The Politics Guillotine Descends

A final pre-election assemblage of political news for voters, conscientious objectors, felons, minors, and non-U.S. citizens. Philom points to an interesting analysis of NaderTrading by UCB grad student Scott Aaronson. Cheshyre sent in an interesting tidbit that may affect the odds of George Bush sneaking north for some subsidized health care. Of course, if that's embarrassing, so is trading cigarettes for Gore Votes, as pointed out by photozz. flimpy points to another tech-centric voter's guide. Finally, Mike McCune allleges that "About 90% of the national elections use use a device called the 'Shouptronic' to count the votes. The Shouptronic is a closed system that isn't open for inspection. Several groups argue that it has been used to fix the vote in elections. This is a good argument to use an open system for election counting." He points to this wacky but intriguing book by the equally wacky but intriguing Collier family. I'm convinced.

Comments

Re:Apropos of Nader

[metis]

Indeed, winnig is dangerous for everyone. This is a very apropriate warning that the green party must heed, but to suggest that greens should prefer loosing because of that is a bit over the top, isn't it?

Re:What's there not to like?

[SquadBoy]

I have to ask what form is the cheese in? I already know I'm going to regret having asked this.

The Collier book

[Alien54]

Well, there is definitely enough meat there at Votescam.com to convince me that the information technology that runs the vote counting etc *should* be open source.

but then again, politicians have never made anything like that all that easy.

as it has been said:

"Neve apply a Star Trek Solution to a Babylon 5 Problem"
(Seen on a bulletin board in Fermi Lab)

Re:The Collier book

[Puk]

Has anyone attempted to reverse engineer one of these machines? Note that I do not endorse any illegal activities this might or might not involve (ie: theft, DMCA violations, etc).

:)

p.s. Yes, I realize this is a very difficult proposition.

Re:But candidates are supposed to promise things..

[cheezybob]

I know it's quite obvious here with your example of murderers versus drug users, but where do you draw the line? Then again, maybe you think casual drug users are evil.

The only plausible solution is to not limit the vote at all based on this, as is done in my state (Massachusetts) and two others (as far as i know).

Rob

p.s. Any Massachusetts people out there, please vote No! on Question 2 to prevent this stuff from happening.

Pure, undiluted fat

[vlax]

It's like eating Tenderflake. :^)

Look, people eat bacon on hamburgers with cheese because this paragon of unkosher cholesterol nightmares tastes damn good. Our bodies are programmed to love fat, and poutine delivers. Trust me, if you love bacon cheeseburgers, you'll love poutine.

Now, having said that, poutine is probably worse for your health than smoking and ought to come with a label from Health Canada just like Export A's. You can gain weight just watching someone else eat it.

But, after a night of hard drinking and pot smoking (did I inhale? Hell, yes!), nothing hits the spot like hitting Chez Lafleur at the corner of rue St-Denis and Carreé St-Louis (in Montreal's Plateau district next to St-Denis Metro - you can't miss it, it's open 24/7) and ordering a big ol' poutine.

Re:Shouptronic?!? Shouptronic?!?!

[John Jorsett]

Geez, that has to be about the worst product name in the history of the world.

Nope, that honor belongs to the Totalizator. That board at horse tracks that totes up the odds on the horses. Nobody outside of the racing industry spells it right. I used to know a guy who worked at International Totalizator and he seldom got a piece of mail addressed to the correct company name. At least with Shouptronic your brain would go 'wuh?' on hearing it and you'd stop to look it up. The brain refuses to hear Totalizator as anything but Totalizer.

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[update()]

I was going to propose that you get a passport and see some of the world to give some perspective to your notion of the US as the world's leading disaster. But apparently you've already done that.

It's funny -- there are the stereotypical "We're the best at everything!" Americans, and then there's their mirror image, "We have the worst country in the world! Everybody laughs at us!" folks. The two types hate each other but what's funny is that both mindsets come from the same parochialism and ethnocentrism and the idea that the US must necessarily be unique in every quality.

Incidentally, I keep seeing posts from people from other countries expressing dismay and horror about what the US must be like. To them I'd say that believing what you read about America on Slashdot is about as smart as believing all the stuff here about how Windows crashes every ten seconds and is completely impossible to use. Get yourself a plane ticket and see for yourself instead of taking the word of all the nitwits here.

DUKE NUKEM FOR PRESIDENT!

[Verteiron]

Yes, I shouted. 'nuff said.

Another misspelling!

[small_dick]

It's "sheeptronic"

But candidates are supposed to promise things...

[Paul Crowley]

... that segments of the electorate might like. I don't see anything especially different about commutions than, say, directed tax breaks. Or changes in the law to legalise something I want to do.

The original poster was quite right that it makes a bit of a joke of democracy to cut the disenfranchised out of the vote.
--

Re:Felons Voting?

[Anonymous Coward]

from http://www.sentencingproject.org/news/regainvote.h tm

2% of the total population has lost the right to vote as a result of a felony conviction, and 13% of the black adult male population has lost their right to vote.

In eight states, 1 in 4 black adult males has lost the right to vote.

Re:Horrors!

[interiot]

It HAS happened before in the US, though only in local elections. Most of them seem to be mistakes, but one can never tell. see here
--

Re:As we say at Burning Man ...

[Chris Johnson]

I wouldn't trust Gore enough to vote for him- I think he's treacherous and untrustworthy and I'm voting for Nader regardless.

If I don't trust Gore, why would I trust Gore _voters_ to vote for Nader in exchange for me voting for their guy? Nobody's watching inside the voting booth. I bet they all go and vote for Gore anyhow regardless of the promise they made. Explain why supporters of Gore should be considered trustworthy? Smart, I'll grant- Gore's pretty smart too. But trustworthy? I don't think so- not in this context. We're talking about making bargains that can't be checked up on, with people who have a vested interest in defecting on the agreement. I just don't trust that...

If they're voting Nader because they would have anyway and it's not a swing state- I wouldn't call that a Gore vote in the first place.

And if you drive, you better be prepared

[WillSeattle]

you cannot simply drive from the US to get an operation.

And you'd better bring a birth certificate with you, cause they require more than just your driver's license nowadays. And if you come from Texas (like me and George "Wuss" Bush (who ain't no true texan, ain't ne'er had no rattlesnake in his crib)) or New Mexico, you'd better make sure it's a Long Form Birth Certificate, cause they don't accept short form ones anymore, due to forgeries.

Re:But candidates are supposed to promise things..

[Rombuu]

The line is already been drawn, Felony = no vote. It is really very simple.

It funny the people who want to let felons vote are probably the same people who would rather die than let say, felons own guns or somthing similar.

Then again, what are the chances a convicted felon is going to vote Republican?

Just started reading the book...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just started reading content on the votescam website, and I'm noticing that:

1. Many alleged facts are left unsupported.

Too numerous to name... Take a look at the site and you'll see what I mean. A well-written argument along these lines should likely contain lots of footnotes!

2. Some of the alleged facts don't line up well with other sources.

e.g. It is claimed that Sununu has a background in computer engineering and is highly proficient in it; However, his bio page on the house web site indicates that he has a degree in mech. eng. and it doesn't appear that any of his work experience is in comp. eng. or sw eng.

However, I'll continue reading, and see what else I can find out. =)

Just for the record

[OAB]

As the law stands in England (and Wales, not sure about Scotland), the only people who cannot vote are prisoners, the insane, and Lords, convicted criminals are allowed to vote when released. This might well change now the EU rights charter is law.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[kallisti]

If the Democrats move (further) to the right, they'll lose their traditional base. If would be suicide, the right won't trust them and the left would abandon them. This would split the right into two competing groups and leave the field open for a new leftist party.

Personally, I think this has already happened...

Re:funny segfault link - vote trading humor

[vheissu]

Is this a joke? How on earth was this calculated? The numbers seems to make a little bit of sense, but there is no explanation at all of what anything means!

Re:But candidates are supposed to promise things..

[Rombuu]

... that segments of the electorate might like. I don't see anything especially different about commutions than, say, directed tax breaks. Or changes in the law to legalise something I want to do.

Um, maybe becuase it directly undercuts the power of the judiciary branch of the government?

Or maybe because letting convicted felons out of prision is a Bad Idea (tm).

Al Gore Loves You!

[WhoLovesYou]

http://www.algorelovesyou.com

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Governor Bush,

It's been awhile since we've talked. I believe your last words to me were, "Go find real work!" You kidder, you! That very night, it was you who found real work for yourself by executing your 117th human being in Texas. How DO you do it?!

Actually, the "real work" I do now, my job, is due in large part to your family. Few people know what you and I know... that it was your cousin Kevin who shot much of "Roger & Me." At the time, I didn't know that your mother, Barbara Bush, and his mother were sisters. Kevin must have missed the train the rest of you were on! He came to Flint to return a favor to me for helping him on a film he was making about hate groups. He is the person who taught me how to make a movie. Without his generosity, "Roger & Me" might never had been made.

I remember the day your dad was inaugurated as President. I was editing the film in a ratty old editing room in D.C. and decided to go down to watch your dad be sworn in on the Capitol steps. How weird it was to see my mentor/cinematographer sitting next to you up on the dais!

Months later, when the film was released, your dad, the President, ordered a print of "Roger & Me" to be sent to Camp David for the family to watch one weekend. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall as all of you watched the havoc and despair your father and Mr. Reagan had helped wreak upon my hometown. I've always wanted to know -- at the end of the film, as the deputy sheriff was tossing the kids' presents and Christmas tree out on the curb because they were $150 behind in their rent -- were there any tears in the room? Did anyone feel responsible? Or did you just think, "nice camerawork!"

And now you want to be President of the United States.

I'm sorry to tell you, but that can't happen.

The American people need to know a few things about you -- and they had better consider them right now, before a tragic mistake is made.

You know what I am talking about.

Your possible victory on Tuesday is a threat to our national security.

That may seem a bit strong, but I don't make this charge lightly. It has nothing to do with your positions on the issues (all of which I disagree with) or your patriotism (I'm sure you love your country).

It has to do with you. I believe, with all due respect, that if you sit in the Oval Office, this nation of ours, its security, and in turn, the security of the world, has the potential to be in great jeopardy.

Why?

There are three reasons.

1. It appears you cannot read and write on an adult level. I'm sad to say it, but you may be a functional illiterate. How can we entrust our nuclear secrets to you if you can't read them?

As I have pointed out before, all the signs of either dyslexia or illiteracy are there -- and no one is asking you about it. First, you lied about your "favorite book" as a child ("A Very Hungry Caterpillar" you said). That book wasn't even published until a year after you graduated from college!

Then there is the question of your college transcripts and if, in fact, they have been doctored. How DID you get into Yale when the prospective students we uncovered had higher SATs and grades? During this campaign you have made up answers when asked to name the books you are currently reading (when quizzed about the books' contents, you didn't know what to say). Is it any wonder you have not had a press conference in over a month and a half? Your handlers are scared to death of what might be asked or what you may say.

One thing is clear to all -- you can't speak the English language in sentences we can comprehend. At first, the way you mangled words and sentences was cute and funny. But after a while, it became worrisome. Now, I'm just scared. If you are Commander-in-Chief, you have to be able to communicate your orders. What if your subordinates don't understand you? What kind of chaos could that cause with our national security? No wonder you want to increase the Pentagon budget. We'll need all the firepower we can get after you accidentally order the Russians to be "wiped out" (when you meant to say that the Russians are just "whipped" these days).

Your aides have said that you don't (can't?) read the briefing papers they give you and that you ask them to read them for you or to you. Your mother was passionately committed to reading programs as First Lady. I assume she knew first hand the difficulty of raising a child with a learning disability.

I say none of this to knock you personally. Forty million adult Americans cannot read above a 4th grade level and millions are dyslexic. There is no shame in this. In fact, there is help. But for you to have your finger on The Button when you may be disabled in this way is too great a risk for the country to take. You need help -- not the Oval Office.

Hey, I'm not one to talk -- just look at this letter and all its wacky syntax! But I ain't runnin' for President. At the very least, the voters deserve an answer to this question of your illiteracy by Tuesday.

2. Are you an alcoholic? Again, there is no finger being pointed here and no shame or disrespect intended. Alcoholism is a huge problem and it affects millions of American citizens, people we all know and love. Many are able to recover and live normal lives. I greatly admire anyone who can deal with this addiction. You have told us that you are not able to drink, and haven't touched a drop since you were 40. Congratulations.

But it has just been revealed tonight on CNN that, in the past, you were arrested for drunk driving (and that you tried to cover it up). You have told us that you used to "drink too much" and that you were "more in love with the liquor" than you were with your own family. That is the definition of an alcoholic. This does not disqualify you from being president, but it does require that you answer some questions.

Why won't you use the word "alcoholic?" That is, after all, the first step to recovery. What support system have you set up to make sure you don't fall off the wagon? Being president is perhaps the most stressful job in the world. What have you done to insure you can handle the pressure and the anxiety associated with being the Leader of the Free World? How do we know you will not resort to the bottle when faced with a serious panic? You have never had a job like this. For 20 years, from what I can tell, you had no job at all. When you stopped "drifting," your dad set you up in the oil business with some ventures that failed and then he helped you get a ball team which required you to sit in a box seat and watch a lot of baseball games. Now you have served as governor of Texas, a relatively ceremonial job in that state. How will you deal with a massive world crisis? Do you have a sponsor you can call? Is there a meeting you can attend? I know this is very personal, but the voters have a right to know.

3. Please, tell us the "felony" you committed and anything else of a similar nature that you have been hiding. When you were asked last year about your alleged cocaine use, you replied that you have committed "no felonies in the last 25 years." That implies that you DID commit a felony before that. What was the felony?

The reason I am asking this is not to seek retribution for what you did. I am concerned that if there is some deep, dark secret you are afraid of, it means you are, in effect, providing ammunition for whoever discovers this secret, be it a foreign enemy (that Bin-Laden guy) or a domestic enemy (ExxonMobil). If they discover your secret felony, they will have something over you -- and will be in a position to blackmail you. That makes you a national security threat.

Trust me, someone will find out what you are hiding, and when they do, all of us will be at risk. You have made yourself a national security threat and you have a duty to disclose whatever this felony was that you committed. To reveal it will nullify its potential use as a weapon against you or this country should you be elected.

There are enough scary reasons why you should never be President. You will oversee further destruction of our environment. You will push to have more people executed. You will make sure your rich buddies make a killing off the hard work and suffering of those less fortunate than you. Any of these reasons is enough to stop you on Tuesday.

But, no matter where any of us stand on the political spectrum, liberal or conservative, Democrat, Republican or Green, all of us have a right to know the answers to these three critical questions.

Yours,

Michael Moore

http://www.theawfultruth.com/
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
mmflint@aol.com

Addendum (added 11/05/2000):

My apologies to my dyslexic friends. That portion of my letter to Mr. Bush was not as clear as I intended it. Dyslexia and illiteracy are NOT the same and, yes, a dyslexic cannot only be President, he can be Albert Einstein (yes, Einstein was dyslexic). I do believe that George W. Bush cannot read and write on an adult level and that he has learned to be a functional illiterate (which means, I guess, he still hasn't read my letter). This is not to say that Bush is dumb or Reagan-like. It is meant to only point out that he is friggin' dangerous.

Also, regarding the other danger I referred to in my letter to Bush -- his "drinking problem" -- the issue is NOT that Bush is an alcoholic -- alcoholics can and have been President -- but that he refuses to acknowledge he is an alcoholic (the first step to recovery) and the way he so quickly wants to blame everyone else but himself. That's a dangerous sign. For those who say, "well, c'mon, it's his personal life, that was 24 years ago," I have this to say. I was hit by a drunk driver 27 years ago, and to this day I cannot completely extend my right arm. When you go out on a public highway drunk, that is no longer your PERSONAL life. It is MY life and the lives of my family.

To watch Bush swagger and smirk as he tried to reduce his "youthful indiscretion" off on just him and the boys having a few beers (smirk, smirk), I felt for the families of the half-million people who have been killed by drunks like George in the 24 years since his "little adventure." Thank God he chose to drive drunk for only ANOTHER 10 years after he "learned" his "lesson."

And the nerve of him using his daughters as the reason he covered up this conviction! "SNL" put it best tonight: "George Bush said he didn't reveal the drunk driving charge because of what his daughters might think of him. He had preferred that they think of him as a man with numerous failed business ventures who now executes people."

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[Enigma2175]

Bush is not only smart enough to appoint people with more clue than himself to Cabinet, but that unlike Gore, he's also smart enough to realize not only when he's outcluded, but to listen to his Cabinet when he realizes he's outclued.

No wonder you are voting for Bush, your grammatical and language skills are nearly identical! Could you explain to me what "outcluded" means? Is it the opposite of included? How about outclued? Are you inventing your own words? There's nothing subliminable about it!


Enigma

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[Tackhead]

>The way I know Bush is going to win is by how hysterical his opposition is getting.

Agreed. The Gore campaign is pulling out all the stops, but to no avail. (Although i support Bush, that's not intended as a partisan remark - the effect is exactly like the frenzy the Republicans whipped themselves into during the Clinton impeachment scandal - it's a classic primate response to losing a battle for dominance; scream louder and jump up and down higher)

For what it's worth - given that the Nader-bashing is probably gonna start in 24 hours - I agree with the author's contention that the Democrats had this election in the bag, and blew it.

From a Salon article: Don't Blame Ralph

If Gore is losing ground, it is not because Nader is draining natural support. It is because Gore himself has driven voters away in droves with his patronizing drone. It is because he has failed to motivate middle-class women or to portray his education plan as more than bricks and mortar. It is because his years of feints to the right have left key Democratic constituencies supporting him out of fear rather than enthusiasm: a sure recipe for disaster, whether or not Ralph Nader petitioned his way onto a single ballot line.

OK (1, Insightful) stuff done. Time for (-1, Partisan):

If I have to hear Al Goooore speeeeak sooo sloooowly to meeee about howwww heeee will fiiiight for meeee, as though I were two years old and needed to have my misguided politics corrected by my Daddy-figure, I'm gonna puke.

I mean really - close your eyes and listen to the man. Any speech he's made in the past 2-3 months. I'm not talking about his policies, I'm talking about his tone - whether you agree with his policies or not, the Number One Way to Lose An Election is to talk down to the voters as though they were somehow mentally-deficient for disagreeing with you.

