Slashdot Mirror
Help Select Questions for Bush and Kerry
This is a strange post in that it has 50 comments attached to it already. These are 50 questions for Bush and Kerry selected by non-Slashdot moderators, as explained in our original call for help with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate. At this point, where you come in is not only with extra-insightful moderation of these 50 questions, but with your "many eyes" trying to spot questions these two candidates have answered elsewhere so that the final questions presented to them are not repeats. The first 40 questions are from potential voters aged 18 - 35. The last 10 are from future voters 13 - 17. And that's enough explanation. From here we might as well jump right into the questions...
The United States, by invading Iraq, used international support and resources to lead the fight against nuclear weapons. However, no weapons were found in Iraq. How do you think this has hurt or helped our efforts against nuclear proliferation in countries such as Iran and North Korea?
What is the plan for dealing with Iraq if the citizens of Iraq vote in favor of a fundamentalist Islamic form of government that resembles the one currently existing in Iran? How will your administration work to preserve the roots of democracy that have been cultivated in this middle eastern country if the citizens of Iraq vote in a theocratic form of governance?
Nearly 100 American media resources today are owned by only 5 corporations. While the Senate's overruling of the FCC's controversial 3-to-2 decision to further deregulate media ownership rules in June of 2003 is a source of encouragement, most Americans want more variety in their sources of news and entertainment. What will you do to ensure that Americans have accurate sources of information to base their democratic decisions on?
What are the three written works or political thinkers that have contributed the most to your philosophy of governance, and why?
In regards to social security, as a professional 25-year-old worker I'm concerned that I'm paying into a system, which is severely over-taxed and will be non-existent when I reach retirement. I would like to know what steps will be taken to either ensure I will get the benefits I've paid for, or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security and use that extra income to invest myself for my retirement, most likely a Roth IRA.
Let's look ten years out. Since we have a wave of baby boomers planning on retirement, what effect will their retirement have on me, my family, and the nation as a whole? How will we pay for the trillions that Social Security, Medicaid, and all of the other entitlement programs need to be handled? How does having countries like Japan who are buying our debt change the equation? How does the fact that Japan is heading for their baby boom retirement in 4 years change our equation?
Why do you say bad things about each other? When I grow up and become President I will be truthful and honest and I won't talk bad about the other guy. You both have a war against each other and you are forgetting we don't care about your war but we care about the War in Iraq. I would like for you to say one good thing about each other.
If our society were to take a dramatic downfall in morals, what would be the best course of action? Who decides what is moral, and why are we basing our legislation on a book that was written centuries ago?
The Bush administration has made a big deal of President Bush's Christian faith. Democratic candidate John Kerry is also a Christian. My question for both candidates is how does your faith affect your decision-making for the future of our country? Also, America is based on the separation of church and state. For the candidates, is it conflicting to take a position on issues based on Christianity (such as abortion and gay marriage) when not everyone in America believes in God or Christianity?
Drop the first part of the question. All it will draw are generic homilies about the importance of IP, how wonderfully innovative Americans are, and how Americans will be more innovative with me than the other guy.
Specificity doesn't guarentee answers, but it makes evasion more obvious and sometimes that's all you can hope for.
Additionally, could you explain why outlawing alcohol required an amendment to the constitution, yet no amendment is necessary to prohibit the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs.
I think this is the best of the three questions on drug policy. Frankly, they are redundant and should be lumped into one question somehow.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
A better electorate question might ask the candidates how they feel about the usage of paper-less electronic voting machines which have proven vulnerabilities.
There are many ways to tally the votes (electoral college, proportional electorate by state, etc), but if the votes themselves are vulnerable to fraud then democracy of any type is in peril.
Favorite
Why should 270 million citizens continue to pay $50 billion per year to try to change the habits of 20 million people, considering that this policy has not been able to change those habits in 82 years and at a total cost of nearly one trillion dollars?
# fuser -v
#
this question is way too "iffy". rephrase it:
In the next four years we will see the appointment of possibly two new Supreme Court justices. Who would you appoint to the Supreme Court and why? If you don't have a name... describe the qualities that you would seek and why you seek them.
I think perhaps a polite answer would be "you need to read up on the separation of powers and why the system is setup that way. The judges are given life apointments so that they can concentrate on upholding the law and constitution, not making people happy."
You know you like it.
It's a good question because it asks for specifics. Bush's policy has always been vague in my mind - he seems to both give Israel a carte blanche yet at the same time push an internationally-backed effective-seeming road map. (Compare his internationalist-sounding approach of a year ago with the current ineptitude surrounding Israel's against-road-map new settlement building.)
