you readers come from a broken home? 3. Moral decay was evident as depicted in its literature, amusements, and lifestyles that often portrayed gratuitous sex and violence. Yow! Spice channel! 4. Patriotism declined as people lost their allegiance to the state. how's the voter turn-out this year? 5. Christianity challenged the traditional Roman character traits and caused people to neglect the state when they concentrated on personal salvation. I wouldsuggest consumer culture has replaced christianity as the dominant ethos V. Economic Causes. 1. As productivity declined, the Roman empire became more dependent on foreign products. nafta baby 2. A break-down in the labor force occurred as the traditional work ethic declined. our service-economy doesn't instill a lot of pride in workers, corporate or retail. where did all the craftsmen go? (we;;, we still have programmers) 3. The infrastructure of the cities declined and began a steady decay. no kiddin' 4. A balance of trade deficit began to occur. what is it now? 3 trillion? 4? 5. The cost of government, including the military and welfare, become burdensome. my income tax is 40%. how 'bout yours? 6. Class economic warfare broke out between the rich and poor. nah, we just ignore the poor 7. Parts of the empire were not taxed while others were overtaxed. *cough* middle class *cough* 8. The small farm almost disappeared. we still have private farms? VI. Political Causes. 1. The Romans never solved the problem of succession except during a brief period of time. 2. The government of the empire was not designed to rule a large, polyglot empire and reform came to late. 3. The government became increasingly run by the rich and the military. 4. Citizens lost interest in government as it became distant from them. 5. The military became aloyal to the country--it became a job not a mission. toughest job you'll ever love Oh well. Everything ends sometime.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
If we bypass the Talking Heads, nobody will burn down the voting-house
I treat the voting booth as my ticket to complain when the candidates promise something and don't deliver. This is somewhat true of the candidates I don't vote for, but I will get indignant if Bush doesn't follow through on his Social Security promises.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
The problem in Farenheit 451 was not that everyone was taught that they should be sensitive to the needs and circumstances of others. It was that nobody was to ever be more intelligent or more successful than anyone else, regardless of what talents they may have had that others may have lacked. So books were banned, because they promoted learning and individuality. And as I see it, the PC movement is in the business of propagating a sort of groupthink which says that I shoultn't work to better myself because others may be humiliated. It claims to celebrate the diversity of our society, but in the end its goal is to stamp out the recognition that we all have differences and are going to have to live with it.
I'll help the disadvantaged as much as I can, but some of it they simply have to do on their own, and decreasing my opportunities for self-improvement isn't going to help them one bit. And I don't want to have to fear that one day I might have to go to court because I described someone as "black" instead of "African-American" because PC has been taken to ridiculous extremes. It's just that push to take it farther than it needed to go that has caused the backlash you've described.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
This is a very good point... I think many people who didn't live through the sixties would be terribly shocked if they got a chance to see LBJ debate Gore. This was a guy who talked about keeping congresscritter's "peckers" in his desk drawer, for crying out loud.
'Course, now that I think about it, I remember that LBG was a Democrat... Ah well. LBJ vs. Shrub would be just as interesting.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
... I voted about 2 weeks ago. I live in Oregon, which has mandated vote-by-mail for all elections for the past 4 years. On the other hand, our liberalized voter initiative system has resulted in 26-some ballot measures this time around, plus a voter pamphlet the size of a medium-sized town's phonebook. Don't get me wrong; I think our initiative system is a great thing, as it helps to keep grandstanding local politicians in line. It just results in a two hour voting experience (give or take), if you want to make informed choices on all candidates and measures. So all you poor bastards standing in line today get a sympathetic chuckle. Who'd I vote for? The shrub, and may god (tm) have mercy on my soul. I've had a difficult time separating Gore from Clinton's Zaphod Beeblebrox-ish behavior (I really don't care that he got his knob lobbed by Monica... I do care that he perjured himself and suborned perjury). Plus, I hate to say, what has the federal government done for me lately? DMCA, Carnivore, rapacious taxation, asset forfeiture, and a long, never-ending, 9-month+ attempt to eke a pittance to pay for school from the Dept. of Ed, to name only a few. I remind myself that our founding belligerents, ahem, fathers were irate over a 4 percent tax; today, the average American pays something like 51 percent of their gross income to federal. state, and local governments. At this point, anything that sends the feds to Jenny Craig will suffice, hence, the semi-literate good ol'boy from Texas got my vote. I'm not a republican, and never will be one. At least, not until they kick the bible-thumpers to the curb, which just ISN'T going to happen. I'm still not sure what to make of the Supreme Court FUD... as far as I know, the only justices likely to retire/die anytime soon are Rehnquist (a staunch conservative) and Stevens (a staunch liberal). Perhaps I'll vote for a democrat for US senator the next time around, so if and when Bush tries to appoint some fundamentalist knuckle-dragger to the court there will at least be some opposition. So it goes...
For what it's worth, I voted for all Libertarians that were on my ballot. (That would be President/VP and Representative.) Otherwise, I voted Republican, figuring better that than Democrat.
Let me get this straight...
You say that freedom is your big issue, but you voted for a candidate who you disagree with about freedom of speech applying to the Internet, abortion rights and the war on drugs? The Prez will appoint the Supreme Court judges that will make decisions regarding the Constitutionality of any of these things, and perhaps more importantly, will also appoint the Federal judges that future Supreme Court justices are almost invariably drawn from (this is the real Reagan legacy, btw). Also, Inet censorship and the Drug War have lots of popular bipartisan support and therefore are incredibly likely to generate new laws and create strict enforcement of the old ones (unless your Daddy's the guv). Meanwhile, the guy you were trying to keep out because he is a 'statist', wants to do stuff that Big Corporate Interests will hate, and therefore have a slim chance of happening, similar to Clinton's healthcare agenda back in the day.
When I'm feeling cynical, I have a hard time telling a difference between the statists and the corporatists, 'cuz either way the citizens are screwed. However, I can vote and maybe affect the state, but with corporations, especially big ones, I don't even have that little influence.
You should have voted your conscience - it's the Right Thing To Do (tm), and if W wins and does things you don't like, you'll be kicking yourself for the next four years.
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
Too true, but everyone has quoted W as saying 'There ought to be limits to freedom' and he did try to shut down satirical websites, which hardly makes him Freedom-of-Speech Man. The drug war issue (and crime-related issues in general) are issues that have turned into an arms race between the major parties, because nobody wants to be seen as soft on crime. ('I'll see your asset-forfeiture laws, and raise you by mandatory minimums!') My point was that you should just vote your conscience. Whoever is elected will do something to piss you off, so why kick yourself for voting for someone when you thought there was a better (or less bad) choice? I did wander a wee bit in my post though, didn't I?
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
I could see that happening. Someone asks him to name his favorite book as a child, and he names the only children's book he can remember the title of, rather than just say he can't remember any books he read as a child. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.
But ya gotta wonder...
Some have suggested that Bush is borderline illiterate. When asked what his favorite book was as a child, he replied "The Giant Catapillar" (or something like that). Turns out the book he was referring to wasn't published until he was in his twenties.
I think you meant "on her dress"...
UPS Sucks
All I recieved in the mail was the Massachusetts package of what the ballot questions were about. Usually, I recieve a phonecall or two asking for support for the candidates, or some malings about the candidates and their issues.
That's because there are so many states where the candidates are in a dead heat, and those are where they've been spending their money. I live in Oregon - normally completely ignored because it has only seven electoral votes, and most recent national elections have been decided before the polls even close here at 8PST.
This year tho, it's been crazy. Al Gore called me. Robert Redford called me, (taped messages, but still fun to boast about) a slew of other prominent and supposedly influential people have called me, to the point where I haven't picked up the phone in over a week. *Four* different times, live people have called to offer to pick up my ballot for me, or drive me to a drop box.
The irony is, I voted last week. Oregon is 100% vote-by-mail, and almost two-thirds of all voters had turned in their ballots by yesterday (They're expecting 85% turnout overall). If I had thought either major party candidate actually cared or knew about issues important to Oregon, I might have been flattered by their attention. But Al Gore has refused to take a public positions on locally prominent and controversial environmental issues, and George Bush Jr. just alarms me on too many levels.
So I voted for a candidate I actually liked, and he didn't even have to call me on the phone.
I thought about doing the lesser of two evils thing, until democrats started running adds saying a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and that if George wins, on Jan 1, 2001 all women who think about having abortions will be arrested, etc. They know Gore would win if not for the strong Nader presence here, but their use of FUD pissed me off so much they'd have had a better chance if they just left it alone.
I can't wait until tomorrow. There are blessings to living in a "sure thing" state, and you should count 'em. Protest and conscience votes are much less ethically challenging, and when the phone rings, odds are it isn't a recorded message asking you to change the ballot you cast a week ago.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
here.
n i.cgi?11 if it doesn't show up properly...
http://www.bunnispace.net/cgi-bin/arcbunni/arcbun
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
1. I realize it was was 9am and people have to work, but where the fuck was everyone? Hudson County, NJ is supposedly the most densely populated place in America.
2. No verification. I came in, told them I never received my voter registration card (but I did register, and both of my sisters got theirs) and they just asked me for my name and checked me off. No ID required. Uh huh. And where were the police to keep poll people out? I was accosted by several people before going in and after going out, and it was very, very unpleasant.
3. This is my first time voting. The guy who was obviously in charge looked at my address and said, "one of you guys... you know, no one comes out of that building except for the presidential elections." And knowing the type of people who live where I live, that kind of disgusted me. I'm definitely gonna be out for every other election following this.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
The same people who are whining that America is infringing on their rights are now whining that they cannot change the outcome of the US election. I guess it's not the infringement on rights that upsets people but rather whose rights are being jeopardized.
This is bad for Europeans, I think. If they want to us to pay attention to their claims that we are hypocrites it would really help if they would stop being so hypocritical themselves.
Tu quoque...
sig semper tyrannis!
First off, bad grammar. Second off, there are many.
The Original Celebrated Curiously Strong GHOST (mentha lemures)
I cracked the system, instead, and switched the results for Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
As I said in my post... "but my car isn't exactly handicap-accessible". I have a two-seater sports car type piece of shit. For one, it might not make it to the next town. For two, the guy and his wheelchair are simply NOT fitting into it. And for three, I don't even know this guy, I don't want to be arrested for kidnapping when they find him missing. And for four, my boss didn't mind when I came in slightly late having voted, but it would have been a different story had I missed half the day taking this guy to the next town. Maybe one of the few things we can take from Nader's insane campaign is that election day should be a government holiday? In any case, thank you for your well thought out response to my post. I'm glad /. can foster such eloquent discussion such as 'why didn't your ass drive him'. that's pulitzer material. But, having reviewed some of your other posts, at least we can agree that Nader is a big goverment freak.
Take it easy...
-sam
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
But I guess the real reason is that I was lazy and this is one of those incidents which my over-developed conscience will berate me with for a few years.
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
Well, I voted today, in this foul-smelling senior center (in)conveniently located down a no outlet road bracketed by giant electrical arrays. In North Carolina, you vote by actually using a marker to connect two halves of a line. Why they don't use computers (or the INTERNET) to vote still blows my mind. But what actually bothered me the most was the guy next to me in line (the way he was treated). He was fairly old, in a wheelchair, and living in a little center down the street. He got someone to bring him to the polls to vote. Unfortunately since he only recently moved to this center he was still registered in a neighboring city and couldn't vote. WTF. But what was worse than that, was the look on the guy's face, I mean, how's an old handicapped man with no family going to get to the next town? I thought about taking him but my car isn't exactly handicap-accessible. But it was what the lady behind the counter did which really pissed me off. She was like, "Well, we can register you here now so that next time you can vote." Again, WTF. In four years it'll be a miracle if this guy's still alive. But as I left he was filling out the form so he could vote 'next time'. So get off your asses and vote. Go pick up your grandparents from the home your parents stuck them in and drive them to where they can vote. And if you're voting... you might as well vote Gore :)
-sam
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
I must have slept through the 80's or something. Did Bush "act as president" under Reagan or something?
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
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
Hello there. A lot of you have already announced plans for not voting today. There are various reasons for this -- Bush and Gore being the two main ones.
However, NOT voting is a mistake. If you do have the right to vote -- which I personally do not, not being an American -- and are planning on not going to the booth, please consider doing this:
1. Look at the so-called "third party" candidates for whom you can cast a ballot. My personal favorite is Harry Browne, but there are plenty of other ones of all political stripes (libertarian, communist, natural law, etc.)
2. Pick the candidate whose philosophy and platform you most agree with.
3. Go vote for that candidate.
Pretty simple stuff. It won't take that long, and it's a good excuse for taking off early from work.
By voting for a so-called "alternative" candidate you not only vote your conscience (what a novel concept), but you also send a message to Washington that you will no longer tolerate the two-party sh*te the country has been in since God-knows-when. And if you weren't planning to vote anyway, you're not taking a vote away from any of the other candidates.
For some reason this is obvious to me, but not to most eligible voters. Go figure.
TAE
My sig is too lon
Do you think there is a conspiracy that to hide polling locales so that only those who receive official GOTV info from the two official parties can vote? (Yes, I did find where to go and have cast my ballet.)
Hey democracy lovers, add Quorum as a c
If you voted for a third party, you voted for smirk (bush). Have a nice day
I've begun happily informing people that I hope Bush does win because of my 3rd party vote. Maybe if things get bad enough quick enough there will be a real impetus for change in our system.
I grabbed a pen as I went in, and the woman at the table helpfully explained write-in votes, and that writing in a vote for anyone but President is a waste because it won't be counted, so that was very nice, but it still kind of bugged me that they didn't just have a pen in the booth so it wouldn't have to be a big production.
You should write a letter to your local, state and federal election commissioners, as well as as many newspapers and media sources you can, bringing attention to this event. DEMAND that the local election commissioner who implemented this policy, and the woman who participated in enforcing it, be prosecuted for tampering with a local state and federal election.
In every state I am aware of, it is clearly against the law to campaign at a polling place. This is clearly a violation of the law, and you should bring it to as many people's attention as possible.
exactly I care more about the local referendums than the stupid fucking monkey position we call president....congress has more power anyways yet nobody knows their own canidates.......I for one, am voting Nader to get them funding and have some competition...otherwise Id leave the prez part blank
Anyway, the Brits at work today had our own vote, just to see, the results:
Bush 47% Gore 47% Nader 6%
-- flossie
http telnet
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Oohhhh that's not cool. I'm all for using a church because they are graciously willing to donate the space, but it is unnacceptable to have any sort of religous message tied in with the voting booths. I suppose they can't be held responsible if it is just part of the wall decoration in that room, though.
"Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness." -Robert A. Heinlen
Choosing rock every time in rock-paper-scissors is an equally effective strategy to switching each time. -Brian
"Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness." -Robert A. Heinlen
Agreed. In WA state I was able to vote for 5 different libertarian candidates. I voted for Al Gore, but I went lib on most other offices. -Brian
"Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness." -Robert A. Heinlen
I see, so it's kinda like the Super Bowl, eh? The media makes up the plays, such that they can sell the most ad space for the most money. I wonder how much the ads go for during the commercial break right before coverage of the results for big states such as California and New York.
I can just imagine it now..."geor"
"ge"
"dubya"
"geor"
"ge"
"dubya"
Goofy frogs...
Gee, when you put it that way, it makes me think twice. I just turned 18, so I've never voted before. Could it be that for all these years, the outcomes of the elections have been determined by psedo-random number generators? Could it be that when "voters" go to the "polls" that they're really just getting showers?
created and paid for by individuals who are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. join us. don't be manipulated. vote your conscience. www.peachfuzz.net
I'm just amazed that there aren't people complaining about a JonKatz article...
/.rs busy voting? Has voter apathy spread to JonKatz articles? Come on people...we flame him for every article. Where's the consistancy?
What going on? Are
Where's the 'Katz sucks' or 'we got rid of the boardway play...why not Jon?'
Oh well...I guess I should go vote for Hagelin...it'll be a write in since I'm in Texas...
Have an Abysmal Election Day!
PS. I'm breaking out of my pod...I usually vote for Cthulhu...
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
That's part of the problem, judges interpreting the constitution instead of interpreting our laws in light of the constitution.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
...you live in my state. We've never had more than 50% of registered voters ever turn out. So, if current trends hold, my vote will count about twice as much as it would if we had a full turnout, not just on who gets to be the Big Cheese for the next four years (and aren't Gush and Bore both rather cheesy?), but also on all those annoying little things like what county taxes I pay. ;-)
Me, I'm voting for Browne.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Maybe Katz could start an article about other countries views of US politics
;-)
Are you sure you want to encourage him?
(End Kidding Around Mode)
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
I find it simply amazing that people can honestly think that the Reagan/Bush Sr. years were a Bad Thing(tm). Do you really think that America's current prosperity would be here if it weren't for the groundwork they laid? Sure, Clinton did have to capitalize on many things for it all to come together, but all the groundwork for todays economy was laid in the 80's. Traditionally, I have been a Republican, for I feel that smaller government is a Good Thing(tm), but today I voted for Browne in the presidential election. The other 2 offices which had at least 2 people running for them i voted Republican.
Could you imagine how great a country the US would be if we had a prez that actually acted like they do on West Wing. That show kicks ass.
i voted. and i still don't feel any better.
i couldn't get behind anyone 100% and more to the point, i voted against people rather than for them (yeah, typical whining...).
this sucks. the system is sick. what do we do now?
hmmm...
One of the last things he did was to cast a vote for Ralph Nader, one activist for another.
I live in Ohio and voted for Bush because:
Wow. That's a big shift...Nader and Browne are awfully far apart.
I'm a little confused. If Bush has "an undeniable ability to persuade... the Press" then how is it that "the press, being mostly liberal, is inclined to bash him as much as possible"? Constant bashing doesn't sound like the actions of a "persuaded" Press to me.
Care about freedom?
I'd rather be lucky than good.
So.. the law is there in an effort to thwart the will of the people to have representation? Way to go!! Democracy in action!!! {Yes. I know the UK system is similarly flawed. No. I don't like that either.}
Yeah, the down side is it's harder to vote for the winner... we are talking about horse racing, right?
Ours is pretty much the same, here in Michigan. We fill out an application with our name and address on it, then they check their records and give us a ballot. Someone registered but not voting? Go right on in and do it... they don't check ID. Pretty lame, indeed.
It seems to me that if you want to lower the voting age, we should also lower the required age for a lot of other things. Yes, if you are 16 you aren't allowed to vote, but you also aren't allowed to enter into contracts, you aren't allowed to buy cigarettes, and if you commit a crime it gets wiped from your record (mostly) when you turn 18. A 16 year old is still a minor, and technically their parents are still responsible for them, therefore they are not responsible for their own actions, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you want to change this, then campain to change the age when you are no longer a minor. Once you take all the rest of the responsibilities that go along with being an adult on yourself, I will have no problem with giving you the right to vote also.
Yes, I remember those old bumper stickers during the beggining of the clinton presidency that said "Don't blame me, I voted for Bush" [the father of the current one]
...I would almost get a kick out of a bumpersticker that said "Don't blame me, I didn't vote". Realisticly, not voting is worse, of course. But as far as the sense of disenfranchisement, it would be funny...
--
man sig
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
He only nominates them. Congress must select them.
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
As much as it dreads me to reveal this, I have just irrevocably commited my vote to the shrub. I didn't think I would feel this dirty afterwards, but I can't help feeling that via this endorsement of him I am going to be somewhat complicit in every horrific policy decision he supports [i.e. internet censorship, the war on drugs]
I came very close to voting for Brown [the libertarian], but I was too frightened of the possibility of Gore possibly winning my state my a slim margin.
despise both of the candidates. It is very much a lesser of two evils kind of thing, and they both are extremely evil. However, Bush is far less of a statist then Gore, and as I value freedom more then anything else, I had to go for him.
It's a shame really. It almost seems like every election it all comes down to a question of which freedom you are going to vote away. Why can't we ever have an election where it's a choice between the freedoms two candidates can work to give us?
Bush will endanger abortion rights [although, really, the executive branch isn't a major determinant of them, but still it can be quite the bully pulpit, as Clinton has demonstrated], and Gore will seriously enganger property rights [i.e. working to nationalize the health care system, endoreses the Kyoto treaty wherin more productive countries will pay fees to less productive ones to have the right to use energy in industrial production, even if those other countries are less efficient, etc... [not to get off topic]]
I really should have voted for Brown. I wouldn't feel so unclean. Still, property rights are the most fundemental human rights, after all.
--
man sig
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
As to the two freedoms, speech, and the war on drugs... as to the first (speech) Lieberman and Tipper are the two biggest censors in washington... I see gore as worse on this issue.
As to the drug war, both big ticket candidates are equally in favor of it.
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
Geez man!
;-)
I know I'm only part time here, but it would have been nice if I would have known I wasn't required to come to work today!
On the bright side though, I get to spend all day on Slashdot!
Technically, My vote counts more here in Michigan than a Democrat's Vote in Texas or a Republican's vote in New York.
Almost makes me feel guilty for voting for a 3rd party. I shouldn't have to worry about voting for the lesser of 2 evils. We should just vote for the people that we want elected.
Why can't we get rid of this damn Electoral College? It's a farse. Because of the Electoral College, we've got vote trading websites like http://www.nadergore.com
<Sarcasm>
Next time we should host a website that lets my vote cancel out your vote.
(i.e. If you don't vote for a Republican, then I won't vote for a democrat)
</Sarcasm>
Anybody know of any websites with live election results?
I'd like to keep an eye on the election while I'm at work.
Since drudge is the only one posting early returns, i try to hit there site. but it's not up. think someone who thinks they shouldn't be is playing games maybe?
BigCat79
"The dead have risen and are voting Republican!" --Bart Simpson
The first amendment says:
What is so hard to see in that first phrase, "Congress shall?" There is no such reqirement on the several states! If James Madison had meant something different, he would have written it! The states, local governments and school boards do not equal "Congress," no matter what some anti-American, anti-Constitution judge says!Furthermore, look at the tenth amendment:
In other words, if the power is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, it belongs to the states or the people! Again, how hard is this?Of course, Keyes did not win the nomination. I, like many I'm sure, was disappointed.
Today I voted Constitution Party. As a Republican I feel like Ronald Reagan with the Democrats-- I didn't leave them, they left me! While I understand that many, such as members of my own family, will vote out of expediency today for Bush, I can never hope to hit a home run if I only bunt. I see a vote for *either* major candidate today as a bunt.
Come on! If you're truly liberal in your views, do you really want a wishy- washy- kind- of- liberal- but- it- depends- on- polling- data like Gore? I do not at all agree with him, but Nader is at least self-consistant and honest. I respect that. On the other hand, do I want to vote for a wishy- washy- kind- of- conservative- but- mostly- moderate- because- thats- what- the- polls- want Bush? No. It is my sincere belief that people should absolutely vote their convictions and not out of expediency. My vote for Phillips was not a vote for Gore. Your vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.
