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...

Comments

18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Roblimo]

President Bush and Senator Kerry, both of you talk a lot about the importance of promoting democracy in other countries. However, I have never heard either of you take on the issue of election reform in our own country. The current presidential system seems to have several shortcomings, including two-party duopoly and the ability to win the Election even after losing the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic. What are your positions on instant-runoff voting and proportional representation? Do you currently, and would you in the future, support any reforms to encourage a greater diversity in our political system?

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Thunderstruck]

Does it seem that this question is loaded with bias against the electoral system? I think a question regarding the future of the electoral college is a good one, but this one seems loaded.

Perhaps it would be better to ask whether the influence of the electors should be removed, maintained, or increased?

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Salis]

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Wyatt Earp]

I agree, it seems a bit loaded because of what happened in 2000. Few and fewer still on /. complained about Lincoln becoming President without winning the popular vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_e le ction%2C_1860

39.82% for Lincoln

Or Clinton in 92 with 42.93%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden tial_ele ction%2C_1992

Or Wilson in 1912 with 41.9%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._president ial_ele ction%2C_1912

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Chandon Seldon]

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[yog]

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[LearnToSpell]

The difference in those cases is that the person who got the greatest number of votes in each election became president, which is not what happened in 2000. We're not necessarily looking for a majority, but when the president-"elect" gets 500,000 fewer votes, something's whacky.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[trick-knee]

Well, Wyatt, all the examples you cite show that the elected candidate as the one who got the most votes, so I'm not seeing your point. Sure, none of these got more than 50% of the popular vote, but they all got more than than the other candidates.

Why didn't you include the Y2K election, in which G.W. Bush got less than 50%, as well as losing the popular vote?

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[IndependentVik]

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[CaptainCarrot]

It's only "whacky" if you assume that a majority of the popular vote ought to decide the election. Plainly, the Founding Fathers thought otherwise. Did you know there's not even a Consitutional requirement for a popular vote in Presidential elections? The States are free to assign them by whatever means they want. They were actually chosen by the legislatures in a few States in the early days.

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Usagi_yo]

Nothing is wacky. Our founding fathers were truly ingenius.

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[bnenning]

Well, Wyatt, all the examples you cite show that the elected candidate as the one who got the most votes, so I'm not seeing your point.

There have been 4 presidential elections including 2000 where the candidate who received a plurality of popular votes lost in the Electoral College. Arguing that the guy with the most popular votes "really" won is silly. Both candidates would have campaigned very differently if the election were decided by popular vote because swing states become far less important, and many voters would likely have made different decisions whether or not to vote for third parties.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Eskarel]

How can giving more weight to the votes of individuals possibly lead to fascism, unless by fascism you mean to imply any governmental system you dislike and which isn't blatantly communist(both fascist and communist have both been way too overused in the last 50 or so years).

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Minna Kirai]

If the writers of the Constitution had wanted a system for direct popular election of the President, they'd have put one in place. They didn't.

I already went over how inclusion in the Consitution doesn't prove it was considered ideal. They were practicing pragmatism. The desire was for a fair system- but creating fairness on a bed of injustice means that some people will lose power and refuse the change. To mollify those people, concessions were made.

No serious historian thinks the means of apportioning Senators was anything but a sop to Rhode Island and its ilk.

This isn't a case where their motivation was a mystery; it was spelled out.

Maybe it was written someplace, but not in the Federalist Papers. You are conflating directness and proportionality. That paper is primarily about the mechanical methods of conducting a vote, which was of import back then, as a single vote spanning the distance from Massachusetts to Georgia was an unprecedented concept.

Fewer than 6 words of the Federalist Papers have any bearing to the topic under discussion, and they are parenthetical. (They are in the 8th paragraph, by the way).

The electoral college is about "unequal political privilege"? That's not something you can just state unsupported and expect to be taken seriously

Do you need support for claims like "69 is less than 87"? Because that's the degree of self-evidence we're dealing with here. Or would you care to deny that in the current system, a citizen of Illinois has more Presidential voting power than one from Utah?

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[GenSolo]

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Temsi]

OK, first of all...
The electoral system was not chosen because it ensured a balance between the populous states and the rural states. It was in fact originally created to benefit slaveowners. A slave, while not allowed to vote, counted as 3/5th a person, and thus that state got more electoral votes, which of course meant that the vote of a slaveowner carried more weight than the vote of the average person. Which is why there were so many Presidents from Southern states back in the day.

Second. It's not very difficult building a case for why a president should be chosen by a simple majority. In fact, it's surprisingly easy.
The president is the head of the Union. He's the representative of this country as a whole, not some groups more than others.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[CaptainCarrot]

He's the representative of this country as a whole, not some groups more than others.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.

This is a non-sequitur, but let's pretend it isn't for a moment.

The system for electing the President has been subverted by the practise of not placing the electors' names on the ballot, but those of the Presidential candidates themselves. Many inattentive voters in the 2000 election were sincerely surprised to discover that a President can be elected without receiving the highest number of popular votes. Candidates bring their campaigns directly to the people, and so do nothing to promote understanding of the Constitutionally mandated system. In effect, although the President isn't chosen by popular vote, the pre-election activity is carried out almost exactly as if he were.

Dirty campaign tactics, dirty money, special interest groups, interference from foreign governments -- we have, or have had by now, all this as a result. It was all foreseen by the authors of the Constitution, and the Electoral College was instituted in an attempt to avoid it in the hopes they would, with some rationality, choose based on the merity of a candidate and not because of political affiliation or any like consideration. Even the fact that the Electors meet in their respective states and not all in the same place is to forestall any one group from exerting an undue amount of political influence over them, or politicking among them with some states banding together against others.