The impression I get is that he's some how bewildered whenever he mentions any of his opponent's policies. I know it's an act - anything a politician does in a stump speech is written into the act - but what dumb fuck in the Democratic campaign office decided that he could win an election by insulting the voter? Lieberman's like Gore, only worse, because he really is preaching!

Bush? Yeah, you got me there, he does come off as glib and without substance. But Cheney - listen to Cheney speak sometimes. Fast, clipped, and he actually tries to put some content into his sentences.

My hunch is that a Gore presidency would be just that - Al and Joe telling us what we have to think and do, because anyone who disagrees with them is obviously too stupid to be taken seriously. I mean, how could anyone come to any conclusion other than that which Al and Gore have Decided Is True?

A Bush presidency? Bush would be a figurehead - someone with the leadership/personal skills (a'la Clinton - whether you love Bill or hate him, you gotta admit he knows how to work a crowd) to make the policies fly, while delegating the real policy work (i.e. actually writing policy!) to his Cabinet. I believe Bush is not only smart enough to appoint people with more clue than himself to Cabinet, but that unlike Gore, he's also smart enough to realize not only when he's outcluded, but to listen to his Cabinet when he realizes he's outclued.

And I'll take that style of government over Gore/Lieberman pronouncements from upon high any day.

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[GreatSwahili]

So the fact that movie actors, rock stars, and TV personalities are promising to leave the states if Bush wins is supposed to discourage us from voting for him? Heck, publish a list of 100 of them that have taken the oath to leave and I'll bet Bush will win by a landslide.

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[rebbie]

That letter appears to really be written by Michael Moore. Check out michealemoore.com and you'll see it for yourself.

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[M. Silver]

Heck with Godwin and Nazis:

Silver's Law: Any online discussion eventually degenerates into lame spelling flames.

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[fredrik70]

ummm, so you pick your President by the way he talks???!!

oh well....

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[volume]

Well said.

But apparently too conservative for someone in this crowd, hence you were moderated down.

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[Open Source Sloth]

It's not that they are all that matters, but you might be suprised to see that these people are just more publicly accessible. There are plenty of 'normal people' that feel the same way as each of them.

Some people say it's an over reaction, but I want the hell out of here no matter who wins. The United States isn't about freedom anymore. It's all about protecting the poor stupid idiotic morons that live here. Only big business knows what's best for you! And only the political candidates backed by big business are allowed into the leadership of this country. It's a fucking joke. But it's a sad joke. Like when you see someone trying to say they fucked someone's mom on the day of her funeral. That's the national pride I feel, pity and shame. What a goddamned worthless lie the political system is in this country.


Slow moving marsupials and the women that love them

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[Rombuu]

If Michael Moore things Dubya is can't read, why did he write this long freakin' letter to him?

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[xonix7]

George Bush

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[Tackhead]

> > [ ... ] outcluded
> Is it the opposite of included? [ ... ] nothing subliminable about it!

Touche' - and guilty as charged! (Yeah, I meant outclued, but "Ah've bin known to mangle a syll-ahble or two" ;-)

As for the Flamebait mod, serves me right for combining the partisan snipe at Gore's condescension with the somewhat-useful comment that this election was ostensibly Gore's to lose. I probably should have split it into two posts.

(FWIW, I think the moderation has been pretty fair in the political threads over the past week. And much of my reading has been at Threshold=1.)

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[Open Source Sloth]

I realize that this is meant as a troll, but did you actually mail this to the Bush campaign? I think it would have been awesome because they are definitely stupid enough to fall for a typical slashdot troll, and they could probably use it as an excuse to get Bush up there blustering about how great it is that he isn't the egotist he used to be.

I'm sorry, but if Bush is elected either people will be leaving the US in droves (I know of a few movie stars, rock stars and TV personalities that have stated publicly they will do just that, and are prompting those that can afford to, to do the same), or people will set up the quickest and nastiest revolution in the US's history (forget about the Civil war, there will be nothing civil about this one). Too much ingrained political correctness and too little real brains has led us to the brink of voting in the most maniacal idiot in the history of presidential candidates (well, short of Buchanan and Duke). I pray that it doesn't come to pass, but in a way it would be nice to see the resulting chaos.

Ah, what the hell, bring on Armegeddon!


Slow moving marsupials and the women that love them

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[atrowe]

Pls Stop. You're scaring the elderly!

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[Open Source Sloth]

I'd be interested in someone putting out some sort of analytical report about the similarities between the final few years of the Roman Empire and our current state in the United States of Corporations (er, um sorry, America). I'll be you could really come up with some major similarities if you but your mind to it.


Slow moving marsupials and the women that love them

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[John Jorsett]

I'm sorry, but if Bush is elected either people will be leaving the US in droves ... or people will set up the quickest and nastiest revolution in the US's history

The way I know Bush is going to win is by how hysterical his opposition is getting. This is exactly the same stuff people were shrieking when Reagan was elected. They also called him dimwitted, a closet (or even overt) fascist, dangerous, yada yada yada. All the same crapola they try to tar Bush with. It's a measure of how desperate they've gotten that the sole topics of the Democrat campaign in its waning days is how bad Bush is. I haven't heard a peep out of the Gore camp about any of their platform lately. Life is good.

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[Open Source Sloth]

Yeah, never mind the fact that Bush spends all of his time talking about how evil and free-spirited all of the other candidates are. Bush keeps saying over and over again, "Only through strong central government can this nation control the masses of idiots, er I mean constituents that are too stupid, er I mean too apethetic in their own futures." Oh wait, I didn't put enough gramatical errors in that for it to be a direct quote.

Frankly, I'm no Democratic supporter, but the idea of a control freak like Bush being in power scares the shit out of me. And Gore supporters (and those that fear the third parties) realize that a lot of third party supporters feel that way too. That's why we keep hearing, "A vote for any third party candidate, especially Nader, is a vote for Bush!"

While it scares me, there isn't a goddamned thing I can do to stop it. It's kind of like when something really really bad happens to you in your life. You sort of feel yourself going through it, but it's more like you're watching it happen to someone else, you just happen to be the person you are watching. Freaky.


Slow moving marsupials and the women that love them

Re:Al Gore Loves You!

[titus-g]

*They also called him dimwitted, a closet (or even overt) fascist, dangerous, yada yada yada.* Ummm he was...

Re:New Twist on "Vote Swapping"

[titus-g]

Quake???

The only true judge of how fit a person is to rule the US of NA (except Canada) is how high they can piss up a wall.

And shoot the losers, give em something to think about.

Voting isn't a scam

[sips]

Good grief when will people stop with the conspiracies already. Voting machines are not conspiracies.

PS. Ever notice that Star Trek usually dosn't have any conspiracies and no conspiracy loons? Makes you think.

Re:Voting isn't a scam

[mangu]

Ever notice that Star Trek usually dosn't have any conspiracies and no conspiracy loons? Makes you think.

WHY should it make me think? Since when did Hollywood start making people THINK?

Re:Voting isn't a scam

[Lawbeefaroni]

Well, that and the fact that I only get to vote twice here...

(Yes, I've registered with my slashdot nick, too).

Re:Voting isn't a scam

[Xenu]

Voting machines are not conspiracies.

Except in Chicago.

Re:Voting isn't a scam

[greatone]

Come On...........

Everybody knows that the machines aren't fixed.... It's the dead people that vote, that screw things up.

A life long Chicagoan.

Re:Voting isn't a scam

[SirGeek]

Babylon 5... Watch that show from beginning to end.. you HAVE to think (At least some)

Re:Voting isn't a scam

[Open Source Sloth]

Um, have you ever watched Star Trek?

While DS9 and Voyager (and even Next Generation to some extant) were full of conspiracies and conspiracy loons, even the original had a few of them. And even if they hadn't, how the hell would that make you think? All that would amount to was that the writers had passed up a really good possible plot-line.


Slow moving marsupials and the women that love them

Re:Voting isn't a scam

[atrowe]

They told you to say that didn't you?

Re:can someone explain something to me.

[metis]

No, it means that Gore wins 270 votes at the electoral college and Nader wins 5% of the popular vote, in which case Gore gets to be Prez and Nader gets Federal funds for the next campaign. the two can exist in harmony because winning by more than a single vote in each state adds nothing to the number of electors. Winning a state by 1000 votes or a million votes gives Gore the same number of electors. Likewise, loosing a state is just the same if you lose by one vote or by one million. Therefore, Gore supporters in a solid Bush state like Texas ( or a solid Gore state like New York) can Vote Nader without hurting Gore's chances to win one bit.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[dublin]

Anyone concerned about privacy and stoping government intervention in cyberspace should be voting for Bush, not Gore.

Go look at their records, and remember, it was the Clinton/Gore administration that brought you UCITA and DMCA! There will be more to come if Gore gets in...

Is that...

[Anonymous Coward]

vote scam or votes cam?

Re:Is that...

[Enigma2175]

I thought the exact same thing with the recent story about the pantscam. I wondered if it was someone who got ripped off by Levi Strauss or if it was someone who had shoved a camera down their pants (it turned out to be the latter).


Enigma

Re:the DMCA

[apm]

This is why it doesn't work to be a single-issue voter. The DMCA has passed. It's a moot issue. The big deal is not who previously voted for one piece of legislation, but how they will vote in the future. The DMCA is not necessarily a reliable indicator of that.

Also, just because somebody hasn't had the chance to vote for the DMCA doesn't mean they voted against it. Personally, I've decided to be a single-issue voter as well: I'll vote against any Senator who voted to confirm Justice Scalia to the Supreme Court. Oh, wait, that was everyone in the Senate at that time!

Voting System

[SuperRob]

Even more reason why we need to switch to Approval Voting.

This article at Discover.com explains the problem best.

PS: I originally got this link from here, but I forget who posted it. Thanks ... it's coming in handy for an Essay I'm writing.

Re:Voting System

[d.valued]

The best system that's been thought up to assure a true majority is INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING. Basically, the system lets you vote for your top three candidates, in my case Ralph Nader, Harry Browne, and some one else who I'd think up later. Now, let's say that no one gets a clear (50% + 1) majority. Then, the first-choice votes for all but the top two or three and the second (and, if necessary, third) choice votes would be counted towards these top few. Whoever gets the true majority first wins the election. This way, we'd get no more Clintons (elected with This has been argued to provide for a stronger presidency, as the winner would have some sort of mandate, but it still sucks that turnout is less than half (theoretical) nationwide. (I happen to think that if an election has less than half the eligible voters nationally voting, it should be redone. Wishful thinking, I know :) So, for all you lazy bastards who are not thinking of voting, remember: If you do not get involved in politics, politics will get involved with you. (Also, if your state has you voting for judges, vote NO to all of them. They are all pricks. It's also a lot easier and a lot more fun.)

Re:Voting System

[mellifluous]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying. But the reason I made my original comment is that it is up to the states to decide how they want their electors to be nominated. We can see that this flexibility has allowed the states to evolve the election process from one which assumed, as AntiNorm mentioned, that voters might not be able to make an informed decision due to geographic differences, to a more directly popular vote. Some early elections did not even consider the popular vote, and the electoral college was nominated directly by state legislature. By saying that we need to attack this within its rightful context, I mean that it is possible within the existing framework for states to decide how they want to choose their electors.

I was also referring, in part, the the provision for a minimum of 2 electoral college votes per state regardless of population, but that is secondary to this discussion.

Re:Voting System

[slam smith]

I certainly would like something like this. Unfortunately our current election system is designed to maximize the ability of the dominant two parties to win elections. I'm fairly certain they would refuse to allow changes of this nature to be made to the election laws.

Re:Voting System

[mlc]

in generalized IRV, you can vote for as many candidates as there are people running. In some deviant systems whose names I forget, you can vote for your top two favorites. Never before have I heard it suggested that you should vote for the top 3, but it's certainly possible.
--

Re:Voting System

[AntiNorm]

The American electoral college system was established because of the unique balance of power created between state and individual representation. If people want to change it, they should attack it within its rightful context, rather than playing numbers games with possible outcomes.

The main reason why the EC was created was that at the time, there was no way of knowing that people in X part of the country would know anything about (and thus be able to render an educated decision about) a candidate from Y part. But now, being the Information Age that this is, this argument falls flat on its face. This is one of the big arguments people use against the EC system -- it is waaaaaaay outdated.

=================================

Re:Voting System

[ChristTrekker]

Wouldn't Instant Runoff Voting work better? I think so.

Re:Voting System

[mellifluous]

This is, admittedly, an interesting discussion of voting systems, but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter of why to choose one system over another. It will always be possible to play games with voting/polling systems to make a small margin tip one way or the other. Many voting systems can even lead to seemingly paradoxical results (e.g. when paired off, A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A).

The American electoral college system was established because of the unique balance of power created between state and individual representation. If people want to change it, they should attack it within its rightful context, rather than playing numbers games with possible outcomes.

Re:Voting System

[belgin]

Wouldn't Instant Runoff Voting work better? I think so.

If you read the article, you should know that it is pretty much included as one of the two alternate systems of voting discussed. Instant runoff voting is basicly the same as the Borda count, except that the Borda count would notice that people who don't vote for candidate X consistantly put him/her dead last.

B. Elgin

Re: Voting System

[WillSeattle]

Subject: IRV-Instant Runoff Voting:Sign petition

(This petition was created for the state of WA. Please work to apply
similar actions in your state.)

Forward this message freely:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Friends in the state of WA,

We are being told that we can't vote for who we really want in the
presidential election without "wasting" our vote. There is a simple way
to fix this problem, albeit not in time for this election: (IRV)
Instant Runoff Voting.

Wouldn't Instant Runoff Voting work better? I think so.

Funny you should mention this as a voting alternative, because a friend of mine sent me an invite to an online petition about that. So far, in my state, it seems to have signatures from a mix of Greens, Democrats, and Independents.

Here's the letter:>>>
Find out about this simple solution to the two-party problem and sign the petition in support of it at http://www.petitiononline.com/WaIRV/

You can also find out more about electoral reform in general at http://www.fairvote.org

Apropos of Nader

[John Jorsett]

If I were a Nader supporter, I'd be a bit concerned about him getting over 5%. If he manages that feat, the Green party is going to qualify for Federal funds next time around. I think that that would make an attractive honeypot for some roving band to come in and attempt a takeover of the party. How'd you like a bunch like the Buchananites suddenly registering as Green, the way they did with the Reform party? Fed funds could be more of a curse than a help to a third party, unless they're certain that their real base can outnumber potential conquerors.

Re:Apropos of Nader

[keytoe]

Federal matching funds are not the only reason for the Green party to make a strong showing in tomorrows election. Any amount of serious funding for the party will result in some degree of corruption - that much I'd expect.

Instead, a strong showing for a third party that didn't buy itself that support simply illustrates the desire of the populace for more choice. I can count a lot of folk who are voting Nader this year not because they like the candidate, but because it's the first real opportunity to speak out against the dichotomy.

I've voted every year since I was able (that's 10 of 'em) and it seems that the people are becoming more and more disenfranchised with the status quo. I don't expect this trend to stop any time soon, either. The generation behind mine is even less satisfied and doesn't even remember a time when things seemed to work. My youngest brother doesn't even remember Reagan. He'll be voting in three years.

A strong showing for Nader this year simply starts a transition. Who cares if some unscrupulous usurper comes in and destroys the party from the inside? We've made the point that it's not a two party system at that point. In fact, any publicity generated by such an abhorrent act will simply strengthen the resolve of those who voted for it in the first place. We'll do it again, but this time with even more vigor.

Most importantly, my brother will remember the name Ralph Nader - the guy who wasn't a Republicrat...

Re:Apropos of Nader

[edwardames]

Did you notice today's surprise endorsement of Ralph Nader by Al Sharpton? Now, I wonder just what could have possibly turned his attention to the Green Party?

Couldn't possibly be those matching funds, could it, now?

The Green Party(s) better get its act together quick or the Al Sharptons and Lenora Fulanis are going to descend on them and pull a Buchannan trick. Good thing the equally fanatical and hardened Naderites already got first dibs on that honey pot.

Ed

Re:Apropos of Nader

[edwardames]

After tomorrow, the Green party will certainly have some issues to deal with given the danger of a concerted outside group trying to come in and take over, as happened with the Reform party.

Of course it's silly to say that Greens should prefer to not get the minor party status that could come their way tomorrow. I just think that everyone should look at Pat Buchannan's takeover of the Reform party and the subsequent purge/flight of the Perot and Ventura people as a lesson to keep in mind of what can come along with attaining that status. Strong state organizations can prevent such takeovers, but the Greens have not been noted for their organizational unity.

Ed

Re:Apropos of Nader

[laborit]

This might be true if the Greens were a small, young party based around a few popular characters, like the Reform party. In fact, they're a well-established organization with over 250 candidates running in the 2000 American elections, as well as allied green parties throughout the world. To some extent, they're willing to bend the party line to admit good, honest candidates (e.g., Nader himself), but they're hardly too small to hold together in the face of popularity.

- Michael Cohn

Re:Apropos of Nader

[mlc]

For what it's worth, Sharpton didn't endorse Nader. According to someone who was at Nader's speech today in Harlem, Sharpton gave Nader a "hearty welcome", but that's all.

On another, more related, note, John Hagelin, perennial candidate of the Natural Law Party (answer to all society's ills: Transcendental Meditation), tried to take over the Greens but failed.
--

Re:Apropos of Nader

[John Jorsett]

but to suggest that greens should prefer loosing because of that is a bit over the top, isn't it?

I wasn't suggesting that they should prefer losing, but that they should prepare themselves to repel boarders if they succeed in attaining 5% of the vote. The barbarians will be at their doors. (Mixed metaphors. Gotta love 'em.)

Re:Apropos of Nader

[edwardames]

Yeah, when I posted yesterday, the news I saw said that it was an endorsement, but then I caught a little bit of the video on the news last night, and it clear that it wasn't an endorsement. But it sure wasn't a shunning of Nader like with a lot of liberal or left figures.

I still think the Greens are going to have to be wary of overt and covert infiltration by groups after the money.

The Natural Law Party is one big puzzle to me. I never have been able to figure those folks out. But they at least made the Reform Party's conventions this summer interesting.

Ed

Re:Apropos of Nader

[Redeemed]

We've made the point that it's not a two party system at that point.

You mean like some people did when Ross Perot got something like 15%-20% of the popular vote (at least I think it was something like that)? Third parties aren't something Nader invented, and they've gotten some support in the past, even if it wasn't enough to get elected. 5% isn't much of a statement, either... the truth is, most of America is perfectly content with the status quo.

