Slashdot Mirror
Candidate Ads, Coming Soon To An Inbox Near You
ooby writes "MSNBC reports that Bush and Kerry plan to shoot off a million or so emails to their closest friends. By using the Internet to distribute ads, presidential candidates believe they can reach more people using less money. I guess that's why they wrote that loophole in that awesome new spam law."
And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad.
I don't think either campaign will be able to avoid the tempation. I also don't think the virus writers will be able to hold back either...
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
With all this talk about how much everyone hates spam, even legislation supporting this idea, why would a candidate want to even come close to looking like they are spamming?
i ng-the-latest-penis-enhacement-pills crowd. It almost makes sense when you consider it that way.
It seems like it's too dangerous. Although, I guess there is a reason why spammers continue to spam. They really want that walking-around-in-their-underwear-at-walmart-scop
At least this is IMPORTANT spam. Granted, it's still spam, but the fate of our great country depends on it.
I call on all Americans to not write spam filters for this. We should read what our candidates have to say.
I love my country more than anything else, and want this 2004 election to truly make a differences.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
Which would you prefer:
1. Junk mail, which has a realworld cost (printing paper means felling trees); or
2. An email, which has negligible cost and is easily disposed of by deletion?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
In fact, it was the first thing I thought of! How will I know whether the email I got was really from the candidate who supposedly sent it?
I've made up my mind and now I've got to lie in it.
I think you said why we like this guy.
"I'm not Bush!"
I suppose the saying, "The devil you know..." would be kind of lost on you, huh?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It only refers to their respective rank-and-file, I guess these people have signed up on some list to receive them.
Once again, Slashdot hypes and puffs something up to be more than it really is. No need to get worked up over "Your Rights".
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
won't work.. you think they actually read their emails? it would be my guess that the emails go through a few screeners first. so if the aim is to piss off some low-level peons, go right ahead. all i know is that those bastards better not be spamming me..
What is your penile percentile?
What ever happened to fiscal conservatism?
Remember back how during the .com boom, people always invested in the stocks that were gaining the most? Well, just because something gains quickly doesn't mean it's truly valuable.
.com-style campaign. All the fucking momentum is gone. And momentum followers in the hippie crowd have jumped ship to Kerry, or the ultimate 9/11-spawned momentum man, President W. Bush.
Howard R. Dean's campaign is no longer a
If Dean doesn't make legit promises now, he's going to lose. The campaign will die. He will die inside. Many will mourn the loss of the only non-special interest candidate.
Granted, I'm a computer science professor, but I've taken many an econ and poly sci class; what we're seeing in campaign 2004 is not uncommon, and has happened before.
So don't blame anything or anyone for Dean's limp cock campaign but Dean himself. It's not spam. It's his fault, and I feel bad for him because he's fairly cute and seems nice and suitable.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
I have! I think I've been getting both democratic and republican emails... Yet another reason to vote LIBERTARIAN!
You could think of all the paper you won't have stuffed in the door to your apartment/house thanks to email.
Seriously, how could you argue that this is spam? And how is this any different than putting up a billboard, stuffing flyers in your windshield wipers or putting ads on tv?
Other than the usual "I'm for America and the American worker" blatherskite that either candidate will put out, you may find some substance if you dig deep enough. How else are you going to reach the public at large who would otherwise just as soon not vote? How else are you going to get an otherwise issue ignorant public educated on what you stand for and to get excited about your position? What's it going to take to get you to ask questions and find the answers about the next four years?
Spam? No. Candidate education? Yes.
GOBACK.
>I don't think either campaign will be able to avoid the tempation. I also don't think the virus writers will be able to hold back either...
Everybody thinks Kerry is going to get the nomination and that's why he probably will. Not saying he's any better or worse than any of the other guys, but he's played his media cards well.
I'd personally go with Kuchinich since he's the most sensible of the lot (crazy as hell, but sensible.)
My advice: vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, be it one of the main two or one of the no-shot independents. Only if absolutely none of them appeal to you, vote *against* the person you don't want to win. And under no circumstances abstain from voting. Unlike some places, they won't cancel the elections because of low turnout.