Seeing as how all the above describes most of what is wrong with the system as it exists today, how would going to a direct popular vote fix that? Would it not make more sense to go back to something closer to the Constitutional design? Might we then avoid the kind of media circus that now attends every Presidential campaign and distracts the electorate from the real issues and qualifications of the candidates? How could we possibly fix any of this with a direct popular vote? (Much of it is already illegal, but it happens anyway, so passing more laws won't fix matters. We can't pass laws much more restrictive and still preserve our 1st Amendment rights of free speech.)

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Minna Kirai]

For the sake of discussion, I will ignore the fact that the current USA system actually increases the power of high-population areas, and instead use the simplifying interpretation that rural states get a small advantage.

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

• Your vote won't count unless you're a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or a few other religions. The views of Wiccan Americans won't be represented at all.
• Your vote won't count unless you're white, black, or maybe hispanic. The views of Asian-Americans won't be represented at all.
• Your vote won't count unless you're heterosexual, or maybe abstinent. The views of homosexual Americans won't be represented at all.
• Your vote won't count unless you're an moron, idiot, imbecile, or some other kind of retard. The views of intelligent Americans 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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Minna Kirai]

So far, all I've been presented with is dogma.

Yes, we can infer that, because that's all your posts contain.

There was a very simple question asked: "Why is it better if the candidate with the most votes can lose the election?". You might TRY to answer that.

To the extent your lengthy digressions have addressed that topic at all, they've taken the following structure:
1. The Founding Fathers were really smart.
2. Way smarter than any of you jokers.
3. They set up the Constitution to work this way.
4. Therefore, it's best this way.
5. Now be quiet unless you can refute these 3 totally separate issues that I care about.

Holes in that "reasoning" are almost too apparent to bear mentioning, which is prehaps why we haven't said very much about them.

Most of the documents and rationalizations you provided have ignored the fact that states can choose the assignment of electors however they wish. Indeed, it seems quite plausible that the "Founders" did not consider the implications of that permission- because what arose is a form of Tryanny of the Majority, taking place in each of the 50 states upon every election.

Certainly, Texas COULD divide its electors proportionally, and send out 20 Bush supporters alongside 14 of Kerry's men. But as Republicans have the majority power, they won't do this. The rights of the minority Texan Democrats are trampled by the dominant GOP. (The reverse problem happens to the Massachusett GOP)

One might argue that this inequity is the fault of the states... but one would be wrong. The circumstance was the result of systems created by the USA Constitution, and only that Constitution has the power to alter them.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[ZaMoose]

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.

Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM:

[Temporal]

perhaps because he was lucky enough to preside over a great economic boom that ended just as he was leaving office.

*sigh*

Clinton was not, by any means, "lucky" to have presided over that boom, and I'll tell you why.

Clinton came in during a mild recession. One thing he did early in his term in office was get congress to promise to balance the budget. In order to get Democrats to agree to this (traditionally Republicans were the ones wanting balanced budgets) he raised taxes for the upper class in the same bill. Republicans, of course, insisted that this was a horrible move and would greatly damage the economy according to supply-side economic theory (aka Reagonomics, tricle-down economics, voodoo economics).

Now, here's some basic economics for you: Deficit spending and taxation are pretty much the same thing. When you deficit spend, you add money to the economy, which devalues the money that's already there. The effect is that you are transferring wealth from the citizens to the government, just as you would through taxation.

As Alan Greenspan put it, "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." [1].

However, deficit spending hurts the economy far more than taxation. Pretend you are a wealthy individual looking to invest money. Say you narrowed it down to two options: You could lend money to someone with a great idea for a new business, or you could purchase property. Now, if inflation is likely to hit hard in the next few years, what would you do? Well, if you lend money to that guy, that money is going to be worth a lot less in a few years when he pays it back. But if you buy property, that property is only going to go up in value. So, you buy property.

Well, guess what? The economy booms when people are lending. Buying property does nothing for the economy.

Indeed, Clinton's elimination of the deficit led interest rates to drop to historic lows. In fact, simply the promise that the deficit would be eliminated caused people to start investing like crazy, which caused the economic boom, which itself helped eliminate the deficit. Circular logic? Reganomics seemed pretty circular, too, but Clintonomics actually worked.

And look what Bush has done. He gave us a massive tax cut, and is paying for it through deficit spending. He claims that his tax cuts will help the economy, but deficit spending hurts far more than tax cuts help. I'll grant you that the recession itself was not Bush's fault; the economy moves in cycles no matter what the government does. But Bush's policies are only making it worse.

Fiscal responsibility isn't just a happy thought. It's essential for a healthy economy.

18-35 #4 AIDS:

[Roblimo]

Every day, 10,000 people die of AIDS, not only in Africa, but also in the U.S. and every country in the world. Many people say AIDS is the worst disaster the world has ever seen because it is killing millions of young people, and robbing the world of its future. While the U.S. is spending more to fight AIDS than ever before, we're still not nearing the minimal goals the UN has set for total global AIDS funding ($12 billion by 2005 and $20 billion for 2007). As President of the richest and most powerful country, what proportion of this $20 billion price tag are you prepared to meet? Also, regarding the $15 billion we've pledged to go toward HIV/AIDS programs in 15 of the world's hardest hit nations over the next 5 years, what will the U.S.'s role be in the other nations that are suffering from the AIDS crisis, and what can Americans do to ensure that the entire $15 billion of support pledged by our government goes towards fighting HIV/AIDS worldwide, regardless of who wins this Election?

Re:18-35 #4 AIDS:

[Jerf]

Read this question out loud to yourself, slowly and clearly. It took me a full minute. Too long.