Have faith that whatever the outcome of today's elections, there is a sovereign God that has directed it. His will is unswaying and can't be defeated. Our own ballots have been ordained to carry out his plan. In that faith I can vote my convictions with the assurance. I don't have to worry about the "wrong" men getting "in." God even uses the unrighteous, and even irreligious, to carry out his own ends!
Luckily not all states are like that. SC requires a voter card or a driver's licence. But NC doesn't require anything. Of course voting in NC is sortof pointless anyway...they DON'T count any write-in votes.
//m
weeelll, I dunno about you, but I work for the federal government at least 25% of the year -- until May sometime, just like everybody. Add that on to all the people who work for state and local governments, fulltime, the military, the schools, the public universities, etc. Then all the people who work in healthcare whose paychecks come more or less directly from Medicare, and I'll betcha that federal, state, and local government control pretty close to 75% of the economy.
Don't you think its more important to try to get less than 50% of either party in the Congress? Hopefully we'll see a few more 3rd parties in Congress, and if the public had the brains at all, we'd elect enough 3rd parties to offset ANY 50%+ majority in the Congress, thereby offsetting anyone's true power to control the Union.
Haha, vote Browne then. He's my guy... Definitely the way to go if you're a /.'er IMHO.
I voted for Browne as well, but remember, the Libertarians will NEVER accept matching funds [its unconstitutional]. Some Libertarians running for office are accepting NO campaign contributions at all, although a true Libertarian says that any kind of contribution should be legal... If you watch the LP website or daily newsletter, you'll see that most major news outlets won't comment on the LP's outcome no matter what, unless they get enough vote to cover the difference between Bush and Gore. The ONLY major TV news outlet that is covering the LP is Fox, they have given the LP tons of coverage, run some ads [free!] and will show the outcome of the race tonight. IF you are going to turn on the TV, turn on Fox. It's not the greatest station in the world I guess, but have you watched the big 3 lately? I can't believe that we don't call them the Evil Empire more than M$, because these guys really DO seem to be in bed with the major parties. A vote for a 3rd party is the ONLY unwasted vote.
Nader? Hmm. Let's see, he wants to control you more than Bush or Gore does. Nader seems to me to want an even BIGGER government than anyone else does. I want NO government telling me what to do. The government should stay OUT of the environment, if you know the realities of pollution in America. Not to toot my own horn about my beliefs too much, check this out: http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html That's the reality of the environment. Nader's policy on the environment is nuts. If I see another Operation Silver Shovel [a HUGE Chicago sting on illegal dumping and polluting caused by the government], I'll know its the environmentalists fault all over again for trying to make it a national issue. Of course, you're right about Congress. They're the true power, although the Presidential Veto as well as the Presidential power to start the selection process of the Supreme Court judges is very important to me. Oh, and the whole Nader personal stance on unions and personal investments and all is very well said on http://www.nadersucks.org/ I'd say. That site actually made me laugh repeatedly at all the 18-20 year olds I know who are voting communist, err, Nader.
Please report back tomorrow and tell us how many of those 1420+ candidates won. Please note -- a "moral victory" is another name for a loss.
Gasbags.
--
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
Yeah, So you'd have to have a party set it up (lots of people with similiar ideas) or know where the exit polls that were being used by national media were being conducted.
I have a feeling that they (media outlets) are not going to do real good knee jerk polls, so a small, surgical vote could get it done.
4 years to plan.......
This is really important, because in such a close election neither party will have a clear mandate for the administration that follows, and they will be forced to address 3rd party concerns in order to corral so sort of power.
At least you showed determination in wasting your vote. BTW, Browne/Nader don't steal votes from Gore. The third party voters at the national level are all couch-surfing, pot-smoking slackers from Seattle that wouldn't vote otherwise.
Have a nice, albeit ineffectual, existence.
I hear this all the time from Europeans. It's like saying, "y'know that Brad Pitt is one of the most self-centered guys in the world." Do you think Brad Pitt cares what you think? Do you think your moaning about Brad's bad attitude makes him any less popular or powerful? Brad will be famous, rich and adored. He will continue to enjoy a successful life regardless of your opinion of him.
And think about how lame it is to stand around worrying jealously about Brad Pitt's success when you could be making yourself into somebody. This is how you Euros look to those of us in the United States.
So...what has your country done lately?
And of course Harry is the only one with a PGP key well at least the party has one. :)
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
I think this statement should be qualified further. Perhaps like this:
Why do I qualify it this way? Because I voted party-line today without the express intent of being partisan. Somehow, the planets, moon, and sun all magically aligned. Well, either that or I (*gasp*) completely disagreed with every single opposing candidate.
I'm in the military and I'm not stationed in my home state so to vote I have to do it via absentee ballot.
When I went to get my absentee ballot, I was pointed to a website with a PDF file. I downloaded the file and attempted to print it to fill it out but got a PostScript error so I tried other printers, all of them gave PostScript errors.
Now I know I could have gone to the DMV and gotten an absentee ballot there or done a number of things, but the fact that the federal government can't get things together enough to provide people with a form that works was discouraging enough for me not to vote.
I would've voted for Nader though.
"After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." - Tao of Programming
I voted third party this morning, and I'm pretty curious to see how the general population here voted. That is, for the Democrats or Republicans, or for a third party.
---------------
Heh, that's probably true. The main reason I didn't vote for Gore was Lieberman's media violence stand.
I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Bush, well, because he's an idiot and probably would be a puppet for some far right Republicans. Those guys couldn't get elected, but for some unfanthomable reason Bush could.
The only choice is to give a third party a few more votes and maybe some extra federal funding or something. Buy hey, I've got my cool "I voted" sticker so all is well.
---------------
Heh, mod that up
---------------
Well lets see:
1) Consider the source.
2) On the local radio show here in Dallas, Flynt's story was that the girl's roomate was his primary source, and she just heard one side of a phone conversation. So I guess his story isn't consistent.
3) Flynt did this as a "surprise" when he was appearing on CNN.
4) The "victim" denies she ever had sex with Bush.
Need I say more? Oh, and I'm trying to figure out where this girl is a 15 year old? Its not there on either of the URLs you posted. And I don't see any mention of him forcing her to have an abortion.
Why in the world does this have a score of 3?
bah, I think anyone who is physically capable of indicating thier choice of candidate should be able to vote -- even 2 and 3 year olds
Then you also believe that if a 10-year old commits a crime (like stabbing another person) then they are accountable for their actions as any adult would be.
If you can come up with a good reason why children should be accountable as adults then I'll consider the idea of children voting.
Why do I keep typing pythong?
Pssst! Bush was a one-termer... he still has a term of eligibility left. Think Grover Cleveland (of course, that was well before the 26th amendment, which FDR made possible).
Jon Katz - the worlds biggest waste of time and bandwith.
>. I would rather have a supreme court aligned >with the ACLU than with Jerry Falwell.
personally i would like to have a supreme court aligned with the CONSTITUTION.
>>To make sure Nader gets his 5% and to be a part >>of the new permanent reform party that this >>country desperatly needs.
Hahahahah, thats a good one. Just like the other permanent "reform" party headed by Ross Perot. People are voting for the person not the party. If Nader was not on the Green Pary ballot noone would give a rats ass about it just like noone has given a rats ass about it before now.
I'd say that if he still didn't know by the time he got to the booth then "None of the above" was the right one to vote for. Unless he's had his head buried in the sand for the last month or more he must have formed some opinions of the candidates by now, and if those opinions didn't help him to make a decision then he expressed his feelings with this vote.
--
01 13 19
TVDJC TDSLR AZNGT NWQSH KPN
I voted for Ralph Nader at my kitchen table. I have voted absentee for the past four and a half years so I can vote on elections affecting my hometown. Anyway, I'm just disturbed that somewhere around 90% of Americans going to the ballot box today are going to vote for one of two highly similar candidates. Each of them has each taken over $50 million in campaign donations from private companies. How can they expect such blatantly purchased candidates to reflect the will of the people? If you haven't voted yet today, walk into the ballot box and think, "Can I trust a candidate that repeatedly lies to me? Can I trust a candidate who has taken more money than I will have in my lifetime from corporations to become their president?" And then think about casting your vote for a change in the system.
Devolver's Homepage... more fun than a box of crackerjacks.
I've been up all night. Don't ask me what I've been doing, I really couldn't tell you. I've been up all night. In about 25 minutes I'll be going to breakfast. I went to breakfast yesterday as well, once again because I stayed up all night. Today is a little different from my other random purposeless all nighters. Today I got to be the first kid on my block to vote. The polls opened at 6 in the UIUC Snyder hall lounge. I rolled myself a cigarette, and mosied on over with my photo ID and certificate of registration. They told me I was the first person to vote at the dorms in this election. I voted for Ralph Nader.
Now I'm in a computer lab. Waiting for breakfast. For my omelet. Some Kiwi-Strawberry. A bagel.
"At some point, you have to say enough is enough. Today is that day for me. I will go to the polls and vote for Ralph Nader. I am doing so for the only reason you should ever vote for anyone. I am voting for Ralph because it is what my conscience says is right. I am doing what they taught us to do in civics class -- vote for who you think the best candidate is. Period." -Michael Moore
2000_11_07, my first election day. I'm really young. I'm really young and angry. I'm really young and annoyed. I'm really young and disolusioned. We all are. And when it comes to voting, it doesn't even take being young to be angry annoyed and disolusioned. This shit sucks. Campaigns suck. Candidates suck. The Government sucks. Every day we see so much bullshit all around us, its pathetic. I'm surprised anyone votes at all. Anyone. The only reason I voted at all, the only reason I looked forward to my first election, was Ralph Nader. The chance to vote for something different. To say "I want something different." To point out in some small way the fact that what we have isn't good enough. We all know why it isn't good enough. Check the web links, read your friends' e-mails, whatever, its obvious, so I wont even get into it.
We all know Ralph Nader is something different. We all know that the Green Party is something different. We all know that simply acknowledging at a federal level the notion of having more than one political party, er, I mean, two political parties (had an inadvertent spurt of real awareness there, sorry) is something different. We need something different. What we have is not good enough. A lesser evil, a lesser anything is not good enough.
It's time for breakfast. I feel good. I voted. I voted for something good.
-chorder
...and vote for bush.
sorry I'm still laughing from the SNL special two nights ago. oh and btw don't really vote for bush, I don't like him.
-Stype
-Stype
Bus error -- driver executed.
Great Troll! Start with something reasonable...
words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere -- nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments.
Then add a little flamebait...
to mean that American citizens should be free to practice any branch of Protestant Christianity that they desire,
Finally finish up with some anti-Republican sentiment.
I'm voting for George W. Bush.
I give it, oh, a 7.5. You need to be a little more subtle if you want people to buy in.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Ohio is so Traditionally Repubilican, that at no time in history has a Republican president won who hasn't first won Ohio. Democrats may win the Presidency while Ohio still goes Republican, but at no time could a Republican win if he is so unpopular that he doesn't even get Ohio's Repulican stamp-of-approval.
So, if Ohio is so sure to go to Bush, what's a voter to do? Vote Third Party. The popular vote will resound against the electoral vote, showing greater disparity. Specifically, a vote for the Green Party is a sound strategy: not only will a 5% popular vote get their foot in the door next election, but Ralph will sue the states that deny you that freedom!
Remember, there would be no Republican President if Abraham Linoln hadn't been the nation's first. If we want more than one choice greater than Russia, we need the popular vote to demand it!
Nader - on his positive side, he's addressing issues that the others have barely considered in hindsight: Cable-and-Internet Content Discrimination, Corporate Crime and Anti-Trust, present issues with poisoning neighborhoods in further discrimination... He'd have kicked serious butt in the debates! His running mate, Winona LaDuke, is even more cool to vote for... a Minnesota Chippewa woman whose strong record stands for minority equality and opportunities. If there's any downside to this platform, it's the implication that the Green Party which has such cool people (and there are two parties of Greens, one he runs with and one he doesn't) is sometimes called the watermellon party, green on the outside, red on the inside. Still, since it is near impossible to agree with a party 100%, I see them as less an evil.
Hagelin- A learned man who can stately present the issues. His positions seem similar to Nader on some topics, but they're stated will less angst and more educated finnesse. My only qualm with him is his overuse of Transcendal Meditation(tm) as the answer: Kosovo got you down? Let's send 4000 TMtm Instructors to pacify things. Naivate' aside, I like to see such a civil, refined highbrow in the choices.
Browne- true to the principals of liberty this counrty was founded on. The Libertarian Party in general can be taken more seriously than most third party options: There are more Libertarians in career political offices than the other third parties (Green, Natural Law P, etc.) combined!
I haven't voted yet, I'll be going right after work. And honestly, I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm in Connecticut, which appears to be fairly solid behind Gore. I keep thinking that maybe I should vote for Nader and try to get a third party some funding for the next time around, but then another thought hits me:
What if the Green Party does get funding for the next time around? Isn't this just going to split the Democratic Vote and make it possible for the Republicans to get some real whack-o elected the next time around? A Green Party candidate isn't going to grab any Republican votes, is he? And the way I see it, George W. is pretty tame compared to some other Republicans.
Well, it's just a thought. I'm still undecided. Oh, and I'm not trying to offend any Republicans out there, it's just my liberal point of view.
Here's the body of an email that I recieved this morning:
"Due to an anticipated voter turnout much larger than originally expected, the polling facilities may not be able to handle the load all at once. Therefore, Republicans are requested to vote on Tuesday, November 7, and Democrats on Wednesday, November 8."
And, of course, the obligatory:
"Please pass this message along and help us to make sure that nobody gets left out."
I guess you'd have to be pretty clueless to fall for it. Then again, I've seen a lot of people fall for email hoaxes much less believable than this one. I wonder how widespread this email has gotten. Anybody else seen it?
Well, I live in Roanoke (SW Virginia) where it's considered a traffic jam if you have more than three cars on the road at the same time, so that's never a real problem around here. :-)
I got to the polls at about 7:30 this morning and was back in my car on my way to work by 7:40. Not too bad.
Oh, and for what it's worth, down here we still have those old "big red lever" type machines.
So basically you're trying to ride a first post. You're an idiot, and are trying to say your opinion is more important than anyone else's. I think maybe you should get -1 for Offtopic of Repetative. Your comment still shows, in the place it should be in. It just isn't riding on post #1 now. Well it is, but Post #1 is not visible, because James is a moron.
--
In NC (where I am) I don't think we had 6, but still, I am up to speed on most of the candidates.
/jm
And uhh, why should I mention all of them if I wanted to vote for Nader? I was saying the republicrats were the same, as part of my thought about being pissed with current election, sorry if it came off wrong.
--
Libertarian Party and I disagree on certain issues about guns and environment and such. Also, I didn't like Browne(sp?) very much.
--
That sickens me a lot. So I _DON'T_ pay taxes a lot of the time. I barter. Ok, I'll set up that Win2k server for you, but I want to host my Sun here, and I want that unused 4.3GB disk, and lunch. It's better that way.
--
Hehe. I'll vote for the leftmost, bottom-most pixel on my screen! 1,768 for president!
--
What happened to "No taxation without representation"? A teacher once tried to tell me our parents' votes represented our interests... I don't buy that.
People under 18 should not be taxed. I once bought something from a guy who made a point of saying "The government expects me to make you give me another 6% of the price of that. I won't do it. I won't let you give me that money. I will pay it out of my pocket."
--
Hi there,
- --
I'm cutting and pasting this from www.drudgereport.com since I doubt that linking will work (I've spent the last two hours trying to load the page).
from www.drudgereport.com
-----------------------------------
DRUDGE REPORT... TUE NOV 07 2000 14:12:01 ET... UPDATED BY MATT DRUDGE...
CAMPAIGNS GET FIRST LOOK AT RESULTS...
GORE MOVES AHEAD IN FLORIDA BY 6%, SAY CAMPAIGN SOURCES....
BUSH UP BY 2% IN PENNSLYVANIA, SAY SOURCES...
NADER VOTE COLLAPSED...
SQUEAK: BUSH TAKES NARROW LEAD IN EARLY VOTING; GORE ROCKS CALIFORNIA WITH 54%; HILLARY PUSHES PAST LAZIO BY 8 POINT MARGIN, SAY SOURCES
ASHCROFT PULLS AHEAD, SAY SOURCES, ROBB TRAILS IN VA...
------------------------------
Gore up by 3 in Michigan, say campaign sources...
------------------------------
Bush takes lead in Ohio, Missouri, WI, OR and West Virginia, say campaign sources...
------------------------------
Tennessee and Arkansas, Bush leading, say campaign sources...
-----------------------------------------------
Please note: I'm posting this mostly because the professional media shouldn't be the only ones with the exit poll numbers.
Those of you U.S. Citizens who haven't voted SHOULD STILL VOTE!!!! This election ain't over till it's over.
Besides this is Matt Drudge we're talking about here - who knows if these numbers are real or something he just pulled out of his hat.
...is quite high, if my own experience voting this morning is any guide. I vote at a local elementary school, John Adams, in Alexandria, VA. I've voted in every local, state and federal election since I moved to Virginia from Ohio five years and I have NEVER seen my local polling place as busy as it was this morning. I got to the polls at 8:00 AM EST and had to wait until 8:40 to actually fill in the bubbles on my ballot (how I miss Ohio's lever machines - filling in bubbles and having my ballot sucked into a machine (VA) pales besides flipping the little levers under the name of the candidate of your choice and pulling that big handle to register your vote (OH)- cha-ching!). There was actually a traffic jam in the parking lot because there were not enough spots to park in.
Traffic was also light this morning on I-395, which is usually stop and go all the way to DC. People waiting in line at the polls perhaps? Anyone else out there have a similar experience? How does turnout look in your part of the country?
okay everyone get your political bias, slant, sludge, and ideological crap out there! this is your last chance!
Republicrats? Hrm...I've been hearing some people use that word lately. A couple years ago (well, maybe more like a year ago) I decided that when I run for president, it will be on the Republicrat ticket...as a better alternative to reps and dems, not as a "same as them" candidate. Heh, I thought I was the first to come up with that term too. Well, I guess maybe I'll have to give my party a different name. I would most prefer to run as an independent, but having a party would simplify things for me.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Time is fun when you're having flies.
-Kermit the Frog
I thought the mini-jail cell to keep the kids occupied was pretty cool. The rugrats looked pretty mortified that their parents left them locked up in PVC prison. That really boosted my day. I don't know who I actually voted for. I just punched out holes until the shape looked like Juan Valdez.
I already voted for BUSH! :)
Bush !!!
It's time to change things.
Got shack?
ShackCentral Network
Worlds best gaming network!!!
Amazed? Confused? How is this thing possible?
Please read my earlier post. Suggestions for changing the government that don't include filling out a tiny piece of paper that will be ignored by your electoral college anyway include, but are not limited to:
- Making an informational website about whatever issues you care about.
- Throwing molotov cocktails. Just kidding. Kind of.
- Protests, rallies, marches, and pamphlets.
- Be a journalist of some kind, web or paper, and dig up information!
- Write cogent articles on your issue of interest, with actual research.
- Raise money and lobby, like any good corporation.
Yes, there's more to the world than just voting or not voting. There. Those are items where you don't vote, and yet manage to change things. The whole "vote, that's the only way to change things" mindset makes it VERY comfortable to politicians. They'd just love to have you sit on your duff for four years, get up, make a campaign contribution, and then vote for them.They had an article about rock-paper-scissors programs playing against each other. Rockbot was the "always play rock" program. It was beaten, and handily, by programs that analyzed the previous moves of its opponents. If your opponent always chooses rock, it's a good idea for you to pick scissors.
My suggestion was not to switch every time, but to analyze the past history of the candidates do see if they actually do what it is you think. Get it?
- Have you ever written a complaint letter to a company? Well, you probably aren't a voting stockholder. You complained anyway. Why? You gave them money. The US government gets somewhere around 30% of my income. That gives me the right to complain.
- Freedom of speech.
- I don't have to participate in an corrupt system to say, "hey, that's corrupt." If I see roaches crawling out of a restaurant by the bushel and dogpoop on the doormat, and the hideous stench of sewage and kale pours out of the door, I don't exactly have to go in there and work as a chef to know that something is wrong.
*pulls on the asbestos suit* Please save me the "change from within" rhetoric, we can all see how well it worked out for the hippies, who are driving around in their P.T. Landcruisers and worrying about their stock options. The Presidential election is designed to distract us from the real issues and to use up all of our energy focusing on which of Three Stooges (and I guess Ralphie won't make it) gets into office, leaving us exhausted and with the excuse NOT to get involved when stuff really matters. "Well, I voted for that guy, he'll vote the way I want (ha!), and I don't have to worry my head about being 'involved' anymore."Voting Republican or Democrat once every four years is not unlike being one of those Baptists or Catholics (or any other religious denomination) who shows up at church on Sunday (or temple on Saturday) and doesn't spend any energy or time the rest of the week actually accomplishing good deeds or following the Eightfold Path (insert your favorite "walk the Earth" idea here).
These people you elect will make decisions you hate. If you don't believe me, tonight, before you go to bed, type up on your word processor of choice a list of the stuff your candidate has promised to do, and a list of stuff you fear that your anti-candidate won't. Give clear guidelines and definite goals. Print it out. Seal the envelope and mark "Open in 2004." Then ask yourself, if your candidate wins, and fails ... what will you do?
Your party of choice is not some God who says, "Don't question me, you weren't here when I made the whales." Think. Do a feedback loop, if your party of choice doesn't work, try something else. Blindly voting your party (and especially a party who fails you), well, that's like always using "Rock" in rock-paper-scissors. I've seen the political ideas of the past degenerate into mere name-calling, each party tossing the equivalent of Molotov cocktails at one another over issues that most people don't even remember.
Your party candidates have not been clear about anything, and we can't exactly fire them if they don't do what we elected them to do. If you are going to vote, think, reason, and learn from the mistakes of the past. If money is involved, look at actual numbers. Examine facts, then compare them to past promises. Spend your energy where it counts. That may be at the local level. That may be as a journalist digging up some "Deep Throat" informer. It might be as a webmaster of an informational site! Don't think that voting is the only way, or even the best way, of using your energy. They'd love you to think that, but it is not true.
Go here for election results http://election.capwiz.com/c-span/eresults/ They wont have any results until after 6PM EST,.
Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?
I have been to the mountain top and I have seen the future. Ralph Nader will not win. (Damn, curses) But rejoice my third party, disillusioned breathren. Ralph Nader will get the neccesary 5% vote (probably more.) And in 2004 Jesse Venture will run on the Green Party ticket. Mark my WORDs!