Hell, even Russia has the 'none of the above' option. If 30% votes none, the election is cancelled.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Leave it to slashdot to have people completely overreact and blow things out of proportion. I actually see email as an effective means of campeigning.
According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends." That means less than 1% of the American population will see one of these emails, and I'd bet a pretty penny it won't just be in typical spam style (hint: it will actually be from a *real* address and company). The emails will probably be sent to people who have specifically given their addresses to the Republican/Democratic parties, or similar organizations that promote voting and voter education.
When it comes to campeigning, these guys are not stupid. They know people hate spam. But they also know if they use email in a legitimate fashion, it could actually help their cameign. Assuming they don't abuse this line of communication, I think it will prove beneficial in the long run.
Mailwasher Software
I just send a bogus invalid email addresses back at them.
There is no spoon or sig.
Because he's not Bush, and seems to be the only candidate who can say that and actually stands a chance at winning.
Is that really a good thing? Let's think about this for a moment. You want to elect someone into the highest office in the country based on the fact that you don't like the current office holder. Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks, you want to replace him with someone who stands a chance of promoting legislation and leadership that will give more power to long term copyrights, shut down the space program, enact more DMCA type laws, promote outsourcing of our jobs, etc., etc., etc.
You may like that idea, but some of us are a little more intelligent. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't know.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Perhaps the millions of people that e-mailed them?
What?
Spammers don't need you the way a candidate does. Most spammers have already annoyed most people, and expect that their emails will get deleted/filtered by 99% of people. Candidates need a large percentage of the population to support them, so campaigning in a way that loses you more people than you gain (such as spamming them) is not a Good Thing (TM).
Thank God Australia hasn't gotten this far... yet...
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
IAAL
The anti-spam law was limited in scope for constitutional reasons. The bill focused on content such as obscenity which could be regulated anyway based on established legal principles.
I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.
Here are some legal concepts I've heard people trying to use to support anti-spam legsilation.
"Captive Audience": This concept, though related to the issue at hand, does not support anti-spam legislation. The fact that you receive the message in your inbox and then have to delete it is directly analogous to the snail-mail equivalent. Just because you have to look away when someone wears a "Fuck the Draft" jacket that offends you doesn't mean your rights have been infringed.
"Time Place and Manner": This legal concept in all likelihood does not apply here. Though it's true that mass spam creates a nuissance on the part of the receiver, laws that inhibit speech need to allow an alternative method of expression. A blanket spam ban would offer no alternatives.
I am active in politics (volunter for campaigns, member of campus political organization, etc.)
I've never received unsolicited e-mail directly from any campaign, political committee, think tank, etc.
I do, however, receive at least a forward a day from my other politically active friends from one of the lists their subscribed to. And yes the incoming rate has increased substantially since the presidential campaign has started.
Like the article says "Sent out as links in e-mails, Web videos can easily be forwarded by the original recipients to scores of people, unlike direct mail that may end up in the trash."
The campaigns do not need to spam people directly, so they won't. It will be the campaigns followers who will do the spamming.
Looks like you might not be voting this year. :-)
-Vote for Nobody, because Nobody cares.
What?
Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks
My goals are environmental protection, government regulation of corporations, universal healthcare, and civil rights.
I don't think his voting record looks that bad.
When you say "us geeks" I think you mean "me".
I think that identity verification is required by campaign finance laws. There are limits on each individual's contribution -- they need to at least make a good faith effort to enforce that.
-30-
Don't like any of the presidential candidates? Here's an idea: don't vote (as in do abstain)!
If they're not going to put a good enough candidate on the ballot, don't vote for the Big Two, unless you really wanted to.
Abstension is just as much a part of the democratic process as is casting a vote, but this has been lost to America because of some two-party system in which the having of actual viewpoints has been replaced with such generality that what our parties actually stand for is mixed up and buried in misused jargon.
So join me. I'm going to register to vote. I will vote on all state, parish (county), and municipal issues. But I would... do something really really bad... before I would vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate for president!
I agree completely. This is totally analogous to the decisions wherein the Court said that political activists can come uninvited into my home and staple campaign posters to all my walls...