It's getting modded as a troll, which may be unfair; that may be a reflection of the way it spends too much time leading the witness, so to speak. Yes, I assure you, both candidates will promise you anything you want after asking a question like that, and the 15 trillion I spend will be better spent than the 15 trillion the other guy would spend.

18-35 #5 CIVIL LIBERTIES/JUSTICE

[Roblimo]

In the next four years we will see the appointment of possibly (2) new Supreme Court justices. My question to the candidates is this: I understand that your decision could justifiably change tomorrow, but, if you had to appoint someone to the Supreme Court today - on this very day - who, specifically, would that person be and why?

Re:18-35 #5 CIVIL LIBERTIES/JUSTICE

[buttahead]

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.

18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY

[Roblimo]

There are thousands of deaths annually in the U.S. that are attributable to alcohol overdose. In addition, alcohol intoxication is associated with violent behavior. Yet alcohol remains widely available. Another common drug, marijuana, cannot kill by overdose, and does not cause violent behavior. In light of these facts, how will your administration rationalize the continued prohibition of marijuana, which is a less harmful drug?

Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY

[MacDork]

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.

Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY

[ktulu1115]

What do you conclude from the experience of Holland--a country where drugs fall under the jurisdiction of health agencies, not law enforcement--which has seen a decline in chronic use of hard drugs and casual use of soft drugs since de-criminalization?

Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY

[Spyffe]

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.

Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY

[Jerf]

Outlawing Alcohol didn't require an amendment, just as the proposed Family whatchamacallit act to define "family" doesn't. The point was that by putting it in the Constitution that it would be extremely difficult to slap down. Which is also the point of the Family amendment.

It's like a law on Steroids. And that's why the Founding Fathers set the bar high for them; the 18th amendment is the clearest example of abuse in an otherwise fairly tolerable history (unless you semi-religiously believe that the Fed has no grounds to collect income tax :-) ).

Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY

[quantaman]

Definately, though the thing I really think needs to be established is that a) marjiuanna is not a gateway drug (I garuntee this will be their answer unless it's countered in the question itself) or if conclusive evidence of a cannot be found then b) marjiuanna is a gateway drug only due to the fact that it is illegal (can any evidence from Holland be gathered here?), this makes it very tough to justify draconian anti-marjiuanna laws. Of course it's easy to say this, now we actually need the studies to back it up :)

18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY

[Roblimo]

In the name of America's youth, billions of dollars have been spent on the War on Drugs. While we have seen our economy dwindle, and educational and social spending on the chopping block, our prison population continues to grow, mostly for nonviolent drug offenses. As a member of the so-called "DARE generation", my question is simply, do you find our current drug strategy effective, or is it time to look to alternatives for reform?

Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY

[ktulu1115]

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?

Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY

[Bastian]

Your use of the word 'supply' reminds me that The Economist actually had a very insightful article on America's drug policy a few years ago. The entire article basically spent a long time explaining in minute detail how America's drug policy is a complete failure and can only be a complete failure because it creates an artificial perception of short supply without actually making much of a dent in the supply at all. Because of this, the street price of drugs has skyrocketed, but the cost to produce those drugs has increased very little, and the amount of drugs being sold has decreased very little.

What this provides is a situation where being a drug producer is so ludicrously profitable compared to anything else you could be doing with your time that nothing short of indisputable scientific proof that there is in fact a Hell could possibly convince people to stop producing drugs.

This also provides a situation where being a drug dealer is so ludicrously profitable compared to anything a person with no college (or even high school) education could be doing that nothing short of indisputable scientific proof that there is in fact a Hell could possibly get people to stop selling drugs.

It also points out that using the criminal justice system to try to cut off the supply by throwing dealers and trafficers in jail is akin to battling a hydra with tens or hundreds of thousands of heads. Just try and cut off enough to matter before they can grow back.

It was really a fascinating article. I don't really feel like it taught me all that much that I didn't already know from 1920s American hisotry, but it was easily the most well-thought-out discussion of the War on Drugs that I have ever seen, with some incredibly lucid and pertinent examples, and it completely steered clear of the "Sky is Falling" rhetoric that both sides of the drugs argument usually prefer to stick to.

Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY

[runderwo]

There are essentially three types of drugs, of which all the regulated ones fall into one category or another.

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?

18-35 #8 DRUG POLICY

[Roblimo]

With 80 percent of U.S. citizens agreeing that it should be provided, nine - and soon to be more - states accepting it, several organizations including American Nurse's Assn. and Texas Medical Association have resolutions supporting it, and even the current President himself once stated, "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose," why is it that medical marijuana is still illegal by federal standards and not the decision of the states or the individuals it affects?

18-35 #9 DRUG POLICY

[Roblimo]

I have a question about the HEA drug provision. This provision disqualifies students with drug convictions from receiving financial aid. Black students and lower to middle class students are unfairly targeted, as wealthier students can afford tuition and need not apply for financial aid. Do you feel it is necessary to deny financial aid to a student who already paid for their crime? Are you aware that students with a rape or murder conviction are not exempt from receiving financial aid?

Re:18-35 #9 DRUG POLICY

[TheMCP]

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?"

Re:18-35 #9 DRUG POLICY

[quantaman]

Combine 9 & 7.

I feel that 9 is too aggressive suggesting racial motivation and possibly giving the candidate an easy out by challenging the stereotype rather than answering the question. Question 7 as well suffers from a touch of rhetoric, perhaps a combined question would do better.

In the name of America's youth, billions of dollars have been spent on the War on Drugs. Drug convictions are punished with a disproportionate severity with respect to other crimes. This shows up not only in terms of a rapidly growing prison population but other punishments like the HEA drug provision which deny students with drug convictions from receiving financial aid, a privilege that rapists and murderers are allowed. As a member of the so-called "DARE generation", my question is simply, do you find our current drug strategy effective, or is it time to look to alternatives for reform?