This isn't sig. it's banner for advertising.
Now, that's how it looks from this side of the pond. If only something so remote and untouchable didn't influence our lives so.
Le plus la change, le plus la meme chose.
I voted Nader when I could have voted Browne. I agree with more of Browne's issue stances, but would rather see government funding for a third party than have a poorly distributed 3rd party vote. While Browne might be the choice I'm most aligned with, I feel great about voting for Nader because I know I agree with a lot of what he has to say, and he's the guy most likely to get the largest number of 3rd party votes. I know a lot of people who are voting along the same lines. It seems that if slashdot is any indication, Nader has this thing locked up!
You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
I'll agree the demographic of Slashdot is decidedly male. As a female that has been a tomboy all her life and has been known to choose men as 'buddies' more than women - I see nothing wrong with the 'imbalance'.
Ah yes... living in Massachusetts. The state where any fringe group, if organized well enough, can get a deceptive question on the ballot, get it passed by the naive voters, and have it become law without the legislature ever having a chance to review it.
It happened 4 years ago with the "ban cruel traps" question. That question had NOTHING to do with banning traps that were already banned. There was a paragraph buried in the verbiage of the question that re-organized how the fish and game commission gets appointed. The idea being that if they could get a liberal enough governor in office, that person could single handedly outlaw fishing and hunting and Massachusetts, no questions asked. It passed.
This year, another extremist, but well organized animal rights organization is proposing the banning of greyhound racing in Massachusetts. ALL of the footage they've used in their ads showing suffering greyhounds was either extremely old or taken out of state or outside of the country. They've brought forth absolutely no evidence that greyhounds in Massachusetts are being treated cruelly. The fact is that the greyhound racing industry is very well regulated in Massachusetts and is monitored by the MSPCA (Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, although they of course would love to see the question passed). But yet again, idiot Massachusetts voters will very likely vote for it because of the extremely deceptive and misleading advertising put forth by proponents of this question.
Are there other states where an individual can get something into law without it ever seeing the legislature? In these cases where these questions are approved, the only way to get them off the books is to sue. And only then will it be brought before the courts to challenge the constitutionality.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
For those who used an "early" electronic voting method, what happens to your vote if something dramatic happens to a candidate between the time you voted and "election day"?
Maybe some huge story comes out that would swing the whole election (illegal campaining finance, or maybe some major skeleton in their closet).
It seems to me that if you vote two weeks early, you're running that risk, unless you are absolutely sure of who you're voting for regardless of what might happen in the next two weeks (and as firm as I was in my choices, I'm not sure I wouldn't have chosen to wait, just in case).
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Point taken... This is my first election living in the district I am registered in, and it is entirely my fault for not learning the absentee process and learning about the candidates running in those years.
Allow voting for "None of the Above" [I think people] are overwhelmingly supportive of a binding none-of-the-above law. So if you don't like who's on the ballot, you can go down and vote for None of the Above in your voting precinct. If None of the Above wins more votes than any of the other candidates, it cancels that particular election, sends the candidates packing and orders, within thirty or forty-five days, a new election and new candidates.
Source: Alternative Radio interview with David Barsamian Feb 23, 2000
this is from votenader.org:
When there is no one worth your vote: BINDING NONE OF THE ABOVE OPTION
In so many elections, there is only one major-party name on the ballot, or a choice between two candidates with no significant differences and nothing new to offer voters.
Voters should be able to reject the candidates put forth by choosing None of the Above, and force a new election with new candidates. This binding measure would give voters an escape hatch out of an unsatisfactory election and give the disaffected a chance to shake things up.
Trading a vote for a good or service is illegal -- trading a vote for a vote is not.
and from http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~aaronson/nadertrader.h tml
The US Justice Department determined that vote-swapping does not violate federal statutes. * State statutes differ, and the questions have yet to be adjudicated. A strong case for legality can be made on four grounds:
1. members of Congress regularly vote-swap;
2. the First Amendment protects people's right to express their preferences through voting;
3. the California statute bans trading "any money, gift, loan, or other valuable consideration" for a vote, but does not mention trading votes for votes, an important category that should have been named specifically were it banned; and
4. nadertrading sites don't actually broker vote exchanges, but instead just connect voters together so they can do their own thing in private, rather like dating services. (And you never knew democracy was so sexy...)
I was pretty conflicted about this-- I would rather have Gore pick the Judges that will interpret the constitution for (most likely) the better part of my life than Bush. I would rather have a supreme court aligned with the ACLU than with Jerry Falwell.
But campaign finance is a huge issue for me.... I feel that once a candidate takes money from a special interest or corporation, their motivations and agenda are suspect. Gore and Bush accepted tons of corporate money, much from the same companies. Who would they be working for while in office?
After reading the Green platform and Naders speeches and writing, I found a candidate and party I agree with more than not. So much so that when I changed my Address, I registered to vote as a member of ther Green party.
But I live in PA, a 'Battleground State', and as much as I hate to admit, a Nader vote IS as good as a Bush vote here.
Voteexchange.com seems to solve the problem pretty well. I will vote for Gore... , and a woman in Virginia will vote for Nader on my behalf, since Virginia is pretty much a done deal. -Ross
As part of my duty as an American, I posted a well written essay on my site called Fuck The Vote. It was written awhile ago, but it makes a lot of good points that still hold true today.
http://www.damntheman.org/[mrzer0]
see my above post.
Fuck The VoteAny punk can spout off about how democracy in America is a sham. Unfortunately, vague rhetoric is worthless in the real world. So here's a fact: minor political parties are systematically suppressed at the presidential level. While our school teachers indoctrinated us with a disdain for the Soviet Union's one party pseudo-democracy, our own government is hardly better. Back in the ol' USSR the folks could choose only Communist party candidates, while in the Land of the Free we get two choices: two parties that have intentionally shut out all others. The absurdly wealthy leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties have made certain that parties and people who aren't swimming in cash are excluded from meaningful participation in presidential politics.
Theoretically, Americans can vote for a wide range of presidential candidates. In reality, small parties are barred from being placed on the ballot in most states, although voters can 'write in' alternative candidates in most states. But how are you going to find out who's running for prez on the United Potheads ticket, the Angry Honkies with Guns ticket, or the Neo-Trotskyist Party of Valiant and Honorable Workers? The mass media won't tell you about third parties. The federal government dispenses utterly half-assed voter education. Some states like California have decent voter education laws that require at least basic information about all the candidates running, but those states are a rarity. Generally, the only way to find out about third parties is to randomly stumble across their propaganda. Compared to the overwhelming, high tech, multimedia advertisements of the big parties, small party propaganda looks like shit-fringe, wingnut shit. The feds won't fund the parties that most need economic assistance, but it kicks down $100 million per election to the biggies. So the political game is controlled by the economic elite and with campaign spending exceeding more than $500 million a piece for the two major candidates, even the average tycoon is out of the running. Here are some of the methods the status quo parties use to maintain their power...
You can read more at http://www.damntheman.org/Damn, I shouldn't feed the trolls.
The "opposite" of socialism is not the religious right. The religious right deals more with fascism than anything. Your opposite is closer to the libertarians, which are the _radical_ right.
For a good example of why, hit this quiz and have a good look at the output
I would hardly classify Adam Smith, Robert Heinlein, etc, among the less bright.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro." - HST
well, i guess it all depends. if the booths are in a generally "jesus-free" part of the church, its cool. however, it might be a bit weird standing in line to vote surrounded by paintings of saints, a huge sculpture of some dude on a cross, signs saying "read your bible daily" etc etc.
---
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
i mean, i know it was a bit of a tough quiz and all, but goddammit, i want my president to know at least something about the world outside of texas and mexico.
---
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
We can change the Constitution, and we swap horses in mid stream.
Plus, think of the parties in DC with Hillary in New York! Bachelor's night out for the next 4 years. You'd bet I'd be there to take sloppy seconds from Bill.
You know, that makes me seriously wonder. How many women are there on slashdot? I'm fairly certain men are the majority, but how high is that majority? Any females out there, do please raise your hand. :)
There aren't many Slashdot geek girls, but I've had my share, and I'm always looking for more.
Ladies, you know where to find me.
It was embarrassing. I dropped the coin i was using to make up my mind, it made such a loud noise on the metal table in the booth that it scared me and the lady next to me. We both had to get replacement ballots because we accidently marked them up in fright. Then we were both warned to behave ourselves. The funny thing is, she was 80 years old.
[ ]
If you think about it, the whole process seems flawed. If you live in a state with 3 representatives, and your state is fairly homogenous, more than likely all 3 seats will go to the majority party in the state, even if the majority is slim. The reason for this is that districting breaks up potential voter blocks. So unless the members of the minority party all live in one area, their votes are dilluted. A worse example would be if the minority party won two of the three seats, due to the way the districts were drawn. Here's one scenario, 55,000 Party A, 45,000 Party B; District 1 30,000 Party A, 3,333 Party B; District 2 12,000 Party A, 21,333 Party B; District 3 13,000 Party A, 20,334 Party B. Party B has a 10% deficit state wide, but wins twice as many seats!
I think the solution is at-large elections, allow voters to vote for any candidate, also, allow voters to cast multiple votes for a single candidate. So if your state has three seats in the House of Representatives, and 6 people are running, you could cast three votes for your favorite candidate, or one vote each for your top three, etc. This would take power away from the state assembly, because the way that the districts were drawn would not determine the outcome of the election.
My other sig is extremely clever...
Here at work we printed out a copy of the constitution this morning out of curiousity. The constitution explains the process for voting for president, and no where does it actually say the members of the electoral college have to cast their vote for the canidate the people chose. I don't think it will ever happen that members of the electoral college will do the opposite of popular opinion in their represenative state, but you never know. On another note, this is the first election in a while (only the second I've been able to participate in) where a vote in my state (delaware) may actually matter. Since the election is close, the 3 electoral votes in DE may actually make a differnece somewhere. Prior to this election I felt voting for president in DE was useless because your vote only went toward swaying a total of 3 votes. It is becuase of this, and what I said earlier that I think the electoral college system needs to be scraped. With the way communication works to day there is no need for it. oh yea I'm gonna wait until tonight to vote and see who's winning and vote for the other guy.... Just kidding, I'm gonna vote for Harry Browne.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing else looks like a nail.
Heh. Yeah, that's right, Mr. Man!
There are also no non-Christians here! Come to think of it, there aren't any minorities here, either. And homosexuals? Forget about it! The whole country is as straight as an arrow! Yep, by golly, the entire U. S. of A is populated solely by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who are all die-hard capitalists! Anybody who tells you any different is preaching the ultimate hatred against this great land of ours. They will be made to pay.
--
--
The New World Order is upon us, and it's about damned time.
Here in Oregon, we've got complete vote by mail. Nobody waits in line at polling booths because there aren't any.
I voted last week from the comfort of my living room. There weren't any lines and I could take as long as I needed to make my decisions.
All I have to say is that gore has had four years to do something and I have yet to see anything happen. Now, all of a sudden, he has all of these promises of what he's going to do???!!!! I'm not waiting around another four years to find out nothing more has happened....
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
I'm a-lookin' to start a new country... any takers? (heavy libertarian stance - very little government etc).
------
http://vinnland.2y.net/
Vinnland - A country of True Freedom.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Personally, I would vote for Bush, simply because I want Gore out. I'm sick of paying taxes to fund Gore / Clinton's latest 'project' for Deaf Blind Eskimo's in the US or whatever.
Gore/Clinton are firm in the belief that everyone should be equal, and try to balance it out by taxing the hard workering people to give to those that don't bother. Yet in all of this 'equality' I don't see Gore doing too badly for himself. Likewise with Clinton. They hiked taxes so much, and then he goes and doubles the presidents salary from $250K to $500K!!!! Yet at the same time he considers a family with an income of over $50K to be upper class! When Gore says he will cut taxes for middle class Americans, he is not talking about most of the people here (I am classifying most people here as employed IT people earning $50K). Even though most of us would consider ourselves to be middle class, the democrats would brand us upper class high wage earners, and tax us a lot more to fund their favorite federal run charity for the lazy-ass.
However, that said, I am no fan of Bush, but as always its a case of 'worst of two evils'. Overiall, I would like to see Nader have a good run, with the Democrats not winning, therefore, the only resolution to that end would be the Republicans winning.
My friend, you need to learn geography. Alaska is bigger than Texas. Can you tell me where Alaska is?
~ Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits will result in a 500 dollar fine.
That's true of everyone. But they add up, you know.
--meredith
--meredith
Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis
Some say a vote for Fallon is really a vote for Farrel...
Let's see... Vote for a guy who has trouble stringing three syllables together, or vote for 'Mr Technology' who will probably do more to stifle our freedoms in this new medium, than his babbling counterpart. Perhaps contribute a vote to legitimizing a third party next time around? Why? Do we really like alll these commercials? We geeks realise that we're not typical, and that we're becoming less 'special'. I think it's safe to say that when politicians pander to your interests, you're no longer counter-culture. Maybe it's a good thing, maybe we need to grow up... Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat.
OK, I started a flame war without meaning to. My original point was that neither party is particularly concerned with representing people who don't make a decent amount of money. Unions tell people to support Gore, but he shafts them every chance he gets. Europeans have parties who draw most of their voters from the working class. In these countries voter turnout is almost double the US turnout.
Now I will join the flaming:
I have little sympathy for those who faced that situation while raising children. I call them irresponsible, there is nothing more ridiculous than concieving a child (by this, I am not talking about those who have suffered rape) without planning ahead.
So we should vote for Bush so as many kids as possible get messed up. Let's make sure everyone is forced to have unwanted children. That'll help.
Sony is based in Japan for a reason. Who will pay the taxes once all the economic power gets sucked out of America?
Japan is insanely egalitarian. It is considered inappropriate to pay the CEO more than 10 times more than the lowest-paid employee. The Japanese government is huge, it actively manages the private sector.
Oh yeah, Daimler-Chrysler decided to headquarter in Germany, a country noted for its commitment to laissez-faire capitalism. (Sarcasm)
Poor in the United States is a filthy rich compared to being poor an any third world country where there are no jobs and a crappy economy thanks to corrupt government and a ridiculous choice for the place to hang your hat.
This is because we had a wonderful thing in America called the labor movement. It forced employers to pay semi-decent wages, establish safe working conditions, etc. And yes, the fedl govt had to order corporations to recognize unions and negotiate with them.
A Slashdot poll!!!
I am:
-Male
-Female
-Hermaphrodite
-Abnormal chromosones (X, XXX, Y, XYY, etc.)
-JonKatz
I'm gonna go submit it!
My experience today will consist of leaving work at 2. Driving 4 hours to New Jersey where I lived one week ago. Casting my vote and driving right back. And why am I doing this? To make sure Nader gets his 5% and to be a part of the new permanent reform party that this country desperatly needs. Even if you hate all the canidates GET OUT AND VOTE! This is your chance to do something. If you don't believe in the canidates fill in None of the Above. If that wins all the canidates get thrown out and we get new ones. Today's the first step in making a diffrence.
Democracy sucks! I Thank the Good Lawd for what Plato called the "rationally informed" politicians...That is, the Electoral College will come to the rescue for our lost, deluded, paranoid, Machavellian (American) society! If the College could save President Lincoln in 1860, it *can* save Nader in 2000, too...
Err...Maybe not...
Cheers
Amen to that brother!
I voted for Browne, naturally, but as Craig Kilborn put it (paraphrasing), "One thing is for certain. Harry Browne will never be president."
The other fun part is the questions on the ballot, especially #2... all you Massholes out there better be voting No! or I'm gonna squeal on you for all that pot smoking you've been doing, and take away your right to vote away disgusting drug laws.
Sorry. Meant this to be its own post.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
I enjoy reading history, and I know that it continues to repeat itself, despite what most people think. It just gets larger, and bigger in scale. First the Athenians has a democracy. They had their asses handed to them. Then the Romans. Ah, the romans. They had a republic set up to avoid any rule by one- by any monarchy. Well, that republic became so corrupted that it fell. It was falling for over a century before Julius Ceasar crowned himself dictator for life.
This gets me to thinking, are we the successors of the Romans? I think so. We have rolled up most of a continent, taken many lands and placed our rule over a large amount of people. Yet the amount of people ruling seem to be slowly becoming an elite part of society (See: Kennedys and now Bushs)
I think the US will not last another 200 years. I think someone will come along and knock this nation off, or we will cease being a republic. We will cease to be the American Republic and become another entity.
Will a 3rd party slow this process? Hell yes. Will a 4th and 5th. Even more. If we had 10 parties representing the states in congress, laws would stop flowing out of that damn place at such an alarming rate. Those of the US would retain more freedoms. It would take something alarming, such as a war, or a budget crisis, to bring everyone into line, and even then it would be with much debate. Would this parrelize us in the event of war? No, the president has command over the Armed Forces, and can use them to defend the lives of citizens of the US. This would check and balance 2 of the 3 branches of the US Gov. The 3rd? The prez chooses the judges of the supreme court, and the congress votes yay or nay. With so many parties representing so many groups of people, this would lead to judges who would be quite different in views from each other and the president. Effectivly checking the other 2 branches.
Please, everyone, vote for another establishment! Another party! Especially in the senate and congressional and local elections! This will give us the diversity to survive as a Republic for many years to come!
Am I really a replicant?
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
actually, that's why people were running interesting little deals like the website run here at http://www.nadertrader.com
I AM SO EXCITED!!
This is the first presidential election where i GET to vote, why would i not? I woke up this morning and considered going to vote in my pajamas (i live in a dorm and there's a polling place in the lobby just a couple floors down) but I want to take it a little more seriously than that the first time i vote, at least.
And with the race being so close, i think it's even more important to exercise your right today. Even if all the candidates i vote for don't win, i simply hope that whomever does will be the best person for the job.
Good luck, everybody!
I think everybody over the entire world should have the right to vote in the USA. They rule the entire world (at least they thing so), so the entire world should be able to vote.
Besides we not Americans want to be able to take part in this discussion.
Spoken as a real dutchman. Mark
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- if you love something, set it free; if it doesn't come back, hunt it down and kill it
I'm sure some of you have heard about the over 3 million people in California who filed for absentee ballots. They say that many of the state's critical races will have to wait to be decided until all (at least the majority) of these are turned in.
Yet, California's Internet Voting Task Force strongly discourages any consideration of an all-electronic Internet voter registration system. And further, not a replacement either for absentee balloting or balloting at the polls. Yet they go on to say that Internet voting systems should be modeled on the absentee ballot system.
What is going on here? I myself got screwed this election because of people like this. I work for Motorola (my views do not represent those... blah blah blah), but I am temporarily at work in a different corporate location, statewise, than I normally live in and was informed too late to get an absentee ballot. And I know I'm not the only one, so now I can't vote in this election. If you ask me, Internet voting would be a great way to solve these problems.
No, the law is there to prevent illegal representation...voting for people who would represent a different precinct/district, and not your own. That would be akin to me, living in NJ, voting for the Delaware senate race.
How many have voted absentee in their home city for four years while away at college? This is what I did. It's wholly legal. One of the purposes for a absentee ballot is too allow university students to vote in their place of residence.
Perhaps Larry King meant Clinton would run for some other office. If not, then he is a moron.
If public schools are not supposed to advocate one political stance or another, why is my high school closed today to be a voting place? It's a public building that has the necessary space. The church is playing a non-religious community role, like the daycare center in my neighborhood. Er...you don't make any sense. 1) By your school closing it is not advocating the Republicans or the Democrats. And 2) your school is also playing a non-religous community role. You should be happy to have the day off from school! I would be if I did!
A friend of mine works for the Nader campaign...she claims the Nader is not pro-choice. In fact, thats probably why you haven't heard any mention of his opinion on this because all of the young rebels out there supporting him would be appalled!
well this isn't really a flaw neccessarily with the Election Commission. Gerrymandering such as this, redrawing the district lines to include the most of one party and the least of the other, should be made illegal.
You could really say the same thing about tracking polls then, couldn't you?
Its a sad comment on the stupidity of the American people.
I'm not bashing anyone's right to vote. However, I must criticize what appears to be a blind acceptance of everything that Nader says, as if he is the guru of the disenfranchised masses everywhere.
Nader has used the (oft repeated) phrase "Republicrats" to describe his opponents, suggesting that there is NO difference. Think about it. Do some research and don't just blindly accept what Ralph is trying to push down your throats. Anyone remember the EPA or OSHA under Reagan? Completely gutted. Think that won't happen again? Remember, Bush thinks that global warming is an unsubstantiated theory. Bush rejected an increase of the minimum wage. Tax theory? At least under Clinton the Earned Income Tax Credit did something for American;s in lower income brackets. Oh, and those Congressional races you are all voting in have a LOT more to do with these policies getting through than the President.
Make no mistake - voting for Nader increases Bush's chances. Do not delude yourself for one moment. There are no conservatives who are voting for Bush. Think Nader cares? In an interview with the New York Times in which he stated that he stated that Bush might actually be better for the U.S. in the long run since pollution will increase for the short term, thus bringing more people into the Environmental movement. Better to let the environment get worse so it can eventually improve? How 'bout voting for the party that is actually trying to get it from getting worse in the first place! Doesn't anyone on the Nader side have a problem with this? Maybe a few hundred thousand acres in Alaska is a small price to pay?
Vote. First and foremost. No matter who you vote for, just vote. But if you are going to vote for Nader, please at least do a little research on the man, his personal investments, his personal stances on unions, etc. Being a sheep for the Green Party is no better than being a sheep for the "Republicrats."
It would fit perfectly with the Republican standard of having no principles whatsoever except the ones you're paid to endorse.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
I had to wait 45 minutes to get in to vote in a line that was snaking outside the poll like people waiting for a PS2 or concert tickets to go on sale. It was awesome - I really felt like people were serious about getting the vote out.
You know, in all seriousness, I've never had a relationship with a girl as geeky as I am. I would love to be with a girl who I can talk about /. and coding and the new machine I just bought with... a girl who wants to help me network my new apartment. There can't be that many of them though, as I've met very very very few... *sigh*...
Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
By the way, hot Slashdot females, I voted.
:)
You know, that makes me seriously wonder. How many women are there on slashdot? I'm fairly certain men are the majority, but how high is that majority? Any females out there, do please raise your hand.
Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
They aren't the exact same but...
The Greens want to take power from the corporations and give it to the people.
The Libertarians want to take power from the government and give it to people.
Because the corporations have bought out government, a decease in power of the gov can be thought of decease in power for corps and vice versa.
From a third party protest vote perpective it makes no differance which you vote, because in the near future neither will have the power to bring their full agenda in reality. But voting for them does say that you are against the forces that would give away our freedoms in return a life-time supply of turtle wax. And in the event minor candidates get elected they can start to slow the damage being done by the Corporate Employees pretenting to politians.