Oh, wait...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Funny. You'd sort of think all of their "close friends" already know that they're running... This will be used to drum up new contributions. It's political spam, pure and simple.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
...will get reported to Spamcop and then badmouthed "Yeah, KerBush said he could make my dick bigger..."
Seriously, they have the law on their side, but morally they're no different than any other spammer.
I want to see the candidates as they truly are.
If you're that interested then there are any number of other ways to find out. Try listening to what they say in those interviews, or reading up on their policies or doing research on their history.
Spam is spam. I don't care if some moronic politician thinks he has a right to force some politically-correct, information-neutered e-mail into my inbox, I don't want it. The internet is not supposed to be a "push" medium, as we discovered in the 90s.
It's pull. The information is out there. You want it? Go find it. And you'll get a much more balanced and thorough viewpoint than some e-mail put together by the candidate's marketing floozy.
If enough of us do what you suggest, we won't receive any more spam from candidates advertising themselves. After all, a commercial spammer who pisses off only 99 people for every purchase would be a roaring success, but a political spammer who pisses off 4 people for every new convert would be a horrible failure, since 1 or 2 of those 4 people probably vote and will now vote against him.
This won't do anything to stop negative spam, though. If you get an email talking about what an idiot Kerry is, does that make you want to vote against Edwards, Dean, or Bush?
What's worse, if people like you are vocal enough and numerous enough, you'll just start to see a new type of spam: obnoxious emails purporting to support Candidate X, but actually sent by one of his competitors.
You can try and strike a balance in which your reduced support for the candidate in an unsolicited email exactly balances out the increased support he might get from others, but that just sounds hard. I suggest treating political spam like any other variety: filter it, ignore it, or delete it.
Now we can fully understand why the new federal CanSPAM law overrides existing state laws that alowed individuals to sue spammers for spam (often at about $500 per received spam).
The politicians built in not only a specific exemption for their own SPAM, but at the same time took away from the victims the ability to sue on their own.
--
"Very funny, Scotty, now beam down my clothes."
again, dribble. SPAM IS NOT FREE SPEECH!!!! free speech is the ablity to say what you want, not the ablity to force people to listen!!!
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
You can vote by not selecting any of the people on the list.
You mean write in candidates? Like maybe Mickey Mouse, Ben Kenobi, and of course, Steve Jobs?
At least with write-ins, your vote is recorded. If you don't vote for that office, that means that you didn't care enough to vote, and that the extremists who voted to select those candidates in the primaries win...
I think email campaign ads are a great idea from an environmental perspective. Imagine if your candidate of choice could say that he had saved 10,000 more trees than Pres. Bush--and all because of email. While I hate spam as much as the next guy, a nice, polite email from a candidate sent from a valid address would be great. I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who spammed me (and let's be honest, this isn't really spam) than one who wasted paper on mass-mailings.
Email costs significantly less than physical mailings and is a heck of a lot easier on the environment. Seriously? Would you *rather* get a piece of card stock over an email? As an added plus, maybe this could even out unbalanced campaign contributions?
There is only one solution in my eye...vote libertarian.
Of course, it really makes me want to form a new political party--the Technocrats. This party would focus on the use of technology to better the lives of everyone, and go by the philosophy that technology should be placed in the hands of as many people as possible. This, of course, can best be done by making sure everyone has the highest possible income, and that taxes are low. (I will figure out a way to justify it...don't worry).
All right. Who's in?
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
"As much as I might like that sentiment, assuming Kerry gets the democratic nomination, who are you going to vote for?"
Howabout whoever your conscience tells you would be the best person for the job?
"There's no one else to vote for who would even stand an outside shot at winning the election."
It's thinking like that that has gotten us into this mess. Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.
" Basically my question boils down to, if their choice wont make or break my vote for them, is there anyway to get politicians to make a stance on something short of having lots of money for campaign contributions?"
yes, vote your conscience. Until everyone votes their conscience, we'll be stuck in this dead end game of "lesser of two evils" every time. You can write letters, have demonstrations, etc... As long as they can get elected because you'll vote for them out of fear of someone else winning, they're not going to listen to you. Why should they? The money comes from their corporate masters, I mean backers, and your vote comes from your fear of the other candidate.