I'm worried that I didn't quantify the "disproportionate severity" well enough (think they'll get an out arguing that?) and I wouldn't mind incorporating the fact that the HEA drug provision specifically interferes with the ability of the person to rehabilitate but couldn't find an easy way to slip it in there without asking a second question.

Any improvements?

btw. technically I am also a member of the "DARE generation" so I'm not an american so I don't know if I can really hijack the question :)

18-35 #10 DRAFT

[Roblimo]

Democratic Congressmen Charles Rangel and Ernest Hollings have been pushing to reinstate and change the draft, Senate 89 and House 163. The two bills call for the drafting of women, and don't allow exemptions for college or only children. The Congressmen are pushing the bill under the claim that too many minorities are fighting for our country (CNN.com, February, 2003). What are the chances of either of you supporting such a drastic change in our drafting process?

Re:18-35 #10 DRAFT

[stevesliva]

Interestingly enough, the casualties in Iraq are not necessarily disproportionate by ethnicity... the figures for minorities are close to their portion of the population.

It's class that's disproportionate.

18-35 #11 DRAFT

[Roblimo]

Under what circumstances would you institute a draft to fight the war on terrorism, or institute any other national service (such as the Universal National Service Act) to fight any other war?

18-35 #12 ENVIRONMENT

[Roblimo]

In the 1960s, a concerted effort was made, at the behest of Pres. Kennedy, to reach the moon within 10 years, an incredibly ambitious goal that was ultimately achieved. Do you think that, if a similar effort were made to develop alternative fuels, we would be similarly successful, and would you be willing to make this effort? Also, what benefits do you see alternative fuels bringing our nation, with respect to education, environment, security, and foreign policy?

Re:18-35 #12 ENVIRONMENT

[lpret]

Didn't Bush address this in his State of the Union speech? After some googling, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20 030128-14.html

1.2 billion dollars to fund hydrogen fuel research and implementation.

Here's Kerry's response: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9341338.h tm?1c

Kerry proposed greater use of ethanol, soy-based diesel fuel and incentives to build and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. His 10-year, $20 billion plan envisions 20 percent of vehicle fuel coming from renewable resources.

See what 2 minutes of googling can do?

18-35 #15 EDUCATION (SEX ED)

[Roblimo]

Having gone to high school in a very conservative area, where parents refused to teach their children proper sex education, I watched 20 of my classmates leave due to teenage pregnancy. Some knew about sex while others had no idea how to get pregnant. What is your opinion on sex education in the classroom and what resources (information, condoms, etc) should be used? Do you believe that teaching abstinence alone is enough to save our children from teen pregnancy and spreading disease?

Re:18-35 #15 EDUCATION (SEX ED)

[meta-monkey]

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.

18-35 #16 EDUCATION (SEX ED)

[Roblimo]

If you were reelected/elected president, what would you do to protect the rights of home-schooled in America? In what ways would you help the growing home-school community?

18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY

[Roblimo]

The U.S. has been accused of cultural and economic imperialism in the past, and now with the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, we are being accused by people around the world of imposing our will on others with force. How do you respond to that, and what would you do to restore our nation's reputation around the world?

Re:18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY

[killjoe]

More people protested bush then any other person in the history of mankind. GW may very well be the most hated person in the world right now. I seriously doubt that our nation's reputation can be saved as long as he is office. If he is re-elected then the world will just presume that Americans support his vision of a world living under our domination.

Re:18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY

[bofkentucky]

See Colin Powell's response to questions about American Imperialism

"We've fought in wars all over the world and never took any more ground than was necessary to bury our dead."
The free Market takes care of the economic side of imperialism.

We have neither the need nor the resources to subjugate the world.

Re:18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY

[upsidedown_duck]

How do you respond to that, and what would you do to restore our nation's reputation around the world?

Both canidates have already answered this question many times. Bush is in favor of spreading democracy the world over (as if it is as easy as spreading butter). Kerry has said he will push to restore the US' reputation and try to bring Iraq to a close multi-laterally and with the UN. This is one area where the canidates are suprising consistent in their answers.

I do hope people in other countries see that the USA is pretty divided over these issues (just like many people in their own countries) and that Americans just aren't a big bunch of bozos with grease stains on their shirts. Remember, you can hate us, but only in four-year intervals (you gotta wait and see if you can hate us for the next four).

18-35 #18 FOREIGN POLICY

[Roblimo]

What do you see as the biggest difference between your approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the approach of your opponent? What are some specific problems with your opponent's approach?

Re:18-35 #18 FOREIGN POLICY

[paulproteus]

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.

18-35 #20 GLOBAL ECONOMY

[Roblimo]

Whoever sits in the White House on January 21, 2005, will preside over an America that has seen almost 30 years since the passage of the 1975 Metric Conversion Act. In those three decades, delayed enforcement and waivers have stunted the effect of this act on adopting SI as a common standard for Americans. This negatively impacts the U.S.'s competitive stance in the global economy. As President, what would you do to achieve the goals of the 1975 Metric Conversion Act?

18-35 #21 GLBT

[Roblimo]

Why won't the candidates address the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage? Do they recognize the significance that this demarcation holds as a stand against discrimination? Do they realize how their unwillingness to address this issue impacts every aspect of GLBT's (and their families') lives? Are they aware that when political issues call civil rights into question that hate crimes raise exponentially?

Re:18-35 #21 GLBT

[meta-monkey]

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?

18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE

[Roblimo]

My husband works for a small business, about 20 people maximum, and the insurance the company offers not only would cost over 1/3 of his monthly income, but it would not cover our son due to his 'pre existing condition' (asthma). My question to you is, do either of you plan to make the limitations for assistance higher? Eliminate 'pre-existing conditions,' such as asthma? Make it to where agencies that provide assistance not just look at a monthly income, but look at the monthly outgoing?