P.S. Go to the U.N. website and read the U.N. Charter. It reads like a course in "FASCISM 101". They give you your rights and they can take them away when ever they feel like it. Meaning you have no rights under the U.N.
...the election process. I'm not talking about the campaigning or the lack of reallygood candidates (maybe nader); i'm talking about going into your respective municipal buildings and voting. As a college student, its not exactly convenient for me to travel the hour home missing all my classes to vote. I'm especially bothered by the way all these people urg us to "register to vote, and vote for this guy, and vote for that guy" and don't bother to tell us about absentee ballots or the fact that we have to go back to our home town. I mean, for me it's not that bad of a trip, what about all the students that are from a different state?
What's probably more sickening is the way the candidates and the media in general is pushing for younger kids to vote, but fail to inform them of all the details. No wonder there's so little voter turn out. OF the 15 friends in my circle, only one of them is voting because he lives 5 minutes from the campus.
Alrite, thats at the end of my rant.
tap 2 blue, I counter that
The only power I have is my vote, I REFUSE to give that power to the Republicans or Democrats. I've sent letters to my County and State RNC's to let them know I won't vote for them until they clean up their act!
Reagan/Bush didn't ruin things any more than Clinton/Gore have.
FYI - I voted for Perot twice and I still don't regret having cost Bush Sr and Dole the election. If my vote for Browne this election costs GW, so be it. Gore won't destroy America anymore than Bush will.
Well, maybe if Bush wasn't so busy paying for illegal abortions, he would have gone to Vietnam....
most people here probably hate. Here are some things I saw at the polls: Signs supporting numerous candidates who hold numerous conflicting views. People from all walks of life waiting in line to cast their votes. Signs around the perimeter of the polling place stating that "electioneering" (i.e. campaigning) beyond that line was illegal. Ballots with numerous candidates listed, and write in spaces where I could write in the name of any person that I feel should be President of the United States.
Here are some things that I didn't see: People getting hassled about whether or not they can vote. Armed guards. 'Representatives' of any incumbent pressuring people to vote one way or another.
Perhaps people who say the system sucks say that because there is not a candidate who thinks exactly like them. Is it possible that the two evil parties are so powerful because they represent the approximate views of the majority of Americans? Is it possible that our system works wonderfully, even if it means that many people don't get their way?
Scratch-o-Matic
Evil is the money of root.
Your sig reminded me of a saying that a friend of mine used to use: 'Well, you know how dumb the average person is. And by definition half of them are even dumber than that.'
Scratch-o-Matic
Evil is the money of root.
Should the candidates reflect the will of the people? I totally disagree!
The candidates should express their own personal opions and the people should vote for the one that come closet to their opion - using some metric.
seems the big choice is to vote for the representative of the wolves, or to vote for the guy who will gladly sell you to the wolves. maybe ill do a writein vote just so i dont violate my conscience too badly.
Right now, I'm in my school's tech lab, and my school is the voting place for our district. We have adults wrapping around the hallways. I'd guess the wait is somewhere around 2 hours...I'd love to vote (NADER ROCKS!)...too bad I won't be eighteen for another week...
I had this dilema as well. I was going to vote for Nader and then I decided to vote for Browne. My problem is that there is no party that represents my views. I don't consider it to be a 180 diffence in ideology because I see big business and big goverment as one in the same. I'm a libertarian who believes strongly in corporate regulation. I don't believe corporations should be treated like individuals and I think that individuals should be granted as much freedom as is possible (short of actions that directly harm others). That being said, Nader seems more and more like a scary socialist to me. He completely lost me on the gun issue.
Maybe you don't fully realize what "the President of the sole superpower" means, but believe me, we do.
... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply."
Don't, please don't tell us that there's absolutely no difference between the two candidates. There is. You may not care much about the IQ or the qualification of your president, but we definitely do, for the very reasons I mentioned above.
Do you honestly believe that it is the president you calls the shots on major matters such as war? There is no difference between the two candidates because they both represent the same center of power in the world. Consider the following quotes from former presidents and world leaders before you ascribe so much significance to the presidential decision:
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world -- no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
President Woodrow Wilson (Quoted in "National Economy and the Banking System," Senate Documents Co. 3, No. 23, 76th Congress, 1st session, 1939.)
"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight."
John F. Kennedy, at Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
President Woodrow Wilson, from his book The New Freedom
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court Justice
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire,
Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild
"The Federal Reserve Banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the International Bankers."
Congressman Louis T. McFadden
The president is a rather insignificant figure in the grand scheme of things and democracy is all but dead. BTW, Santa Claus does not exist either. Grow up and see the world for what it is.
Maltheus
When you go to vote, just remember who Jesse Jackson endorsed; then remember who the KKK endorsed. That should make your choice for you right there.
Without further ado, here's the article:
BIRMINGHAM, AL-October 30,2000-The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
announced today their support for George W. Bush for President of the United States.
"George W. Bush has killed more Niggers in the last five years in office than the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan has in its entire history!" an excited David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Knights of the KKK exclaimed at a press conference today. "Our recent analysis of the publicly- available record of Governor Bush shows that he has killed 144 people, most of them Niggers. The Klan has killed less than 50 in its entire history -- almost 100 years now. We are looking forward to eight years of thousands of dead Niggers!"
Citing publicly-available statistics from the Texas Execution office and the private Klan archives, the study shows that by extrapolating the number of Niggers killed by Governor Bush in Texas to the
population of the entire country, a possible 6,158 Niggers will be killed in two four-year terms. This represents 20 times more dead Niggers than the KKK has ever been able to kill, and all under the guise of complete legality.
The official Texas Governor's Execution Office website can be found at http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/stats-home
Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore might _say_ he is in favor of the death penalty, but researchers at the KKK have not found evidence that he has actually killed one Nigger. Mr. Gore did serve in Viet Nam but did not see active combat, so there is no evidence he even killed one yellow Nigger.
Mr. Duke continued, "Not only has Texas Governor Bush killed more Niggers than any other governor in history, he is now publicly flogging the Niggers, even after they are dead," referring to the practice of the Texas Department of Executions posting the last words of the inmates it kills.
An excellent example of a pleading by a Nigger -- only moments before he is killed by Governor Bush, comes from Gary Graham (now dead!), widely believed to be completely innocent of the crimes he was accused of.
On the Texas Department of Executions web site, Mr. Graham says, "I would like to say that I did not kill Bobby Lambert. That I'm an innocent black man that is being murdered. This is a lynching that is happening in America tonight. There's overwhelming and compelling evidence of my defense that has never been heard in any court of America. What is happening here is an outrage for any civilized country to anybody anywhere to look at what's happening here is wrong." The complete text of his last words can be read here:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/grahamgarylast
Commenting on the Gary Graham execution, Mr. Duke said, "Apologists for the Nigger takeover of the United States, such as the Pope and Nelson Mandela, claimed to have evidence that Mr. Graham was completely innocent of his crimes and was executed because he was a Nigger. Good! More dead Niggers just means more White Power!"
In another related issue that shows more compelling reasons to support George W. Bush for president is the issue of denying competent
representation to Niggers. Referring to a bill he vetoed, Governor Bush said, "The bill creates the potential for counties to set up a new layer of bureaucracy that could result in increased backlogs and decreased court
efficiency." For a complete discussion, see the article here: http://www.dallasnews.com/specials/legislature/06
Citing the fact that Governor Bush vetoed this bill -- passed in 1999 by the Texas Legislature, Mr. Duke said, "Such an overt act by the Texas Governor to deny Niggers access to even the most basic defense against prosecution shows his commitment to killing the maximum number of Niggers."
And by far the most important reason the KKK is supporting Governor Bush for President is his proficiency at using the court system to kill the maximum number of Niggers.
An article in the October 28 issue of the Washington Post states, "A federal appeals court panel today reinstated the death sentence of a defendant whose murder case gained notoriety as one of several in Texas in which court-appointed lawyers slept through stretches of testimony. Two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit voted to reinstate the death sentence. One of them was Judge Edith Jones, whom many legal observers see as a possible Supreme Court nominee if Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) wins the presidency."
The article goes on, "Gov. Bush, who has strongly defended his state's vigorous death penalty system, was asked about Texas's "sleeping lawyer" cases, including Burdine's, during a campaign debate in Los Angeles on March 2. Bush cited the lower court's decision to throw out Burdine's sentence as evidence that the system worked fairly. But a day after that debate, Texas prosecutors asked the 5th Circuit to reinstate Burdine's sentence, resulting in today's ruling." The full article is available online here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
Clearly this shows how George W. Bush uses the courts to kill innocent Niggers, and when pressed about whether or not the system is fair, the Governor has shown an amazing ability to deflect the question and see to it the Nigger is scheduled to be killed the very next day! The Klan can only dream about how many dead Niggers with result if President Bush is able to appoint two, three, maybe even four Supreme Court justices who have already shown the propensity to work outside the law to maximize the number of Niggers that are killed.
To conclude the official Klan endorsement of George W. Bush for
President of the United States, Mr. Duke said, "Honestly, what could be better than a legal way for an American governor -- and hopefully soon the American President -- to legally kill off lots of Niggers? To deny fair trials, to deflect questions and kill Niggers when the press isn't looking, and to appoint radically pro-death Supreme Court justices is any Klansman's dream! And to get Niggers to plead for their life, call it a lynching, and post their final pleadings right on a web site for all to see how pathetic these Niggers are! Clearly this makes George W. Bush the obvious choice for all honest, Christian white men who want to vote for the absolute maximum number of dead Niggers. Let the slaughter begin -- vote for the Klan, vote for George W. Bush!"
# # #
Press Contacts
-----------------
For further information on the KKK endorsement of George W. Bush for president, contact our press officials at the following addresses.
Ari Fleischer
512-637-7777
Mindy Tucker
512.637.2000
Bill Pascoe
202-863-8550
Phone: 202.863.8500
Fax: 202.863.8820
info@rnc.org
Cliff May
202-863-8550
press@rnc.org
Scott McClellan
virginia@georgewbush.com
Dan Bartlett
dc@georgewbush.com
Further Reading
---------------
An excellent photo archive of the how the Klan used to lynch Niggers, before we were on the inside and could do it legally, and call it an 'execution'. Our favorites are pictures 33 and 80:
http://www.journale.com/withoutsanctuary/
Here is the son of the lead United States Nigger, Jesse Jackson Jr., ranting and raving about how he wanted to stop the killing of Gary Graham. Too late!
http://members.nbci.com/ccadp/shakasankofa-hurr
Yet another website proclaiming the innocence of the now dead Gary Graham:
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/factsheets/garyGr
Another innocent, dead, Nigger killed in Texas by Governor Bush: http://members.nbci.com/ccadp/odellbarnes.htm
Here is a Nigger leader from South Africa whining about how many Niggers are killed in the United States:
http://cnews.tribune.com/news/tribune/story/0,1
Here are some radical anti-death penalty types. Let them know you will vote for George Bush to keep the killing on!
http://www.iacenter.org/stop_dmachine.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/hum1012.htm
Here is more crap about that the Nigger they lynched:
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/ccadp/shakasankof
Here is another innocent Nigger killed in another state. Can you imagine how many more dead Niggers there will be with President Bush running the court systems?
"Whether Wright is electrocuted or injected seems insignificant compared to the likelihood that we are sending an innocent man to his death." - Alabama State Supreme Court Justice Douglas Johnstone. http://members.nbci.com/ccadp/freddiewright.htm
I am,
I am,
Fine
Bush and Gore have been nothing but Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum this election. There have been any important issues (Such as Decriminlization/Legalization of marijuana, the constitutionality of the DMCA, etc...)and it has come don to which has committed more felonies. I know I would never vote for Bush because I imagine something out of a Heinlien novel if he did get into office and I prob'ly would vote Gore because he isn't vocal enough on many issues. Many people could give a rats ass about his fuzzy math, at least he's challenging the veiws of a pawn, and Bush is a pawn...
Hmm, lessee... on the downside; Communism, collapsing economy, drunken rulers. On the updside; plentiful vodka, well-established space presence, plentiful Free Trade Mail Order brides. Hmmm. Tough call.
With what the Canadian dollar is worth in US$, maybe getting a few billion rubles would be a nice change. [grin]
"There's a party," she said,
"We'll sing and we'll dance,
It's come as you are."
It's understandable... it's the last remaining superpower... our closest geographical neighbour... shares the longest unguarded border in the world... largest trading partner... but holy cow, we've got our own election coming up! And on top of that, where I live we have MUNICIPAL elections coming up too! I am being over electioned, and it's turning into apathy.
If I respectively wasn't informed enough to care, already decided, and not informed enough to care, I'd probably do something stupid like posting all my frustrations on a newsgroup. Whew.
"There's a party," she said,
"We'll sing and we'll dance,
It's come as you are."
Pinco Pallino
Pasdasd
asdasdasd
asdasd
If our legislature != yours, you push for it (like the whole US puritan "war on drugs". Like the NRA funding foreign gun lobbies. The list goes on.). If relying on the greenback and trying to trade with America isn't making your country more wealthy than collecting taxes alone, then my name is Gretchen (which it isn't).
Dropping the constitutional "right to vote*" age to 12, or some agreed upon "age of reason" would cause candidates to take seriously the issues affecting young citizens, rather than pandering to their parents viewpoints. Any fear that young citizens would vote on the same lines as their parents, or vote based on non-substantive issues (e.g. Gore's daughters are hotter, Bush has better hair) are unfounded because:
- If children vote along the same lines as their parents, the net result is the same, excluding some statistical oddity like Democrats having an average 2.9 children, as opposed to Repubs 2.2
- Voting on non-substantive issues will be "random noise", which will not cancel out anyone elses vote
Idealism generally begins dying off at age 18, when one begins experiencing the "real world". Lowering the voting age would encourage young citizens to become better informed, and instill the desire to participate in the political process while this idealism is still fresh.--
*The Constitution ensures the right to vote for all citizens 18 and up. It does not specifically deny the right to anyone not in this class; IIRC, one or two states allows younger citizens to vote. I don't have the specific info, if anyone else does, please feel free to chime in.
When I voted almost 2 weeks ago, during early voting in Texas, apparently this same guy, or his mental twin started out in line just ahead of me. I was going through the same thought process that you appear to have gone through, when the young lady behind me, said "Excuse me, but you aren't aloud to discuss election issues while in line." About the time she had finished her statement, a frail little woman of about 70 years had rounded her table, and was quietly explaining to the gentleman that she could and would have him removed if he did not follow the rules. His response was not polite.
I am a little embarassed to admit that I didn't even consider asking the guy to be quiet., I was too busy being annoyed and coming up with smartass responses that I had no intention of actually verbalizing.
As I walked out of the building after voting, he was politely making his case to a guy with a clipboard. I wonder if he made it back inside to vote.
Dave
p.s. I only flew the dark green helicopters, and I quit doing that when they cancelled the Cold War.
DON'T VOTE JUST TO VOTE! If you are voting FOR someone you shouldn't be voting.. Voting AGAINST someone can be seen as supporting the person you vote for, even if you don't. I don't buy people saying that everyone should vote... Everyone SHOULD NOT vote unless they are aware of the issues and the candidates. Everyone SHOULD get more involved in the process to LEARN more about what is going on. We always point the blame at the "politicians" for all the negative aspects of government. It's OUR government! WE put them there! If we the people want to see "changes" then we need to get involved and do our homework... If you just went and voted for a certain party "because I always have" or "because the major two party system sucks" you're the problem.
sometimes i can' wait to come down with cancer. at least then i'll get to watch tv all day.
Yeah, I voted in a church, too. That's not what gets me, though. I'm pissed because in the grand state of North Carolina, voter authentication is amazingly lame. They ask for your name, look up your address in a book, and while pointing to it, ask you to verify your address. If I knew that my neighbor wasn't going to vote, I could just as easily vote for him as I could for myself. They say 'vote early, vote often!' I used to laugh at that.
How did I vote? Well, in NC a vote for Nader is a wasted vote (it literally counts only as a protest vote, it is not counted toward the election, nor will it bring him any closer to the 5% mark...), so I couldn't vote my conscience. I actually found myself placing a mark next to Al Gore's name. I'm sickened by the process, and I sincerely hope that the Green party gets federal funds next go round!
Erich
"The lesser of two evils is still evil."
As of a month ago, I was going to vote Nader, no matter what. Then I went to webwhiteandblue and found a cyber debate which invited all candidates including Nader. Bush and Gore were responding to the questions, but Nader was no where to be found. After listening to him complain about not being permitted to debate with Gore and Bush, it seems like the cyber debate would have been perfect. And possibly he had a decent reason for not particapating, but address the issue and post a reason. I sent an email to his web site asking about this, no one from the office responded. Then I saw the article about Nader trading, and found the Illinois is a swing state, so am voting Gore, because I see no benefit in voting for Bush. I'm pro-choice, like trees and clean air, and am not on the verge of becoming the top 1% of wealthiest people in the world, so Gore gets my vote. I was really disappointed that Nader didn't take the time to participate in that cyber debate since Gore and Bush were taking the time(or at least finding people to fill in their answers for 'em)
Honestly, I think you are only half right... in terms of senators, presidential candidates, etc. on the average you can pretty much guess where they are going to stand based almost entirely on their party affiliation. At that level you have to tow party line just to get nominated.
On the other hand when you get down to the local and state level, thats when you get some real variety on the issues...
where are you?
Yeah but only two of them are getting enough hits to actually put the software to a real test.
On the one hand, I agree that Gore is certainly not a bright guy, at least not as bright as he would like you to think. And I also agree that Bush isn't as dumb as people would like you to think.
That said, Bush just acts like he doesn't have a clue about whats going on... one of the most important things when it comes to negotiating, be it with other politicians in this country, or with foreign leaders is acting... for lack of a better word, Presidential. Presidential implies a lot of things, not the least of which is being (or at least acting) knowledgable. Gore would really have an edge over Bush in that respect, and no amount of Good advisors can compensate for it.
You do realize that the Green Party and the Libertarian party are pretty much the exact opposite, right?
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
It's finally over (well, for me). I voted, though I must admit that much of it wasn't a very informed vote. The entire back side of my ballot was full of boxes for judicial positions, which I had not researched. I think I may have researched the wrong candidates as well in at least one case. The information I found on the web was very convoluted -- I couldn't understand the numbering that they used.
Anyway, for the Presidential race, I voted for Nader. I was surprised to find his checkbox at the bottom. I thought that the ballot was supposed to go in alphabetical order by party name, but I guess it must have been the order in which the people registered to be in the running.
For my state House representative, I voted for Ficus.. There were two choices on the ballot -- Democratic incumbent or a young Republican college student. I'm not a Republican, and the incumbent has been there for many years.
I'm not sure if the line was longer than normal or anything, but I waited for a good while before getting to the ballot box. I expect voter turnout to be up this year, but I also expect Nader to get a better showing than he's been getting in polls lately. I could easily be wrong on both counts.
There has been a lot of worry about GWB on my campus. However, if this story is even remotely true, my companion students have overreacted to the threat. So many people said, ``I can't vote for Nader because of the Supreme Court.'' If it turns out that 90% of the vote went to Gore around here, then they need to re-examine their reasons, I think. (Obviously, 20 people is an insanely small sample)
The machine at my voting location was broken. Apparently it was brand-new (and apparently untested). Anyway, I just hope they can count everything up okay.
--
I think a skeptical attitude towards government is healthy. Government can't legislate morality, and certainly can't solve every problem (or even most problems).
But you have to wonder how much of that apathy and lack of faith stems from the total barrage of negative ads that run for a solid month prior to every election.
From any evidence that is presented over the last two weeks, all major candidates for all major offices are lying scoundrels who want to steal food out of the mouths of every senior citizen. The elections are clearly going to be won by the candidates who scare the geezers harder. And we wonder why genxers are not interested in voting?
Every election year I can't imagine it getting worse, and every election year it does. And even the "positive" ads are smarmy and insulting to anyone with any intelligence whatsoever.
It gets to the point where I'm so tired of the lying politicos that I'd rather return to the lying corporations. I believe that my local Tri-State Area Ford Dealer cares more about me than my US Senator. At least the local Tri-State Area Chevy Dealer doesn't run ads telling me how much the Ford dealers want to kill my mother.
--
Which was not often.
We did have a television for most of my childhood, but mostly inherited from wealthier relatives ("wealthier" in relative terms -- as in, "you know you're a redneck if you help your wealthiest relative take the wheels off his house."). I thought it was the greatest thing in the world when my grandfather moved a few houses down. He had actual running hot water in his house, as well as air conditioning. (We had neither in our house, this being in Louisiana, where air conditioning is quite appreciated).
I went to college because the student loans were being guaranteed by the government. I did get grants for the first couple of years, but then Ronald Reagan phased the grants almost out of existence to the point where they didn't even pay for my textbooks. No big deal, I have no problem with paying back the money I borrowed, it was a wise investment. I went to the cheapest public university in my state, since I knew I was going to have to pay every cent back. But without the government guarantee for the loan (which amounts to a government subsidy), I couldn't have gone to college. And this country would have been without at least one damn good engineer (I was chief architect and project lead for EST's upcoming enterprise product). In other words, that investment in people was a good investment on the part of this society too.
The suckiest thing about being poor is a combination of the dirt (no hot water, remember?), the smell (no air conditioning, in Louisiana, remember?), and the cockroaches. And getting sick. I was lucky to live in Louisiana. We had state-run hospitals and clinics for the indigent, unlike states such as Texas (where if you got sick, you either got well by yourself or died, my brother lost his eyesight because of Texas), but it was still an all-day wait in dirty, overcrowded facilities to be treated by young medical students who were only barely supervised by real doctors. It sucked. Especially for people with serious illnesses -- if, for example you needed some sort of serious surgery, the best they could do was ask a neighboring private hospital if they could "borrow" an operating room and equipment, otherwise you died. I'm lucky. I lived, though I'm missing a chunk out of my left foot that would be there if I'd had the luck to be born to rich parents. My brother wasn't so lucky. Between the Texas doctors refusing to treat him, traipsing home to his home town, then the wait to borrow an operating arena from a neighboring Catholic hospital, he lost his eyesight.
Being poor sucks. The fact that you think it doesn't tells me that you have never been poor. Yes, America's poor have it better than those in Mogadishu. But that doesn't mean it sucks any less.
Oh -- my father ran a shop during the day, then worked as a hotel maintenance man at night. My mother sold cosmetics and cookingware door-to-door. Just in case you were wondering if they were some kind of welfare whores (In Louisiana? Yeah, right!). Family finances finally took a turn for the better when my mother managed to get a Kiwanis scholarship to nursing school thanks to the help of one of her customers. That happy result, however, did not happen until I was nearly out of high school.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
What's this BULLSHIT about the poor having 52" color tv's? We were lucky to have a 12" black and white when I was growing up.