I'd rather vote my conscience and see four years of some guy I think is awful, than legitimize the election of someone I think is less awful by voting for them.
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
I'm not excited about spam, but politics by email seems like it is leveling the playing field a bit.
Someone who isn't a rich, "preapproved" canidate can stand toe-to-toe in emails.....well, at least come closer to it.
Steve
They fucking voted for it or signed it. It doesn't matter that they didn't write it their actions show they agree with it.
The most effective way to affect politics is run yourself and win. Next is to go to the caucuses of one major party and get some resolutions passed, and then work to get your canidate elected. However you can't run for all positions, or might not be elected, your next option isn't of much use if the rest of the party members shoot it down. So you have one more options: third party votes.
Voting for a third party gets noticed, perhaps out of proprotion. These are people who took the time to vote and were informed on the issues. Those who vote because they should: vote party lines because "dad was a democrat so I'm a democrat and I don't care if the party has changed"; "I'm a republican, and it is better to help a party that agrees with me partially than throw away my vote". Note that these are two groups that you don't have to worry about, they will vote for you, and make up a large part of the voters. Polititions have to worry about those who can be persuaded. Many voted for Kennedy because Nixon sweated on TV, not for serious reasons, so you don't have to worry about serious issues to get a nother group. Who is left? A very small group that you have to influence, because they
Of course polititions are also aware some people will always vote libratarian. (or whatever) However they care about those who might vote for them, if they were just a little more "left" or a little more "right". The only thing stopping them is there are those in a the middle who also will change votes, so it is a balance, get as many fringe votes as you can without scaring away the middle voters.
They may not act like it, but polititions always care about third parties, because their job is to get re-elected. And therefore you vote counts. If you can get a lot of others to vote with you your vote counts even more. (actually if you can get a lot of people to vote one way you have more power than even the richest man in the world)
If enough people just don't vote for either of the idiots, then maybe the people running the parties will work harder to find decent canidates however in a typical election the number of people that don't pick one of the two major parties is so small it doesn't matter.
Good point. I seriously think that today's political climate is designed to drive people away. For simplicity's sake we'll neglect the electoral college in this example. If only 10% of the electorate turns out and canidate "A" receives a majority of the total votes cast (which would be >5% of the total electorate) then canidate A wins. There is no incentive for change because someone will always win. Forget the fact that our government derives their legitamacy from the people. Most people I find aren't really aware of that and feel it is their duty to vote and support the system no matter what they're given to choose from.
In case you're wondering, I openly advocate not voting in the hopes that the current political climate will "go away" (not exist because the people no longer recognize it) and we can start with a fresh system. We did that once before remember... Think of it as a total scratch rewrite. :)
I should know better than to reply to an anonymous coward, but here we go.
If you would like a direct analogy that is exactly on point, here it is: laws already exist banning junk faxes. These laws have gotten the thumbs-up from courts, despite advertisers trying to raise First Amendment questions.
The receiver of the message necessarily bears some of the cost of the message--toner, paper, temporary loss of use of the line for fax machines; connection and bandwidth charges for spam.
The First Amendment rights of others end when they start charging me (directly or otherwise) so they can express themselves. The First Amendment guarantees one the right to speak--it doesn't guarantee that I will pay to listen.
~Idarubicin
I certainly wouldn't object to receiving one email from each candidate stating their stances on important issues and why I should vote for them.
This email should contain embedded flash or any of that nonsense. Basically, it's like a candidate coming to your door. As long as they are respectful, polite, and only do it once, I see no real problem with it.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
The only vote that you thow away is one where you vote for someone because they could win. If you don't think that he or she is the best, you are only encouraging policies that you don't believe in.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Not necessarily. It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job. However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want. We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections. They have absolutely zlich electability. Nada. None. El Zero. It ain't gonna happen. A major change in the social and poltical views of America will not happen overnight. The first step is someone not quite as liberal as Lieberman or Sharpton. The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards. The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates. If we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan. We must vote the only person with electability. Doing anything else is a waste of your vote. Sure it's your right to vote for who you please but lets face facts people. If you don't vote for one of the candidates that can actually get elected (or a party that needs a certain percentage to be in the election next time) then you're wasting your vote. Of course voting out of the norm for your state is wasting your vote thanks to this damned electoral college, but that's another matter. You can't make a sweeping change overnight. Small steps people. Walk before you run a marathon.