And I don't think it makes sense to say Perot bought his 15%-20% of the vote. I've seen plenty of Nader this campaign season, so he's had no shortage of publicity, and ample chance to get his message out, just like Perot did. Most Americans aren't leftists, though...

Re:New Twist on "Vote Swapping"

[titus-g]

hmm actually shoot the winner as well.

More about this "Shouptronic"

[micahjd]

There's some more information about this voting-conspiracy-paranoia at http://www.constitution.org/vote/ vot escam-.txt (It's a long page, just search it for "shouptronic")

Here's an excerpt:

In the 1988 Republican primary in New Hampshire, there was no panel of computer experts who worked for the people and thoroughly examined the source codes before and after the voting. It is likely that a notoriously riggable collection of "Shouptronic" computers "preordained" voting results to give George Bush his "Hail Mary" victory in New Hampshire.

Cheese Form

[Christopher B. Brown]

See What in the world is a Cheese Curd?

cheese curds are fresh, young cheddar cheese in the natural, random shape and form before being processed into blocks and aged.

It describes the cheddar cheese form; the curds used for poutine are sufficiently "mild" that I cannot say for certain whether they are either:

• Very Very Young Cheddar, or
• Some other Very Mild Cheese ala mozzarella.

See The Famous St-Albert Cheese Curds page for a nice picture of the classic cheese curd used in Eastern Ontario poutine.

"For questions or comments send to: cheese@curds.com "

(Unbelievable. They're on the web now. This company happens to be the very one that makes the brand of curds that my mother always preferred to purchase, and they sell 3kg "poutine bags" of curds...)

Re:Cheese Form

[vlax]

It's mostly the same as generic mozzarella - raw farmer's cheese with the standard set of industrial additives and conservatives, uncoloured and prepared in whatever manner most cost effective.

Poutine cheese is not for cheese conoisseurs. It's cheap and nasty.

Vote count not "Open Source"?

[KarmaBlackballed]

Is there any truth to the assertion I heard on a talk show recently that the US federal vote count(president) is performed without public oversight by a for-profit company? It sounds crazy, but I don't know how to verify if it is true or not.

Re:The big difference between Nader and Browne

[Arandir]

When Nader sees a problem, his *first* answer is to get the government involved. When Browne sees a problem, his *last* resort is to get the government involved.

The libertarians will never be popular among the masses because they are the only party that doesn't promise you a place at the money teat of Washington.

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[DanMcS]

Whatever moderator thought that was "interesting", fuck you. Let's see, according to the AC, we should disenfranchise the poor, because they're most likely to be uneducated. The elderly and young, who are least likely to be employed, and most likely to get fired during an economic downturn. Criminals, even though the government is the one that decides every crime, and could, for example, criminalize criticizing this voting scheme. And oh yes, those who are under 21, because old people are afraid of young people.

The cure for the problems of democracy is more democracy. We are legally adults at 18. That means we get to vote, get to drink, get to euthanize ourselves, and decide every other personal issue, and oh, by the way, fight and die for the old rich men that start wars.

Literacy tests and job requirements are as unconstitutional as denying 18 year olds the right to vote.

And, since the government keeps criminalizing more and more actions, what we should actually do is get rid of the "non-felon" provision of voting eligability. Or make a lot more things legal, like drug possession and sale, for starters.
--

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[AutonomousHoward]

You've got to be kidding...

Gore has the most pro-environmental stance that any candidate with an actual chance to win has ever taken.

If he looses based on votes lost to the Green party the Democrats will move to the right to regain the swing voters that Bush got this election, not to the left.

I went to lunch with 4 co-workers the other day. Every one of us would benefit short-term under Bush's tax reform, but not a single one of us thinks that Bush will be better for the country.

--------------
An environmentalist, working for an environmantal-consulting firm, who thinks Nader is an Asshole.

Politcal spectrum tug o' war

[cpeterso]

With so many checks, balances, and dissenting political views, changes in our nation's political "gut" are slow. There can't be discontinuity. If Clinton is a "New Democraft" (left of middle) and his hold was weakened due to scandals/whatever, then Bush's (right of middle) opportunity forced Gore to move closer to the center.

Is there a way to check for cheating?

[Marrow]

Is there a way that you can check to see how your
vote was counted (ie. who you voted for)? It
would go a long way toward stopping fraud if
there was a feedback system where you got some
kind of confirmation that your vote was cast
and how it was recorded.

It would even be better if letters were mailed
out confirming your vote. That way, if huge
numbers of letters showed up at the PostOffice
with no forwarding address, then we could see
if a large scale fraud attempt was underway.

Re:Felons Voting?

[titus-g]

CNN was quoting 12% black and 4% total, but then CNN is for when Paramount stops being funny.

Any guesses about what the percentage is going to be in 2004 if Bush gets it with his renewed vigour on the WOD.

Re:Canadians for Nader

[singularity]

You say this despite the fact that Nader is at the complete opposite end of the political specrum than are Libertarians?

Nader is very close to a socialist. There is nothing *wrong* with this, but socialism is the ooposite of a completely Libertarian non-government intervention sort of government.

Libertarians could do a lot of harm by voting for Nader. At most, there is possibly room for one powerful third party. The last thing most Libertarians want to see is for that party to be the Green Party.

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[Pseudonym]

please stop using racist terms like "black" in this forum

I'm not American, but I grew up in the era where, in the US, the slogans were things like "black power" and "black is beautiful". The word "black" used to be a badge of pride and dignity. When did those people (whatever I'm supposed to call them) decide that "no, we don't want to apply this term to ourselves any more, we now think it's racist"? Or is it only white people who think the word is wrong?

The question is serious, not rhetorical.

Re:Free Speech at Gore appearances in Wisconsin

[Arandir]

Do Gore and Bush truly believe that they themselves should have gone to jail in their youths for partaking of proscribed substances?

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[Darchmare]

---
(please stop using racist terms like "black" in this forum)
---

Huh? Since when is that racist? Is it racist to refer to someone as being white?

Politeness is one thing, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone being offended over the term 'black' - even African Americans. And I've never heard anyone offended over the term 'white'. What's up with the overt political correctness?

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

ObLeonardCohen

[rjh]

"It's coming to America first
The cradle of the best and the worst
It's here they've got the range
And the machinery for change
And it's here they've got the spiritual thirst."

That's a snippet from Leonard Cohen's Democracy, which has always struck me as one of the best summaries of American life. I've done a fair bit of travel, from Canada to the UK to half of Europe.

The simple truth is that the US is a hell of a lot better than most places out there; if you think living in America is bad, I invite you to try Mogadishu or Chechnya. And if you think America is perfect, I'd invite you to try opening your eyes and seeing all the problems we've got.

Re:voteswap = coalition

[Jefe]

You blur the line far too much between Democratic Party operatives and people who vote Democrat. Most Dem voters are voting lesser of two evils, and while too timid to vote 3rd party, nevertheless can be trusted. You're trying a bit too hard not to look naive if you think the typical Dem voter is into battlefield power politics and furthuring the Party at all costs. (I'm registered Green. I don't think Dem voters are registering to swap in order to have one over us.)

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[drsoran]

It's going to be horrible Wednesday when Bush wins. I don't know how the police will contain the rioting, looting, and utter mayhem that will ensue. Frankly I've converted all my stocks and cash into weapons to use to protect my family in the chaos that follows tomorrow's election. Not. Go BUSH!

Re:Are you ready?

[Arandir]

I'm ready! For the amount of money I send to the social security hole every week, I could have a nice fat retirement account. Hell, I could be retired right now!

Re:Entering Canada

[vectro]

Since when is DUI a minor crime? Driving under the influence kills hundreds of thousands every year, and is the leading cause of death among teenagers.

Re:As we say at Burning Man ...

[bnenning]

If I don't trust Gore, why would I trust Gore _voters_ to vote for Nader in exchange for me voting for their guy?

Absolutely. It's an anonymous, one-shot prisoner's dilemna and the best strategy is to defect. Not that that's a bad thing, since "defect" in this scenario means to vote your conscience.

Re:Canadians for Nader

[ddstreet]

I wish I could vote for him.

I wish I could vote for him too, but unfortunately North Carolina (a state in the US) has decided that Nader will not be on the ballot and write in votes will not count, so it is literally impossible for me to vote for him, and I live in the US.

I've heard of some people 'vote swapping' where they swap votes with someone in another state (that will let you vote for Nader), i.e. person A in another state votes Nader and person B in North Carolina votes for whoever person A wanted.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[metis]

There will be more to come either way. There is large bipartisan support for giving Bacon to the IP industry in return for money. Can you give a reason to prefer Bush that is not an exercise in disinformation.

Wait, I've heard this one before!

[dmatos]

I would rather this country was run by an intellectual elite

I feel a Simpsons quote coming on:
"I came to see your Utopia, but instead it turned out to be a Fruitopia."

Ah... Simpsons. Is there nothing they can't do?

Re:Entering Canada

[drsoran]

Your mother-in-law was fined $300 by the CANADIAN government for drunk driving 14 years ago? Hell, if they had suggested something so stupid as paying a fine to a foreign government for a relatively minor crime like DUI I would've laughed in their face and went back to the USA. How ridiculous.

Just like a Democratic...

[bmacy]

Here's a carrot... it'll kill you later but you'll support us a long time before you figure out. Sounds like whiskey/tobacco and Indians :)

Brian Macy

Re:Just like a Democratic...

[mistah_monkey]

We got tobacco from the Indians... Although we were happy to trade them Whiskey.
---------------------------------------- -----------------
I bent my wookie

Re:Canadians for Nader

[alprazolam]

You mean, corporations want to make legislation that *gasp* prevents competition in their market? Isn't that the goal of business? Can you blame them for wanting to make more money? If you think that's wrong, then why do you go to work? Aren't you just being greedy?
i happen to have only one concern this election, the economy. i don't care about anybody's rights, the environment, any of that bs. therefore i can point out your misstatement about the 'goal of business'. it is not to stifle competition. it is to maximize return. and point of a capitalist economy isn't so that people can set up monopolies. monopolies are not good for the economy. you should try reading up on the bretton-woods economy. this is what the u.s. has been aiming at for the past 50-60 years. you are at least as ignorant as the most left leaning socialists i have heard.

VoteScam - a long read.

[under_score]

Well, I just finished reading the whole votescam site. As you might imagine, it is very interesting. I won't buy the book though. For whatever reason (probably hippy parents combined with strong Baha'i upbringing), I have always been incredibly cynical about our political systems. On their surface they are obviously disfunctional and it does not suprise me one bit to hear evidence that elections are completely rigged. One thing that really bothers me about all of this stuff is the lack of solutions. People are apathetic, they are focused on material gain, and they no longer trust even the _idea_ of Institutions of government. Our culture is evolving/designed to only increase these things. So. What are the solutions? Well, I say this at risk of karma: there is only one solution and it is spiritual. People need to change - to become better. If we are apathetic, we need to become heroic. If we are materialistic, we need to become detached. If we are cynical, we need to become idealistic. How can we become these things? Only by inspiration and by hope. And inspiration and hope can only be had by faith. And I'm not talking about some stupid blind faith. We need to see that Humanity is One. The world is our shared environment, we have so much to offer each other in diversity of thought, in diversity of culture, in diversity of religion and beliefs. And we should forget about the ridiculous cultural relativism we have been fed by the media so that we can actually learn from each other. We need to accept that depravity is the easy route for each and every one of us, but nobility is worth the struggle. Every time we make a mistake, we need to go beyond it: learn from it, forgive ourselves, share our new wisdom, and try not to make the same mistake again. So how does this relate to voting? We have to realize that the current system of government is irrelevent, and that power really has been taken from the hands of the rulers. We as individuals do have the power to change things, locally and globally, but we need to stop relying on failable, often corrupt people to lead us. And this is the real hard part for most of us, we need to believe in a higher power. We need to believe that the perfections we see in the physical universe can be had in the human universe. We need to hear the call that is sounding in our souls to unify the world. How can we possibly expect to solve our problems until we are united in our diversity. Peace is impossible unless and until our unity is firmly established - to paraphrase from the Baha'i writings. So that means: don't worry about voting. Do it, vote for the person who has served humanity best, but don't worry about it. Instead, worry about your neighbor, worry about your enemy, worry about your boss, worry about your children, worry about the stranger you pass on the street. And then worry about the world. Find what talents you have, perfect them, and use them urgently to solve humanity's problems. That is Faith, and that is Spirituality, and that is what is going to work.

data manipulation

[maomoondog]

Politicians started playing games with the data long before voters did. As long as we keep this bass-ackwards winner-takes-all electoral system, politicians are going to gear their campaigns towards garnering electoral votes rather than popular votes. A popular movement to manipulate things in the other direction is long overdue. I for one am pissed at the idea of my vote meaning _nothing_ just because more than half of the people in my state are conservative. I'll vote for Nader because he believes in proportional representation and I'll vote swap to do it because I believe in proportional representation.

Re:data manipulation

[gwalla]

I for one am pissed at the idea of my vote meaning _nothing_ just because more than half of the people in my state are conservative. I'll vote for Nader because he believes in proportional representation and I'll vote swap to do it because I believe in proportional representation.

Not much point in vote swapping if your state is overwhelmingly conservative and you were already going to vote Nader...

---
Zardoz has spoken!

Re:Stupid Election

[mistah_monkey]

I think it's the "Stuff that matters" portion of the site's description, you tech-head. There is a larger world beyond nifty gadgets and UNIX. If a general election isn't "Stuff that matters", then how can all that flap about the stupid CueCat barcode scanners? If you're not a United Statesian, I think there should also be info about elections in Europe, Canada, and anywhere else political decisions impact our personal, work and geeky hobby lives.
------------------------------------------ ---------------
I bent my wookie

Re:Having a little trouble with this.

[titus-g]

dude, I mean like you even touch, or think about touching my guinia pigs with carniverous intent and you'd better hope you look good with salad.

And wtf is wrong with haggis, I mean FGS next you'll be saying you don't like black pudding.

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[HeghmoH]

The voting age shouldn't be 21. The drinking age should be 18. Or 14. Or whatever.

Ummm... yes, we realize this but you fail to see..

[Kasreyn]

Accurate data is NOT what we want here! Accurate data, to put it bluntly, looks like it will give us 4 years of that gladhanding texan shrub. Accurate data = 4 years of punishment for minority religions and beliefs, 4 years of erosion of the environment, and 4 more years of backsliding on many other issues that I think most U.S. slashdotters want to move FORWARD on. Accurate data = more gay men found beaten to death in remote areas. Accurate data = more wives unable to escape abusive husbands. And so on and on. Are you getting me?

The point of the vote swapping sites is not to give accurate data, and it is not Garbage in Garbage out - or rather, it is, but deliberately! The point is to use the system (ruthlessly at that) to put the man in office (Gore) who is NOT wanted by the majority (Bush supporters), and also to open the way for 3rd party attention - which will lead to a system in which voting your heart WILL be worthwhile. It is an attempt to defeat the indirect democratic process for (I hope) its own good. (3 equally powerful parties > 2 equally powerful parties).

If you think this is reprehensible, go look for Bush support sites online. If they aren't using this tool as well, then that's another reason they deserve to be defeated. Get with the times.

This has nothing to do with voting your heart. This is a no-holds-barred knock-down drag-out, and I thought you should know.

Kasreyn
________

.sig's are for lamers. Oh, wait - D'OH!!

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[Danse]

More of that will come no matter which one gets in. They both cave to the interests of the the software, movie, and music industries. Gore says things to make you think he won't sometimes, but then other times he says things that make you think he will. Bush always says things that make me think he will cave. He's a Disney-lovin sort of guy.

Re:Big deal!

[titus-g]

FLame Flame Flame big Flamy Flames Flaming Flaingously Flaming you.

Oh um ooops you had a disclaimer. sowwy

Holodets

[goodhell]

I'd prefer holodets.

It's basically jello made from pigs bone marrow.

Served with meat on top.

Put some hot mustard on it after you pull it out of the fridge.

Yum!

Re:The State of the Nation

[titus-g]

Woahh.

alternative?

Re:Entering Canada

[drsoran]

After dozens of trips there I seem to recall the only thing they really asked was where were you born, where are you going, and how long will you be staying. Never had anyone ask me about my criminal history or what I was planning on doing with the explosives in my trunk (just kidding).

What's that political website???

[CritterNYC]

A couple weeks back there was a website address posted on slashdot where you could fill in information on what was important to you and the website would match you up with a candidate. Anyone remember what that site is?

Some day I hope to have a .plan.

Re:Shouptronic?!? Shouptronic?!?!

[Lawbeefaroni]

Even seeing it in print, I was thinking Totalizer. Jasus, that's bad.

Shouptronic sounds like a female "Urban R&B" band.

big loss

[ArchieBunker]

Oh thats a real big loss, barred from entering canada. You have _what_ that would attract me...?

Edgar Allen Poe

[Merk00]

The story I've heard is as follows. I heard it from a fairly reputable source (a Poe historian) but as with any story, it's authenticity is in doubt. Poe was a recovering alcholic. He had finally made his big break in writing by landing a position (editorial I believe) in New York. He was traveling by train and had a layover in Baltimore. It happened to be an election in Baltimore (Mayoral) and I believe this was in the time of the political machines. After he got off the train, someone approached him and offered to buy him a drink. At this point, he said no, because I'm an alcoholic. The man at that point offered him some Baltimore Lemonade. Poe accepted not knowing that it was highly alcoholic. In short, they were able to get Poe drunk and then they proceeded to have him vote at several different precincts. Later, he was found collapsed in a gutter and was then taken to a hospital. He supposedly woke up once, three days later and then died. That's why he's buried in Baltimore. As to the cause of death, the verdict is still out.

Matt Leese

voting fraud

[firewort]

I stopped to read the whole contents of the votescam website, which is more than most posters here, who either read only the slashdot summary or the first page that was linked.

They raise some important questions, and encourage us, as voters, to go and find the answers. Who learned in civics (or ELP: Economy, Legal, Politics as it was called in Raleigh NC in 1991) precisely how the votes are counted?

We only know that the votes are tallied, and the results magically announced on the news before bedtime.

IF it isn't a conspiracy, then let's see the votes from beginning to end, from the time they are cast, to the time they are tallied, and verify the tally.