What's this BULLSHIT about how I should have paid my way through college on a $3.35 an hour job at Pizza Hut (let's see, I would have had to work *ONLY* 90 hours a week to pay the tuition, room, and board at the rather inexpensive public university that I attended), rather than relying upon student loans and the occasional grant? I'm still paying off those student loans, BTW, but I don't mind because it was a worthwhile investment... but without the government guarantee for those loans, *NOBODY* would have loaned me the money up-front for that investment.
Anybody who believes that being poor means being lazy has never been poor. It's a pain in the butt, usually involving 60 hour weeks sunk deep into the mud in a driving rain digging trenches to lay conduit or other such manual labor for a grand total of $3.50 an hour (what I made in that job in 1985). Later, when I taught in an inner city school, I had trouble getting parents to come to my class not because they were lazy, but because most of them were working two or three jobs trying to pay the rent on the tar-paper hovels that they lived in.
You are ignorant. The problem is, you don't even know it, and think you know it all. I knew it all too, when I was 13 years old. I grew up.
I may now be in the top income tax bracket, but you better believe I damn sure don't forget being poor. It sucked. Too bad I can't make sure you get a taste of what it's like.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
You can't escape US media, even if you're not in the US, so everyone in the world gets US election coverage. And one thing which has been stunningly clear has been the block-headed and hostile attitude which the Washington press corps has shown towards Gore.
Let's look at examples: During the first debate, when Bush was making it abundantly clear to anyone with a brain that he didn't understand his own health care policy, Gore demolished him, and all he could say in return was that Gore was using bogus figures. Did the press check to see whether that was true? Of course not, they swallowed the accusation lock stock and barrel and started dissembling about Gore's honesty!
If the press had performed its duty and actually investigated the controversy, they'd have found out that Gore's figures were true, and Bush was ignorant about his own policy's effects.
Then there are other cases where the press has absolutely slammed Gore for his honesty: He's been criticized for saying he was a role model for Love Story. Guess what? The book's author backs that up, but the press still, to this very day, uses that anecdote as an example of Gore's dishonesty.
Gore said he grew up on a farm, performing back-breaking farm labor. Another lie? The press would say, "Of course!" because he went to a Washington private school... but his parents lived on a farm, he spent summers there, and neighbors recount stories of the unbelievably hard chores his father would set for him to "harden him up." Does the press investigate that? No, they're too busy hooting about dishonesty.
The lullaby scandal? It was a joke, guys -- You can't watch the videotape of the speech he made without knowing that, but when it's reduced to dry print, the press has a field day with it, using it as another example of dishonesty.
The "invented the Internet" crap is the best one: When Gore says he "... took the initiative in Congress in creating the Internet..." luminaries of the 'net like Vint Cerf come out in support and confirm that the Internet would never have got to where it is today without Gore's work in congress. Does the press report that? Of course not, it's much more fun to have a good laugh at the things Gore never said, but which have been attributed to him anyway.
And throughout all this, Bush has had an easy ride: It doesn't matter that he doesn't know his own policies, it doesn't matter that he makes wild accusations about his opponent's honesty which are patently false, it doesn't matter that he "embellished" his military service record, it doesn't matter that he comes across as a bumbling illiterate fool -- It's almost as if those things are expected of Bush, because everyone knows he's stupid.
The first question I saw a Washington journalist ask of the local journo who uncovered Bush's DUI conviction was something along the lines of, "With all the controversy it's caused, do you wish you'd never found out about this?" OF COURSE SHE DOESN'T WISH THAT -- It's the biggest story of her life, she's a local journalist nobody has ever heard of who is having a noticible effect on the presidential campaign, why should she possibly feel guilty about doing her job?
Because the Washington press corps isn't doing theirs, I suppose, and they assume others should follow their example.
So -- Any claim of liberal bias from the press during this campaign is bullshit. They haven't had liberal bias, they've just had an attack of laziness and dishonesty. They've pigeonholed Bush as being "stupid", and Gore as being "dishonest", and they don't bother investigating or reporting any stories which might contradict the scripts they've already worked out for the candidates.
There's a web site which has lots of really breathtaking examples of press dishonesty during this campaign: www.dailyhowler.com. There are examples of press irresponsibility which benefit Bush and Gore, but the unavoidable conclusion is that the press has been overwhelmingly pro-Bush in an effort to create a close contest instead of the landslide for Gore people were predicting two years ago.
This is a distortion of democracy: People make their voting decisions based on what the press says, but the press is being outrageously dishonest. If I was actually living in the US, I'd be extremely concerned about the way the Fourth Estate has manipulated the result of this election.
-----
-----
I tried an internal modem, but it hurt when I walked.
And so it comes to this, as it always does. Most of the people feel helpless, and respond with apathy, not even bothering to vote on anything, even critical local ballot initiaves. The rest, and the national media, have locked into their brains a two-man race:
/maybe/ get some media coverage, but fail when the day is done; or vote for Bush, maybe slow gov't growth a bit, treat the nation to a bit of SS privatization, and not cripple our booming economy with over-regulation.
/support/ either one of these idiots as they stand). But the one thing you must do if you wish to retain your moral sanction to complain (complaining being one of the few originally American ideals we still cherish), you MUST vote. Proponents of and apologists for not-voting often say that by abstaining from the electoral process, you remove your sanction from the outcome, in a sort of don't-blame-me kind of way. That by having voted for someone, ANYONE, you have implicitly approved of the electoral process and are willing to accept whomever is chosen by it. Nothing could be further from the truth! By not voting, by refusing to participate in the process in any way, you are saying to those who /do/ vote, "whatever you decide is OK by me". It is /abstaining/, not voting, by which you wax complicit with the majority. But worst of all, I think, is that by not voting, by not expressing what you believe and want, you give up your moral right to complain about the results. A bumper sticker reads, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Libertarian!". Your vote landing in one of the losers' piles gives you the sanction to later say I Told You So, when whoever did get elected does something stupid. But he who does not vote...
/like/ to catch the ball, but it isn't there. It wizzes past and the runner scores. Can we all agree that you have no right to complain that the 3rd baseman "missed your glove"? That in order to legimitately complain about anything, you would have had to have tried to alter the course of events, by attempting to catch the ball actively rather than passively? When you do not vote, you are that catcher.
/do/ vote, vote away not only their own liberties, but those of their fellow men.
Gore - rampant gov't growth, a tendency for lying that puts Clinton to shame, off the wall environmental policy, and a running mate you'd swear was a Republican
Bush - a bit less gov't growth, kinda stupid, did some drugs (like *I* care), and his running mate's ideas on energy policy would make any socialist proud
Not much of a choice, if you ask me. My own electoral choice for chief executive, Mr. Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party, likes to quip that you shouldn't vote for the candidate you feel will take you to hell the slowest. And yet, that's how most of the American voters view their choice. They see the other candidates:
Buchanan - a fervent nationalist, wants to close our borders to immigrants AND trade, and impose his religion on us
Nader - getting most of his support from his semi-celebrity status, I fear many of his erstwhile supporters have failed to read the Green Party platform, which reads like the agenda of a turn-of-the-century socialist party, plus a bunch of enviro-fascism
Browne - the only candidate really committed to the ideals on which this country was founded: individual liberty and responsibility. But considering how far we have strayed from liberty in the 20th century, the century of socialism, hardly anyone is ready for a return to a properly Constitutionally limted gov't
And so, at the ballot box, libertarians like me are left with a bitter choice: vote for Browne, express our ideals,
Or, simply not vote (the argument here is that by not voting you remove your sanction from the outcome, we'll get to that in a bit).
And whom you choose comes down to a simple dichotomy of principle. What is the purpose of the vote you cast? If you believe, as I do, that your vote is an expression of your principles, whether you believe they can win or not, you MUST vote your conscience. However if you believe that the point of the vote is to adjust your priorities until you can be on the winning side, or that you should influence the outcome in the most powerful way you can, or indeed any pragmatism-based argument, then by all means, vote the lesser of two evils (as I can't imagine what type of mind would actually
Allow an analogy. You are the catcher in a baseball game. A runner is headed for home. The 3rd baseman throws you the ball. You stick out your glove, to the spot where you'd
But back to my despair.
At the end of the day, when pragmatism does indeed rule, it IS a two-man race. Nader will get his media coverage from the liberal media monopoly, and probably end up with federal matching funds next time around, Browne's numbers will get reported on Fox News but will be otherwise ignored, and hopefully we can all forget about Buchanan and the "Reform" Party. Either Bush or Gore is going to take (and subsequently break) the Presidential Oath in January, like it or not. And when I think of that, my enthusiasm ebbs. Yes, I wore my Browne In '96 t-shirt today. Yes, I got quite excited yesterday when I saw an Elect Dr. Glazer (a libertarian candidate for state legislature) van drive by near my neighborhood (but sadly outside my district). Yes, I'm writing this post. But tonight after work and school I'll sit down on the bed and watch on television as Jefferson's tyrranny of the majority votes to steal my liberty and yours. Can you imagine that? In the Revolutionary War, thousands of colonists fought and died for the cause of liberty, so that they could be free from the arbitrary power of the British crown. The men of that era might be shocked that Americans today are so willing to surrender their liberty, but they would be absolutely appalled that the vast majority of those who
Oh, how we have forgotten our triumph! Did they tell you in school, as they did me, that the great treasure of America was DEMOCRACY? Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. What if 51% of Americans decided it would be good for the economy to summarily execute the other 49%? If the measure passed, it would be uncontestable! It's the will of the people! To reject it is to reject democracy! "But surely such a measure is unconstitutional," you say. Of course it would be! But so is every gun control law. So are the bans on various drugs such as marijuana, heroin, LSD, and Mescaline. So are no-knock warrants and civil asset forfeiture. And so are all the other laws - I would wager at least 90% of federal laws - in violation of the forgotten 9th and 10th Amendments. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court piss on the Constitution every day, so what's to stop our hypothetical Summary Execution Act? Nothing. And that's democracy.
And although it may seem like a long jump from the gas tax hike that Al Gore will surely advocate, or the erosion of abortion and religious rights George Bush will push for, to the murder of a hundred million Americans, the principle is identical: they are all acts of violence by the government against its citizens. And at the end of the day, that's what I'm left with. That my gov't attacks me every day of my life, and that my fellow men, rather than come to my aid, assist my attackers with their compliance, their inaction, and their VOTES.
MoNsTeR
Modded down more than up? Mah, wrong I'm still flying at 50. Thank you very much.
--
--
Since I dont watch TV at all, and listen to NPR (and read CNN online) for news, I was amazed at the lack of phone contact and/or direct mailing to inform people like me about the candidates. If I didnt have an interest in the race, I dont know if I would actually have any kind of an opinon one way or the other. All I recieved in the mail was the Massachusetts package of what the ballot questions were about. Usually, I recieve a phonecall or two asking for support for the candidates, or some malings about the candidates and their issues.
-=Bob
"Resident" has different definitions for different purposes.
:-)
We're talking about voter registration here.
According to Title IX, Chapter 101, section 101.45, subsection 2, paragraph e, the simple act of putting your college address as where you want your absentee ballot sent to constitutes notification that you've changed your address for registration purposes.
In other words, if you have it sent to Mom and Dad's house and they forward it to you, you're a legal resident of Mom and Dad's precinct; if you have it sent directly to your dorm room, you're a legal resident of *THAT* precinct, and they are required to send you a ballot for your new precinct.
Florida has all sorts of weird differing residency laws for different purposes. A Maitland cop tried to give me a ticket once because my car was in the parking lot for more than 10 days without suddenly sprouting a Florida license plate. I was a temporary contract employee with a permanent residence in Oklahoma at the time.
And I wasn't even in Maitland; he just thought I was.
-
So how do military members (and their families) who are from florida but not stationed there vote?
The laws I read are unclear. I have no idea what the precedents are.
The law would seem to indicate that if you request a Florida absentee ballot be sent to a non-Florida location, the request should be denied. Either that, or a ballot for your home precinct sent. It's not clear.
-
When I went to my polling place today to cast my vote for an agenda I can support, instead of throwing it away by voting for Bush or Gore, I was once again reminded of one of the many signs that the Federal Election Commission and most (if not all) state Election Commissions are completely out of control.
My tax dollars go to pay for the printing of signs placed on every polling place in Florida that state that voting in the wrong precinct is a felony, punishable by a $5,000 fine and 5 years in prison.
How many people have voted in their old precinct after moving and forgetting to change their registration?
How many have moved during the "blackout period" when they couldn't change their registration if they wanted to, and still voted?
How many have voted absentee in their home city for four years while away at college?
Are these folks really as dangerous as other crimes with the same 5 year maximum penalty:
Assault with a weapon.
Battery on a police officer.
Battery of child by throwing, tossing, projecting, or expelling certain fluids or materials. (blood, urine, feces, seminal fluid)
Burglary of an unoccupied vehicle or dwelling.
Purse snatching (if you don't have a weapon on you.)
Child abuse that doesn't cause permanent injury.
Possession of child pornography.
Voting in the wrong precinct is considered to be as serious a crime as all of those in Florida. Does that strike anybody as just a tad irrational?
-
I was obviously referring to population, jack ass. The intent was obvious from my usage. The word, "biggest", is by no means limited to geographical size. Look it up in the dictionary if you're that much of a wank.
It's not that difficult. Most the press are card carrying democrats. The very notion of a Republican makes their hackles rise. Now add to the mix wealth, affluence, ease, being Texan, appearing to be the eternal frat-boy, non-academic outlook, etc. These are all factors that Bush can't do much about. Despite that Bush has managed to do fairly well against a somewhat hostile press, thanks largely to his people skills and powers of persuasion. Gore, on the other hand, has dropped the ball many times. We know he's stiff.
Ask yourself, what will happen when the election is over? The press will no longer feel the need to promote the Dem. candidate, especially if he's unpopular with the people. On the flip side of the coin, the press will likely lose much of their negative/alarmist _bias_ against Bush. Bush has a real chance to deal with them and Congress, no matter how it shapes up. If you don't believe those adversities can be over come, if you don't believe it can be done, look no further than Reagan (whatever your opinion on his policies is). Reagan managed to push a great deal of significant bills through a less than perfect Congress (not too much unlike Bush's record in Texas).
I really do believe that if, god forbid, Gore gets elected, he'll be utterly paralyzed by Congress and the press. Nothing would get done on his end. He'd probably go down as one of our worst Presidents in history....
Gore has slight edge, being V.P. However Bush/Cheney resurrects Bush Sr. from eight years ago, so is also continuity.
The three third parties that have made it past
one percent of the national point in the past 20 years- Anderson, Perot, and Nader- have all been personality driven. The parties themselves wane without a demagog. I suspect, however, we may be hearing more from the Greens, because they capture progressivism even without Nader.
Not to burst your bubble, but Clinton didn't run the whole show either. He had plenty of advisors that you didn't vote for. Now plenty of them jumped ship, some were indicted, and a few committed suicide, but they were still there. Albright pretty much runs the forign policy show, doing all the actual work. Clinton steps in for the photo shoots.
of course, Gore is just as big an idiot. i just disagree with those who believe that Bush is some kinda genius. i just don't see it.
They are both pretty damn smart. Neither are rocket scientists, but I think both have the intelligence to be president. The election comes down to issues with me and I tend to side with Bush on them. No disrespect to Gore, I just don't support the ideals he proposes.
Finkployd
Vice Presidents don't do as much as you imply.
They do as much or as little they (and their president) want. There is no rule that the VP cannot handle certain aspects of the office. There is NO perfect human that knows everything about politics and can preform every function of the executive branch at 100%. ALL presidents delagate and have advisors.
Correct, knowing different things doesn't mean that Bush is less intelligent. It's that Bush doesn't know things that he obviously _should_ know for this _job_, and his apparent lack of concern in not knowing them, that scares me.
You can look at it that way. I prefer to look at it as favorable to have someone who isn't arrogant enough to think that they know the best way to do everything and will defer to the best decision, policy, or idea, whether it came from them or not.
I'd vote Bush, except I make my own decisions.
How delightfuly condesending of you. Let me return with an pointless, meaningless jibe of my own:
"I'd vote for Gore but I'm not a child molestor"
You are right, that is fun.
Finkployd
and Gore was about average at _the_ highest ranked school in the country.
This is stupid to argue about, since it really doesn't mean anything, but Gore's academic record can't hold a candle to Bush's. It's still irrevelant though.
eh? governor of a state is more analagous to the presidency than the vice presidency? that's nuts. what's Bush's experience with foreign countries? (and _please_ don't say mexico) Bush's constituency is one state. Gore's was a nation.
A nation in which he had 8 years to do everything he is promising AGAIN! Either way, I have two words for you, Dick Cheney. He has more forign policy experience than Gore could ever assemble from his cronies.
that the guy's any more intelligent than your average weed.
I can't understand how people can say that. Being able to deal with people, work with complex laws, and provide leadership may not be the same as memorizing tcp ports, but it is still intelligence. Just cause he doesn't know the things you know doesn't make him less intelligent. Believe me, when it comes to politics, I'm willing to bet that Gore and Bush are more intelligent than everyone on slashdot.
Finkployd
Of course I'm sure that it also makes it easier to find old ladies to run the election as well.
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
Poor in the United States means not having any money to by food because you were shafted by the lottery tickets again. Poor in the United States means you can't afford the monthly payments on your 52 inch TV. Poor in the United States is a filthy rich compared to being poor an any third world country where there are no jobs and a crappy economy thanks to corrupt government and a ridiculous choice for the place to hang your hat.
The poor in the United States pay no taxes and get a humongous chunk of social support through federal and state governments along with the charity organizations that haven't closed up shop because of the lack of donations that result from a consficatory tax system.
The way the US is built and still is today, though not to the extent that it should be, a person is in control of their own destiny. The few times that they are forced to loose control are the times that the judicial system steps in. There is little to prevent a poor person in America to take control of his life and finances. The one condition is that he must be willing to work and earn his living, which people have been doing since the days of the caveman. If he doesn't want to work, then his parents screwed up in rasing him.
I was poor once. After being sick for 3 weeks, I was in debt, had to leave college which I was paying for myself, and had to find a full time job to catch up. I was broke off and on for 2 months, but I made it without the government's help and am doing fine.
Don't believe FOR A SECOND that the poor in America are really poor. If you do, you are also likely to believe that Columbus was evil, that no child being left behind means to lower standards of American students (otherwise you'll be discriminating against one minority or another), and that the only way to solve problems in society is through federal legistlation. Take your average American bum and throw him into the soviet union, and he will beg to come back. The only way to get by over there is if you have a job, quite possibly one you *gasp* might not like! And it'll be *gasp* a fraction of what minimum wage pays! *boo hoo*
I have little sympathy for those who faced that situation while raising children. I call them irresponsible, there is nothing more ridiculous than concieving a child (by this, I am not talking about those who have suffered rape) without planning ahead.
Both the Democratic party and the Green party seem convinced that prosperity is granted, not earned. They believe that redistributing wealth will save the poor and not hurt anyone else. They are foolish. Our corporations are loosing fast ground to corporations in other countries fast, and eventually we will see more layoffs and joblessness as a result. Sony is based in Japan for a reason. Who will pay the taxes once all the economic power gets sucked out of America?
Do you really want to help the poor? Point them to the nearest help wanted sign. America has worked hard to get the type of economy it has, don't hand the control of it from the people to liberals in the government. Teach our poor how to fish, quit handing fish out.
-RH
I said there was a CORRELATION. It is not necessarily equal. But I'll be damned if I run into a poor person nowadays not willing to share their story of how they messed up and got to the point they are. It is more than usually being lazy about work. Often, it is due bad decisions that revolve around relationships, alcohol, and job markets. Many times it is just an inability to understand the system, or just the complete inability to recognize that there IS a system. Rarely is it "just because". The few who do use the "just because" line of reasoning simply don't have a cohesive world view.
Which more or less invalidates your argument. Lucky or not, Television is a luxury. God never created TV on the 8th day, and I did just fine without one for many years.
You don't seem to realize that the government should not be in the buisness of MAINTAIN A STANDARD OF LIVING. When they do, TV's and sofas become entitlements. People will use the government as a frikkin suckle, and learn how NOT to live and survive on their own. One day, if this government shall fall or be unable to support any more handout, we will have a bunch of people that natural selection didn't beat the firts time around starving in the streets, having forgotten the fine arts of begging and working. Charity can identify the cases worth saving. These are characterzied by the grateful and those who want to work.
Poverty will never go away. Poverty is a RELATIVE state. If you really think you were poor, then think god you are AMERICAN. Palestinian toddler would call you a frikkin wuss.
I don't believe that being poor means being lazy, but I believe here in America that there is one HELL of a correlation. If what you said was relevant, then we would see people who want to make a living wage and support their family would join the military. Yeah right. Too many hippies are out there that believe in being poor, excuse me, "immaterial", that the government owes them a free lunch every day, and that happiness is derived from fighting capitalism and pissing on the steps of wal mart. And my taxes foot their bills.
Oh, and why is the cost of higher education so high? Imagine if you had a buisness in a sector where you never had to worry about competition for tution costs, because most of your money came from the rich of the government-funded clients. Scholarships have taken a back seat to government funding and grants. Middle class people who pay their own way are also a dying breed. Without the government, there would be a decent chance that getting education at our PUBLICLY FUNDED UNIVERSITIES would actually be an affordable investment, and ridiculous ammounts of money wouldn't be wasted on multi-million dollar football coaches, whose year salary could fund the education of hundreds of individual students.
My tax dollars pay for schools that I could hardly f*cking afford. I'm pissed.
NT :)
I must assume you mean arson-related deaths. If a firman is killed in the line of duty, and the fire is arson related, the fireman died as a result of the deliberate actions of an individual. If the person is convicted of arson, they will also be responsible for the charge of wrongful death.
The legality has nothing to do with liking or disliking firemen
No, I mean literally killing a fireman in the line of duty -- shooting him while he's fighting a fire. Its a capital offense, with possible death penalty in many states. But if I get killed at work, you can't get the death penalty because it's just murder.
In other words, the penalty is greater depending on WHO you are killing -- the why doesn't even matter. So if hate crime legislation is just a step on the road to thought crime (because it matters WHO you kill, if they are black or gay, etc) then so is any other "special class" of crime.
So by your logic (that the hate crime laws are just a precursor to thought crime laws), we will eventually outlaw disliking firemen, because they, too, are a special, protected class of victim...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
BTW, one prediction from the pundit class has already been proven false -- light turnout. When I voted this morning (five minutes after the polls opened) I had to stand in the longest line I've seen in the fourteen years I've lived in this precinct.