Leave it to slashdot moderators to label a Brainless Troll as +5 Insightful.
Unlike YOU I actually read the article. The headline does not in any way mention "close friends" in fact, the article specifically says "to millions of the Democratic and Republican rank-and-file" which not only is not "only about a million" it actually sounds like another way of saying anyone and everyone we can find an email address for and even the vaguest excuse to claim they might possibly be interested.
Even the writer of the articl is quick to admit how devious and underhanded this scheme is "And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad."
This is not even slightly about "save the environment" and other tree-hugging fantasies it's purely and simply a loophole they've carefully crafted so that they can circumvent some very important campaign laws.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
You really haven't been paying attention, have you?
Lieberman is conservative, not liberal.
Sharpton is a very charming and acute speaker, but he's a GOP shill! Let me repeat: Sharpton is a GOP shill.
Kucinich is the most liberal remaining candidate, and the only one who's too liberal to get elected, because of his tax policy and because of his single-payer health policy - something even Clinton could not get support for, something Dean initially tried in Vermont and couldn't get through.
Electability is a false issue in the primaries.
Primary voting strategy should focus on the immediate goal: the convention.
The guy who shows up there with the most delegates is by definition electable, even if everybody voted their conscience.
Vote to either get your guy nominated, or to get him influence defining the platform, or to stop someone else, but vote for the convention, not November. November is far away, we know little about the candidates, and we don't know what Bush will do in the meantime.
Now, voting for the convention may not always mean voting your conscience. I think a lot of people's conscience leads them away from the current frontrunner, but they're fractured into separate camps. I know Kucinich voters are fighting for delegates, but I wish they'd consider whether they have a preference between the three more mainstream candidates who are still running.
And the Dean and Edwards camps need to take a good long look at each other and ask themselves what the heck they're doing. They're splitting an anti-Kerry vote, and I don't think either will cede it to the other because they're too different and too determined.
Overreact?! They're SPAMMING FOR VOTES. It's as simple as that. Political campaigns are treated as a form of marketing, so why the hell should they be allowed to spam?
Text is fine for issues. Leadership isn't all about issues, though. It's also about character. And visual/auditory media are better for showing character.
If you haven't done so, read up on the 1960 American presidential election, the first election with televised debates, and think about the role that face-to-face debates have in a presidential campaign.
Also study the debates in 1992 with Clinton/Bush/Perot. In a three-candidate race, there is more positive campaigning and less negative campaigning.
If you have a government at all, then you're on the horns of a dilemma. On one horn, if the government is democratically elected, then the people who choose the government have all kinds of stupid shallow criteria which can more and more be manipulated. On the other hand, if your government is *not* elected, then it's subject to control by smart, powerful, corruptible, evil elite people. So I guess I'd rather have Joe Sixpack who can't even punch a chad making that choice, rather than Anthony Scalia or the would-be Minitruth duckspeakers at the New York Times.
(Or you can have less government in the first place, which is my choice. But unless you go all the way to anarchism -- which I don't, not even close -- then you have to figure out how to choose the people who lead the government that you do have).
The problem with not voting is that you get lulled into complacency, rather than the only downside being that your candidate didn't get elected. It's VERY important to vote, even if your person doesn't win. Staying up on the state of affairs is what keeps politicians on their toes, no matter where you are.
--
Cast your vote for choice. Check out the link below, and learn about the nastiness in Linux politics.
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
"It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job."
Actually, in the world I live in now, that is exactly what I do.
"However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want."
And voting for the lesser of two evils will?
"We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections."
So? Your argument seems to be that I shouldn't vote my conscience because the person I'd vote for won't win. Therefore, I should vote for someone I don't think is the best person for the job, thereby ensuring that not only will my candidate not win, but the election results will demonstrate that no one voted for them, thus leading these 'leaders' to conclude that what my candidate stood for, nobody agrees with? Sounds like I'm throwing my vote away if you ask me.