Let's see the source code behind the systems that do the tallying, or have interviews with the people that won't let us see the code. (time for a slashdot interview!)

It may not be a conspiracy but when people start hiding parts of my democracy, I want answers why.

A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close

Re:voting fraud

[Eric Green]

I read that web site too. I found it disturbing. I also found that Harry Harrison was prescient -- in one of his Stainless Steel Rat novels (The Stainless Steel Rat For President), he describes how to steal an election using widespread corruption of the electronic voting machine apparatus.

But then, Harry Harrison was always prescient. Too bad nobody ever chalked him up as being anything other than another libertarian kook.

For those of you who think it's farfetched -- obviously you never lived in Cook County (Il.) where the graveyards still turn out every election to vote for Mayor Dailey (the father, not the son :-), or in Louisiana, where the graveyards are famous for their high turnout... the description of how the mechanical voting machines (which Louisiana still uses) are doctored, went a long way towards explaining certain chapters in Louisiana history (though to be fair it's harder to doctor the mechanical voting machines than it is to stuff the ballot box, remember how LBJ got elected to Congress with the mysterious "lost box"?).

-E

Re:voting fraud

[matroid]

There are a number of reasons why the source code of the Shouptronic voting machine could be hidden, many of which historic.

Shoup voting machines, according to www.shoupvote.com have been around since 1919. These machines were entirely mechanical, and openly discussing every last detail of how these machines worked could have lead competitors to copying their design, thus bringging the Shoup family company to its knees. Instead, these machines were reviewed and tested by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and when certified for use, they were introduced into voting booths across the county.

Only in 1978 was the first electronic shoup machine, the shouptronic, introduced (by Shoup's son, Ransom V. Shoup II). Here still, an electronic voting machine was a fairly new concept, and releasing the detailed inner-workings of the machine to the public would again probably not have been the best business sense. More simply put, the innerworkings of the first shouptronics clearly qualified as trade secrets. (IBM or Control Data would have copied it in an instant!). Like its predecessor though, the shouptronic was reviewed, tested, and certified by the FEC. If there was some sort of diabolical magic going on in the black box, I have to believe our elected officials would not have approved this. Additionally, incorporating such electronic hocus pokus would have been enormously expensive adn timeconsuming. The engineers of the Shouptronic would have to make sure that any vot-rigging would go unnoticed by anyone testing the machine's accuracy, meanwhile making it easy for people with the know-how to rig the machines output. But, that rigged output couldn't be too suspicious or predictable, otherwise it may be noticed by those testing the machine (or the opposing party in an election). Plainly, it was a lot of work to build such a macchiavellian machine. And, not only would building this riggable machine be a boatload of work, keeping its tricks secret from "the rest" would certainly require a shit-ton of money. If one person leaked the information, the cover would be blown and the whole system would be shot. In my opinion, as of 1978, this was just not feasible.

Times have changed now. No longer is closed-source software the defacto standard. No longer is this machine housing some difficult-to-engineer trade secrets. (I bet 80% of slashdot could rig up a similar machine in less than day if they wanted). There is really no reason to keep the inner workings of these machines secret.

So, instead of us sitting here and contemplating conspiracies, let's write our Congresspeople. Let's let them know that we're concerned, and that there's nothing more American than making absolutely sure every American's vote counts on election day. Times have changed. No longer is source code of the shouptronic a "trade secret." No longer is engineering such a machine difficult. Instead, it is as easy to engineer a fair machine as an unfair one. So, get out there, make some phone calls, and convince your candidates that they need to do something about this to get your vote.

Re:voting fraud

[jheywood]

It is not "magical"...it is a lot of damned hard work by folks who are working their butts off. I know...I have been an Election Judge in Maryland. Do you know how many people would have to be in on a conspiracy? Let's see...

There are several ways of vote tabulation...automatic voting machines (you know, the ones with the levers and curtains), punchcard ballot machines, and computerized machines. I can only speak for the punchcard machine jurisdictions, but the procedure is similar for the others. This is what happens when you vote: Your punchcard is placed in a sealed box under the control of an election judge, who is appointed and sworn in by the state or county board of elections. There are usually two boxes for each precinct, an "AM box" and a "PM box". The boxes are transported (AM just afternoon and PM after the polling place closes) to the Board of Elections headquarters under the constant guard of the sworn election judge. The ballots are then counted using a card reader. This is done in the presence of observers from the candidates. The Chair of the Board of Elections certifies the results for the county to the State Board of Elections. The Chair of the State Board certifies the state results to the Secretary of State (the state Sec'y of State, not Madeline Albright....). In the case of the Presidential Election, the state Secretary of State swears in the Electors for the candidate that has won the popular vote of that state and gives them their official Commission. The Secretary of State certifies the state results and forwards the names of the duly elected Electors to the Archivist of the United States. The Electors meet in the State Capitol on the day set by Congress (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December) and vote for the President and Vice-President. Their ballots are sealed and send to the President of the Senate (uhm... Al Gore), who on 6 January presides over a joint session of Congress where the ballots are unsealed, opened, and counted by hand (4 people, 2 appointed by the Senate and 2 by the House, get to do the actual counting). And that, Virginia, is how the President is elected.

All along the way, people who have sworn to be impartial, fair, etc., observe the process. In addition, observers from the candidates and parties watch the process. I suppose you could argue that all of them could be either in on the conspiracy or duped, but in that case, nothing less than every person in the country counting by hand every ballot and then all agreeing on a common total would suffice. And that would be impossible.

Can't... Resist...

[dmatos]

And if it's American beer, well, you might as well be drinking 9.2% water, 60% urine!

Re:voteswap = coalition

[Chris Johnson]

Who's counting the votes? Who's giving lastminute instructions to Democrat voters as they go into the polling places? But most of all, who's counting the votes? I do think at least some of the Dem voters are going to renege on 'swapping' plans and vote their people in. Who is going to stop them? If they cared about supporting the Green Party, why wouldn't they just vote for it rather than professing to be supporting Nader (in efforts to get 5%) from the Democratic Party? I'm afraid I am very skeptical about this. How important could it possibly seem to a Gore supporter? By contrast, wouldn't it seem important to get more Gore votes wherever possible to fight Bush?

I think when people go into the polling places and the curtain falls behind them- they better vote their own interests, because that's what the other guy is going to be doing.

Re:Felons Voting?

[Chagrin]

By committing their felony, they've proven that they are not valid contributors to society. Their right to vote is only one of the many rights that they lose (and properly so).

Voting is only one of those lost rights. If you want that to change, you have to argue it in the complete context, discussing all of those rights.

Re:Cigarettes for votes

[mrfiddlehead]

No, but any money there was republican money involved in the production of those same ciggies.

Re:I'm ashamed to have been born on Earth.

[mrfiddlehead]

But that's because Canada controls the UN. The yanks would control the UN but they forgot to pay their bill.

Closed system?

[Jester99]

The Shouptronic is a closed system that isn't open for inspection. Several groups argue that it has been used to fix the vote in elections.

I wonder if it was built by a scientologist...

Re:Having a little trouble with this.

[mrfiddlehead]

You either haven't eaten poutine, or you've never had a good poutine. Me, I've forsaken the eating of this manna for the sake of my waste line but if I could (read: if I were 20 years younger) I'd eat it every day, just like the little kiddies at the University.

Great, here it is, 6:58 EST and I'm craving a tin full of frites, cheese curds and gravy.

just 1 cheesy link

[clinko]

ok, i have to put this up
It's a collection of G.W. Bush's Bong Pics
I'm sorry i had to do that

Constitution of the United States

[Eric Green]

The 14th Amendment pretty clearly states that the right to vote may be taken away for "rebellion or other crimes". It also states that the state's representation in the House of Representatives must be reduced proportionately.

Of course, at that time they were primarily concerned about ex-Confederates voting themselves back into power (thus the reference to "rebellion" -- that amendment was passed in 1866). It's unclear whether the framers of that amendment intended it to be applied to drunk drivers, people with a few joints of Mary Jane in their possession, or other such dangerous criminals. Still, without an amendment to the Constitution that explicitly states that the right to vote may not be deprived of any citizen for any reason, those states who do strip convicted felons of the voting rights have the Constitution on their side.

-E

Re:As we say at Burning Man ...

[Chris Johnson]

Yeah- I hear that. I just hope the Nader supporters in 'swing' states aren't gonna be hosed by their good intentions.

A vote for Gore is a vote for Gore- don't con yourself that you can make deals with people on the other side. Vote your data- for me that means voting Nader as that's the data I want to put into the system. Expecting some Gore person you don't even know to vote Nader just because you ask them is 'trusted client'- and we already know that's stupid! :)

Re:Canadians for Nader

[mrfiddlehead]

The good thing about Libertarians is that they agree with everybody else. The problem with Libertarians is that they disagree with everybody else.

Re:Free Speech at Gore appearances in Wisconsin

[mistah_monkey]

Ummm. Didn't you know that in this country, as long as you come from a wealthy, politically connected family, what you do in your youth matters not a whit.

The rest of us are supposed to suck it up, because the unwashed can't handle their drugs like Gores and Bushes can. Drugs will mess your brain, they say. Make you crazy, defeat your will and ambition.

That Bush and Gore admit their drug use, invalidates that supposition, don't you suppose?
------------------------------------------------ ---------
I bent my wookie

Re:Canadians for Nader

[mrfiddlehead]

And its because of people like you that the corps control the world, and not, as you like to pretend, the government. Capitolism is not a form of government -- in theory.

Re:Canadians for Nader

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you joking? Is a love of "corporate America" a bad thing? If I'm not mistaken, everything that makes my life easier has come from either a corporation or some sort of entrepreneur. If not, we'd still be working in the fields, picking cotton by hand. We aren't doing that, Corporations aren't bad. Democracy is flawed.

If 51% of the country feels one way about an issue, and 49% feels the opposite -- the 51% wins. 49% of your population is then ignored. Isn't there something seriously wrong with this? Hmm... I seem to remember something called natural law. People seem to be oblivious to this.

Try this on for size: DON'T PROSECUTE ANYONE FOR SOMETHING THEY DO TO THEMSELVES. PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR HURTING OTHERS.

I happen to like the fact that my university is sponsored by Coke. I like the fact that they have that extra money to buy equipment with. OH NO! You mean, corporations want to make legislation that *gasp* prevents competition in their market? Isn't that the goal of business? Can you blame them for wanting to make more money? If you think that's wrong, then why do you go to work? Aren't you just being greedy?

How about let's not have a government that involves itself with commerce and the economy. Then corporations wouldn't even have the incentive to lobby politicians. Isn't that what you're going for?

You people disgust me. You leftists have no clue about how anything works. You seem to think that in order for the poor to get better, the affluent have to give up more. You seem to think that communism is a "failed but noble goal". You seem to forget the current state of Russia, China, Cuba, etc. Goddamnit why don't you do the world a favor and take some math and econ courses.

Shouptronic?!? Shouptronic?!?!

[Rombuu]

Geez, that has to be about the worst product name in the history of the world. Shouptronic?!?

Damn, what about, I don't know, Voteometer, or Real Fast Couter, or Electromatic or something..

Shouptronic... please...

Re:OK ticker tape troll...

[markbark]

I really shouldn't feed the troll like this...... but he looked so hungry ;)

As of the close on 6 Nov 2K:

Caterpillar...........36 3/16
Target Corp........27 9/16
3M.........................97 3/8

You're welcome

voteswap = coalition

[Jefe]

I'm suprised so few people have framed the voteswap idea as a *coalition*. That's what it seems to me: a coalition, born out of pragmatism and necessity, between the voters of two very different parties. Amazingly, this is happening at the grassroots level, not coordinated by party heads.

Coalitions are what democratic politics are all about, wherever they occur on the political map. Coalitions are about keeping one's agenda and still working with others pragmatically. This is a Very Good Thing!

[I can't help pointing out that the Democrats could quietly endorse this coalition at the local level and use their resources (phone banks, etc.) to make this truly effective and win those swing states. But without going into detail, I suspect that when it comes down to it, the Democratic Party prefers to take its chances on this race rather than set a precedent. That's reckless. The Greens, meanwhile, have no reason not to welcome a coalition.]

Re:voteswap = coalition

[Chris Johnson]

The democrats could quietly endorse this coalition at the local level with the understanding that any Gore 'swappers' are to renege on their agreement with a wink and a nod, in the privacy of the polling booth.

But then, if you trust the Democrats- you might as well vote for them- and where's the 'coalition' then? Same old same old.

Again- if I trusted them I would VOTE for them. Nader happens to express my concerns well- I'm voting my interests in voting for him, there is no mistaking what my Nader vote represents. It's dead obvious. I'm going to be counted as representing the issues I care about, not some game theory nonsense that doesn't convey any information other than 'we won!' and doesn't lead anywhere.

I'm just one guy and just one vote but I have to say, ditch the voteswap idea! It's pitifully naive. If all us Nader people voteswapped I'd give more than a 50% chance that when the votes were counted, "Unaccountably, the third party Nader makes a very weak showing with 3% of the popular vote- apparently grassroots support for him was not very effective"

No kidding. And why would that be? Because they voted for Gore!! Furrfu! One would think that effective support for a political candidate would include _voting_ for him! If you think the Democrats are equally naive you've got a lot to learn- I have _huge_ respect for their tremendous experience in power politics, all the more if this 'vote swap' thing is orchestrated from the Gore camp to trick Nader supporters into voting against their own guy. (Worse has happened- the Republicans broke into Dem campaign headquarters in 1972, as well as directly financing huge NYT fullpage ads from supposed 'coalitions' supporting Nixon.)

I'm sorry- my voting for Nader may be naive, might even be futile (especially if I stop being politically active _after_ Nov. 7- not!) and I might be politically stupid- but I am _not_ THAT stupid, to be gulled into voting against the guy I'm trying to support. It all comes down to the popular vote in the end- and I only have one- I am _not_ going to use it against my own interests thank you.

You won't see a lot of _Democrats_ blithely pulling the lever for Nader just because they informally agreed to 'swap votes'. They are veterans of the political battlefields, they are playing for keeps- why the hell does anyone think these people are going to THROW votes away to support a dangerous potential left vote-splitter? Just forget it- it's not going to happen. I don't agree with them but I wouldn't insult them by thinking they were that stupid and naive. They aren't...

Re:voteswap = coalition

[Jefe]

Who's giving lastminute instructions to Democrat voters as they go into the polling places?

Almost always, no one at all.

But most of all, who's counting the votes?

Paid election workers with volunteer observers.

If they cared about supporting the Green Party, why wouldn't they just vote for it rather than professing to be supporting Nader (in efforts to get 5%)

They don't claim to support it. They are entering a coalition in order to win votes for their candidate in states where they need it.

wouldn't it seem important to get more Gore votes wherever possible to fight Bush?

Not under the electoral college system, no.

You're dumb.

Free Speech at Gore appearances in Wisconsin

[bmasel]

Al Gore lost this swing state voter when his minions tried to tell me I
couldn't hold a "Stop the Drug War" sign at his appearance at our State
Capitol, and had Nader and Browne supporters arrested for their signs in
Waukesha. (State Capitol police were smart enough to refuse Secret Service and
Gore Campaign entreaties to arrest me.)

Re:Having a little trouble with this.

[M. Silver]

Maybe you just don't get the fries & gravy thing?

It's popular in flyover country. 'Course, here it's sausage gravy, which a lot of Yankees, myself included, really don't get. Up North, we throw grease away.

(Aside: I found http://www.tx7.com/fries/docs/poutine.html this site to be handy in figuring out the difference between Canadian and don't-call-'em-Yankees versions. Alas, I don't know of a comparable version explaining ours to Canadian viewers...)

Re:But candidates are supposed to promise things..

[Danse]

Or maybe because letting convicted felons out of prision is a Bad Idea (tm).

What if they're in prison due to the War On Drugs(tm), which is also a Bad Idea(tm)?

Votescam... something to think about

[GooseKirk]

Someone else posted a link to a newsletter from the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and I wanted to quote this from that link:

The following reports reveal that there are serious concerns with the computer systems used to count votes in the United States. These systems, many of which tend to be very primitive by present-day computing standards, are subject to error from software problems, hardware malfunctions, and user miscalculation or misunderstanding. There is also an alarming potential for electronic fraud in modern, computerized elections, with corresponding difficulties in detecting criminal activity or intent.
- CPSR, fall 1988

There's some interesting reading there. Now, obviously the "Votescam" guys are, uh, a little out there... but still:

Why shouldn't we be able to see the source code for voting computers?

We should be able to independently audit every last bit of the election process. Everything. That's just fundamental. I'd always assumed that there's some really strict oversight of this stuff, but... I guess not? Weird, and a little creepy...

Re:Entering Canada

[Livn4Golf]

Actually, NHL HQ: National Hockey League 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Yes, New York, as in America. Oh my Lord! This explains so much. I mean wow! Now I know why Bud Selig is perhaps the dumbest person ever--he's from Kanaduh.

can someone explain something to me.

[gimpboy]

what does "nader gets 5% gore wins" mean?


is that trying to imply that the 5% will come from bush? i would think that nader supporters would come from the democratic party and browne supporters would come from the republican party.

thanks

john

Re:I'm ashamed to have been born on Earth.

[ShieldWolf]

Now, I do agree with you that the U.S. sucks ass. Unfortunately, from what I am finding out, every country is a horrible place to live, because they are infested with people.

Actually Canada has been voted the best place to live on Earth for seven years running by the UN. I love it here, the only downside being our neighbours to the south have undue influence on us.
-ShieldWolf

you forgot bush's girlfriend and her abortion

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.disinfo.com/disinfo?p=folder&title=Desp erate+Measures%3A+George+W%2E+ Bush +%26+Abortion

Trolls at the Polls

[Rupert]

Post early and post often.

I am reminded of the story that Edgar Allen Poe died from voting. He found a candidate that was buying drinks for people who would vote for him, then voted 26 times. Unlike Dubya, he didn't then go driving.

--

Were you alive in 1972?

[mangu]

If you were, you would remember the Nixon vs. McGovern landslide. McGovern got the Democrat nomination because people remembered the Gene McCarthy "phenomenon" in 68 and thought Democrats weren't far enough to the left.

Elections are never won by people who haven't moved far enough left or right. They are lost by people who moved too far.

Fucked look at the candidates

[MushMouth]

www.geocities.com/smushmoth What the candidates are really made of, be sure to click on them to see more clearly!!