Re:18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE

[Kohath]

Geez. Editing.

Do you have a plan to offer financial assistance to the working poor to help them afford health insurance? What are the specifics of that plan? Does it offer relief for people with pre-existing conditions?

---

I don't know whether I agree this is a good question. Basically, it amounts to:

Can I have another government freebie?

How about no? A grown-up is supposed to be able to pay her own way. What's your plan to grow up and eventually be able to pay your own way?

Re:18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE

[msim]

To use an Australian example (well i am from there). What's wrong with a public health system that covers the majority of medical issues within reason, and people electing to take out Private Medical Insurance if they wish for more comprehensive &/or quicker cover for any medical conditions?

I mean c'mon, the system you've got as i understand it is pretty fricking useless unless you've got medical insurance. I mean, charging $20 for a swizle stick to hold someones tounge down? sheesh!

Re:18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE

[killjoe]

"How about no? A grown-up is supposed to be able to pay her own way. What's your plan to grow up and eventually be able to pay your own way?"

You know I am still waiting for Republican to tell the people of florida they should not get federal or state govt handouts just because they live in a state that gets hit with hurricanes every year.

It's an election year though and every republican in Florida is looking to spread the pork around.

Re:18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE

[canadian_right]

How come Americans don't mind government funded programs to build roads, schools, fund education, and many other worthwhile things, but don't think the government should be involved with healthcare?

The USA is the only rich country without government funded healthcare. Wouldn't it make more sense to have toll roads and public hospitals?

Re:18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE

[killjoe]

If you live in a state that gets hit with hurricanes every year or so then it's long term isn't it?

"This woman wants help on an ongoing basis. Before she gets it, she should have to come up with a viable plan where she'll eventually no longer need it."

Pray tell what is she to do except maybe kill her son.

18-35 #24 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[Roblimo]

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?

Re:18-35 #24 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[Anonymous Bullard]

How is the US invasion and the current military occupation of the already fully contained and militarily weak Iraq supposed to be such a morally wonderful idea when e.g. totalitarian China -- which has a massive army and plentiful WMDs, which has sold nuclear and missile technology to undemocratic countries, which continues their oppressive occupation of neighboring Tibet, which has one-party rule denying their subjects of lack basic political rights and which is constantly threatening the democrating Taiwan with war -- is considered simply a trading partner and a fine destination for western capital and manufacturing jobs?

Do you, dear candidates for the post of self-appointed leader of the free world, find any discrepancy or possible double standards in the United States' foreign policy wrt. the above-mentioned setting?

18-35 #25 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[Roblimo]

I am in the military and I want to know if the war in Iraq is going to have a long-term affect on stateside military funding under your control?

18-35 #26 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[Roblimo]

Would the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make it harder to declare war on, say, Iran or North Korea if the need exists?

18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[Roblimo]

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?

Re:18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[vandan]

While I disagree strongly with the implications of this question ( ie that the US will have a right to overrule the democratic wishes or the Iraqis when they finally get a vote ), I would be interested to hear what Bush and Kerry have in mind. I imagine both will simply label the elections as being invalid, using the excuse that the Iraqi people were terrorised by the terrorists into voting for terrorists because of all the extreme terrorism occuring in the terrorist state of Iraq. Terrorist.

Re:18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[killjoe]

MOD PARENT UP.

The Shia comprise of 2/3 of the population and the cleric Al Sistani is the most revered person in all of Iraq right now. What will the kurds and the sunnis do if the parliment if 2/3 shia?

18-35 #28 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[Roblimo]

Dear Sirs, what specifically are your plans to ensure both Iran and North Korea do not obtain nuclear missile capabilities and additionally, and what is your stance on the defense of Taiwan?

18-35 #29 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[Roblimo]

In the light of 9/11, Palestinian militant groups were designated as terrorist groups. This action has precluded communications and these groups involvement in peace negations. How do you propose to break the deadlock in this peace process, and what is your vision for how this peace will look (statehood, disarmament, settlements, etc)? Will this action be taken by individual nations (the road map which was supported by the U.S., Russia, etc) or through the UN (Security Council resolution)?

18-35 #30 LEGAL REFORM

[Roblimo]

In light of a number of recent publicized legal cases, including the suing of illegal file sharers by the RIAA [Recording Industry Assoc. Amer.], it seems that our legal system is slanted to benefit those with money. Large companies and rich individuals can afford lengthy legal proceedings with multiple lawyers, while non-upper class individuals often do not have the same access. This forces many individuals to settle cases, even if they believe they have done nothing wrong. What can be done to fix this injustice?

18-35 #31 LEGAL REFORM

[Roblimo]

Dear Mr. President and Senator, as a local nurse, I am interested in how you plan to help ease the stress many OB/GYN physicians and OB/GYN nurses have due to the ocean of malpractice lawsuits. How can you help us, as healthcare providers to NOT live in fear of undue lawsuits?

18-35 #32 MEDIA/DEREGULATION

[Roblimo]

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?

18-35 #33 MEDICAL

[Roblimo]

Though the U.S. is the undisputed world leader, we fall last in line behind all other industrialized countries when it comes to post-partum maternity benefits. With all the proven advantages of a mother staying home with her child during the first year of life, what do you propose for changes in legislature to ensure a woman is not only allowed time off to stay at home, but can afford to do so by being paid for that time?

18-35 #34 PERSONAL

[Roblimo]

Who is doing your respective jobs while you are campaigning? And if your job allows for the additional work that is put into campaigning, then what do you believe you could have accomplished if this were not a campaign year (assuming that you put this additional campaign work into your respective jobs)?