I like the question. I wish the public knew more about each candidate's policies to ask harder questions, but truthfully I don't know either's take on what to do in the conflict. The only danger is that Kerry says, "I'll find out when I get to office," and that Bush says, "Kerry has no position" and then lies about his own position.
|/usr/games/fortune
It's class that's disproportionate.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
The national debt sits at 7.4 Trillion dollars, we have a 500 billion dollar budget deficit, a 500 billion dollar trade deficit, and the one question about the global economy is about the frickin' metric system? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
I would cut out the first two sentences of this question. The author states his bias (not that it's a bad bias, but it's still bias) and essentially states the answer he'd like to get back. Cut out the first two sentences and let the candidates stand or fall based on their own answers in their own words.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Why won't the questioner understand that he's asking a loaded question? Does he understand that the's stating a clear opinion instead of asking for a response? Is he aware that it might be better to ask a question, and evaluate the response, rather than simply state an opinion?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
? #1: Score +5, Interesting
? #2: Score +5, Interesting
? #3: Score +5, Interesting
? #4: Score -1, Troll
? #5: Score +5, Interesting
? #6: Score +5, Interesting
OK, maybe there is some value to breaking the questions down like that, but if ever there was a time that we needed a cap much larger than 5, this posting is it.
(Or perhaps re-post all the +5 questions, with a post that doesn't have the +5 limit.)
I seriously doubt either Rangel or Hollings seriously want there to be a draft for the sake of bringing people involuntarily into the armed forces. The armed forces have even been pretty loud in saying they don't want a draft as non-trained people who don't wanna be there is of no use to the skill-based armed forces of today.
The real reason why they want an all-inclusive draft is nothing makes fence-sitters on a war start to hate it than the possiblity of their family members or themselves being thrown into fight against their will. That's the real point, to force a pull-out of Iraq.
The original poster is talking about a radical reform of our electoral system, not nitpicky details of whether we should use this machine or that machine to tally votes.
I'm not saying yours isn't a valid question; but it's going to be asked a thousand times by CNN et al. However, you can bet no one at the debates is going to ask a question about a major overhaul of our democratic system like the parent post. This is the perfect forum to ask these tough questions that wont be covered otherwise... I can honestly say I have zero interest in the Bush-Kerry debates on tv, but I would love to hear their answers to half of these questions that were proposed.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
How was the two party issue by design? Explain this one to me. As I understand it, there is no inbuilt system of "Political Parties" in the US system the way there is in various other systems.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
The electoral college helps protect smaller states from being dominated by larger states. At one time, Americans identified more with their state than with their country; e.g., Thomas Jefferson declared that "I am a Virginian", not an American. The smaller states feared that the large population centers would swamp them and effectively reduce their voice in government. Therefore, the electoral college sometimes allows a candidate to win who did not win the collective majority.
In 2000, George W. Bush carried 30 states, though most of the most populous states did not favor him. This is truly an example of what the electoral college was designed to do.
These arguments people make today about stealing elections and the unfairness of the system really stem from an ignorance of American history. True, the electoral college system is not perfect and perhaps should be replaced with a simple absolute majority in this age when people no longer identify so strongly with their locales.
Someone else pointed out that there were several presidents who did not win an absolute majority of the vote, but very few actually lost the popular vote. Clinton did not win an absolute majority; more people wanted either GHW Bush or Perot than wanted Clinton by quite a large margin, i.e. about 57% to 43%. However the electoral college gave it to Clinton. Interestingly, no one talks about how unfair it was that Clinton got elected, perhaps because he was lucky enough to preside over a great economic boom that ended just as he was leaving office.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
A better way to ask the question:
The U.N. has set a goal to fund global AIDS research at $15 billion by 2005 and $20 billion by 2007. Given how distructive AIDS and HIV is to society, what portion of that tab would each of you recommend paying and why?
Who did what now?
Instead of all the two questions here, after the statement I recommend asking "How would you rectify the disparity between persons who have been convicted of drug offenses being barred from receiving financial aid, and persons who have been convicted of rape or murder not being barred from receiving financial aid?"
So originally, it was (at least partially) intended to select a candidate who was popular across the entire Union and supported by the body of Electors who were entrusted with the duty of selecting somebody who they believed would be most qualified.
In today's world, people aren't voting for an Elector whom they trust to select a quality candidate -- they're just voting for a party, since most Electors are pledged to their nominating party (this wasn't anticipated at the time). The result of this strict two-party system and our increasingly national awareness is something much closer to mob rule.