The democrats deserve the lesson

[plover]

If Gore loses because of Nader votes in swing states, hopefully the democrats will realize they'll have to move farther left to differentiate themselves.

Yeah, a Bush presidency is a dreadful thought, but something has to be done to wake them up. You'd have thought losing Congress in 1994 would have done the trick...

John

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[Wellspring]

What the Dems need to do is move the electorate to the left.

Good idea! We won't get a national ID database or restrictions on strong encryption unless we convince people that privacy is for felons or the 'radical right' (both policies were supported and fought for by Diane Feinstein and Clinton/Gore).

This message of personal freedom and limited government is too catchy. We have to make people change their minds.

It escapes me, really, why people don't realize that Important, Connected Media Personalities have our best interests at heart, and can manipulate the details of our lives far better than we could ourselves. I mean, our Social Security money is earning about 2% annually before inflation. What, do you really think a mere ordinary person could do better?

&lt/sarcasm&gt

The problem of government is ultimately similar to a large-scale software engineering project. Attempts to be purely top-down, with huge binders or requirements specs, leads to bloated projects that go nowhere. The solution is to have some leadership at the architectural level, but mainly to leave the code as modular and encapsulated as possible-- ie give the most freedom to everyone. Those of you who think Nader is somehow Libertarian are deluding yourselves-- even Gore is more libertarian than Nader is.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[Wellspring]

Orin Hatch called the Napster hearings because he believes that his law is being misused in the courtrooms. He is fighting to change the law he wrote, because it isn't doing what he wants it to. The US Senate submitted a briefing to the court in the Napster case saying that the DMCA was being misused, and did not support its use against Napster.

Diane Feinstein is vocal in supporting the RIAA and MPAA-- and spoke out against fair use at the Napster hearings. SHe's running for re-election in California, and like all Democrats, has the strong backing of the RIAA, MPAA, and the trial lawyers. Make your own judgements.

The Clinton/Gore legal team have defended the modified interpretations of the DMCA that have caused so many problems. Judges they appointed are making the rulings we don't like. ICANN, which they created, is slowly turning into a tyranny.

As for the UCITA, this just shows how important it is that we support state and local candidates. If you are in a state which passed the UCITA, remember this when you vote for your state offices.

People on /. have said that Bush is dumb, that he is mean, that he lies, etc. But I have yet to hear, even from CmdrTaco, anything other than cheap shots. Gore, meanwhile, is actively supporting virtually every technology policy we don't like. In Texas, Bush was re-elected as governor in a race where the highest ranked Democrats in the state supported Bush over their own party. So I don't know how people believe that it would be such a disaster if he was elected, any more than anyone else who thementve policy disagreements with.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[CgiJobs]

hopefully the democrats will realize they'll have to move farther left...

Do the names Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis mean anything to you? All of them were significantly to the left of Clinton and all of them were wiped out by Reagan and Bush.

a Bush presidency is a dreadful thought

Give me a break. I'm so tired of hearing this. I think Bush (and his future cabinet) will be much better for the country than Al Gore and his people, but I don't dread Gore as president. This country is too great for any one man to foul up in four years, especially since Clinton couldn't do it in eight.

You've been listening to Alec Baldwin, Cher, and the pseudo-intellectuals too much.

You'd have thought losing Congress in 1994 would have done the trick

Well, if the "lesson" from '94 is that the Dems need to move left it will make it a lot easier for the Republicans going forward. The reason they were thrown out were HillaryCare (a lefties dream!) and other liberal shenanigans.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[NMerriam]

Orin Hatch called the Napster hearings because he believes that his law is being misused in the courtrooms. He is fighting to change the law he wrote, because it isn't doing what he wants it to. The US Senate submitted a briefing to the court in the Napster case saying that the DMCA was being misused, and did not support its use against Napster

and that's fantastic! So where the hell does Gore or Bush fit in? he still didn't write the law, and he still doesn't have anything to do with civil lawsuits between private parties that are using the DMCA as a basis.

Diane Feinstein is vocal in supporting the RIAA and MPAA-- and spoke out against fair use at the Napster hearings. SHe's running for re-election in California

Wow! A congressperson from california who is agreeing with the entertainment industry! Gosh, next you'll tell me That Orrin hatch sides with his constituents (Novell) against Microsoft. This is shocking. So don't vote for feinstein -- again, I'm not seeing where Gore has anything to do with this (the original poster did, of course, say this was Gore's fault and GW would fix it).

The Clinton/Gore legal team have defended the modified interpretations of the DMCA that have caused so many problems

No they didn't -- the Justic Department said that they didn't think Napster could be excluded from the scope of the DMCA as Napster was arguing, they had nothing to say about the legal merits of the arguments about distribution or copying (I may be getting this mixed up with the MP3.com case, though!).

But again, the DMCA, AS CONGRESS WROTE IT, clearly applies for exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are using it for. It is Congress' fault for NOT LISTENING when they wrote the law to those who said it was overbroad. Now CONGRESS has to fix the law, and I sure hope they do it quickly.

Judges they appointed are making the rulings we don't like. ICANN, which they created, is slowly turning into a tyranny

The federal judges (appointed, BTW, mostly during the Reagan/Bush years) are making rulings that are consistent with the law. They don't get to second-guess the DMCA, as Congress wrote it the law is incredibly broad and quite clearly includes a lot of the stuff we'd like to see be legal. All I hear is Bush people complaining about judges "legislating from the bench" and now you bitch because the judges are ruling on the law AS CONGRESS WROTE IT.

Talk to fucking Congress if you have a problem with the law -- the Justic department IS NOT PROSECUTING ANYONE under the DMCA, these are all civil lawsuits. The judges HAVE TO RULE ON THE LAW. That's their job, and it has nothign to do with who appointed them -- I would be disappointed in any judge who said that napster and MP3.com didn't violate the DMCA because they clearly do. That's why we should change the DMCA, not the judge!

As for ICANN, jeesus, that's fucked. Although I'm not really sure (again) how Gore/Bush have anything to do with it. It's ICANN going bonkers, not the administration. I would like to know what (if ANY) ability the govt has to bitch-slap those losers, though. The whole point, after all, was to get the government out of it (Bush people keep telling me government can't do anything as well as a private company -- so why was it all fine until ICANN was private?).

But I have yet to hear, even from CmdrTaco, anything other than cheap shots. Gore, meanwhile, is actively supporting virtually every technology policy we don't like

Well i don't really know that many people who are voting on tech issues (I don't think the govt has anywhere near the influence there as elsewhere). As for economics and social issues, I think it's pretty clear where each candidate falls, so that's surely substantive enough to justify voting for or against one. If you want abortion, you probably won't want to consider Bush, etc.

As for Texas -- having lived there most of my life (and now being closer to DC), I can tell you that Bush will have a rude awakening. Democrats in Texas are like Republicans everywhere else -- he doesn't have experience working with the kind of ideological spread that exists nationally. Uniting democrats and republicans in a state where everyone is for the death penalty and concealed weapons is not exactly a great challenge for a conservative -- let's see how well he can do in a place where the NRA is considered evil and his dad isn't quite as univerally loved.

---------------------------------------------

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[MattLesko]

Um...no. I'm pretty sure that they would just move further to the right instead - after all; that shows that the majority wanted a Republican rule. We're not talking about Ross Perot style elections, with Nader getting 15-20% of the vote. We're talking about 5% *if* he's lucky.

You are more than the sum of what you consume.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[UncleDavid]

Consider this.

The big prize, and the price demanded by many on the (especially religious, I won't dignify them with the word Christian) Right, is the overturning of Roe vs Wade. And it's likely that Bush will be able to appoint enough justices to let that happen. It'll be an unspoken litmus test.

The philosophical underpinning of Roe vs Wade was that the Constitution contains a right to privacy. The way to undo the decision is to negate that understanding.

Do you get it? The collateral damage of this rage to repeal Roe will be a Supreme Court that says there is no Constitutional privacy right. Suddenly, there will be no Supreme Court backstop against the anti-privacy lawmakers. I fear that.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[slam smith]

You've been listening to Alec Baldwin, Cher, and the pseudo-intellectuals too much.

I think you're giving them to much credit calling them pseudo-intellectuals.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[askheaves]

Yeah, a 50-50 vote in this country is an indication that people want something more to the extremes... Please. I dare you to move farther left... free votes for us!!!

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[cosmosis]

Those of you who think Nader is somehow Libertarian are deluding yourselves-- even Gore is more libertarian than Nader is.

How do you figure? I'm not saying Nader is very libertarian as he is an advocate of some strong centralized governmental regulation. But on issue for issue, Nader comes out more libertarian than Gore, which I admit in some cases is not saying much.

Nader at least is willing to end the drug war and pardon all non-vioelent drug offenders. Nader also supports the right to bear arms. Niether of these libertarian issues has Gore been willing to budge on.

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[NMerriam]

Go look at their records, and remember, it was the Clinton/Gore administration that brought you UCITA and DMCA!

Um, the DMCA is legislation -- it was made by congress (currently a slight Republican majority), not Clinton or Gore. Granted, Clinton didn't Veto it, but it's hardly "his" law, and I fail to see why Bush would have vetoed a law that passed a republican congress.

And UCITA is a state by state law. The federal government has literally nothing to do with it, whether legislative or executive. If you want to stop the UCITA, talk to your STATE congress or Governor, becuase no president has a damn thing to do with it...

---------------------------------------------

Re:The democrats deserve the lesson

[ZoneGray]

What the Dems need to do is move the electorate to the left.

It's always interesting to watch candidates be tugged betweent he undecided voters in the middle and their base on the left or right. Bush's 1992 loss was widely blamed on his abandoning the right with his tax increases. But Clinton's win was partly born of his own pitch to the center. The extreme left didn't mind it so much in '92, having endured twelve years out of the White House. Now, they're getting anxious, and ready to vote for Nader as a way to bring them back to their ideals.

Likewise, many Republicans were initially put off by some of Bush's wishy-washy positions, but once they sensed that he could win, they got behind him fairly strongly.

It's all about timing, I guess. Sometimes it pays to move tot he center, sometimes it pays to move to pitch the base.

Re:Entering Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb american, you only knew it was 188 years ago because he called it the "War of 1812".

We burnt your precious government house and you whitewashed it, hence the white House.

We can kick your ass again too so just watch out.

"I've hoed it" Al Gore 2/26/88

[cpeterso]

truth: Al Gore is a ho.

Re:But candidates are supposed to promise things..

[Rombuu]

Hey you are more then welcome to start your own "Lets let murderers vote" campaign. I'm sure it will be real sucessful.

Of course, I think we should still have literacy tests at the polls... I mean is it right that people who can't even read are allowed to vote?

As I said...

[zaphod]

...if you like Gore and hate GWB, then nothing I say will change your mind.

Shoup, shoup-a-doup, shoup-a-doupa-doupa-doup

[gughunter]

As usual when asked about how NES counts and disseminates the vote, he replied:

"This is not a proper area of inquiry."

I can't say I'm surprised. The vote should be tallied on the Commodore 64. Foreign machines have no business counting American votes.

If Bush wins...

[Chaos Monkey]

I vote for an immediate impeachment!

Modems...

[djrogers]

how dare they put _modems_ in the computers! I can't believe they'd do such a heinous thing. Obviously the _only_ real use for a 'hidden' modem is to rig an election. Why, next thing you know those hackers are oing to put modems in their own computers! Who knows what havoc could be caused in that way!!!

Please look up. It's a black helicopter.

[gelfling]

Don't you think there would be an easier way to steal an election if you wanted, then to rig thousands of voting machines, to secretly coopt the hundreds or thousands of people who have to administer them. Wouldn't it be easier to simply call up the mothership and have it beam a 'special message, from the space overlords' to all of us who haven't aleady been abducted and anally probed while listening to the new world order speech from JFK and Elvis straight from their secret moonbase?

I mean c'mon, voting machines? How pedestrian when we all know that the Illuminati, TLC and the Bildeberg group can instantly power up their UN run mass delusion machines and cause us to think that such and such candidate has won when actually its someone else from the Vatican-ZOG-Masonic electorate?

Remember - the one great conspiracy was that there is one great conspiracy. The one great deception the devil succeeded with was convincing the world he did not exist.

Vote rigging

[Eric Green]

Your easy dismissal tells me that you live in a state with a history of "clean" elections. I grew up in one of the most corrupt states in the country, Louisiana, where the graveyards are famous for voting on election day, and have no difficulty accepting that electronic voting machines can be rigged as easily as the prior mechanical voting machines (which Louisiana still uses, BTW, probably because the good ole' boys who vote the cemetaries can't agree on a new voting machine that each side could equally easily rig).

Harry Harrison wrote a novel, The Stainless Steel Rat For President. The description of how to compromise electronic voting machines in that novel is naturally somewhat simplistic (the novel was written years ago, after all, when computerized voting machines were still science fiction), but the general principle still applies.

As you mention, no one vendor has a monopoly. Some states don't even do electronic voting (such as Louisiana, with its mechanical voting machines). Thus it's unlikely that anybody is capable of outright stealing a national election (a local or state election is a different story). On the other hand, for elections that are extremely close, one corrupt precinct can mean the difference between defeat or victory (just read about LBJ and the case of the "lost" ballot box -- that's right, Richard Nixon wasn't the first corrupt president we had, and this nation has a long history of corrupt elections that people prefer to ignore).

-E

Silly you can't fool Federal investigators

[sips]

If politics in Chicago is crooked then it get's investigated and they change or else face Federal sanctions, harsh punishments, withdrawl of highway funds, etc.

Re:Silly you can't fool Federal investigators

[Eric Green]

Interestingly, federal prosecuters never seem to go after people who deliver the vote for whoever's in power.

Note that the last Chicago scandals came about because the vote was delivered for a Democratic candidate, and a Republican won the presidency.

'Nuff said. Local pols who deliver the vote never get indicted. I'm from Louisiana, which is as notoriously corrupt as Chicago, and I've seen that happen time after time... otherwise half the pols in Louisiana would be behind bars.

-E

Re:Silly you can't fool Federal investigators

[11223]

Har har.

Politics in Chicago? Yeah, right. How much more fixed can you get?

How can "Open Source" prevent Application Fraud?

[Speare]

Lots of talk about "the vote counters are using an application that is closed source, maybe there's fraud!"

I want to ask you how Open Source would sweep away those claims? Before you go, "Duh..."

Who says the source you're reading is the source they'd be using?

Just because they hand you a sheaf of source code and say, "look, no fraud," doesn't mean they are 100% certainly using only 100% that "illuminated" source code.

It's like the carnival magicians who let you examine the deck of cards (or even takes your deck of cards) before doing something improbable with them... "sleight of hand" and "illumination" may always be paired up.

Doesn't really affect Mr. Bush

[pete-classic]

From the page:

If you were convicted outside Canada and five years have elapsed since the termination of the sentence imposed (not the sentence served), you may apply through a visa office for the Minister's approval of your rehabilitation. The Minister's approval will permanently remove the inadmissibility caused by your conviction.

Over 20 years with no further incident. Seems like he would qualify.

-Peter

Re:Doesn't really affect Mr. Bush

[lowflying]

How about the fact that he hasn't had a drink in 14 years? It's hard to have a DUI without drinking.

This is a good argument, but the original assertion was no incidents in the last 20 years, not the last 14. And by Bush's own accounts, his drinking was heaviest just before he stopped.

Of course, if you like Gore and hate Bush, it doesn't really matter what anyone has to say about it.

For the record, I am not so fond of Gore, and have worked hard against his election. And it does matter. This campaign has been based on lies and partial-truths spread by both sides. In this instance, Bush's camp is hoping that the assumption made by the original poster, that this was an isolated incident, will be made by everyone.

In the meantime, they refuse to be forthcoming, to questions about other DUIs as well as questions about other infractions of the law.

Dave

Re:Doesn't really affect Mr. Bush

[zaphod]

How about the fact that he hasn't had a drink in 14 years? It's hard to have a DUI without drinking.

Of course, if you like Gore and hate Bush, it doesn't really matter what anyone has to say about it.

Re:Doesn't really affect Mr. Bush

[lowflying]

Over 20 years with no further incident. Seems like he would qualify. Seems like...except that he has never said that there has been no further incident... in fact, he has refused to answer that question. Dave

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[mangu]

I keep seeing posts from people from other countries expressing dismay and horror about what the US must be like. To them I'd say that believing what you read about America on Slashdot is about as smart as believing all the stuff here about how Windows crashes every ten seconds and is completely impossible to use.

Hey, hold on! I'm from another country (Brazil), and I have lived long enough (7 months) in the USA (Redondo Beach, CA) to know the USA is not as terrible as the Hezbollah would make you think. But m$-windows IS completely impossible to use and it DOES crash about every ten seconds!!!

New Twist on "Vote Swapping"

[vergil]

Here's a new twist on the Nader-Gore "vote swapping" scheme.

According to votepact.com:
The idea behind votepact.com allows dissatisfied Gore and Bush voters to make a pact in pairs and both cast their ballot for Nader (or any third party candidate). This way voters don't affect the balance between Gore and Bush, but give TWO additional votes to the third party candidate.

Sincerely,
Vergil

Re:New Twist on "Vote Swapping"

[metis]

This has no chance because it is a classical prisoner's dillema. Aaronson's analysis shows why
nadertrading isn't.

Re:New Twist on "Vote Swapping"

[nomadic]

Leaving aside the fact that attempts to convince me that Gore is some kind of acceptable choice are insulting

You know, I've heard this constantly, and I'm getting a little tired of it. Especially since the people who usually say it have no qualms about trying to convince everyone else to vote for Nader. I'm not settling for Gore; I honestly think he'd make a good president. And even if I had the desire to vote for Nader I wouldn't, because it WOULD be a vote for Bush. Personally I think having the country be led by a competent president is a hell of a lot more important than any personal satisfaction I would feel because I voted for Nader and against Gore. This is NOT a game; it's an extremely important choice, and if you feel that your own personal contentment is worth more than having a real leader, vote Nader. But I'm voting Gore.
--

Re:New Twist on "Vote Swapping"

[Chris Johnson]

Wow- now this, I like.

I'm voting Nader, don't give a rat's ass what state I'm in (actually I think Vermont isn't likely to go Bush, but I don't care if it does) because voting is NOT A GAME. It is the expression of my opinion, and an attempt to get representation of my concerns.