The closeness of this race may very well give us a good turnout -- it would be great. Show politicians that we DO care, it's just that generally the populace is apathetic if the winner is already ordained before they ever show up...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Hate Crimes Legislation => Thought Crimes Legislation
Is that why we have stricter penalties for killing a fireman in the line of duty than a random guy on the street?
Because we want to make it illegal for people to dislike firemen?
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Just a note or two about how it's done in Utah. They use public schools. Which makes sense. There's got to be some kind of correlation between population and number of public schools.
Here's why they don't use churches. As most of you know, the dominant religion in Utah is Mormon (LDS). Curiously enough, the LDS Church doesn't let anyone use their churches for voting. The official line, in fact, is that the buildings can't be used for any politcal purpose, period (they already get enough flak about controlling politics in the state, I figure, so they have to draw a line).
There are other churches in Utah, but the majority of church buildings are LDS owned, so ecclesiastical meeting houses are out.
So they use public schools.
Tweet, tweet.
I'm from Mississippi, and I filled out my absentee ballot in October. It went like this:
... Hi, I'd like to cast an absentee ballot.
me: Oops, I left my Voter Registration card and my Social Security Card at school. I hope a driver's license will do!
lady: Ok. What's your name.
me: my-name. What kind of ID do I need?
lady: none.
me: Not even a driver's license?!
lady: Nope.
me: In that case I'll take two.
Thankfully she didn't hear that last part. Voter fraud would be REALLY easy. As long as I gave her a registered voter's name, I could vote!
I don't understand why people feel it's their civic duty (and right) to vote but they don't feel the responsibility to be informed. I heard guys on the radio this morning urging everyone to go out and vote, but IMHO anyone who is undecided at this point has not been paying attention and should not be participating. It's important to vote, but only if you follow the issues. It makes me absolutely livid to realize that this election--with the future of the Supreme Court in the hands of whoever wins--may be decided by apathetic undecideds who don't have an opinion of the issues, lazy voters who don't care enough to read the newspapers, and airheads who'll vote for whoever has the best haircut and the funniest speechwriters.
I'm not trying to flame you here, just frustrated with the whole situation. Like I said, I give you credit for knowing you shouldn't just flip a coin.
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
I stopped by the local library this morning and there was absolutely no one there. however it was not the correct voting precinct. so off I drive to the fire hall across town...
I get within a quarter mile and there are cars everywhere. I park and walk a long distance to get there and when I get inside there are maybe 300+ people in line. mind you I also have to wait in a 50+ person line to register to vote, and then another huge line to actually vote? I don't have 3 hours to kill like that!
So I walked out. the old lady by the door said "you're not going to wait?" with an incredulous tone. I told her that I didn't have that kind of time to waste, since I work for a living.
I'd like to know why we can't work towards having digital/electonic voting. I personally feel that enough security measures could be taken to ensure the viability of this, and I personally can attest that it would make it so much easier to vote! I know there are so many arguments about this, about how it hurts the poor who don't have computer access etc. but tell me this- how many poor people who get paid hourly have the time to leave work and drive home just to wait 2 hours to vote? very few, I'll bet.
Whereas if they mailed out some kind of single-use key to all elible voters... you could use it either at a traditional voting booth, or use it via some kind of heavily encrypted/hardened site over the internet. I'm not sure how it would work but I know we'd see a MUCH larger percentage of 18-24 year olds vote! we're talking 80% non voters here, and falling into that age group I think I understand why they don't- it's just too much of a pain in the ass!
That's just my two cents- I'm going to try and go vote when I get off work, but since I'm putting in another 12 hour day today (like all of you other tech slave labourers out there) I don't know if it will happen.
Attempted Civic Responsibility = Pain in the butt, and a longer work day... bah!
EOM
I'll be voting Browne today, switching my vote from Nader. Browne is clearly with it, and has a good understanding of how this country should be run.
I only wish I had heard about him earlier and more, but I guess I can thank the media partially for that. I feel so strongly about his stands that I would have become an avid supporter/activist, but now it's too late.
BilldaCat
Don't forget:
Orwell wasn't wrong, we're jus a little behind schedule..
Lowmag.net
I can't really summon up any feeling this election. The only feeling I have right now is disgust at this whole entire process from the ground up and including every single person here.
Bleagh.
Sure I'll vote, but it's like balancing your checkbook during church - no sense of power where there should be. No issues have been brought up (by anyone except Nader) during the campaign that I honestly care about. Social Security? I'm 19 - that'll be long gone by the time I get there. Perscriptions for seniors? Fuck the old people! My county has a shortage of housing for ppl who make less than $30k a year, and 6 new retirement plazas are being built. School vouchers? It's not college they're talking about, that's for sure.
The only thing worse than listening to campaign rhetoric is listening to people with opinions put them forth (x is best, blah blah blah). Bleagh.
If only there was a reboot switch for America. Consider me marginalized.
-- I can't think of anything witty to put here. Sorry.
Elections were , once upon a time, a larger holiday then Christmas in America.
This was pre civil war.
1) Check out the math on Bush's tax cut. The newest newsweek has a good breakdown.
1) Make less then 25k year a year? Your takes go from ~2,500 to ~700. That's pretty damn good for a tax cut that is a "gift to the rich".
2) The top 10% in america pay 1/3 of the taxes. Their take of the cut is about 1/5. This is 1/3 of the surplus.
Please don't quote Rhetoric.
Yeah, but he left out the fact the Roman's used lead pipes for most of their water supplies, leading to generation upon generation of dumber and dumber Romans....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
For weeks and weeks on /., all I've seen is endless waves of messages saying how great Nader was. At first I was for him as well, but after reading his platform and many other candidates I realized I really liked Browne or Bush a lot more (I already knew what a poor choice Gore was, even before he started running. Can you say "Clipper"?).
/. was a haven for libertarians, but hardly a peep about Browne has issued forth before now - was there a big Browne five month cruise that I missed or something?
I thought that
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe Katz could start an article about other countries views of US politics - I'd like to put my 2 (brazilian) cents in...
Anyway, the media around here has a definite pro-Gore outlook on the american election while the government has an apparent pro-Bush outlook, I for one would like Nader, Bush is a dumbass and Gore is a dope, both of them will rape the internet in favor of corporations. Both of them will take away the little liberty that's left online for the americans which - like it or not - will touch the whole world, not just John and Jane Redneck.
Frankly - despite cheering for Nader, Bush will win and I have a good reason: Will Farrel does a wicked drunk prez "Dublya" and Dana Carvey could always do a guest spot as "Dad".
--
--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
It really pisses me off to see yet another person spewing that same BS. You only have the right to complain if you vote? Is it some kind of magic process that gives you complaining rights??
What if you were shot and hospitalized on your way to vote and missed your chance? Would that mean that for the next 4 years you would not be allowed to complain about politics?
"Man this medical equipment is shoddy! The stupid government should sure put more money into..."
"I'm sorry Jim, but did you vote? No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!"
Or does this guy get a special "complaint dispensation" because he really meant to vote but couldn't?
Just because you vote doesn't mean that your vote makes a difference. Sometimes you can make a much bigger difference by refusing to vote. When people indignantly ask you "Why not?" you explain to them what you feel about the candidates, the issues, the governmental system, etc.
Let's make a slashdot-user-acceptable analogy. Which makes a bigger statement. A person who bitches about closed-source software and sends out newsletters using his Linux system, or someone who does the same but uses Microsoft Outlook, because with its wonderful automation features it's easy to send out the newsletter?
If you have huge misgivings about the way government works, the failings of democracy, etc. it is pretty hypocritical to go vote. But according to StormyMonday and so many others such a person must become a hypocrite to earn the right to complain. Riiiight.
Ya know what really annoyed me? I saw on CNN today that some places were using these fancy touch-screen voting machines, and the lady was really proud to say:
"And with this machine you can't spoil your ballot, it checks to make sure that the choices you've made are legitimate and only then does it accept your vote"
I say, vote, or don't vote. It doesn't make that much difference anyhow. What does make a difference is talking about why you did what you did. One single vote, even in a "swing state" really won't make a big difference, but one single voice can make all the difference.
That's just flawed reasoning. I'm sorry but I've seen this too many times not to say something. I know many people will disagree with me but that's just the way it is. Just please keep it civil.
Here are some of the flawed arguments I've heard on why you should vote:
People died so that you have the right to vote. People also died for the right to keep slaves. Religious fanatics die for their religion. Just because someone else believed strongly enough in something to die for it doesn't make them right.
Black people were intimidated, or otherwise blocked from voting. Just because someone blocks you from doing something doesn't make that thing important. If I block you from picking your nose in my restaurant, does your nose-picking somehow become important? No. The you were blocked from doing something may be important, but the act being blocked isn't necessarily important. In this case, the racists blocking the black people from voting might have been doing it just because they didn't want black people getting in the way. But if the racists did because they thought voting was important it doesn't necessarily make the racists right. Afterall, they are known to be way wrong on some of their beliefs anyhow.
If you don't vote you have no right to complain. Sorry, but voting doesn't magically give you the right to complain. If you pay taxes then you have the right to complain about how they're used, whether you're a US citizen who voted, a US citizen who didn't vote, or a landed immigrant who didn't (and couldn't) vote. Even if you don't pay taxes you have the right to complain. What about Mexicans? They have no vote, they don't pay taxes, but they're hugely affected by US policies. They have every right to complain.
Voting is the only way to make a difference. Voting rarely makes any difference. From a mathematical standpoint, the vote of one person, even a person in a swing state, will only make a difference if he/she is the deciding vote in the state. In some ways it matters whether a candidate got 51% or 99% of the vote in a state, but it doesn't affect the final outcome. There are a lot of other, more effective ways of making a difference. Get out and protest, tell people why none of the candidates is any good. Tell them why the government is flawed. Write a book. Make a movie. Throw a Boston Tea Party. These are ways of getting a point across and most make a bigger difference than a small checkmark in a tiny box.
Voting may be important, but these are not reasons why. I personally don't feel voting is important. I think complaining loudly is much more important. One single voice has changed history a lot more often than one single vote.
Did vote for one Libertarian, against Ted Kennedy. I'm just so tired of that whole dynasty.
For the local offices where I didn't know anybody, I tended to vote for the person from my town or neighborhood. If I'm in a suburb of Boston, will somebody who lives down on Cape Cod be very accessible?
The turnout was good, I got there at about 8:15 or so and there were about 15 people waiting to get a ballot, and then 30 or so waiting to get out of there. My local polling station is at the old folks' home down the street, so I'm pretty sure that most of the people working the paperwork and the machines voted for Roosevelt -- Teddy, that is. And everything was in serial, not parallel. So when the guy in front of me screwed up his registration (he last voted in Boston and never registered specifically in Quincy) everything ground to a halt, no one else could seem to help me around him.
One of the reasons that I not only voted but am telling people at work to vote is that a number of people on my team are not citizens, and therefore don't get to be involved. I therefore think that part of my responsibility is to demonstrate to them that there are people that take it seriously.
d
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
You make much of Bush's experience as governor of Texas. But being governer of Texas actually doesn't mean much- as a remnant of reconstruction-era politics, Texas has one of the constitutionally weakest gubernatorial offices in the country, with the governer wielding less real power than the lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller or land commissioner.
There were more than six presidential choices on my ballot this morning, and you mentioned one of them. Make up your mind, is there a choice or not? Well, you'll be able to vote soon and you'll have to make up your mind for a few seconds in the booth.
Actually, if you want to know how this population voted just go look at the Slashdot Poll.
I went, I voted for the best choice I felt could win for President, and who I wanted (mostly Libertarian with some Green Party) for everything else, but I noticed something interesting.
For a number of elections in my district (such as electing Judges, or in a few other cases I forget), i saw things like "Choose any two" and then the exact same two candidates are listed straight across the board (Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Family, etc). What sort of a choice is that !?!?
Why do they even bother to hold elections for these people when we don't have a choice? We vote for them or not but they are the only ones running. THAT is why people don't turn out for elections.
Show them how wrong they are and turn out for elections even if you believe your vote for President won't count. There are LOTS of other things being decided on the ballot (including referendums). Your vote most certainly WILL count on those!
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
I was fifteenth in line at my precinct this morning. I wanted to get there early so I could watch the returns tonight. It was remarkably painless. I was in and out in twenty minutes, which seems to be pretty good. The only peeve were the two people behind me who chattered on about all sorts of nothingness for twenty minutes.
Though often quoted, Bush is the twice elected governor of the second biggest state in the country
The texas Governor is the constitutionally weakest governor in the US. He has no executive powers, but can basically veto legislation, call out the national guard and appoint judges. He is approximately the fifth most powerful officer in the state. Some Texas governors have actually been absentees; GW is one of the more active Texas governors in history: he puts in about half a day of work every day.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So did you at least get the number of the lady in front of you?
However, I can't help but feel that the most socially useful thing I did was buying a pastry from the Senior class bake sale on my way out.
My motto used to be two fold:
Don't blame me, I don't vote.
Why should I pick either of two evils?
Reading the book, Hitler's Pope:m The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell completely changed my mind.
Cornwell's thesis is that Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) negotiated a concordat with Hitler. The concordat basically stated that the Church would remove Catholics from all political life (including voting, demonstrating, etc.). In exchange the Church received the assurance that the Nazi regime would not persecute the Church.
The effect was that the Center Party, the single largest opposition group to the National Socialists, fell apart. The Center Party was almost exclusively Catholic. Once the Church forbid the party, it fell over and the Nazi's had very little other serious opposition.
The conclusion I drew from reading this book is that my voice does matter. If for no other reason than preventing another catastrophe like the holocaust, I will go to the polls and vote.
have a day,
-l
Normally, I'm the FIRST voter at my polling place. Today, I got up late, and went with my daughter to show her the voting.
Then I went to work - I work at one of the network "Decision Desks" - You know, they guys who project the winner?
It's going to be a LONG night - I don't get out till mid day tomorrow. Don't you love 24 hour work days?
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Because the world neither pays taxes, nor abides by our legislature.
I refuse to be a VA resident, so my domocile is still in Tennessee.
;) come on recording the vote seems just so much more satisfying than punching a card.
Anyway, at the risk of being redundant (have posted some of this before) I voted at an electronic machine in Tennessee on Saturday October 21st, 2000. I prefer the electronic voting machines over all othrs that I have used over the past 20 years.
However, I did have to wait in line for a while before voting. The machines were setup at a mall and the mood was quite relaxed.
I heard from people that voted a week later that they had no waiting.
Pressing the name and seeing the green LED (all parties, not just the Nader one
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Actually, having been a National Guardsman for over 12 years, Commissioned and Enlisted, I would have to see more evidence that he did anything improper.
He certainly seems to have had the blessing of his command, no action was brought against him at all (it would have been trivial to do then, still quite easy now). Also, I am not sure about all of the little rules of his time, but when I completed Army flight school, funded by TN, another Tennessee Guardsman that was there with me got a job in Florida and was no longer obligated to complete service in TN. If he had just failed to show up he would have had some sort of disciplinary action.
Whatever the situation was with Bush, it sure does not look like he was doing anything out of the ordinary then, at least by the scant records available.
Also note, driving a fighter ANYPLACE is more hazerdous than smoking dope with your secret service gaurds in a secure compound in Vietnam.
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
(Informing and venting at the same time, please read gently)
/. was interested in early voting they would have posted one of the stories I submitted about early voting (not complaining, just stating). Hell, for all I know this will be the least read comment on this topic. However, people in the DC/NoVA area, where I work, seem to be fascinated with this "advanced technology" and that it is somehow "not right".
Folks, those of us that vote in Tennessee (and KY, OH, TX, perhaps others?) have been able to vote for a couple of weeks now. I voted on 21 October 2000 and still had to wait in a couple of lines even that early. Relatives that voted a week later (still back in October), had no waiting. I first voted this way 4 years ago and would never trade the convenience and SANITY of this method.
BTW, I am not speaking of mail-in voting, we setup electronic machines in easy to get to places, I voted in a mall on a Saturday.
If the "mainstream press" were really interested if that boy from Washington, DC (Al Gore) is winning the State of TN then they should have been doing exit polling for a couple of weeks, not waiting until the last 150 people finally get to the voting places on the last day.
Actually, if
If the States out on the west coast would adopt a system like TN, KY, OH, TX then they could stop whining about the election being "over" before they voted. Well, probably would not stop the whining, but they would have had an opportunity to vote their choice long before Dixville Notch, N.H. counts its votes early "election day" morning.
If other States would adopt proportional voting like Maine and Nebraska, then folks can stop whining about the electoral college too. Check Electoral College Homepage for real info on how it works, instead of listening to reporters and victims of public education that post here. The EC is NOT "winner take all" by any means.
Please check the http://www.2600.com for their polling results, then look at the current cover. I love the mag as well as the bias, that I do not always share, especially in this case.
Anyway, I voted last month and if Albert Gore Jr. wins the State of TN, it certainly will not be my fault. I want to see his face as he is counting the votes in January (if this sounds like a clueless statement, please check that EC link and refresh your knowledge of how this process works).
Hell, you would probably want to see mine if I am completely wrong about the outcome of this election, LOL!
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Yep, I believe that I have seen your info before and never doubted that Gore edged over Bush in a standardized admissions test. How did Gore do on the GMAT? Probably did not take it. What about the GRE? What about the ASVAB?
At least Bush was able to complete flight school. The Army version was no picnic for me, doubt that the Airforce one is any cake walk either.
If Gore was not out getting "baked" (smoking pot) at the Bayou in his true home of Washington, DC, while he was SUPPOSED to be attending Georgetown law school, he might have finished that.
If he had been attending Vanderbilt's Divinity school instead of doing the same in Nashville, he might have finished that too.
Well, he didn't. There have been no shortage of his contemporaries talking about him smoking dope all the time, people he worked with, people I know in the DC area that worked at "The Bayou" nightclub back then, his own admission that he did it in Vietnam (he left out the part about being heavily protected while there) and on and on. However, it would be fine by me if it was not affecting his performance. It certainly appears that it was affecting his performance.
Oh yea, I wish people would stop saying that he is from TN. He is from DC, period.
Maybe Bush was drinking a lot back then and never denied it, but at least he was able to finish an MBA from a REAL MBA program. And I have not been reading about any "witnesses" to this cocaine fiction that was spread about Bush. If it were true I would expect a similar turnout of snorting buddies for Bush as there are smoking buddies for Gore.
YES, I am pissed that I did not get free smokes in TN like the homeless got in Michigan when they went to vote in the Gore vans!
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
But Bush obviously did show up to fly the plane, in flight school and for several years after.
He then became employed out of State and his commander let him stay in the unit without attending, happens frequently now, obviously was not unheard of then.
Be that as it may, he was flying missions with his unit for some time, much more often than Al Gore "taking the point", another Gore fiction that he himself lied about.
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
This was the first election I have ever voted in - my only regret was that I didn't go and vote in earlier elections (I have been eligible for a while).
After it was all over (and I had a few problems in my case, having moved and needing to vote in a different precinct, but not having an up-to-date ID card, re-registration, etc), I thought to myself "That wasn't so bad - why don't more people do it?".
Indeed. I had always thought it was going to be a chore, but the hardest part was driving and getting a parking place - after that, it was an easy process. The only thing that I can think of stopping others from voting is not being able to get time off. However, IIRC (and please correct me if I am wrong), an employer cannot legally prevent an employee from voting (ie, by termination of employment for missing work for voting) - similar to jury duty. Isn't this correct, or am I wrong?
Anyhow, after it was all over, and I got my sticker (BTW, the ballots were of the "mark-the-arrow" type), I went back to work. And who did I cast my vote for, president-wise?
Nader.
I don't consider my vote wasted...
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Not only did I have to go to a church to vote (a technicality I was willing to ignore), they had the ten commandments hanging above the voting booths. (It was just a laminated bulletin-board type thing. The room might have been a church classroom.) But it really annoyed me. I'm thinking of writing a letter to the secretary of state expressing my concern, and maybe the church where the poll was. I don't plan on making a big case about it. I'm sure it was not intended to influence voters, but I did not think it was appropriate. I think it is more a matter of the state not paying attention to these things than it is the church's.
Hate Crimes Legislation => Thought Crimes Legislation
Don't forget that there are plenty of other laws that base the punishment (or lack thereof) based on what you were thinking at the time. If you kill someone because you THOUGHT your life was in danger, it's called self-defense. If you have a mental defect, you can plead not guilty due to it. I've not seen many people throwing fits about those...
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Amen. If you support Bush or Gore, this is a close race, and your candidate needs your support. If you support Nader, he's within epsilon of his 5%, and he needs your support. If you support Browne, hey, you know why you're voting.
The bottom line - whatever your political affiliation - get out there and support your candidate.
And I don't just mean for President. There are a lot of other close races, and control of the Senate and House is probably up for grabs today too.
Given that the margin of victory is likely to be so slim, your vote has more influence today than at any time in the past 40 years.
If you haven't voted yet, and are eligible to vote, stop reading about voting and do it.
With all its faults, the best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.
(No partisan wisecracks - this isn't a day for me to tell you who I want to run the country - this is the day you tell me who you want to run the country.)
Massachusetts is not a battleground state. The electoral votes are pretty much guaranteed to go to Gore. And while I may not know enough about Nader to feel good about voting for him, I do know that he has no chance of winning the election this time around, so it doesn't really bother me. And I would like to see a third party get some funding next time around.
So, at the last minute, I voted for Nader.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
It wasn't the 10 commandments but a bunch of hand-written things that God does and doesn't "like." I'm not going to protest or anything, but I did find it a bit freaky. Living in a huge Republican State (We have Pat Robertson, w00t!) I imagine it comforted more voters than not...
;-)
/."
But by whoever's God, I voted for Nader!
"I'm not a bitch, I just play one on
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
That really doesn't strike me as a substantive reason to vote for someone. A more relevant tech issue would be that Gore continually supported (unconstitutional) restrictions on private use of encryption, while Bush opposed them.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
... is that 50% that thinks 30 minutes every 4 years is going to change anything.
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
Should've voted Nader.
Wah!
Monica Moorehead? I saw this on the ballet
today and thought I was going to die laughing.
AdFuel
I used to be a Democrat. My own party did:
1. DMCA
2. WTO (I live in Seattle)
Bye, Al.
I'm voting for Nader because he managed to get 5 minutes air time to explain why the WTO protests are about constitutional sovereignty and not free trade.
The Dems need to understand that if they don't shape up, their own constituency is going to feed them to the dogs.
I don't care if the other party is worse and is going to win because I'm voting my conscience.
Geeks will not vote the way you want them to.
Geeks won't vote the way all those other constituencies do and stay in line for you!
Listen to the Geeks, Dammit!
=googol=
If you want to see all the returns, you have to watch Fox or the Fox News Network. All the other "major" networks will be ignoring everybody except Bush and Gore - even Nader will be ignored with the exception of those few states where he will have enough support to affect the outcome.