As opposed to campaign in Oregon, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and ignore the rest of the country.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The first is drugs where dependence is chiefly psychological (alcohol, most psychedelics, marijuana, X). The second is drugs which have a strong physical component to dependence (nicotine, cocaine and derivatives, opiates). The last is drugs which induce violent and unpredictable behavior in the average user (meth, PCP, Ketamine) and are usually dependence forming.
The first category should not be illegal for any reason. However, I like the idea of denying welfare checks to folks who continually test positive for those drugs. I also like the idea of taxation at the state level to avoid such drugs becoming consumer staples. (Think of it as a luxury tax.)
The second category should be legal simply to reduce the criminal profit motive;criminal action from the second category almost invariably is a result of an addict not being able to find a 'fix'. Taxation proceeds from the first category should go towards providing rehab clinics with funding in order to get people off the junk once they go and get hooked (if they are the 10% that is susceptible to dependence).
The third category should only be available via the medical community and prescribed as necessary, but with general distribution regulated by the states. These drugs are so dangerous and unpredictable across the set of users that just allowing their use might present a clear danger to others.
I believe the above notes form a basis for a socially responsible and freedom enhancing drug policy.
Note that this is all contingent on getting the federal government out of regulating intrastate matters, and the idea that government should not regulate your own body, but is responsible for preventing you from doing harm to others through your poor choices. People are going to use drugs and fuck up their lives, just like they always have even within prohibition. Why waste money and make criminals of folks who only wish to harm themselves?
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Thousands of people poured over the wording, grammar, and nature of these questions, making them as simple and clear as possible, yet both of you won't ANSWER THEM.
We don't want to hear you talk about unrelated crap that has nothing to do with the questions in front of you, we don't want a rambling missive about the failings of your opponent(s), we don't want a speech riddled with prewritten soundbites. We want answers.
When will we get simple, clear answers?
Maybe this is "-1, Offtopic", but how do I find out who my Electors are?
And why is it, on the ballot, I only see the names of the candidates (Bush, Kerry, etc) and not the names of the ELECTORS that I'm REALLY voting for?
Thanks.
Interestingly, no one talks about how unfair it was that Clinton got elected.
It's true, Clinton didn't win an absolute majority, but you neglect to mention that he did win the plurality. Nobody was bitching about it then because he still got more votes than any other individual candidate, something which GWB cannot claim.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
Here's a question: Why do you think a President ought to be chosen by popular vote?
I'm sure your instinct will be to tell me that I'm asking that question the wrong way around. That's a sign that you've been thoroughly indoctrinated. Make an effort to cast aside your assumptions and try to build a case for chosing a President by a simple majority. If you're honest about it, you'll find it surprisingly difficult.
And the brethren went away edified.
It's only "whacky" if you assume that a majority of the popular vote ought to decide the election.
Wrong. Get a dictionary and look up "majority". Then flip to "plurality".
Plainly, the Founding Fathers thought otherwise.
It's not clear-cut at all. We can never accurately know the beliefs of another person- we can only try to infer those beliefs from their actions. And if there existed important motives to act contrary to belief, then one must admit the question is not easy to solve.
Would you also claim "Plainly, the Founding Fathers thought that slaves had 3/5ths the value of a man"? Of course you wouldn't.
That was just a compromise offered to convince the slavery states to join up. Likewise, the creation of a Senate whose representation is independent from population was an enticement to attract smaller states into the federation.
Appeal to tradition is rhetorically invalid.
you'll find it surprisingly difficult
No, it isn't. The burden is on advocates of unequal political privilege to defend their position. It is the inherently less tenable side, for that is the cause of elitists, royalists, and dictators.
here you go.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.
I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we've sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth, exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.
One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised at the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons, and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed. There's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq; they're worried about getting killed, and, therefore, they're not going to talk.
But it will all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time. However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today, just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually -- not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm on America, because he hated us.
I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
We are a Federal Republic which is a hybrid form of a Democracy. We lose sight of that in todays world of 15 second sound bites and bitter politics. The Executive branch represents the Union of States. This is not apparant to the casual eye .. but was the intent. It was very weakened with the passage of the 17th amendment.
The 17th amendment dictated that Senators are elected by popular vote of the state, prior to that, they were appointed by the legislature or govenor.
So, todays system of electorial college is basicaly proportionality by state. There never was and there is no such thing as "the popular vote". It's a novelty invented by the losers to chastise the winners or the winners to chastise the losers, however way it goes.