Leaving aside the fact that attempts to convince me that Gore is some kind of acceptable choice are insulting, I figure that if this is supposed to be a GAME, why don't we just sit them in front of PCs and have them Quake it out? Better yet, they can wrestle for it and WWF can broadcast it on pay-per-view. This is not a game people! Talking about game theory and win strategies completely betrays your obligation to represent YOUR VIEWS honestly and directly! That means if you really _back_ either of the two main clowns, you should vote for them- but if you back Nader, or Browne, or McReynolds etc etc, you are _obligated_ to vote for them and give the country GOOD DATA. Garbage in garbage out- who knew that computer geeks would have to have this explained to them? But the game concept is so established that it's not suprising...

GIGO, people. Your vote is not a game! It is DATA. Give the country ACCURATE DATA and we'll go from there and see what else needs to happen. I know that, voting as a Progressive, I seriously doubt I'll be able to roll over and go back to sleep for four years- in particular, corporate abuses have become so outlandish that I don't think there's time for apathy. I think the Libertarians should take a look at the amount of spending BOTH parties are delighted to allow (Libertarians should appreciate this one Nader story- there are government researchers trying to find cures for malaria and other diseases. They're way underfunded which would not impress a libertarian- but Nader asked these guys how they felt about the continued contracts for obsolete B1 bombers, which is spending on an unimaginably greater scale, all from taxes. He asked how much of a B1 would it take to double the researchers' budget. One of them came right back with, "A wheel.")

This 'votepact' idea seems like just an informal admission of something people are already doing without the securityblanket- it's an excuse to abandon the parties and put in accurate data for a change. Many people are doing this and to hell with the resulting balance of the major parties- this seems to be just a way for people who are more frightened, to do this and feel that they aren't risking anything. But the end result is the same- more accurate DATA being put into the system. Hooray for them :)

Re:New Twist on "Vote Swapping"

[ethereal]

This would still make a difference if the two voters are in different states with different amounts of electoral votes. So if a bunch of Californians vote for Nader in return for a bunch of Illinoisians (Illini? or is that just the Native Americans) voting for Nader, Gore could end up losing Illinois and winning California, whereas prior to the swap he could have won both.

This would almost certainly be lost in the noise, I'm just pointing out that since we don't have direct democracy (and mostly due to the winner-take-all electoral college setup in most states) that votepact's plan could affect the balance.

Re:New Twist on "Vote Swapping"

[Chris Johnson]

...interestingly, now that I think of it, ALL Vermont voters take an _oath_ to vote their honest beliefs and not jerk the system around playing games with it. I'm not making this up- an actual oath is administered. What other states do something like this? In which states are you breaking your word and ignoring the oath you swore if you go off voting in some misbegotten game-theory attempt to game the system? I concede that some people have no concept of honor and don't give a damn anyhow...

Re:Entering Canada

[cebe]

The issue of whether or not Bush could enter Canada with his conviction is irrelevant to a lot of people. These are people who have been affected in one way or another by a drunk driver. I dont know the population of the US... what is it... 20 zillion or something? The point is that there are PLENTY of law abiding citizens who HAVEN'T driven drunk that could run for the position of president besides Bush. He shouldn't even be allowed to continue running. The position of President is an honor. It's a job that shouldn't even be open to people with previous convictions. Maybe this sounds a bit out to lunch but it doesn't to me when there are plenty of people that could be trusted with the job of making laws that obey them themselves. The ONLY reason Bush is running today instead of being behind bars for killing a family of four is because he got LUCKY. Lucky as in caught. ok and maybe because of his Daddy. This is not fair. It's not fair to people who's lives have been inconvenienced because of their drunk driving convictions, and it's not fair to people who have died or lost people to drunk drivers. It is NOT socially acceptable to drive drunk and in my opinion be led by someone who has. I don't care how many years ago it was. To quote a guy who phoned into an american radio station who was paralized by a drunk driver "I'll never vote for any son of a bitch like that"

As for his soberness... I have a lot of respect for recovered alcoholics. But do you really want a president that you can't sit down and have a beer with because if he has a sip he'll fall off the wagon? A guy that can't have a glass of wine with dinner?

Theres a lot of garbage attached to Bush... stuff he's done that he condems other for doing. He's a load of shit.

But im a canadian... I have a whole other election im supposed to be paying attention to...

Felons Voting?

[Pacer]

Slightly off-topic but hey, the blurb brought it up.

OK, I understand the logic behind not letting felons have guns, but taking away their vote? I don't see the democratic value in that ...

Just make something politically unpopular a felony (like, um, recreational drugs, for starters?) and you begin to silence your opponents with every conviction.

Is it any wonder that recidivism is so high when ex-cons don't even have a voice in the system?

Pacer

Re:Felons Voting?

[ranessin]

So a gay man who has sex with another man and is convicted of sodomy isn't a valid contributor to society and shouldn't be able to vote?

Great logic there...

Ranessin

Re:Felons Voting?

[MattLesko]

I think it's also good to point out that an overwhelmingly majority of convicted felons (especially for drug 'offenses') are minorities. It has been estimated that from 10 to 20% of the entire black population has lost their vote due to this. Any wonder no politician ever seems to give a damn about urban ghettos or the sources of these 'criminals'?

You are more than the sum of what you consume.

Re:Felons Voting?

[slam smith]

I actually disagree with taking guns away from non-violent felons. Why should we take guns from someone who is guilty of tax evasion? It makes no sense to me.

Re:Felons Voting?

[Chagrin]

So you're saying that child molesters should be able to vote then?

Re:Felons Voting?

[John Jorsett]

The restrictions on voting vary by state, so one could theoretically establish a 'residence' in a more lenient state in order to vote (via absentee ballot) for President at least. Then again, the voting registration process has become so incredibly lax that you can register as many times as you want under different names, vote by mail, and no one would be the wiser. (Probably not a good idea however, if vote fraud would be your 'third strike' if you live in a 3-strike law state)

Re:Felons Voting?

[Rombuu]

OK, I understand the logic behind not letting felons have guns, but taking away their vote?

I believe the logic behind this was to prevent candidates from promising commutions and / or lessening of sentences in order to boost their vote. America borrowed this bit of common law from the English, BTW...

Re:The State of the Nation

[fredrik70]

That could be a good idea for you americans! Just fork reality right at the election ending and have one outcome with Bush and one with Gore!!! THe people can then choose which reality they want to belong to and live happy after!!

A fork for Nader could be done as well I suppose...

Re:Entering Canada

[linuxbert]

hey its true..
incidently, it was oriiginally salmon pink..
the most poerfull leader in the world would be living in a pink house right now, were it not for us..
heheheeheheh

votes for cigs

[pergamon]

NOTE:

Scharf is a homeless voter who said he had planned to vote for Gore anyway, and that voters weren't told about the free cigarettes till after they were at the polls.

"They didn't mention that until we got down there anyway," he said.

...

But one voter said that he did not feel like he was bribed for his vote.

"They just came and asked us to go and vote," Bob Socha said. Socha also said that he enjoys voting and was already planning to vote for Gore.

...

"...These volunteers were from out of state, acting on their own and this was not part of any official Democratic 'get out the vote' activity in Wisconsin. They have left the state and we will not invite them to return," wrote Susan Lagana, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Coordinated Campaign.

Re:votes for cigs

[pergamon]

don't forget, it is their candidates' drunk driving arrests, not "candidate's"

Re:Best statistics I've ever seen!

[slam smith]

Take a look for yourself. What would be enormously interesting is that in the past two elections news media websites leaked numbers before the voting even started. I'd REALLY like to see how accurate those numbers were!

Have you ever designed a web page? Typically it helps if you put in some test data before you go live with the page. If I were testing something like this, I would try to use as realistic numbers as I could. I believe likely what happened is someone went live with test data. Remember the survivor website? They went live with a page something like 12 hrs. before they were supposed to. Stuff like this happens.

Here are a couple rules of thumb to help you figure this out.

"Never ascribe to malice, what can be adequately explained by human incomptence"

"The likely of a secret getting out is equal to the square of the people in the know"
And a lot of people would be in the know about a secret like this.

Cigarettes for votes

[Megane]

So were the cigarettes made from the tobacco that Gore harvested himself?

Re:Cigarettes for votes

[SgtClueLs]

No.. he invented Cigarettes!

Re:Cigarettes for votes

[MattLesko]

Why the hell has this been moderated up? It's an horrible extension that makes no sense based off an incorrect cliched assumption that Gore made months ago! Hey, Magane: Got any VCR flashing 12:00 jokes you'd care to share with us as well!

You are more than the sum of what you consume.

Re:Cigarettes for votes

[selectspec]

"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."

-Al Gore

(Source: [New York] Newsday, 2/26/88

"Sometimes, you never fully face up to things that you ought to face up to."

- Al Gore

discussing why he accepted checks from his family tobacco farm and contributions from tobacco companies for years after the tragic death of his sister that he spoke about so emotionally at the 1996 Democratic convention. (Source: "'Numbness' Let Gore Accept Tobacco Help," San Francisco Chronicle, August 30, 1996)

The real reason for America's greatness

[Cap'n enigma]

I have read many posts here and am amazed at how strongly people feel about the candidates. What is funny is that no one is strongly for any of the candidates as much as they are strongly against his opponent. So many dire predictions about what is going to happen if Bush/Gore wins. One post even predicted a revolution if Bush wins. It is funny on one hand and sad on the other.
The truth is that who wins is irrelevent and is interesting only for the entertainment value. The real source of America's greatness is its people, not its government. This country has achieved greatness inspite of its government, not because of it. It was the laws established by the founding fathers giving power to the people that is responsible for all that is good about America not the actual mechanisms of government and certainly not the crooks that we elect to represent us and especially not the insane two party abomination that has become synynomous with our system of government. All real change in this country was brought about by people who were disatisfied with the way things were going, people who got involved to right some wrong, to fight injustice. The changes brought about people were made into law only when it is politically expedient to do so, not because it was right to do so. Need some examples? In my lifetime alone, I have seen the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement against Vietnam, equal rights for women, the environmental movement. All brought about by people who were willing to get involved. These changes would have only been possible through revolution or civil war in past ages and societies, but were brought about relatively peaceably in a short period of time, because power in this country ultimately lay in the hands of its people. I am not suggesting that these movements have produced perfect results, that we don't still have a ways to go, but, any rational person will agree that great progress has been made. Those who don't agree either don't remember how things used to be or they are the zealots who are the driving force behind these movements. I don't mean that in a derogatory way either. It takes people with an obsessive single minded focus to achieve changes like this, and people like this will accept nothing but perfection as acceptable. (Bring anyone to mind, say, RMS perhaps?)
When I said that it was irrelevant who was elected, I did not mean that Bush or Gore would not have an impact on our nation or that they would not affect our country's future. I believe that either one of them will have a negative influence on the future of this country because both of them will simply keep America moving in the same direction it is already moving and that is the wrong direction. Both parties are steadily taking power away from the people they are supposed to represent. While one party wants to transfer this power to the government the other wants to give it to the corporations. Both are wrong, and both will lead to the decline of our country.
The message I am trying to get across is that if you are not happy with the way your country is going, and you should not be, then get involved and make a difference. Take power back from the politicians and the corporations and return it back to the people where it belongs. If this country does continue to decline, it won't because of the people elected in Washington, it will be because of the apathy of the people who allow it to happen. One thing I would like to point out is how the power of the media helped act as a catalyst for all the changes that I used as examples. This was because the media allowed the ideas behind these movements to spread to a wide audience, allowed these ideas to infect and change a people one mind at a time. The power of the internet to be a catalyst for change is many orders of magnitude greater still.
Now, why am I bothering to post this here on Slashdot? Because most of the readers here are young, and it was our young who were at the forefront of each of these revolutions. In China, it was the youth of that nation who lay in front of the tanks, trying to bring about change in their country. The idealism and passion of youth is an almost unstoppable power for change when it is channeled into something other then the mindless gratification that is the focus of most young. So, I am posting here because I hope to infect a few minds with the idea you can make a difference if you get involved and that the liars and thieves in Washington are the problem, not the solution.

wacky but...

[topham]

Ok, I skimmed their website for fun.

They are nuts.

Certifiable.

I have no vested interest in the Election in the United States, but these people are nuts.

Example: They believe that data was rigged in one instance because it would require that 10 people, workin for 3 days at 12hrs a day would have to key more than 1 digit per second.

220,000 numbers, * 7 digits each

1,540,000 / 10 people

154,000 / 3 days

51,333.3 digits per day each.

Which works out to 4,277.78 digits per hour, or, 71.3 digits per minute.

Or, 1.188 digits per second.

So, they figure people hired to do data entry can only do 14.26 words per minute?

Even assuming they are not optimum and could not keep up high rate for the full 12hrs, I would expect the average to be potentially hire than this, not lower.

Talk about paranoid

Libertarians

[Moderator]

This may be off-topic (actually it isn't, since there isn't a story), but why don't the Libertarians get as much press coverage as Ralph Nader or the Reform Party? I mean come on, the Libertarian party is the third largest party in the US, and it isn't even listed in Yahoo!'s 2000 Election section.

Have any of you Nader-voters actually read what Ralph Nader stands for? If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to vote for him.

Libertarian FAQ

Harry Browne, Libertarian for President

Thank you, have a nice day!

--

Re:Libertarians

[crayz]

First off, the Libertarians get very little press converage because no one is going to vote for them. You may see this as circular reasoning, but Nader is now getting at least some mass media coverage, and Buchanan is getting none. Buchanan was getting significantly more than Nader until everyone realized that Buchanan was polling under 1%, and Nader was polling at 4-7%. Browne will probably get a hell of a lot less votes than even Buchanan. If you're going to ask why Browne doesn't get coverage, at least be fair and ask why the Constitutional, Natural Law and Socialist parties don't get coverage either, since their candidates are probably doing at least as well as Browne.

And as to your second point, I have read and heard a lot of info from Nader, and I like almost all of it. He is very socially liberal, but his economic ideas aren't too nutty(at least not as bad as Browne), and he, unlike Browne, will do something to protect the environment. Stop telling me who I want to vote for when you have no idea where I stand on the issues.

And for a real Libertarian FAQ, check here:

Critiques of Libertarianism

Re:Libertarians

[mangu]

And, for those who live by example, let's also mention those great people who espoused libertarian views. Like Robert Heinlein and Walt Disney. For instance, read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Or, when you visit Disneyland, take a right turn when you enter and see the "Mr. Lincoln" exhibit.

Vader for President

[PerlStalker]

Here's my choice for president.

PerlStalker

This has been said before

[sips]

The electoral college is merely a method of having the people who voted for the president vote via proxy. There has only been one faithless elector in the past 200+ years of history.

And not it's not a conspiracy.

Re:This has been said before

[AntiNorm]

The electoral college is merely a method of having the people who voted for the president vote via proxy. There has only been one faithless elector in the past 200+ years of history.

But the problem is, the electors don't vote in proportion to the popular vote. In many/most states, ALL the electors from that state are required to vote one particular way or the other according to what the voters of that state decide. This may look feasible upon first glance, but here's an example that brings it down very quickly:

Candidate A wins 60% of the state's popular vote, Candidate B wins 40%
Candidate A therefore wins the state's electoral votes (all of them, mind you)
The state has, say, 50 electoral votes

Candidate A therefore wins 50 electoral votes (100% of the state's influence), whereas if done proportionally by the popular vote, they would have only won 30 electoral votes (60% of the state's influence). Since only 270 electoral votes are required to win the election, this can make quite a difference.

=================================

friendly people & good weed

[snorks]

Keep your fat ass where it belongs chumpass.

Against Bush

[Ragnarok2000]

Being myself European Bush incarnates what what most Europeans don't like about the US. As much as I don't like Gore, Bush is just an unacceptable candidate for these reasons: -He's for the death penalty (legal murder!) -He's pro-guns -He's a religious freak -He's against abortion -He's a complete idiot It seems to me the choice is very simple..

Re:Against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Being myself European Bush incarnates what what most Europeans don't like about the US. As much as I don't like Gore, Bush is just an unacceptable candidate for these reasons: -He's for the death penalty (legal murder!) -He's pro-guns -He's a religious freak -He's against abortion -He's a complete idiot It seems to me the choice is very simple..

Fortunately, asshole, socialist totalitarian Europeans like you don't get to vote in our elections. But we appreciate your endorsement of Bush and will keep it in mind when in the polling booth.

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[Ender Ryan]

Literacy test maybe, level of schooling no way. College cost money, and time. Some people don't have either, but that doesn't make them unintelligent or ignorant of the issues.

Now whether the voting age should be 18 or 21 I don't know. This country needs to decide what age we want to call people adults. You can't call people adults at 18 but not give them all the freedoms adults are supposed to have. Personally, I think 16 would be a more reasonable age. By 16, people are old enough to be responsible for their actions, the only reason many of them are so irresponsible is because we don't hold them responsible. Also, you shouldn't be able to drive until you are an adult. The idea that someone who is not responsible for their actions can drive 2 tons of steel down the road at 60 miles per hour is ridiculous.

All JMHO of course.

SV Philanthropist takes out Banner ad against Bush

[Cy Guy]

The page the ad links to: Texas Miracle or Myth? details the results of the two RAND studies on the TAAS testing system set up by Ross Perot that Bush has tried to take so much credit for.

I don't wanna get drafted!

[Meursault]

re: "We should abolish the draft, and not go to war for anything but defensive reasons."

As Sergeant Hulka would say "Son, there ain't no draft no more."

Wheee

[TheBahxMan]

And to think it will all be over tomorrow and we can go back to PS2 posts :P

Too fat at the trough

[Eric Green]

Most Americans think that Harry Browne is too whacked. They're all for eliminating the income tax etc., but when it comes to eliminating Social Security and other such pork, it comes down to "I want my pork!".

Then there's Harry's irritating refusal to play the "political game" -- refusing to accept matching funds etc. It makes him look like a flake.

Then there's the sneaking suspicion that the Libertarians would eliminate consumer protection laws (laws that make fraud etc. a crime), while keeping laws that favor business. The law currently gives corporations very favorable treatment -- they are allowed to deduct things from their taxes that ordinary citizens aren't allowed to deduct (that is why, despite billions in income, Cisco and Microsoft paid not one dime in income tax last year), the owners of these mega-corporations are given special protection against being sued for the actions of the business that they own, etc. Some of these are a matter of good public policy -- without the limited liability, corporations would have a hard time finding shareholders. Still, these do represent special treatment for corporations, and most consumers are suspicious about attempts to take away current special treatment for consumers (such as fraud laws, antitrust laws, etc.).

