Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
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!
--
The World is Yours.
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.
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.
Link : A Vote For Nader Is .36 Of A Vote For Bush
It really is pretty damn funny.
.sig --
--
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 :)