The electoral college is the last vestige of our federal republic. I would hate get rid of it because if we did, we would quickly slip into fascism .. liberal or otherwise.
It is perhaps possible to come up with convincing arguments for maintaining the electoral college as it is, or for changing it without eliminating it entirely, but merely implying the alternative would be fascism is inadequate.
The founding fathers were not particularly ingenious, they were a bunch of essentially aristocratic(though without formal title) land owners who wanted more say in local government and higher profits on their shipping. They weren't particularly bad men, but they weren't infallible saints either(see slave=3/5's of a person or the fact that they counted for population even when they couldnt' vote). The primary reason they created the electoral college rather than the popular vote(or so I've always been taught) is that, like aristocrats throughout time they feared that true democracy would result in mob rule(read poor people who might want to know why the founding fathers had so much money).
In the end, they came up with a reasonable(this does not mean perfect) governmental system, which was, for the most part about as liberal as was possible at the time, but most of its provisions are simply English common law and experience codified into a single document.
The US constitution is not the be all and end all of government and the constitution itself isn't why we have or do not have freedoms, the constitution is just a piece of paper, the Soviet Union had one too, one which in theory granted more rights to its citizenry than does ours, but that was only theory. Our constitution works because we have a general belief in the rights of the people, as do many other systems where those rights aren't written down.
No, it isn't. The burden is on advocates of unequal political privilege to defend their position.
No, the burden is on advocates of change to promote their position and convince others to change from the status quo. Someone defending the status quo simply has to point out flaws in the challenger's argument and convince others not to accept the proposal. Therefore, please explain to us why the President should be elected by a majority -- or plurality, your choice if you can defend it -- of the popular vote.
When I first saw this topic it really got my brain reeling about the possibilities.
Then I came back down to earth.
As much as I have hundreds of questions I could pose to each of the candidates, I know that ultimately any real tough or direct question would never be answered from them in any straightforward manner.
So what's the point?
Ask yourself, what could either of these men tell you that would really change your mind about them? What brilliant revelation will come from their lips that will suddenly make you understand? We've delved into their history to the nth degree. If you can't tell what kind of people they are from their past and their present, and knowing that in person you're going to get "politician-speak", what's the point?
98% of the questions posed here would never pass muster to be asked to either of the candidates in a substantive public forum, and ironically, all of us know what the answers would be. Bush would respond with a shallow, thoughtless one-to-three word quip and then look at you like you slept with his wife while signalling the SS to remove you, and Kerry would blather all around the subject and twist it around to the talking points he rehearsed earlier in the day.
No wonder people don't vote. No wonder we don't have truly great people in office any more. Who wants to put up with it?
Aside from that, you bet your ass I'll be voting this year, as I do every year. The people this election is really about are not the people running, but everybody else in the country. You don't need to know diddly about Bush or Kerry. Look at your world and ask yourself if in the last four years you like the way things have been going. If you feel safer, more secure, live more comfortably, have more money and job security and better healthcare, then vote for GW Bush. If you aren't happy with the way things are going, one things for sure, keeping the same guy in office won't improve things and considering how the last election went, you can't afford to vote idealistically for a candidate who has no chance of winning. So it comes down to Bush or Kerry, and you must vote Kerry if you don't like the status quo. What either of them do or say at this point is moot to me. I'd vote for a bagel over Bush just to see if it could run the country better, and even in that case I'd be more hopeful and optimistic than I am now.
Sad but true unfortunately.
The states, not the people, choose the President.
The United States of America is technically a government of, for, and by the States. It's a government of the people insamuch as the People live, work, and vote in the States.
This is something that is glossed over in most history classes, so most of you never have been exposed to the idea. Back in the day, the idea of any kind of overarching government was an anathema to both the People and the States. However, it was recognized that some things (international relations, interstate commerce, war & peace, etc) were handled more effectively by a government representing the states, and that could mediate between the states.
It was also recognized that the Continental Congress was broken, as it couldn't pay off all those Revolutionary War soldiers who were, in some instances, taking over state houses and threatening Congress with death, etc.
So, well, that's the genesis of the American government. It was put together by a surprisingly talented bunch of men, with a distinct perspective on the world and the behavior of mankind. So far, their system has mostly worked.
The reason the electors are good is because they act as a failsafe. I think that most electors are bound by law to vote the way the state votes. However, just because the law says something doesn't mean you have to follow it. If a majority of the electors felt that someone would be a Bad Choice, they could bolt...or abstain...or something.