-E

Re:Too fat at the trough

[Robert Link]

The libertarian philosophy is an attractive one in prosperous times like these, and particularly for those of us in booming high tech industries. It's easy to feel powerful when big companies bow and scrape and throw money at us. It's easy to believe that anyone with half a work ethic can get rich. It's easy to think that we negotiate with big corporations as equals.

It's all an illusion, though. I've seen nothing to make me believe that the laws of economics have been repealed. Good times will give way to recession; growth in high tech industries will saturate, and when that happens we will see who has the bargaining power. I'm guessing it's not us, and I'm guessing the results will not be pretty.

I believe that Bush and Gore have been bought and paid for by big business dollars. Harry Browne looks to be relatively free of campaign contribution corruption, but his political philosophy leads him to give away the store for free, so to speak. Either way, the result is the same. Either way the "rights" of monied interests continue to expand, and the "privileges" of private individuals continue to contract. And in the end, we all cease to be citizens and become merely consumers. In the end we lose control of our goods and chattels (instead "renting" them from corporations that retain actual ownership), we lose our privacy, and we lose the right to choose how we live our lives, free from meddling from outsiders who style themselves our masters.

I don't pretend that Ralph Nader is a panacea for all of these problems. I even think some of his economic proposals would be very bad for the country in practice. (However, I think that even if Nader were elected today the worst policies would be moderated substantially by the legislative process.) The important thing, to me, is that Ralph Nader stands for something. Among other things, Ralph Nader stands for personal dignity for all of us, not just those who can afford to purchase it. Ralph Nader does not have the answers for all of our problems, but he does have a remarkably insightful grasp of what those problems are, and he is willing to put forward and talk about earnest proposals for solving them. If Bush or Gore or even Browne or Buchanan had either of those two qualities I would consider voting for them. But they don't, and Nader does. So I voted for Nader instead.

-rpl

Short-term loss, long-term gain

[Global-Lightning]

IANAPA (I am not a polictal analyst) but:
Sould the Green Party gain 5% of the popular vote, then they will qualify in the next election for govt campaign funds.

Given most of their positions are very liberal, they will compete even harder against the Democratics for the Far-Left vote. An option for the Dems will be to completely abandon most of the fringes to the Greens, and re-align themselves with moderate liberal and conservative voters. This will be very attractive if the Republican Far-Right re-enforces its hold on the party leadership.

If the Green Party doesn't self-destruct like the Reform Party, then for once we will have a true multi-party choice.

Arizona's attempt at a solution

[Eric Green]

All voters are required to have a mailing address (for obvious reasons). Sample ballots are mailed out to all voters before all elections. If the mail bounces, the voter is removed from the list of eligible voters. Theoretically.

Of course, since the people who mail the sample ballots are the same people who are being elected by those ballots, who knows?

-E

Re:But candidates are supposed to promise things..

[Syberghost]

Hey you are more then welcome to start your own "Lets let murderers vote" campaign. I'm sure it will be real sucessful.

Felony does not necessarily equal murder.

It's a felony in many states to vote in your old precinct if you move and forget to update your registration. (In Florida, it's 5 years in prison.)

It's a felony in many states to have sex with someone to whom you aren't married.

It's a felony in some states to have oral sex with someone to whom you *ARE* married. (And this has been upheld in the courts.)

It's a felony to make an unauthorized copy of Microsoft Windows on your PC.

Do you really think people should lose their Constitutional rights over these transgressions, or any of the literally tens of thousands of other bullshit felony laws in this country?

-

The real race is between Farrel and Hammond

[franksbiyatch]

who do you want as president on SNL?

this is our last election2000 story EVER- we swear

Prediction: a Gore loss will kill the Green party

[ahaile]

This argument about "teaching the Democrats a lesson" doesn't hold water. A Gore loss will be disastrous to the Green party. Here's my prediction: if Gore loses, the Green party will never again pull more than 1%.

Why? Draw a historical lesson from the other side of the political spectrum: in 1992 and 96, Pat Buchanan pulled a significant number of far right votes away from moderate Republican candidates, but this year, he can't even muster 1%. What changed? Well, this year the Republican party wants the election bad, really bad, so the far right is keeping quiet about their reservations with Bush. They've locked ranks to take the Whitehouse.

Now imagine that Gore loses and flash ahead to the 2004 race. The Democrats, like the Republicans this year, will want the election badly and will lock ranks behind the party candidate. The far left will abandon the Greens, and Nader will become just a footnote to the election, just like the far right abandoned Buchanan and made him a footnote this year.

Now imagine Gore wins instead. After four more years of centrist government, the far left will be even more unhappy with the Democratic party. Their ranks will grown, and Nader will have a shot at breaking 10% in 2004. In other words, a Democratic win is the best possible thing that can happen to the Green party.

Unfortunately, if Gore loses, the only ones who will be "taught a lesson" will be the Greens.

Profiling? never...

[mosch]

Is that why they searched me for drugs when I crossed the border while drunk and high, not having slept in 30 hours, and barely able to remember where I worked, or what my job was?

--
"Don't trolls get tired?"

Re:Does Nader want you to vote for Bush??

[slam smith]

I think that the main reason that Nader ran on the Green Party ballot instead of the Socialist party ballot, is all the baggage associated with the word socialist. But Nader would have certainly been a better fit in the Socialist party instead of the Green party.

I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that after such a promising start, the bill of rights, our constitution, the separation of church and state, etc, we find ourselves up to our eyes in this mess?
The average American (and I include Slashdot readers in this) is so stupid, that they ought to have to take a literacy test before they are allowed to vote. In fact, I'm not sure that I have any faith in "we the people's" ability to judge what is right and wrong anymore.
What we need now is for voting rights to be restricted to (for example) Those with a college degree, those who have held down a full time job for at least two years, those with no criminal record, and to rase the voting age from 18 to 21.
We don't let children drink alcohol, but we let them vote ?
When will America start to take itself seriously again ?
I attend college in Europe (London) and I am not surprised at the way we Americans are views as the world's "Global Imbeciles". With Clinton up to his sleazy tricks, and Bush's frat-house antics, it is no wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.
Sometimes I despair for our children.
Am I the only Slashdot reader who thinks this way ?

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[Hard_Code]

I see your point of view, and share it. Sometimes political correctness is taken to far. But if you think about it, although it seems to have very little derogatory value these days, you can imagine that it is somewhat rude, at the very least. If I were from east asia, I would not like to be called a "Yellow". Hey, get out the Yellow Vote! These days not everybody is defined by their skin color - many people are of several ethnicities, and differing backgrounds. So it makes a bit more sense to just be a little more prudent and instead of calling somebody a White, or a Black, or a Yellow, or a Red (or what have you), instead refer to them by their actual ethnicity, or original nationality. Sure, it's a fine distinction, but I think it is best to err on the side of respect. I don't care *what* they would like to be called, but just as I don't want people calling me by my skin color (or any other arbitrary attribute; I'm probably "white" by the way) I respect other people's sensitivities. That said, I'm sure most people are thick skinned enough to not really care.

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[_Splat]

Literacy tests for voting were originally used as a method of discriminating against black voters in the south.

Re:I'm almost ashamed to be born in the USA.

[zaphod]

Voting is an inalienable that ALL US citizens have. Denying that right based on someone's IQ is a horrible idea. You say the voting age should be 21. Well, there are a lot of men and women who are 18 that put their lives on the line to protect your right to vote and for your freedoms.

If you don't like the US, we (unlike the utopia called Cuba) don't stop you from leaving.

Intelligence

[KPU]

You know, Al Gore invented the Shouptronic and George W. Bush can't even pronounce the name.

Canadians for Nader

[thex23]

I wish I could vote for him. Hell, I wish I could vote him as Prime Minister (some of you may have heard that we are having our own little excercise in democratic futility up here, as well), too. I can't think of another case where I have actually been interested by your choices (Perot notwithstanding... he's such a funny little loonie, and very watchable). I just hope you guys make Ralph look good this election.

I don't know how any L/libertarian could do less than support a dissenting voice in the ongoing love duet of corporate America. I'll make you all a deal. Vote for Nader, and next time you're north of the border, you can all get free poutine and doughnuts on me. Promise.

Entering Canada

[vlax]

My mother-in-law was denied entry into Canada becasue she (stupidly enough) admitted to the customs inspector that she had had a drunk driving conviction 14 years earlier.

We had to wait two hours and pay a $300 fine to clear this up. It was stupid and embarassing, especially when a simple little self-serving lie would have eliminated the problem.

Of course a President usually travels by invitation - which is equivalent to a diplomatic passport for most purposes - so it makes no difference while in office. But, I wonder if Bush has travalled to Canada in the last 20 years and if he admitted his past crimes at the time. If not, he is in violation of the Immigration Act and can be permanently barred from entering Canada.

Re:Entering Canada

[linuxbert]

ok, well we didnt start the DMCA or uctia laws
nor do we have anything simalar, or ever will

Re:Entering Canada

[dadragon]

It was 186 years ago. It was burned in 1814, nearing the end of the war.

Re:Entering Canada

[linuxbert]

ohhhh..
need i remind you of 1812
you out number us 4-1 and we still win...
and also most of nasa's rocket scientists in the appolo days were Canadian too...

bacaon and brooms.. pfft.

I Am

Re:Entering Canada

[Patrick Lewis]

Having gone to school in Canada, I had the opportunity to cross the Canadian border many times. I don't recall ever being asked if I had a criminal background.

Not that your story isn't true, of course. But I just wanted to point out that it is possible to get into Canada without having to admit to all my speeding tickets.

Re:Entering Canada

[Livn4Golf]

Why do all of Canada's best hockey players play in America's National Hockey League?

Re:Entering Canada

[linuxbert]

its Canadian...
and your baseball commisioner is Canadian

Re:Freedom?

[Bearpaw]

Scare me? No. Surprise me? No. Piss me off? Yes. There is a long sordid history of Republicrats doing underhanded things to make sure there's no threat to the "bi-partisan" hegemony.

VOTERS IN MASSACHUSETTS: THIS IS UP FOR VOTE TODAY

[goliard]

Hopefully, if you're a Massachusetts registered voter, you already know that there is an initiative -- QUESTION 2 -- to AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO DEPRIVE FELONS OF THE VOTE.

Vote NO ON 2 to prevent this! Even if you're not voting in the presidential election, PLEASE go vote on this issue!

It seems appropriate

[Gorilla_Man]

that Al Gore's people are handing out cigaretts considering that he and the Democratic party have accepted substantial donations from big tobacco companies.

Take a look at this for tobacco contribution breakdown:

http://www.ameripac.org/gore/tobacco.realalgore.ht ml

Re:It seems appropriate

[interiot]

That's nice. Except that The Center for Responsive Politics has this report that lists the total contributions from tobacco companies to the two major parties. Over the past 6 years, Republicans have gotten over 4 times as much money from tobacco companies than Democrats have.

In the end though, it's the citizens who lose, not Al or George.
--

Californians vote with Java :)

[BrianH]

While I can't vouch for the rest of the country, California voters are pretty much immune to widespread electronic voter fraud. When Cali. residents cast their votes on Tuesday, those votes will be piped through a brand new Java based statewide election reporting system. This system, developed in part by the company I work for, is brand new from the ground up and has undergone full code audits from several parties to verify that no "illicit" code is hiding inside. You still don't trust the code? Well, it's your right to be paranoid, but I regularly have lunch with the guys who wrote the new software and I can tell you my mind will be at ease.

You can get more info here: http://java.sun.com/features/ 200 0/11/calvoter.html

Re:90%?

[11223]

After you hit the button/fill in the little bubble/shoot the chicken on the screen/whatever your area does to vote, it goes off to a big vote tallying center, which uses this closed source software to count the votes. And, no, the software wasn't tested, because it's not necessary for small elections. And besides, the people running the center can de-fraud (har har) the system for the test. This isn't a COTS system. It's a special company doing the counting.

Nader supports free trade...

[Mark Roberts]

but only for his votes!

Re:popular votes don't matter

[gwalla]

Last I knew the popular vote didn't determine the presidential outcome, the electoral college did.

Right. And this is exactly why Nader's tiny little 5%-at-the-most[1] showing is hardly a threat to Gore despite campaign paranoia. You can also factor in the fact that not all of the people voting for Nader would vote for Gore if the big two parties were the only choices:

There's two components to the Green presidential vote, by my estimation. One component, which I call the DemoGreens (and of which I count myself a member[2]), consists of liberals who consider Gore a significantly better candidate than Bush, but are either tired of voting for "the lesser of two evils" or believe that a vote for Nader is more important (considering state polls, federal matching funds, etc.) than a vote for Gore. The other component, which I call Protest Greens, are people who are entirely fed up with both major parties. These are people who, if Gore and Bush were the only two choices, would simply abstain and join the large percentage of the American population that doesn't vote.

Gore's (or at least his campaign advisors') mistake is in thinking that all Greens are DemoGreens, and would otherwise vote for him. This is what hardline Democrats mean when they talk about Nader "stealing votes from Gore"--DemoGreen votes are votes that would otherwise go to Gore if Nader wasn't running. But they're ignoring the Protest Greens, and therefore inflating the impact of Nader's candidacy on Gore's (let alone the fact that, even if all Greens were DemoGreens, 5% isn't a huge figure--hardly Bush-spoiler-Perot territory).

[1] - 5% may not be the most, but it's at the upper end of how Nader tends to show in the polls. It's also the Greens' real target (only the most self-deluded think that Nader can actually win this election)--it would mean that the Green Party gets federal matching funds for the next election, a major coup. If they get it, and if they can hold it together through the next election (unlike the Reforms, who pretty much collapsed--but then, that was a party pretty much devoted to a single candidate rather than an issues-based platform), it could be a serious threat to the two-party oligarchy.

[2] - In more ways than one. I'm registered Democrat, but voting Nader this election. Then again, I may be voting for a Republican for Senate because the Democratic incumbent is worthless, and none of the third-party alternatives look particularly competent. I prefer to vote my mind rather than follow the "party line".

---
Zardoz has spoken!

Re:Freedom?

[YanceyAI]

Yeah, I'm sure he wouldn't have said a word if it was in his party's best interest, instead of the two opposing parties. It just seems like a misuse of power. I know, I know, why am I surprised!?

Logic breakdown

[Paul Crowley]

Now you seem to be arguing that Presidents should not have the power to commute sentences at all. That's an independent variable from the power of convicted felons to vote.

It would be Right to give felons the vote, but you're right that it wouldn't be popular. It's unfortunate that the people's grasp on what democracy is all about - democracy for all, not just for the popular or well-liked - is so poor.
--

It would be a very odd position...

[Paul Crowley]

It would be very strange to argue that felons should be allowed to own guns but not to vote!

There again, it's no stranger than allowing people to join the military before allowing them to drink...
--

Re:THE BUSH ABORTION -- THE HIDDEN TRUTH -- & CRIM

[AlfaWolph]

where in the hell did that nasty rumor come from?

Re:I'm ashamed to have been born on Earth.

[b0z]

Actually Canada has been voted the best place to live on Earth for seven years running by the UN.

Yeah but by my standards Canada sucks. I have met quite a few people from there, and spent a little time in some parts of Canada, and most of the people I meet treat you like you are a stupid child. They are very condescending, although very polite at the same time. The Canadians I have met seem to have the attitude of "We know better than you do" even more than the citizens of the U.S. and France do. I currently work with a Canadian who has soured my perception of the country even more. I'm finding that while Canadians may have things taken care of better in a physical sense than people do in the U.S., their personalities tend to be obnoxious and annoying. Also it gets way too cold for my tastes.

Re:easy target

[Arandir]

A typical libertarian won't acknowledge that most problems exist.

Ah, flamebait of the highest order... Of course libertarians recognize that problems exist. Are you daft! It's just that we don't agree that the use of police and armies to enforce our solutions is appropriate.

funny segfault link - vote trading humor

[aint]

Hi! I saw this funny segfault link today, thought some would appreciate it :

Link : A Vote For Nader Is .36 Of A Vote For Bush

It really is pretty damn funny.

-- .sig --

Canadian Anarchists for Nader

[thex23]

I'm sorry, I was trying to be funny. Obviously you find it offensive that I would suggest corporate control over a two-party state is a bad thing. I'm sure its wonderful. You must be very proud of the system that has given you the choice between Bore and Gush...
I made the mistake of confusing "Libertarians" with people who want liberty for everyone. That would be Anarchism, actually. I forgot that the "L" means "for me and anyone who can afford it". Being selfish isn't a political belief, by the way... no matter how you dress it up in anti-establishment rhetoric.

I prefer to break the system for the benefit of all, not just my evil masters. They're cool too, I got nothing agains working for evil masters: they pay me and everything. I just don't go out of my way to sell out everyone who isn't as priveleged as me. Why? Because freedom to starve is no freedom at all.

All for one, and one for all.

Re:literary fraud

[firewort]

yes, it did read like a bad novel.

However, the questions it raises are still valid questions, even if the source is a little questionable in terms of literary or academic value. (For instance, I would have liked to have seen a bibliographic entry for the Library of Congress material they claim is evidence.)

A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close

Re:*COOL*! I'm a Republican that supports abortion

[SuperKendall]

A little civil disobedience is a good thing.

Besides, better a common criminal than an Evil Genius Criminal like Gore.

Re:But candidates are supposed to promise things..

[metis]

Nil, but this is offset by the many unconvicted felons who vote Republican all the times.

There is a war in America that is going on for three hundred years. It is not a war against drugs. It is a war against poor people. It is fought with savagry, imagination, and every trick in the book. The "Land of the Free" has more people behind bars proportionally than Stalin's Russia. According to recent research, the US had record high incarceration rates since before independence. Early American new towns often built their dungeon before they built their churches and hospitals. This is a national trait--the French enjoy wine and flirtation, Americans enjoy hearing the hammer hit the table and the stern voice announcing "Guilty". It is a confirmation of the social divide between us ( the white, the diligent, the respectable,the good, the upright ) and them ( colored, dirty, lazy, trecherous, immoral, etc.). This is the poison that runs very deep in American society, the only place where people believe that the poor exploit the rich.

nader trading

[Kludge]

Check out http://voteexchange.com/ It worked for me.