"The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards."
With all due respect, I heard this line of crap back in '92. The only difference between now and then, is I won't buy it this time. You think Kerry is going to change things, then you vote for him. Clinton came to power, and what did we have? Wars, wars, and more wars. Scandal, corruption, the DMCA, etc... It was the other side of the same coin, that quite frankly, I'm sick of. You want to continue the cycle that's been going on, vainly imgining that by repeating the mistakes of the past, you're going to get a different result in the future, then you do that.
I'm not buying into that line of thinking anymore. Like I said in my first post on this topic, I'd rather vote my conscience, and the rest of you with your daydreaming grand plans to change things, go along like sheep, believing the owned politicians, that somehow, they are the first step to change. When in reality, they are the very things that need changing.
"we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan."
Our grand plan? Who has the plan? I haven't seen it, no one asked for my input.
"The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates."
I really don't care to waste my vote to appeal to the mob mentality. If the mob wants one of those people, then let them elect them. I have a conscience, and a duty and obligation to my society, to be ruled by that conscience and be true to myself. I will do this, and it won't matter how you try to spin it. I expect nothing less from you. So if you really think that thinking and voting the way you are arguing for is the best, then do so. I bear you no illwill, but in time, you will see the infinite loop that such things trap us in.
"Doing anything else is a waste of your vote."
On the contrary, doing anything other than voting your conscience, is throwing your vote away. I'm not part of your grand plan, like I said before, when did you get my input? I wouldn't vote lieberman either. Probably won't vote any candidate you've heard of. You can say I'm throwing my vote away, but I can look myself in the mirror every morning, and know that I spoke up for what I believe to be right. The rest of you simply chose the lesser of two evils.
"Walk before you run a marathon."
Exactly. The first step to change is refusing to vote along party lines, or for the lesser of two evils, and voting your conscience. If your conscience tells you to do one of the above, then do so. I bear no one any illwill for falling for the delusion I once fell for. But the only way to change things, is to take your stand as an individual, and quit imagining that you're part of some grand plan. You're not. Nobody planned anything with my input, did someone plan something with yours?
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
I just hope they've gone over their lists with a nit comb to remove all non-US email addresses... cos I for one do NOT want to receive any...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Would you rather be fucked in the ass or ass-fucked?
I'm pleased you've rationalized your ability to make the tough decisions when someone else has presumed what your choices are allowed to be.
It would seem no major party does care about the same things I do, hence the desire to ignore them completely (I forget, which party is for heavily restricting the DMCA again? Oh.). Voting for either would only validate the fact that neither is much different from the other. It's just a question of which political favors will be returned this time. It has nothing to do with me.
The thing is, it isn't a free country when I'm forced into voting for vanilla over chocolate or not having any ice scream at all. What about mocha-ripple? What about daiquiri ice? And in this grand wide world of incompatible views, it is doubtful two party system would be able to encompass even a portion of those views except for those who support a two party system and those who do not. And those who don't are very much the majority. In that respect, hoping the challenger won't wear the super-sized strap-on that the incumbent does isn't "the ability to make a tough decision"; it's political suicide.
Truth is both parties would be terribly afraid of a "none of the above" option. It would call bullshit on the entire operation, and then those bribes aren't quite as effective anymore.
Your vote vs. billions of dollars and the media framing all of the issues for you. Either way, you lose.
Filter anything containing the candidate names and party names
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
The only problem I can see with not voting for your given reasons is that you are then indistinguishable from the 50% that didn't vote because they're too lazy or didn't care.
I've heard of purposely wrecking your ballot. Do they count wrecked ballots officially?
The only vote that you thow away is one where you vote for someone because they could win.
Sadly, many people vote "for a winner" or because a candidate appears to have "momentum".
Exhibit A: Democratic primaries in the U.S.
OTOH, how much comfort do supporters of Nader's Green Party Presidential campaign in 2000 take in their principled stand not to elect Al "Lesser Evil" Gore, especially now that the country has experienced 3 years under Geroge W. Bush?
"Provided by the management for your protection."