18-35 #35 PERSONAL

[Roblimo]

What was the biggest mistake you made in the last four years? What were the negative repercussions of that mistake and what have you done to fix it?

Re:18-35 #35 PERSONAL

[teamhasnoi]

Bush has already been asked this. A written version of this question will provide us some precious anecdote about how he shouldn't have gotten his dog fixed.

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.

18-35 #36 PERSONAL

[Roblimo]

When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues - President Bush on establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security and steel tariffs, Senator Kerry on the Iraq war. But changing opinion due to thoughtful reconsideration ought not to be derided as flip-flopping. Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.

Re:18-35 #36 PERSONAL

[The Pi-Guy]

Additionally I think it's probably important to note the presence of 'rider bills' that ride on already-existing bills. That is what most 'flip-flopping' is all about.

18-35 #37 PERSONAL

[Roblimo]

What are the three written works or political thinkers that have contributed the most to your philosophy of governance, and why?

18-35 #38 SOCIAL SECURITY

[Roblimo]

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.

18-35 #39 SOCIAL SECURITY

[Roblimo]

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?

18-35 #40 OTHER

[Roblimo]

What is your take on so-called "intellectual property"? Would you veto any attempt to extend the duration of copyrights yet again? Would you attempt to reign in the range of software patents to prevent patents on ideas and trivialities to stifle innovation?

Re:18-35 #40 OTHER

[Jerf]

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.

13 - 17 #1 TEEN PREGNANCY/SEX EDUCATION

[Roblimo]

Considering the reality of the rise in teenage pregnancies, what is your position on the availability of contraceptives, medical care, education and coverage for these health services for teens? Does your position realistically deal with the consequences of teenage pregnancy and teen parents, the resulting poverty, and the rise in back-alley abortions and abandoned newborns? What will you do as president to address this issue, and why?

Re:13 - 17 #1 TEEN PREGNANCY/SEX EDUCATION

[Anonymous Coward]

Although this is an excellent question, it is not technically correct to begin the question with, "Considering the reality of the rise in teenage pregnancies." In the US, the teen pregnancy rate has been falling in recent year, despite scare stories from the Right Wing.

13 - 17 #2 SPECIAL EDUCATION

[Roblimo]

I am 15 and learning disabled because of a serious heart condition. I am having a difficult time in school. I face increased pressure with the "no child left behind" rules. I get pushed and I cannot keep up. My sister is autistic. I need to know where she will go when she is older. Her school may have to close because they are not getting funding. Why is no one stepping forward to support the growing need for special education?

Re:13 - 17 #2 SPECIAL EDUCATION

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are more promising people to tend to.

13 - 17 #3 ISSUES OF MORALITY

[Roblimo]

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.

Re:13 - 17 #3 ISSUES OF MORALITY

[be-fan]

When I grow up and become President I will be truthful and honest and I won't talk bad about the other guy.

Ah, the idiocy of youth...

13 - 17 #4 ISSUES OF MORALITY

[Roblimo]

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?

Re:13 - 17 #4 ISSUES OF MORALITY

[orthogonal]

Who decides what is moral

John David Ashcroft, at the direction of Jesus H. Christ!

Any questions?

Ask 'em in Guantanamo!

13 - 17 #5 PERSONAL

[Roblimo]

Today, where you're at in your life, would you be willing to die for your country?

Re:13 - 17 #5 PERSONAL

[killjoe]

Both men were given this opportunity during the vietnam war. Both men came from privledeged families and had the resources to avoid going to war.

Kerry went to war and Bush did not. While at war Kerry saw combat he killed people and he risked being killed.

This question has already been answered by history.

13 - 17 #6 PERSONAL

[Roblimo]

What has influenced you to run for office? What do you hope to contribute that the other candidates are not able or willing to contribute to the government and the people?

13 - 17 #7 TOLERANCE/DISCRIMINATION

[Roblimo]

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?

Re:13 - 17 #7 TOLERANCE/DISCRIMINATION

[dspfreak]

OK, let's get this straight.

You wouldn't like a Christian politician to make decisions based on his religion, because you think that violates sepration of church and state. However, making decisions that conflict with the moral standards he professes would make him a hypocrite. Nobody wants to elect a hypocrite. Therefore, we shouldn't elect any Christians, because they are either violating separation of church and state, or they are hypocrites.

Many Americans are members of religions that have an associated ethical code. If politicians that are members of these religions are going to take positions on issues, what standard should they be using instead of the one they claim is fundamental to the way they live their lives?

So say you get an agnostic or atheist politician. Presumably he has developed his own system of ethics during his life, and will use this to form his decisions. Do you feel more comfortable about the decisions this politician will make simply because you have no way of knowing what the ethical basis for his decisions will be? Is he less of a hypocrite than anyone else, or is he just impossible to pin down because his ethical code is not published?

13 - 17 #8 ENVIRONMENT

[Roblimo]

I am concerned about our growing population in the U.S. and all over the world. The traffic, overbuilding and suburban sprawl is not slowing, and I worry, that by the time I am an adult and have a family, that my quality of life is really going to suffer. I would like to hear the presidential candidates address their views on over population, how to control it, its effect on the environment, energy consumption, land use, etc., and on how to stop the overcrowding of both America and the world.

13 - 17 #9 IMMIGRATION/JOBS

[Roblimo]

Why, as an American citizen, will I have to compete for jobs and college financial assistance with people who are here illegally from other countries? My immigrant parents followed the rules and waited their turn.

Re:18-35 #3 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM

[stallard]

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."

Questions for both candidates

[mhollis]

Which recommendations of the 9/11 Commission do you oppose and feel are inappropriate for implimentation.