Re:I'm ashamed to have been born on Earth.

[The Organizer]

You kick ass, sir. Nothing ruins a good country like filling it with people.

Re:easy target

[Arandir]

Not a bad idea!

Actually, he would do quite a bit, it just wouldn't be to enact new laws regulating your life down to the level of what water capacity your toilet can have. Instead he would work on getting government out of our daily lives.

The typical non-libertarian sees a problem and says "there ought to be a law." A typical libertarian sees a problem and says "how can I solve the problem without violating anyones rights?"

you can't just drive to Canada for health care

[Barbarian]

Although health care is subsidized in Canada, you cannot simply drive from the US to get an operation. You will still be billed if you're not a resident, although you're not going to be denied care (you pay later). You can accumulate a $20000 bill easily with a week's stay in intensive care, for example. Travellers normally purchase extra insurance for this reason.

--

Re:you can't just drive to Canada for health care

[John Jorsett]

Although health care is subsidized in Canada, you cannot simply drive from the US to get an operation. You will still be billed if you're not a resident, although you're not going to be denied care (you pay later).

Yeah. That's how the U.S. is supposed to work too. We get many foreigners showing up here in our emergency rooms. They get cancer treatment, transplants (one Mexican citizen from a wealthy family got a heart transplant a couple of years ago), whatever they need. Most of the time, they go back home and the bills are never collected. If the Canadian system is as efficient at collecting debts as the U.S. is, it's probably not getting much in the way of reimbursement.

Kansas?

[iabervon]

The Kansas Secretary of State, Ron Thornburgh, has been quoted in an AP article as saying that he will prosecute anyone who trades votes in Kansas. He also mentioned that he doesn't know whether it's legal or not.

It certainly seems to me that threatening citizens who do something legal is a shady practice, especially where it involves elections. If nobody's stepped forward to say they're swapping votes in Kansas yet and challenged Thornburgh to a legal duel, somebody ought to.

Having a little trouble with this.

[Lemmy Caution]

Sometimes, I just find myself heading down the off-topic dirt road, and forget you were ever on Topic Expressway to begin with. This time, I'm driving straight to Off-Topic City, but here goes:

I like Canadians. I like Canada. Really, I think it's a wonderful place filled with decent, sensible people. Modulo a couple details, I like the Canadian political and social system.

But I really don't understand poutine. Just what the hell is up with that? I mean, I suppose I can't talk. My own ethnic background includes guinea pigs* and beef hearts as regular dietary features. But this poutine thing is almost as hard for me to deal with as haggis.

*Guinea pig: yes, you know what it tastes like.

Re:Having a little trouble with this.

[AT]

For what it's worth, poutine is not so much a Canadian food as it is a Quebec food. It is rarely found east of Ottawa, except for the bastardized fast food version (no curds -- usually cheddar cheese). In Quebec and eastern Ontario, its on every street corner.

Re:Having a little trouble with this.

[John Jorsett]

Well, the Australians already had vegamite, so the Canucks had to settle for second place in the "who ever thought of eating that?" contest.

Re:Having a little trouble with this.

[thex23]

Good poutine is REALLY yummy. What's not to like? Nice, fat, pommes frites (oops, I mean French Fries), with melted cheese (curds, yes, but its good, really!) topped with hot, tangy gravy that melts the cheese and gives the whole dish an extra dose of fat & cholesterol love.

Maybe you just don't get the fries & gravy thing? It's got to be my favourite way to eat 'em. Either that or with chili...mmmm.

Is it lunch already?

Re:Shouptronic?!? Shouptronic?!?!

[RoninM]

I think Joel Hodgson and Gizmonic Institute invented this. Surely they must've?

What'dya think, sirs?

realy? where did the word come from?

[evoorg]

ok so i am supposed to put my faith in a machine that will tally the votes and and owners wont't allow me to look over the process.

thats like being arrested and thrown in Gaol without the Knowelge of why i have been placed there?

and another thing if there were no conspiracies we wouldn't have a word for it would we just because you Govenment tells you your Democracy is good you think you are safe from all that stuff that happens over seas like vote fixing in African nations and in the middle east and in eastern europe?

Dont Forget we are all Hu-Man after all and one of our nasty traits is Greed we all have it in us some manage to Repress it others wallow in it,

just think if you could make everyone give you most there cookies or even there money and (in this case Votes) that would work because you had big guys on your side ( in this case a law ) to stopt them from finding out that that is what happening would you try? i know i would give it a go once to see if it works..

oh and by the way do you watch a different Star Trek to me cause im sure i have seen conspiracies
especally in DS9.

Speak no evil, hear no evil.

[underwhelm]

Why risk the accusations of partiality.

The value of transparent systems and perfect information available to decision makers (voters, citizens) far exceeds skimpy assurances that everything's kosher.

This is a central tenet to capitalism, and the reason behind the SEC, why wouldn't it translate to every facet of public life? Decision making and basing democracy on imperfect information is wholly unsatisfactory. Would people have bought those SUVs had every sales contract revealed the potential defects in the tire system? Do you appreciate having to buy software with no foreknowledge of how it will operate, or whether it will work, but knowing that nobody will take it back when you discover that it doesn't meet your requirements?

"It's all about the information;" and we need more, not assurances that we can get by with less.

Re:The State of the Nation

[Open Source Sloth]

Whew! I thought for a second there I'd stepped into some alternative universe where the character(s) in Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey were posting to slashdot.

Station!


Slow moving marsupials and the women that love them

Re:Ummm... yes, we realize this but you fail to se

[Chris Johnson]

I respect your feelings but don't agree with your conclusions.

If these people really have that broad a support for the horrid acts you describe they _should_ win the election. Faking the election and trying to kluge better results isn't going to help in the long run.

I don't think they do represent the will of the people in that. I think most people are apathetic or conditioned to 'vote' for only certain parties, in a gamelike way rather than an expressing-their-concerns way.

Finally, it looks like you're arguing Gore's case as in 'he's not as bad as Bush'. I don't agree with that. Another slashdotter was distiguishing 'DemoGreens' and 'Protest Greens', with the latter being the ones who would not even vote if Nader wasn't running. I wasn't going to vote because I think both the Democrats and Republicans are fronting for the same damn crud as ever.

I'm going to quote a little something from the book I'm reading. It's called 'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 72', and as you might guess it was written in 1972. That's almost 30 years ago. *ahem*

"How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame but 'regrettably necessary' holding actions? And how many more of these stinking, double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote FOR something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?"
-Hunter S. Thompson, 1972

I think it's obscene that it's taken this long, but I would say that it took almost 30 years. I am voting FOR something. And I admit to an emotional reaction here- I am _angry_ at the suggestion that I should throw that away and vote for Gore and same old same old, in the blind and retarded faith that some Democrat is going to vote Nader _for_ me. Have you considered the idea that voting _for_ someone is something that I've wanted to be able to do for a long time? That it is both a privilege and my obligation as a Vermont voter to vote for the guy I _want_ to win?

I don't think so. I don't think you've considered these things in your attempt to enlighten me that this is serious... so it would be wrong to be angry at you directly. But I am angry, angry at this disrespect for the system we have. It may suck but it's the only one we've got- and please don't forget that as a Nader voter I'm the one being asked to completely ignore this chance, this opportunity that HST lamented about almost _thirty_ years ago... and play politics games just like always... and actively vote for a guy who I think is treacherous and untrustworthy and a lot slipperier than Bush.

Not!

Big deal!

[SethD]

Doesn't Gore have a right handing out cigarettes if he wants to? After all, not only does he grow them everywhere in TN (I live in TN, I would know), he probably claims to of invented them anyway!

Note: This is meant as a stupid/funny/eyeball-rolling joke, nothing more. Don't flame me for it =P

Did you notice how

[Alhex]

people make fun of Bush because he is stupid, and Gore because he is smart?

As we say at Burning Man ...

[WillSeattle]

the man must man two ways. You can vote for Nader in safe states - if you're in a Bush state, you will infuriate both GOP and Dems by increasing the Green vote. And you can vote for Gore in swing states - which will infuriate the Independents and GOPs by letting them win the popular vote but losing the Electoral College vote - this will make them stew for months.

It's the equivalent of tossing a lighted match on the man. Or, even better, breathing fire to light a torch, and tossing the torch onto the Man of the Two Party System. Burn, baby, burn!

Re:As we say at Burning Man ...

[Stonehand]

Heh.

I'm reminded of the fact that in states with open primaries, some Democrats had publicly urged their supporters to go and vote for Sen. McCain in the GOP primary, and then to return to Gore in November.

shoup home page

[trb]

The good folks at Shoup Voting Solutions have a web site, just in case you'd like to celebrate election day by slashdotting them.

Horrors!

[Benjamin Shniper]

The elections were all fixed by a huge computer somewhere which tabulates based on closed-source code. Horrors!

It must be rigging the polls and primaries and other things too, spontaneously deciding if the democrats or republicans should be in charge, based on... uh...

I wouldn't really know who else but the combined efforts of all the people of America capable of pulling off a vote heist like that. This is ludicrous and NOT interesting. Modern daily poll tracking does more than just annoy, it also shows exactly where votes are. And no tabulating machines are used everywhere, which makes this system impossible to enact. There are so many reasons why this would not work in reality.

-Ben

Open Source for Counting Votes

[MattJ]

That's a great idea. Try to read the "Votescam" site and you'll be disappointed at its tone and the scale of their claims. But hop on over to the well-respected CPSR.org (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility), and you'll find lots of interesting stuff on computerized vote tallying over the last decade, including this tidbit:

"Elections computer programs are not subject to design or source code
inspections by independent auditors outside the vendor, as banking software
is. Some programs still in use consist of unstructured COBOL, patched over
the years. In some cases, special purpose code is written for a specific
election, then discarded. There are no requirements that the programs be
written in a high level language, so assembly language is frequently used.
These features make it difficult to determine if the program is designed
correctly."
* CPSR Newsletter, Fall 1988

I'm sure they have more recent stuff than this newsletter, but I just grabbed something quickly.

(Note that the CPSR reports essentially say the vote tallying needs more openness. They do _not_ say, as votescam does, that there's a giant conspiracy that has been choosing the winners.)

Does Nader want you to vote for Bush??

[Ratteau]

John, it sounds like you read this article.

It is a pretty interesting analysis on why Nader actually wants Bush to win. I respect Nader for everything he has done in his career to help the "little guy", but if this is even remotely in the back of his mind, Ive lost most of it.

Re:Does Nader want you to vote for Bush??

[Masem]

What I've read is that Nader wants Nader to win. No one else.

He's critical of Gore because, being the encumbant VP in an adminstration where the economy is high (I don't think as strong as the rising tide analogy, but it is undenibly good), Gore should have already won this election hands down. Instead, he made signifiacnt blunders in his campaign and gave Bush edges that should have never been there. If Gore happens to win, will he continue to make similar blunders in his policies and thus screw up America?

Re:Does Nader want you to vote for Bush??

[Fat Lenny]

According to the Greens:
Big corporations - bad.
Big government - good.

There is some sanity in other parts of their platform, and even bigger holes elsewhere. I had no idea it was this bad, and I almost voted for the guy before I went to his rally at the Target Center in Minneapolis and heard everything they were proposing...

--

Re:Does Nader want you to vote for Bush??

[interiot]

I believe there was one other election in history where the economy was doing really good, but the current president had doing some unethical things, and his party had a rough time during the next election.

The situation is something I should instantly know, I'm sure, but I can't remember it, so somebody please post it so I can slap myself.
--

oops ... meant the man must burn

[WillSeattle]

that's what I get for not previewing. The second man link should have read burn.

In other words:

The man must burn.

Does that make more sense?

Re:Blame Canada!

[HerrNewton]

Interesting. Now the situation's reveresed: Drunken, under-21 UND students coming back across the border after a weekend in Winnipeg.

----

the DMCA

[mwalker]

I am a one-issue voter this year. I am voting AGAINST everyone who voted for the DMCA.

I live in maryland. Both the incumbent senators voted for the DMCA, so it's easy, just vote for anyone but them.

for president, both bush & gore are pro-DMCA so it's easy, just vote for anyone but them.

but the House is another story. The house did a voice vote on the DMCA, so I don't know who voted for it. does anyone have any ideas on how to get a list of representatives who are publicly pro-DMCA and anti-free-speech?

help please!

Freedom?

[YanceyAI]

"Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh has threatened legal action against Kansans who engage in vote-swapping. Here's a real gem from the AP article: 'Thornburgh said Wednesday he wasn't sure whether the practice was illegal, and he wasn't aware of any vote swapping in Kansas. However, he also said he would go to court if anyone tried it in the state.' Does this scare anyone else?

Blame Canada!

[dr_strangelove]

Ok, so DUI is "a very serious offence" in the great snowy north. The mind boggles. (insert sound of one mind boggling).

So what? Who the hell wants to go to Canada, anyhow?(hoo?) Whats it all aboot, anyway?

I do remember, when I was just a sprout in North Dakota, the drunken Canuks flooding over the border on the Queen's Birthday. Seems every bar in Canada is closed in honor of the Great White Chief-tess. Oh, the horror! The humanity! The beer they consumed, and then drove home. What a bunch of freakin' hypocrits.

So if you drink and drive and get caught, do one of two things -
1) Lie. Who's gonna know?
2) Stay the hell out (oot?) of Canada.
3) Find another place to cross the border. It is, after all, the longest undefended border in the world. Think hard, then go find a back road, dummy.

Are you ready?

[Statesman]

Just wondering who was ready to opt out of the government sponsored pyramid scheme called social security?

90%?

[update()]

About 90% of the national elections use use a device called the 'Shouptronic' to count the votes.

Really? I've lived in 4 states in the last 11 years and each used a radically different vote casting mechanism (punched-out holes, SAT-type filled-in circles, 2 different lever machines). I find it hard to believe that there's one counting apparatus behind all of them.

The Shouptronic is a closed system that isn't open for inspection. Several groups argue that it has been used to fix the vote in elections. This is a good argument to use an open system for election counting.

And it hasn't been tested, either? And no one but a single family of nuts has noticed? And no one involved in any of those conspiracies has spilled the secret? I'm not getting too excited about this.

Not that anyone who remembers last year's Beanie Awards is likely to take Slashdot too seriously as a voice for openness in voting...

I'm ashamed to have been born on Earth.

[b0z]

The average American (and I include Slashdot readers in this) is so stupid, that they ought to have to take a literacy test before they are allowed to vote. In fact, I'm not sure that I have any faith in "we the people's" ability to judge what is right and wrong anymore.

Actually, it isn't just Americans. If you look at any country or culture, you will see that the majority of people are completely stupid. I am not meaning this in a flamebait sort of way, but that most people don't want to think and are no better than sheep. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as only letting people of a certain age vote, or of a certain education or any other criteria you can think of. You think that Europeans are so much better, but they aren't. Sure they might know more than Americans in some categories, but they can be stupid in other ways. Take the French for example. Please, I don't want them. Ok, bad joke.

We don't let children drink alcohol, but we let them vote ?

Not only do we let them vote, but we make them completely responsible for themselves at 18, and make them sign up to go get killed if the government decides on a whim to go to war for no reason (Vietnam for example, and the politicians involved should have been executed for treason against the U.S.) We should abolish the draft, and not go to war for anything but defensive reasons.

Now, I do agree with you that the U.S. sucks ass. Unfortunately, from what I am finding out, every country is a horrible place to live, because they are infested with people. The silly semi-hairless monkeys try to be civilized but really are the worst animals to live on this planet. The few of us that do think for ourselves will either become leaders, or outcasts of society. American has never taken itself seriously, but at one time we did have leaders that were good men, and relatively cared for people. Yes, they did some really really bad things (genocide of the native americans, slavery, etc.) but they had some sound principles that today we can apply to all people equally. Unfortunately, the thing that our form of government requires to function is good people. So, with the lack of quality people in the U.S., and the entire world, we are doomed to suffer as we have for thousands of years already.

What's there not to like?

[Christopher B. Brown]

After all, it's not as if they're putting mayonnaise on the french fries :-).

What's there not to like about poutine?

• French fries

  You like those, right?

• Gravy

  ... Which goes with potatos, or even potatoes, depending on your political preferences...

• Cheese

  The form of the curds used may be a little unexpected, but it's hardly a deviant form of cheese.

The sheer excess of cholesterol in this form of "haute habitant cuisine" may seem a mite excessive, but I can't imagine this being overly appalling in a nation where they make "chips" by taking pig fat and boiling it in oil...

(Yes, I grew up in Eastern Ontario...)

True

[vlax]

I've never been asked about past criminal activity on crossing the border. However, my mother-in-law looks as poor as she is, and her paperwork was a bit of a mess. We had paid for her airline ticket so she could come to our wedding. I suspect that Canada Customs uses some form of profiling, either formally or informally, in deciding who gets asked what questions.

The law actually is clear. She needed to obtain a dispensation to get into Canada. It would no doubt have been issued, but I had no idea that she had a record or I would have asked the consulate.

If you still want to follow politics after Nov 7..

[BluedemonX]

If you're a politics junkie missing the fireworks etc. on the tube, and you have a post-election depression, check out the Canadian election, which is going on until late November!

It's right wing vs. left in this one- and you couldn't have two more polar opposites!

Re:Your people fail to comprehend that

[ToddN]

Vote for him, and you are effectively not voting at all.

Vote for him and you are also sending a message that the Republicrat-Demopublican system is becoming more and more irrelevant and infuriating to a lot of voters.

A different view on vote-swapping...

[phutureboy]

Here's a much more interesting article about the Nader/Gore vote-swapping thing.

Personally, I'm voting for the lesser of seven evils, Harry Browne.

--

popular votes don't matter

[Lysander Luddite]

Last I knew the popular vote didn't determine the presidential outcome, the electoral college did. And Votescam is an intriguing book with examples of voting fraud.

Voting Fraud

[Zordak]

>>The Shouptronic is a closed system that isn't open for inspection. Several groups argue that it has been used to fix the vote in elections. This is a good argument to use an open system for election counting.

Of course!!! The Shouptronic is made by a corporation, all corporations are all about money, so they are pro-Republican. That's why the Republicans win every office in every election!!!

Yeah, vote Nader so we can legalize drugs and come up with more brilliant ideas like this while we're all stoned off our arses.

Do not teach Confucius to write Characters