I voted for Browne. Voting your conscious is never a wasted vote.
To most of us (us = young, educated middle-class) the whole idea of voting is a complete joke. [early disclaimer: I disagree] Most only see it as a choice between whatever figurehead the donkeys or elephants can drudge up and read the speeches they write (some of which can't even do that without fumbling so I hear). The figureheads, once appointed, will then disregard the general public and focus on people that pay thier campain ads on TV. This was my political view before I had somewhat of an epiphany earlier this year.
...). If you give your vote to Browne, Nader, or any other 3rd party, you're making a clear statement - and this statement will carry A LOT more weight than not voting at all!
/. - GO VOTE! And if you dont like Gore or Bush, THERE *ARE* ALTERNATIVES! Browne, Nader, and the reform party would all love to have yours - as each vote for them means 10x as much.
Not voting is an *unacceptable* protest. Instead of it showing that you believe the voting system is flawed due to lack of choice, you actually show that you don't care enought to spend 10 minutes out of a four year period to check some boxes. And more over, there ARE other choices out there. For instance the Libertarian party (http://www.lp.org) is the largest 3rd party out there, and have radically different ideas than Gore, Bush, or any of the others. And if socialism is more to your liking you have Nader.
Voting outside of the 2 major parties is a clear protest to the current bi-party system (I say bi-party because the press only focses on these to mainly, and not to mention the debates
As for my own personal experience today, I have to say this is the first time in my life I felt actually *proud* to be American. Casting my vote across the Libertarian party line knowing there's a candidate for prez, senate, and house was a great feeling. I went to vote at 2pm CST, and was slightly surprised to see that I was the only one under 60 there! I know most people were still working [I took a half day off], but wow.
So if you havn't voted yet and you're just sitting on your duff reading
I actually voted last week. I don't understand why anyone would wait to election day. It was SO easy. I did it at my grocery store. I didn't even know I could do it until I got there. All I had to show was my drivers licence (you have to have already registered to vote).
I voted for Browne. Here in Texas the LP was on a LOT of local races - way more than any other 3rd party. I voted LP in every race I could, except for one where I personally know (and like) the candidate.
I urge Slashdot readers not to vote for either Gore or Bush. If you do this you are supporting the corrupt system. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think either of these folks give a DAMN about you. (That is unless you've given several thousand dollars).
You may not realize that if 3rd parties get 5%, they qualify for federal funding in the next election. When they get 1%, the "media" will track them. Voting for a 3rd party is extremely valuable because these are thresholds that lead to greater credibility and greater opportunity to launch a viable candidate later.
Moreover when the election winner gets less than 50% of the popular vote, they do not have a mandate to do anything, which means they are less able to implement the corrupt objectives of their big bucks contributors. The lower the better.
calvoter.org
They do a great nonpartisan analysis of every ballot initiative. More importantly, they show you who the top 10 contributors for and against each initiative were.
So, for instance, in case you were shocked to find out that VC-guru Tim Draper had given $30MM to fight for school vouchers (prop 38), you can then find out the much-less-publicized-fact that the teachers unions are richer than he is, and have spent even more money to defeat it!
Can your IM do this?
It's so easy to register to vote. And I've had to regegister 3 times in the past few years.
It's simple. I go to the DMV to get my change of address card and 2 weeks later they send me my new Voting location. The first time took a whole 5 minutes, because I had to decide to be Independant or Republican.
Also, I can't see anyone calling voting difficult. I got up 10 minutes early and stopped on my way to work to vote for Bush (It's probably get me moderated down here, but Gore's just way to Socialist).
There's no excuse not to vote unless your ignorant of US politics. If you are then I urge you not to vote, but if you have any idea of the current state of the world and the US then get your lazy rear out of bed 10 minutes early and VOTE!
hmmmm...what? Oh, I left this stupid
It was a felony conviction (aggragvated assault,) that was sorta drug realted. I was an addict and I commited a crime, did my time and have been clean since then. I had just turned 18 was really just a dumb kid.
Had I registered before I got in trouble I'd still be able to vote...but I have to wait 7 years...sucks.
"Most of my heros won't appear on no stamps..." Chuck D from Fight the Power
Actually, I've been cranking up "The Democratic Circus" from their Naked album a lot lately. It helps to keep things in perspective...
Found out this morning, there's a circus coming to town....
They drive in Cadillacs using... walkie-talkies and the... secret service...
Their big top imitation of life
And all the flags and microphones
We have to cover our eyes
I thought of that later (that it was against rules to discuss politics inside). I don't think the election officials were viligant enough to catch it (the little old ladies were swamped).
On the way out the exit poller from the Oklahoman (proudly named "The worst newspaper in America!" by the Columbia Journalism Review -- kinda like having the academy decide a movie was so bad they should give it a special oscar!) was five feet from the door. A college jschool kid probably. I told her that she was supposed to be 150 feet from the door (trying to do her a favor before they came out and scholded here). She haughtily informed me she was with the PRESS. So was I for five years, lady. Geez, here I've gotten off on another rant again. My sense of civic duty is at an all time low....
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Geez. I know confronting this guy with facts is useless. I mean, by this time he had started up with the black helicopters, the Trilateral Commission and Masons. All three code words that set off my "one-world conspiracy militia wacko alarm" -- who are usually pretty reluctant to come out publicly where I live since we have this nice memorial with 169 empty chairs in it. Tends to keep 'em a little quiet.
But I really wanted to ask him, "do you really believe that 75 percent of the people work for the government? How many people do you know? How many work for the government? Do the math!!!!!"
I bit my tounge, the guys has his rights, blah, blah, blah. I'm middle of the road/bearing left socially. I don't get all that fired up about politics any more. But I do research the state questions to figure out what they actually mean. This sounds elitist as hell, but I'm glad a lot of people don't vote. If they'd rather sit home and watch Survivor and Jerry Springer, more power to 'em. Maybe they can have militia man over for taco dip and some Bud Light.
-- END RANT---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
[Article from KKK allegedly endorsing Bush snipped]
Endorsements aren't commutative.
Bush hasn't been proven (or disproven) to be racist, strictly from the evidence of a racist's endorsement of Bush.
Put on your critical thinking caps, people.
[
the woman at the table helpfully explained write-in votes, and that writing in a vote for anyone but President is a waste because it won't be counted...
it is clearly against the law to campaign at a polling place. This is clearly a violation of the law...
From that report, the precinct lady didn't tell the voter which of the available official non-presidential candidates to choose. She just explained the counting process, with the conclusion that write-ins are not tallied by default.
If the official candidates were getting low numbers, then the state would go back and see why. If the reason was an obviously recurring write-in, then of course, the write-in would get tallied, as it might be the winner.
Since there are Federal matching campaign funds at stake for candidates who get over X% of the vote, even a zero electoral vote presidential candidate wants to know what their numbers were.
No other office has that provision that is significant for the losers of their races, so there's no NEED to tally write-ins unless it becomes obvious that a write-in has a snowball's chance of WINNING.
Stop with the knee-jerk rage, and put on your critical thinking caps.
[
"No person shall be eleected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President should be elected to the office of the President more than once...."
George Herbert Walker Bush is still eligible for one more elected term. (However, I wouldn't vote for him. "It wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.")
GHWB was Vice President for eight years, then President for one elected term. That means he's got another elected term available. If Ronnie had died in office and GHWB served more than two years to complete that term, then he'd be ineligible.
The Amendment was passed during FDR's fourth term, not because FDR was unpopular (obviously not), but because people were feeling it was going against the founding fathers' intentions: they made four-year terms because they recognized the need for new blood in the highest offices of government.
Wipe off that smugness. It looks kinda like egg.
[
Gripe about USA being self centered and then offer up a European-only view? How about Central and South America? Or the Middle East? Or the Pacific Rim? Or China or Africa? You should definitely start to look out of your (European) borders. The world does not end there.
I don't think the USA has a monopoly on self-centerism. Maybe a dominant market share, but not a monopoly :-)
Anyway, getting back to the topic, it does not appear that the election's effect on foreign relations is uppermost in the average American voter's mind. The main issues seem to be more internal fiscal and social problems than anything else. In a different time (e.g. the Cold War), other more external issues might be more relevant. But not now.
In my more cynical moments I tend to look at the current state of politics in America as close to the end of the cycle- namely the fall. Read your history, boys and girls, particularly the the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. Read the following and see if *you* can draw some interesting parallels. (the following taken from this site.
The British historian, Gibbons, identified the primary reasons for the collapse in his "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire".
IV. Social Causes.
V. Economic Causes.
VI. Political Causes.
Oh well. Everything ends sometime.
Here, the county held absentee voting at the mall, among other places. Apparently it's very popular. You can't really make the excuse that it was out of your way, since you were already at the mall buying the latest consumer goods that the nice corporations marketed to you.
It also has the side effect of keeping political signs out of the mall...
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Why didn't George Bush Sr. run for president? He was easy to figure out. You just read his lips, and whatever they say, he's going to do the opposite.
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
"... you've got no right to complain about the Gov't for the next four years. So get your sorry arse to the polls or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!"
Alrighty...
Disagree with Microsoft's business practices? Fine. Wait, do you have voting stock in the company? You don't? Well SHUT THE FUCK UP THEN! If you don't have voting stock in Microsoft, you have no right to complain about their business practices! At least that's how it is under your train of thought.
But hold on a sec. Do you own some Microsoft software? Hey, bitch on then! You're giving Microsoft your money for a product / service, and if they don't deliver, let em have it!
Me? I don't vote. But I'll still bitch and complain as loud as I want, and you can't stop me. Why is that? I'm an American taxpayer. I "pay" the government for products (e.g. new roads) and services (e.g. federal programs), and if they don't deliver, I'll let them have it. After all, it is my money they're using.
Just because I don't vote doesn't mean I can't complain. But if you think otherwise, then I hope I won't see you crying about Microsoft in Slashdot's next Microsoft-oriented story. By your train of thought...you don't have voting stock, you have no right to complain.
Nuff said.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
I know you were being funny, but a lot of people say they don't vote as a form of protest.
Unfortunately, a protesting non-vote is completely indistinguishable from an apathetic non-vote. If you really want to protest, vote, but use the write-in space. Unfortunately, Mr. (or Ms.) NoneOfTheAbove will probably just get counted as a mismarked or invalid ballot, and still not give the message you really wish.
So I wish to nominate Jon Katz as the Protest Candidate of all Slashdotters. On the next election, or if you want to protest today, write in Jon Katz.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You've got an official voting station in your shower? I want one there... ;)
I have fantasies about major media news sources acknowledging that there are reasons why people have political beliefs not endorsed by the two parties. I have fantasies in which the two parties have to defend their stances on certain issues, even if the other party agrees with them. I have fantasies about non-moderates being able to participate in the political process, without being told "you have to vote for one of these two people you disagree with, or you might as well just stay home."
Just like everything else in life, you have to be strong to survive. Simpering in the corner and moaning about how big companies are hurting you is weak and feeble behavior. If you had any real conviction, you'd quit voting for losers and start influencing the hearts and minds of those with a legitimate chance to win.
Thank you Ms. Rand. I guess if you can only conceive of two possible positions on any given issue, than two parties is enough for you.
Is it too much to hope for that I've been trolled?
--
share and enjoy
Your comments are very well taken. I'll also throw out some completely domestic reasons to vote. I'll point out that within living memory--40 or so years--a lot of people in this country couldn't vote. And, they couldn't vote for the color of their skin. That's what a large part of civil rights movement was about. People weren't prohibited from voting by law of course, but by intimidation--and a whole lot of blatantly illegal local ordinances. If you don't think voting is important, then why were volunteers for voter registration drives in the South attacked, and one occasion murdered? Think about that. It was not so very long ago. For many--if not most of us--this era was something our parents can remember even if we cannot. If you think voting is not important, then why in parts of the Southwest have hispanic voters been subjected to harrassment in recent elections? Specifically, I'm refering to an NPR story which reported that election officals required extra identification for hispanic voters in the areas last election. I'm told this year the democratic party is stationing lawyers in these problem areas to look out for abuse. (Now if anyone has more specific details on this report, I'd like to hear 'em because it just caught the story ony my way out the other day.) Now, my question is if voting doesn't matter, then why to this day do bigots try to block minorities from voting--let me be blunt, why do bigots try to prevent people of a different color from voting. Simple, they fear a change in power. When this kind of stuff went on, and is still going on, in this country, how can you not vote? Its obvious that at least some people think the vote is important enough to block other froms using it.
You know what I find to be the proof that slashdot is going down the toilet? Instead of actually wanting to debate, you just want to have the moderators do the dirty work for you, because he holds opposing views to yours. (Yes, one of his facts is wrong, but the post is well-reasoned and worth reading. I cannot say the same for a post that says that 'Gore scored 1355, Bush scored 1206, anyway, Bush is dumber.' By that logic, I'm more deserving than either of being president.)
Moderation, though often used badly, should never be used to hide an unpopular view. Slashdot is a discussion (and usually argument) forum. Either debunk his post with your own wit, or you'll have to let it stand.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Try post WWI Germany for a fine example of how idiotic multi-party systems can become. There is value in the two party system, whether you like it or not. The truth is that you have defined yourself outside the mainstream (which is entirely within your rights.) But don't expect to be empowered in a system that rewards those who can amass the greater quantity of individual votes. I suspect that all those who complain about the two party system are actually closet demogogues who have Machiavellian fantasies of getting things done the RIGHT way --- their way. You think Ralph Nader has his head on straight? Guess again.
When they start digging Nader's skeletons out of the closet, you'll see how creepy he really is.
Just like everything else in life, you have to be strong to survive. Simpering in the corner and moaning about how big companies are hurting you is weak and feeble behavior. If you had any real conviction, you'd quit voting for losers and start influencing the hearts and minds of those with a legitimate chance to win.
my way to work. Proudly cast a vote for Browne in the most republican state in the country. I just *really* hope that Bush does not win. That would be bad but then again Gore would not be much better. Oh well hopefully we can have another 4 years or gridlock while the rest of us live our lives and hope for some real choice next time. Starting today my motto is "Go Jesse" thanks all.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
It isn't that clear cut.
Do you think you should be able to vote at 15? How about 12? I worked at 16, but it was a part time job, didn't care much about politics,and a vote from me would definatly have reflected my parents views and not my own.
US politics sicken everyone.
Speak for yourself.
Why do I keep typing pythong?
I really wanted to buypass the Talking Heads today and go vote. But that guy is so funny in that big suit waving his arms all over singing "And She Was" and all those other big hits. What as today, now?
Thomas,
A few points..
Peace or War in the Mideast (or anywhere else) -
Those who live there will make war on their own with or without the US as they have for thousands of years. For so long, Americans have been told to stop trying to run the world. If anyone wants to fight in the Mideast, they will, whether or not the US does anything. That also applies to most of the rest of the world that has continually told the US to butt out of their affairs. I think it is high time we did.
Separate European military force outside of NATO -
Your country, France, already answered that question in 1966 when you withdrew from NATO. There already is a strong political and economic union in place in Europe, why shouldn't you have a unified military force separate from the US if you want to?
George W Bush is not GWB,Jr. His father's name is George H.W. Bush. Albert Gore IS, however, Albert Gore Jr; he has the same as his father, the late Senator. Both are men of means - GWB has had explicit direction from his father on making large sums of money, Gore inherited money and property from his father upon his death. Both men have major flaws which question their ability to lead.
However, I voted. I voted not because of who is running, but because the person elected will be spending my tax dollars, for better or worse. Second, I voted because there was more than a President running, there were Senators, Congressional candidates, local judges, etc. Finally I voted because I can't stand people who spew slogans and defeatist euphanisms but they do not vote. Voting gives my complaints substance.
By the way, you have a very beautiful country. I have visited it several times and think the people are quite friendly.
Apparently, I am an horrible nerd, and I ought to be put to death. I have gone against my generation and my passion and *gasp* voted for some names that had a picture of a elephant and/or a donkey next to it. I should clean out my desk right now, I have no right being a young and hip computer professional.
Well, at least thats the attitude here. What we have here is a gaggle of young americans voting in their first or second election that seem to believe that they have solved all the problems with democracy. Hell, how many of you were even alive the last time Ralph Nader did something? Raise your hands if you have ever even seen a Corvair.
Being a typical greedy human being, I have feelings for all the birds and bees and spotted owls in the world, but the person I am really worried about is me, and my family and close friends come in a close second. Idealism is nice, but I would rather take care of myself. Thats why I am still buying CDs and DVDs at at great rate. I know that the MPAA and RIAA is evil, but fuck em, I want to get the unrated version of American Pie, you know what I'm talkin' about?
So, yeah, it would be nice to vote against campaign contributions, and PACs and all the bullshit, but on the other hand, I want results. I want the people I want on the supreme court, I want the right tax cuts (or raises, I don't mind paying taxes, we are still one of the least taxed nations on earth), and I want bills going through that support me. These are things that a third party cannot deliver for me. For now...
So you like the Green Party? Jesse Ventura give you the thrills? Start small. Jump on out there and make sure that your third party of choice has filled the ballot. Have em running for city council and the school board. Then move on to your utility posts, your treasurers and auditors. Next, you can pull off a attorney general and maybe even a governor or two. And so on.
Third parties won't be an infuence until they have equal face time on the ballot with the Reps and Demos. Then you will start to see some action. Eight years ago, the reform party got 19%, not just because of Ross Perot, but also because they had cannidates on thousands of important and not so important ballots all over the country. Thats what gets results. Maybe people will take ol' Ralph more seriously if he had two or three senators behind him.
I am not anti third-party, but I am a realist. Until somebody tries to challege the mainstream parties on every level, there will be no parity, and all of the young, hip and smart people will continue to bitch. Get out there, get your boys on the ballot and vote, dammit.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
To me, there's no real difference between Bush and Gore anyway, so why bother?
That is just sheer idiocy. Only through total ignorance can someone believe that.
When Dubya wins, and if the republicans hold the house and senate, I guarantee we will see some changes. Mostly good, some bad, but change we will see.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
After reading about votescam from yesterday's /., I carefully recorded what sort of machine is used as the ballot box here in Raleigh NC.
Down here, we use a paper ballot in conjunction with a black felt tip marker to cast our votes. The ballot is then fed into a sheet fed scanner called an Optech III-P scanner made by a company called Eagle.
Printed at the bottom of each ballot is the signature of Constance Mitchell, of the Board of Elections.
To cast the ballot, the paper ballot is fed into the Optech III-P and a LED readout counts how many ballots have been cast. It also has a cash register printer incorporated into it, so that it may print out when the vote began being counted, and when it reaches so many votes. The printout paper was remarkably blank.
I intend to find out as much as I can about this ballot box scanner, and if I can, to contact Ms. Mitchell and ask her how the vote is tabulated fairly and securely, so that we have the result at the end of the night. I want to see where the possibilities for votescam lie.
I cast my vote for Harry Browne, and where possible, all other Liberatarians. In the cases of district judges, I had no choice but the two parties, or abstention, so I salt-and-peppered my vote between the two parties for those elections.
I hope other people noted how their vote was recorded and are as concerned as I am that it is all too easy for the election to be determined by something other than our votes.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
I am 19 years old, and I live in the Chicago suburbs. This is my first time voting.
I registered a few months ago at the library, which was a rather easy experience. I've filled out more information to register for some web sites. The only thing special you really need when registering is your social security number. The rest was just basic name/address stuff. I got my voting card in the mail about 2 months later, which was cool. Now I could say I was a "card carrying voter", whatever that means.
The next thing that I did was figure out where my polling place was, which was pretty easy too. I went to my county's homepage and followed a few links to a site that had a list of all the polling places in the area. I found out what ditrict I was in and I picked the closest place to me to go to. The reason you have to go to certain place, is that every registered voter has a piece of paper representing them. They ask your name when you vote and they flip through looking for your piece of paper. You can see that there is no way for them to have the whole state's or country's voters on file. The whole point of voting districts is that they are close to your house and usually you only have to drive a few blocks to get there. Overall the polling place was as easy to get to as the local 7-11. One more note about polling places: if you just can't figure out where to vote, you can always call your county (number in the phone book) and tell them you would like to find out where your polling place is. They will transfer you to the correct extension. Now that I knew my polling place I would have to wait till election day.
Zoom ahead to today. I drove over to the polling place, went in and walked over to the area where the voting was going on. It's not hard to spot, just look for elderly people sitting at tables. Once there, there was a table for my last name group (N thru Z). I went up to the guy there and told him my last name. He flipped through the papers and found my sheet. He asked for my liscence (not my voters card, wierd huh?) and after he verified who I was, he gave me my sheet of paper and my liscence back and told me to go to the next table. I gave my little sheet (which I had to sign) to this woman, and she gave me the ballot and a "ballot secrecy folder". Once I had that I was free to walk up to one of those little privacy booth things and get to business. The ballot was basically a scantron test. I filled in little circles with a felt-tip pen (not a number 2 pencil!) that was in the booth when I got there.
A few things about the actual ballot. First I was glad to see four different third-party candidates already listed on the ballot. There was of course a write in spot also. Also, there are some offices where there are two candidates to be voted in, so make sure you pick two people for those offices. There were also some where there was only one person running, so there was just one circle for the candidate and one circle for a write-in. I just filled in the circle for the guy running. Lastly there were some referendums (called propositions in some places I think). These are like laws (sorta) that you vote on. There were about five on my ballot. They are things like: would you be in support of building a new school if it raises taxes my X amount and stuff. I voted yes for everything except one referendum for something that was to be built partially on a nature preserve. After I finished filling everything in I put my ballot into the folder and walked back to the table with the woman who gave me the ballot. She told me to go to this other woman standing by what looked like an EKG machine from a hospital. Once by the machine, the woman told me to put my ballot into this slot on the top. I slid my ballot out and stuck it into the machine, which proceeded to suck the ballot in quickly. I was glad, I was worried it would spit my ballot out like a dirty dollar bill in a vending machine.
That's it, I voted! The lady handed me a sticker that said "I voted" with a little flag on it. *cue national anthem*
--SoLo
John Susek
I didn't vote because I'm not 18 yet. If I could have voted, I would have voted for Nader. My experiences with the elections and our system of government have been very sickening though, throughout this whole election. Seems to me every years voters have fewer reasons to turn out, because the republicrats are so sickeningly the same.
--
1) it's insanely difficult to vote in this country
I agree. I recently moved to Georgia. I went to get my driver's license (a process that took *5 HOURS OF STANDING IN LINE! and 5 minutes of work on their part*) and they asked me if I would like to register to vote. I said yes, and she said that was all I had to do to register. I thought that it was cool, and after nearly two months I got my actual license in the mail. So, I figured I was registered to vote, I asked a neighbor where to go to vote, and I went about my merry way. So, to make a long story short, when I went to vote, I was turned away, and the person that was trying to help me was unable to get through to the number she had and informed me that there were a lot of people that were unable to vote due to the state of Georgia screwing it up. The end result is that I hate the system even more, it's not a conspiracy, but beaurocracy and stupidity. We already know that the method of the electoral college is screwed up, but this adds just another reason why the system in the U.S. is not all it's cracked up to be. I wanted to vote, but was denied. To the state of Georgia, I give a hearty, "FUCK YOU!"