What specific steps will you take (are you taking) to find Usama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Exactly what resources ought our military and intelligence services be given to finish the job of capturing these known perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack on the United States?

Exactly how will Social Security benefits be paid for by your policies after 2020?

WTF? What about the national debt?

[MacDork]

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.

Maybe this was a bad idea:

[Jerf]

? #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.)

Posion pill legislation...

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Posion pill legislation...

[TGK]

Speaking as a military historian however, the pull back form Germany and other NATO commitments is a very bad idea for several reasons.

1.) US troops overseas in places like Germany and Japan reaffirms the commitments inherent in NATO. While the NATO alliance was once about mutual defense, it's now a league of ideologically aligned states. As such, it provides one of the single most stabilizing influences in the world. Pulling back from these commitments signals a US regression towards isolationism which, in turn, signals a weakening of the NATO alliance.

2.) US troops manning bases overseas provide forward deployment points for conflicts world wide. The reason we use air force bases in Germany for casualties in Iraq (for example) is that the facilities are just as good as those available in the United States but don't involve hauling injured persons across the Atlantic. These bases provide a strategically valuable bridge between the home front and the forward operating theater.

Fundamentally, this pull back is a very very very bad idea. It's being done for political reasons to assure people that we won't need to worry about reinforcements for those being cut down in Iraq. Mostly, it's being done to convince people like my extended family that their sons and daughters who are in the guard won't have to go overseas to fight in a war that most of them are indifferent to.

The draft thing is being kicked around as a metaphor for a bigger problem. Most people who are in the US reserves (guard, etc) are in them with the same preconceptions that Bush and his fellow guardsmen had in the 1970s, namely that you can serve in the guard and not see combat. Admittedly, this is a really stupid conclusion to make. Nonetheless, people made it and now they're afraid they'll get sucked into Iraq because of Bush's war. Kerry bats around the draft because implicit in that idea is that the guardsmen are going to Iraq, it also conjures up the specter of Vietnam. Bush pooh-poohs the idea of a draft to downplay the possibility of guardsmen going to Iraq and to quash the specter of Vietnam.

Re:WTF? What about the national debt?

[Solder Fumes]

If we switched to Metric dollars, the conversion rate would erase the national debt in nothing flat.

no no no no

[snooo53]

You're missing the whole point of the original question here and replacing it with a typical Fox-News/ big media question that is repeated time and time and time again.

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.

Re:18-35 #4 AIDS: But asked a better way

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Every day, 10,000 people die of AIDS, not only in Africa, but also in the U.S. and every country in the world. Many people say AIDS is the worst disaster the world has ever seen because it is killing millions of young people, and robbing the world of its future. While the U.S. is spending more to fight AIDS than ever before, we're still not nearing the minimal goals the UN has set for total global AIDS funding ($12 billion by 2005 and $20 billion for 2007). As President of the richest and most powerful country, what proportion of this $20 billion price tag are you prepared to meet? Also, regarding the $15 billion we've pledged to go toward HIV/AIDS programs in 15 of the world's hardest hit nations over the next 5 years, what will the U.S.'s role be in the other nations that are suffering from the AIDS crisis, and what can Americans do to ensure that the entire $15 billion of support pledged by our government goes towards fighting HIV/AIDS worldwide, regardless of who wins this Election?

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?

4-11 #51 LIKENESS TO PAST PRESIDENTS

[craXORjack]

Senator Kerry, we all know that George W. Bush (43) looks just like George H. W. Bush (41) for obvious reasons, but can you explain your own peculiar resemblance to Andrew Jackson ?

Re:Um, that's how the founders did it

[harvardian]

Some of the drafters of the Constitution worried that the populace would just vote for whoever was popular in their state (this was before everybody had phones and TVs, so states were much more important). Hamilton argued that the Electoral College would counter the degree to which the election was a popularity contest:

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union." cite

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.

Re:Um, that's how the founders did it

[Moofie]

As opposed to campaign in Oregon, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and ignore the rest of the country.

Assessment of questions...

[Pollux]

Alright, rather than just "mod", here's my take on all of them:

1) Electoral Reform - Oh brother. The electoral system is not broken. You should understand that the fact that a minority-vote-getter can become president actually proves that "Majority rules, minority rights" does exist in this country. Besides, electoral voting actually strengthens the individual vote (Miami-Dade county would not even exist if it wasn't for the 2000 vote).

2) Online Voting - my opinion, but I think there's more pressing issues than just the opportunity to vote online (besides, you don't get the obligatory "I voted" sticker).

3) Judiciary Appointment - this process was made to prevent stupid Joes from appointing judges. You can call it corruption, but Bush has had a *ton* of court appointments denied by Congress ... there are checks and balances to this system.

4) AIDS - not unique. This question always appears in the debates, and they always have canned answers. "Blah blah, money for research, blah blah, I don't have AIDS, so I don't care, blah blah." Move on.

5) Supreme Court Justices - PICK THIS. Every president wants some "echo" of their power to last throughout the ages, and this dates all the way back to John Adams and the appointment of Federalist John Marshall. Ask this question, and you get a good mirror image of the policies you can expect from candidates themselves.

6) Marijuana vs. Alcohol - Hippie question. Alcohol is part of our culture, like it or abstain from it. No dance with Mary Jane. Move on.

7) Drug Fight - Don't ask -- you'll get another canned answer from the politicans. "DARE this, Community involvement that, but you gotta love the alcohol commercials!"

8) Medical Marijuana - Another canned response "Needs more research - need to make sure there's a way that it doesn't get abused." Not worth the breath, hippie. Go pack your bags and move to Holland.

9) Drug Provision for Financial Aid - Definately the way to Go. My gosh, this is a good question, and one I never thought about before. Poster definately has a point that those who have paid their time still deserve an education.