That's the last check. It's unclear what would happen in that case, but you never know. Rogue electors might be legal enough to throw the election to the House. Who knows?
These questions lack the sort of rigor I expect from Slashdot. I suspect more than a few people didn't actually email them. Here are some questions that need to be asked of the candidates:
- Deficit
The U.S. deficit stands at a record $477 billion. How would your Administration curb the deficit? Is there any way to cut spending without hurting homeland security, the Iraq situation, education or social security?
- Intellectual property
What is your policy on the INDUCE Act and extensions to copyright law? What is your attitude toward the preservation of Fair Use provisions in copyright law? How much power should organizations like the RIAA and MPAA be given to enforce copyright?
- Iraq situation
President Bush, how do you justify the war in Iraq knowing that before the war Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD and had no ties to al-Qaeda, and that parts of Iraq are now under the control of terrorists? How can you claim to be fighting a relentless war on terrorism when you have designated areas of Iraq as no-go zones for U.S. troops? To both candidates: in light of the CIA's recent predictions, what is your plan to avert a civil war in Iraq or defeat the insurgency? How do you plan to fight the insurgency without offending Iraqis and contributing to the cycle of violence?
- War on terror
Do you foresee an end to the war on terror? Will legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act and other suspensions of civil rights continue indefinitely?
- War on terror
Over $200 billion has been spent in Iraq and airline security has undergone tightening while port security and chemical plant security remain in large part unimproved since 9/11. What are your plans regarding this? How would your Administration protect the homeland?
- Religion
What is the role of religion in decision-making in the presidency?
- Electronic voting
(by bort27)
Dear President Bush and Senator Kerry,
For the first time in history, this presidential election will make use of electronic voting machines to track more than half of all votes cast nationwide. Diebold is the largest manufacturer of these machines.
The Diebold machines have been proven insecure by numerous security analysts, and contain numerous security flaws. For example, it has been shown that anyone can change the electronic vote tallies by simply writing and executing a five-line computer script.
William W. O'Dell, CEO of Diebold and one of the largest Republican campaign contributors in the state of Ohio, has stated publicly that he will do "everything he can" to get George W. Bush re-elected.
My question is this: While there are clearly several advantages to electronic voting, do you believe that these problems could compromise the integrity of the 2004 election?
- Kyoto by caseydk
Senator Kerry, How do you reconcile the strict environmental guidelines established by the Kyoto Protocols - which you have spoken in favor of - with the creation and continuation of high tech - and therefore high energy consumption - industries?
Your vote won't count unless you live in the North East, Los Angeles, and a few other places
Wrong. Your vote would count just as much as anyone else's did- there just happen to be more people in those places.
Do you know why $10 from me buys just as much as $10 from Bill Gates?
And as a side effect the views of rural America won't be represented at all,
So you claim that rural people deserve more power than city people? Why is that? Does the country lifestyle make them inherently more moral?
Arguments like yours are terribly vulnerable to parody:
Your vote won't count unless you live in the North East, Los Angeles, and a few other places. And as a side effect the views of rural America won't be represented at all
See the pattern? You need to explain why one kind of minority deserves a boost to it's power, but not any of those others.
So if disenfranchising 40% or more of the population is your goal
Only 40%? The existing system has disenfranchised the 75% of voters who don't live in swing states, so that'll be an improvement.
Of course, according to your argument, 49% of the population is ALWAYS disenfranchised by the other 51%. From one point of view, that is true- but still meaningless.
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE STATES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
We live in a representative federal republic and therefore, the states actually choose the president, not the people.
I suggest you get your facts straight before shooting your mouth off.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
quoth the parent:
You're missing the point. The high-population areas do indeed have more power than the small areas -- but they have slightly less power per unit person, which is how it should be.
If you think of the poll as a kind of discriminator device (it is), reducing a nearly-floating-point number to a single bit via sum-and-threshold, then the electoral college clamps the output from any one geographical region. There's no practical difference between, say, a 51% majority and a 98% majority in New York City or in Los Angeles. That makes it harder for those places to dominate the election. Consider a candidate who enjoys a 98% majority in San Frangiego and Boswash, but only obtains 35% of the vote in the rest of the country (pretty dismal). In a straight-sum system, that candidate might win based on the popular vote and stress the country. Those disgruntled states might even try to secede, if the pattern repeated long enough.
The electoral system tilts the game in favor of moderately broad support bases. You can't win the presidency without support from a much broader geographical base than would be required under the straight-sum system.