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
your official voting station doesn't have a shower? what happens when you go into the stall and pull that lever (the temptrol) and the shower curtain closes?
I wake up. I look at the clock. I decide I really do feel like crap and I'll stay in bed a while [the luxury of a college student]. I watch CNN [why? too lazy to change channel] babble on about the election. I see that turnout is already appearing to be fairly high.
I finally get my lazy ass up. I rummage around for my voter registration card. I can't find it. GAH!
I pick up the phone and call the City Clerk. Phone's off the hook. GAH!
I drive around my neighborhood, looking for my voting precinct. I pass it unknowingly--no big sign.
I grab something to eat and drive over to school to drop off in my office over at SGA. I am ribbed for not having voted yet [it's around 11:00 a.m.]. I smile, nod, and say, "I'm trying to figure out where the hell I vote." Our secretary, who lives close to me, tells me where she voted.
I travel to said place. I wait in line. I step up to the clerk. Guess what--wrong place! I walk over to another poll worker; she can't get through to the clerk's office, either. She tells me she thinks it's one of three churches--all on the same road, of course.
I climb back in my truck and drive back down my road. I pass churches slowly. I got honked at and given the fingers by drivers. I smile and nod and wave. I finally see the church--and it's one I'd passed.
I pull in, wait in another line, cast my ballot, look confusedly at the various amendments on Alabama's constitution, vote some yes and some no to piss off the people who look at these things--egads, Alabama needs a constitutional convention!--and cast my vote for W. He's the best of my choices, but I wish I had other choices.
I walk up to the ballot counter. My ballot won't read. Undaunted, I recheck my ballot and re-enter it. Finally, it goes in. I was #864 at that precinct today. I'm amazed--that was around 11:30, before the Huntsville lunch rush will hit.
I drive back to campus. I come back to my office. I ask people if they're going to vote. One says voting is stupid. I nearly unload all of my frustration on him.
Well, I've voted. I have a right to bitch now. Even if Gore wins, I have that right--because I'll go get a new "Don't blame me, I voted for Bush" sticker to slap on my truck.
What the hell, no one elected in US election years ending in zeroes ever holds office for long, save for Ron Reagan.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
I've seen several comments here about people going into the booth and voting for unopposed candidates that they know nothing about, or that they might even disagree with. That's just plain silly.
If there's an office that's running unopposed and you don't like that candidate, or they're from a party you don't like, then don't vote for them! If 10,000 people in your town go and vote, but only 6,000 vote for that unopposed candidate, then the 4,000 that intentionally left that space blank sends a message loud and clear.
Same for national offices. Don't like any of the presidential candidates? The way you express that is to go into the voting booth and don't check any of those boxes. Your vote will be registered, and when the totals are made, you'll be counted as someone who voted, but didn't like any of the choices. That sends the message louder than not voting at all. By not voting, you say "I don't care." By doing this you say "I care, and I don't like any of you bums."
It's crazy to hear people say "I held my nose and voted for so-and-so." Ugh. There are other ways to show your displeasure than by picking from the lesser of evils.
-S
(who drew the line between the dots next to Browne/Olivier, voted libertarian when possible, didn't vote for offices running un-opposed by candidates I didn't like, voted for tax-cut plans, and voted to keep extremist animal-rights groups who use deceptive and misleading advertising away from non-cruel forms of animal entertainment)
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
So in short, to all editors, "First p0st!"ers, L337 trolls, and karma whores, if you are a U.S. citizen and have registered to vote, step away from your computer/workstation/server terminal, and head to the voting booth.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I've begun happily informing people that I hope Bush does win because of my 3rd party vote. Maybe if things get bad enough quick enough there will be a real impetus for change in our system.
:)
I'll probably be flamed for saying this, but I voted for Nader and personally, I hope that Bush does get elected because of that. I feel disillusioned by the current Democratic Party, what happened to the "Leftists"?
I agree wholeheartedly that if Bush gets elected, maybe some true Democrats will re-emerge when they see how bad things have gotten, but then again, that's just my "bleeding-heart" opinion
this was the first time my jurisdiction made use of electronic voting booths and frankly it bothered me. right before i went into my booth there was a guy behind the machines tinkering with them and i had to wait for him to get done before i could go in. i pushed a bunch of buttons and cute little lights lit up the candidates i choose. then i pushed "cast vote" and therew as a beep and that was it. what is to insure that my votes don't conveniently dissappear if i have failed to vote for an "acceptable" candidate? as i was leaving the guy who had been tinkering said to the old lady that helps you sign the book when you come in "yup, everything is working fine." he's not allowed to know who i voted for while i was voting. how can he insure that the votes i cast were landing in the right spot electonically? maybe a lot of non-tech literate people have unquestioning faith in technology but i'm not sure that anyone who truelly understands what was going on with the voting equipment was within a 20 mile radius of the voting station i visited today.
anarcho sufi urban taoist university and potluck carwash
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Where in that statement can you find anything that even remotely suggests that choosing a church/synagogue/mosque/temple violates a law?
Will you be contaminated? Do you have such a weak sense of self and are so unsure of your own thoughts that asking you to enter a place of worship somehow compels you to adopt the tenets of the religion that established the structure? I suppose if you had to vote in a daycare facility you'd find it necessary to run out and procreate immediately.
What is the point? Well, few of us have not benefitted or somehow perpetuated the system and 'the way it is.' As such, I still believe that the United States is founded on the idea of a Government "Of and for the People." Change is still very possible from the bottom up and the minute we exchange the collective power we have is the minute we will be exploited. Gore, Bush, Nader, whatever, vote for who represents your idea of America and participate as a citizen. Anyone who sits on the sidelines, who could have prevented it, deserves what's coming. Similarly, those that vote also deserve what's coming, but also steered the path in some small way.
If we give up on our system, many of the fantastic visions presented in SF and Cyberpunk lit are likely to come to fruition. I don't want to live in the United States of (Sony, Ford, Phillip Morris, Microsoft, Etc. Etc.).... do you?
J
shock the monkey
This morning, my wife and I went to the local fire department in a nearby very small and very Republican town to vote. We both voted for Nader and hardly felt like Bush supporters as our state (Indiana) is a Bush state, so in this case if you dislike Bush and Gore, not voting for a 3rd party candidate you prefer truly feels like wasting your vote.
Anyhow, in the instructions on casting a write-in vote, it tells you to ask for a pen, but both my wife and I started wondering if this kind of violates the concept of the ballot being 'secret'.
I grabbed a pen as I went in, and the woman at the table helpfully explained write-in votes, and that writing in a vote for anyone but President is a waste because it won't be counted, so that was very nice, but it still kind of bugged me that they didn't just have a pen in the booth so it wouldn't have to be a big production.
Well, there are bigger things to worry about, sure, but to those of you doing a write-in, just remember to bring your own pen!
I just finished voting. Out of the fifty-seventy or so people waiting in line, the only two people under 30 were me and this other girl.
I hear all of this talk about how the young are disallusioned with the voting system and that is the reason why they don't vote. My question is how can they reason that apathy is a solution. Your votes do count for all of the state and local people/issues. And while I know that my vote will have no impact on who becomes president (primarily due to that parliment of whores known as the electoral college) at least I go and vote my conscience.
If you don't like how it works then get off your ass and go vote. The system we have may not be perfect, but it is the only system we have to inact change. So if think that ``it just doesn't matter,'' stop snivelling and do something about it because I can guarantee that nothing will change if your thumb is up your favorite orifice.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
Lately I've come to really resent the incessant and usually biased polling that the newsmedia are forever trumpeting about. I propose the limitation of any and all public polling. If it were up to me, I would allow a few straw polls on designated dates within the long electoral season. Maybe one in March, one in July and then the real deal in November. Could this be accomplished by legislative action? Probably not. But a grass roots "just say $#^^-off! to Pollsters" might do the trick. Is there a downside to no polling? I can't think of one... But I can think of lots of reasons why they suck...
After a little agonizing and hard thinking I ended up making no other votes- such as voting for people who 'sounded like' they were on the same page as the Progressive candidates, or voting for Libertarians simply because I like encouraging slashdot libertarians to get out there and vote their butts off :)
I think this was right- when I got right down to it, I looked at the Vermont ballot and was psyched to see all the Libertarian candidates all over it. I was like 'alright! good going!'. Then, when I thought about it, I realised that I did indeed wish them well but that they were about as far from what I was voting _for_ as I could possibly imagine- and the only one I'd heard word one from was Browne. I had no way of knowing if any of them had common sense or if they were all rabid randite fundamentalists- so I simply refrained from voting against them by picking the Democrat or whatever- essentially I only made a vote where I'd done my homework and knew what I was voting for.
The libertarian thing amuses me- I was thinking about being charitable and give them votes solely because I thought they as a third party deserved a respectable showing, even though they can be starkly opposed to my interests. Instead, I went with my self interest, and voted only the candidates that shared my concerns, and did _not_ vote Libertarian. Does this attention to my own interests, moderate selfishness, and refusal to support a contrasting view on principle, then make me more Libertarian? O_O so if I'd voted Libertarian against my interests I'd be proving I'm not one, but by withholding my vote I illustrate a self-interest streak that is more Libertarian. And now my head hurts :)
Seriously, good going guys- _lots_ of Libertarians all over the VT ballot. Keep up looking after your interests and I'll keep looking after mine...
- The only contested elections on your ballot are for Pez/Veep, US Senator and county register of probate (what does the register of probate do, anyway?); US Representative, State Senator and Representative and the rest of the municipal and county offices are Democratic incumbents running unopposed.
- You wonder why someone's bothering to hold a sign for our US Representative (see above).
- The Libertarian candidate for US Senator is doing a lot better than the Republican candidate. Of course, they're both tilting at a giant windmill named Edward M. Kennedy, who didn't even bother to campaign this year.
- The guy holding a sign for Nader (who turned out to be a friend of mine from college; hi Jamie!) says to a passerby "Vote for Nader; Gore's going to win Massachusetts anyway!"
Intellect: Ok, I admit. Bush is no great intellectual. However, there really is no reason to believe that Gore is any more qualified or intelligent than Bush. For what it's worth, Bush scored higher on his SATs. Likewise, Bush had a higher GPA at College (with the exception for Gore's senior year thesis). What's more, though it's not something to brag about, we can be quite sure that Gore was trying quite a lot harder...for fewer results. Other people assert that Bush got Cs in school. Well I've got news for you, Cs was very much the average back in that day (unlike today). If you're going to try to assert that academics are tremendously important, acknowledge the fact that Bush was about average at one of the highest ranked schools in the country. Bush also graduated from Yale and got his Masters at Harvard; Gore, on the other hand, dropped out of both divinity school and law school.
Experience: Though often quoted, Bush is the twice elected governor of the second biggest state in the country. That is an executive position and far more analogus to the responsibilities of the President than any of Gore's offices. Furthermore, if you hold that being governor of Texas is not qualification for the presidency than nor was Clinton and his governorship of Arkansas.
It is apparent to me that the only reason Gore is promoted as having any more stature than Bush is because: a) The press, being mostly liberal, is inclined to bash him as much as possible b) Gore has wankish mastery for quoting stats (this impresses many people, though god knows why) while Bush does not c) Bush has made a few _verbal_ slipups (but so did his father) that has made him look like he doesn't understand. d) Bush came from a wealthy background (though Gore wasn't much worse off) and he didn't achieve enough with his advantages for some people's mind (God forbid anyone not know what they want to do with themselves at the age of 10 on) e) Bush's Texan tendencies to avoid big words and the air of intellectuality
In other words, I think Bush is actually smarter than Gore. I find it really hard to believe that anyone that watched the debates was impressed by Gore's performance _any_ measure. Gore's use of long sentences and "big" words is not a demonstration of intelligence; if anything, it's a demonstration of poor communication skills. Bush may have lacked style and a certain polish in his speech, but he communicated his (somewhat hard to stomach) ideas across relatively well. [Part of Bush's problem is that much of the reasoning behind his policy doesn't take well to soundbites.] Most importantly, I think Bush has a pretty decent grasp on the issues and the ability to persuade people. People made similar accusations of Reagan, yet he had an undeniable ability to persuade Congress and the Press. I think Bush is quite similar to Reagan in that regard. Gore, on the other hand, would get eaten alive by both Congress and the Press if he were to be elected. Then, of course, there are the issues....
To make a long story short, a significant number of intelligent, educated, and politically knowledgable people are voting for Bush. I count myself amongst those numbers, thank you. Good bye
I don't vote. It only encourages them.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Absolutely true.
You want to know why the candidates keep courting the 'old' vote? Because they vote. Wether its because they see it as important, they want to fit in and have something to talk about, or because they don't really have anything else to do with their time, the elderly as a demographic group have a large voter turnout. You want the candidates to start careing about issues that might affect you? Great... go to the polls and vote... and drag all your friends and all their friends. If suddenly the 25 and under demographic was going to the polls in record numbers, then the candidates would be trying to sway your vote, and that means issues that effect you.
(Just out of the 25 and under category myself)
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Also, you might try toning the language down a bit, especially if you are so challanged ad you demonstrate.
The quote: by size, maybe. but hell, by that logic, Tony Knowles, governor of Alaska, is even more qualified for the job. demonstrates that this person believes Texas is the second largest State by size only. In reality it is the second largest State by both size and population.
The poster also states that the GOvernor of Alaska is more qualified, without regard to the fact that Alaska is one of the least populated States in the nation.
Now, please, pay more attention before you go calling names that would, in your case, best be shouted while standing in front of a mirror.
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I have received dozens of calls with recorded messages, calls from pollsters, calls that failed to connect a person to me to pitch a candidate. I think it is high time to declare these to be a capital offense. While I am opposed to the death penalty and barbaric punishments for lesser offenses, I think an exception can be made for political telemarketting. This, at least, is worthy of public stonings.
dsplat, who is glad he doesn't live in a "battleground" state.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
How does the time of day you vote affect the election. Say I have access to a large block of PARTY_X voters on the east coast. If I get them to vote en masse when the polling places open then early polls will show PARTY_X's candidate out in front.
The question is: Will this affect people who havn't voted yet? I would guess it would discourage people from voting against CANDIDATE_X, people who supported him (or were undecided) would run out to back a winner, and people who opposed him would be less likely to vote since they were already losing.
If I could find 30 libertarians and know where cnn was taking exit polls, bringing those libertarians to that voting place could drastically skew that poll.... Thus providing a net political benefit
In all seriousness, no matter who you support, just get out and vote. The fact that CNN is predicting that less than 50% of the eligible voters will get out and cast a ballot is pretty sad.
I wonder why I have read nothing in the papers about Larry Flynt's allegation that, during the 70s, George W Bush (who takes a 'pro-life' stance to abortion) arranged for his girlfriend to have an abortion. Is there some sort of news blackout in the US? I'm curious to know if a man was a drunk and cocaine addict, got a 15-year-old girlfriend pregnant when he was a 24-year-old adult, forced her to have an abortion, and refused to tell the truth about any of this... would that person be a good choice for President of the United States? Would that person be someone we might expect to bring honour and dignity to the office? Only curious...
Sources:
http://www.examiner.com/001030/10 30s orensen.html
http://www. kgoam81 0.com/viewentry.asp?ID=73474&PT=programsummaries
If I'm not informed, I don't vote.
Hear, hear. Now, get informed!
Someone suggested that you should visit the Dems and Reps for their shining wisdom on the issues. That's one solution, but it's like asking a salesperson if the product will cure all ills: they'll say pretty much anything to get your vote. Also, forget the titles of the initiatives: "Defense of Marriage Act" was also known by names like the "Defense of Homophobia Act." They'll pick whatever catchphrase will troll your emotions (and thus your vote).
Rather, get some less biased literature. Every place I've lived, I've been able to find a pamphlet by the National League of Women Voters, or some other non-partisan organization, that lists the Pros and Cons for every ballot initiative, right next to each other.
I agree, don't vote on what you're not informed about. However, I'd take it a step further and vote NO CHANGE on initiatives or propositions that you don't understand, even after reading them. Propositions are written by special-interests, not by legislators who even pretend to have the general public's welfare at heart. If you can't understand the proposed law, it doesn't deserve passage.
[
For the love of god, his quotes aren't even factual! Gore had HIGHER sat scores (1355 total for Gore, 1206 for Bush)... just see http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.htm l.... additionally gradewise, Gore's lowest was a (singular) D in Natural Science, and highest were A's/A+'s in English/French. Bushes lows were 70 and 71 (out of 100) in sociology and economics (more important to presidency then natural science), and his highest was a "pass" in history/japanese....
Anyway, Bush is dumber, but that doesn't necessarily matter. What matters is Bush will make a very conservative supreme court that will be very unfriendly to the net and such (DMCA, etc., also Roe Vs. Wade, Euthanasia....)..... neither are nice guys, and while Gore is smart and Bush is dumb, so what? We've had dumb presidents in the past and will have them again in the future.
That and Bush has the popular vote. Gore's only hope is getting Florida. Note that two good things would happen if Gore wins the election. 1) We wouldn't have Bush. 2) The Republican party would try to attack the electoral college, possibly dismantle it, due to the fact that Bush would have lost the electoral college yet won the popular vote. And regardless of who does it, at least the electoral college will be dismantled.
Please moderators moderate this guys post down. His facts are wrong wrong wrong. The fact he has a "5 informative" score is truly scary to me. /. is slipping...
... you've got no right to complain about the Gov't for the next four years. So get your sorry arse to the polls or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
If you think that you can't make a difference, then get involved in local politics. Trying to get your second cousin elected County Recorder of Deeds will teach you more about politics than you will ever get from TV. Maybe in two years, the Libertarians or the Greens or whoever can put up some candidates for Congress, where they can make a real difference, instead of just gasbags who want to make speeches that nobody listens to. I'm not holding my breath.
BTW, one prediction from the pundit class has already been proven false -- light turnout. When I voted this morning (five minutes after the polls opened) I had to stand in the longest line I've seen in the fourteen years I've lived in this precinct.
--
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
I waited in line for half an hour to get my ballot. In front of me was an elderly lady, quite excited that she had to wait in line (to her, it meant that more people were getting out to vote; I didn't have the heart to tell her that it meant that more people had moved out to what was formerly the "outskirts"). Behind me were two mothers, talking about school, life, the special mock voting activities each parent's school was having for their students.
The voting went pretty smoothly. I voted for Prez/Veep, Senator, and US Rep, then proceeded to randomly fill in the bubbles for the rest of the candidates, sometimes chuckling to myself about what would happen if everyone voted like me. Then I stopped chuckling because I realized everyone really was voting like me.
On the way out, I picked up my 'I VOTED' sticker, proudly displaying the American flag. I'll probably use it to pick up chicks.
Election day's still an event, that's to be sure, but it definitely doesn't mean as much to someone of my age as to those of the generation or two ahead of me who fought for things like freedom and democracy. I hear people talk about how sick and tired they are of politics and how they don't have any choices. Think of what this country would be like if that were really true.
By the way, hot Slashdot females, I voted.
If there's supposed to be seperation of Church and State, why did I have to go to a local church to cast my vote this morning? :-)
...and tired.
But not of politics (or Katz) -- I really am literally sick and tired (I think it's the flu). So I didn't go to work today, but I'm getting in the shower in a minute to go vote.
I'll be sure to update you guys when I get back in case Jon wants us to post about lunch or something...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
During the conversation, I announced that I looked up our senators voting record, and quoted a few "interesting" votes... the partisan voter's response was "I know where they all stand." Sure -- if you know their party, then you know their opinions, right? How naive...how frustrating...
How is it possible not to vote when you are among the (relatively) few people who can elect the most powerful leader in the world ?
I'm French, so of course I can't vote. I'm just watching as you Americans choose the man who will make peace or war in the Middle East, in Korea, in China, in the Balkans, and in several regions of Africa and Central Asia. The man who will negotiate all those issues with Vladimir Putin, Jiang Zemin et al. The man who will decide, incidentally, whether we Europeans can set up our own military force outside of NATO. Maybe you don't fully realize what "the President of the sole superpower" means, but believe me, we do.
The fact that millions among you (you = young, educated middle-class Americans) won't vote today - and that they're proud of it - upsets me.
Don't tell me that your vote wouldn't make a difference. At 50/50 every single vote counts, including yours. And you know that.
Don't tell us that the US election system is flawed. We know that already [?]. That's no excuse. Not voting will only make things worse.
Don't, please don't tell us that there's absolutely no difference between the two candidates. There is. You may not care much about the IQ or the qualification of your president, but we definitely do, for the very reasons I mentioned above.
Thinking that just because you didn't take ten minutes of your precious time to drop a paper in a little box, the next President of the United States will probably be George Bush jr instead of Al Gore, that drives me crazy. In any democracy, not voting is a Bad Thing, the expression of a "spoilt child" attitude. But in the US, the responsibility is even bigger, because the man you're electing will influence the lives of millions of people around the world, much more than yours. And those people cannot decide who that man will be. And you can. And you won't.
Thomas Miconi
Although I have followed all the campaign carefully all along and I have to say that I was really disappointed that NO ONE during the whole process asked a question: "How will other countries view US and how will change their dealing with US in case Bush (Gore) will get elected?" I think that US is one of the most self-centric countries in the world and you should definitely start to look out of your borders. The world does not end there.
I personally think that experience of other countries with former president George Bush were not really the best ones and that a lot of countries is concerned about electing his son who will be surely under huge impact of his father. Its even told much more out of US borders, that its George Bush senior running for yet another presidential term. I would definitely expect international relations to cool down somewhat in case he will get elected.
On the other hand most of Europe is now ruled by Social democrats, and in case Gore will get elected, US will experience continuation of very good political relations with Europe region.
Also consider that Gore is not babbling with idiotic smile frozen on his face. Try to imagine yourself in a skin of foreign president who would need to talk some serious business with Bush... I would comfort such person in advance.
I personally don't like social democrats in europe and democrats in US are the same sort, but I have to say that considering what are US republicans, then my choice would be clear.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
One thing that galls me when I talk to people about getting out and voting is when they say "I'm just one person. To me, there's no real difference between Bush and Gore anyway, so why bother?"
I'll tell you why: Because there is MORE on the ballot than just those two people. There are local referendums, laws and such to vote on, not to mention your state and congressional representatives, so you need to get out there and vote if for no other reason than to try and make your own state a better place to be.