10 and 11) Draft - They'll all deny it, and everyone knows that. They may plan it, but they'll never admit to it. So don't bother to ask.

12) Focused goal on Alt. Fuels - Worth Asking, especially with the spin on the "10 year mission to the Moon" emphasis. It just goes to prove that things can get done if you really put your mind to it.

13) Child Abuse - Sad to say it, but skip it. What you need to stop this is GrassRoots - neighbor to neighbor, family to family, friend to friend, and teacher to student is the only way to fix abuse. Jail does not deter hate.

14) Animal Rights - Eat more meat. Death to PETA. Next.

15) Sex Ed - Thought Provoking - it's a good domestic question, because teenage pregnancy has always been a problem.

16) Home Schooling - Last I checked, Bush was supporting it with "No Child Left Behind." If he wasn't, he'll just plug it as another alternative to failing schools.

17) USA, the World Bully - Fine ask it, but the same question will be asked in the debates, and the answers will only be the same as what is said in the television commericals.

18) Isreal vs. Palestine - Don't ask, don't tell - it's been the policy for the last 50 years regarding the actions of Isreal. No US leader that I know will change that right now.

19) Integrate Family Values - Of course, the president has always been responsible for raising the children of the US-of-A. Need family values? Find a family that you can value.

20) Metric Conversion in the USA - thanks. I needed a laugh. Metric in the USA? That's hilarious.

21) Civil Marriage for Gay/Lesbian

Re:Assessment of questions...

[hitchhacker]

6) Marijuana vs. Alcohol - Hippie question. Alcohol is part of our culture, like it or abstain from it. No dance with Mary Jane. Move on.

So you are saying that the government has the right to prohibit something for cultural reasons?
Oh wait.. So long as it's not _your_ culture..

-metric

Re:Assessment of questions...

[Coryoth]

40) Intelectual Property - Yea, right. Like the candidates are going to understand this question. Course, it will be worth asking it just to see the confused look on Bush's face and another possible Bushism for the Calendar.

Look, the point of this is to ask questions that the candidates haven't been asked before, or aren't likely to be asked at some future point. A lot of the questions are pretty standard, or close to standard, but this one is so far off the track of what's traditionally asked that you expect both candidates to be baffled by it. To me that means it is an ideal question, because no one else is actually asking it of them, and I don't think it's at all likely anyone else (who actually gets to ask them questions) will either. This question should be asked.

Hell, even Michael Badnarik who is far more likely to have a few clues on such issues provided a sheer load of waffle in answer to this question when asked by Slashdot. I expect David Cobb to do much the same (as I presume it will be included with his questions). Who cares if we don't get a coherent answer, the fact that we don't should be a very good sign that we ought to keep asking this question, ever more pointedly, until we do get some real answers.

Admittedly the question would be better if they dropped the first sentence and just asked specifically about views on extending copyright, and reforming patent law. That would make for a pretty specific question where any waffling would be obvious.

Jedidiah.

The last question to ask

[teamhasnoi]

Why won't you answer any of the fucking questions?

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?

Re:The last question to ask

[kraada]

Actually, if you are carefully introspective of those answers which were answered by myself and my opponent, you will notice that he answered the questions far less directly than I.

I answered the questions you gave me directly, speaking to the concerns of the American people, who, I believe, should vote for me as their candidate. If you look at my record it is clear that I represent all that is good in the world, and will lead us into a stronger nation is this new, post-9/11 world.

The questions posed showed what a diverse and complex world we live in these days. As a result, you should vote for me, because I am best able to cope with these new issues as we move further into the 21st century.

Sincerely,

Either Candidate.

A LINK TO DISPLAY THE DAMN QUESTIONS

[Alsee]

Having trouble finding the actual questions amongst all the replies?
CLICK THIS LINK for the proper Slashdot sorting to find the questions.

-

Re:Um, that's how the founders did it

[balaam's ass]

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.

CHARGING PRESIDENT WITH HIGH TREASON #1 question

[Anonymous Coward]

To the candidates in three parts:

(I) President Clinton was dragged through impeachment charges, rightly, because there was evidence to suggest he lied during a trial. Despite this mess, and your side of the political fence, when a President violates the law, it seems serious enough that it warrants high attention.

In that vein, do you think that: (a) lies by the President to start a war (e.g., purporting the existence of weapons of mass destruction), if done so with the purpose to deceive the public, warrant a charge of high-treason if substantiated, (b) would such a charge warrant the death penalty, and (c) should be an inquest for President Bush for such a charge of high treason? Why or why not?

(II) Alternatively, if a President is grossly negligent in starting a war by relying on faulty intelligence, should he be culpable? Why or why not?

(III) Finally, if the President did not lie about weapons of mass destruction, is there any other option but to deem that President as being anything but grossly negligent when it turns out he chose to rely on intelligence that has borne out to be false by the lack of existence of any weapons of mass destruction, and if so what is that alternative view?

--On a side note, I wonder why no one is bring this up? Seems lies (falsified memos/intelligence) to start a war would be a bit more serious than lying about what intern you screwed (both are bad, but one is significantly worse if its true).

Re:Um, that's how the founders did it

[EnronHaliburton2004]

This is one of the best questions in this forum.

To find out who your electors are, you need to ask the Secretary of State (it's probabably on their webpage).

Each state handles the Electoral College differently. Some states do list the names of the Electors on your ballot.

I believe this is the information you are looking for:

The U. S. Electoral College.

Re:18-35 #23 IMMIGRATION

[smclean]

My problem is that we have something that is supposedly illegal being completely ignored. Personally, I feel that since the economy already supports illegal immigrants, that it could only do better by making them legal taxpaying citizens. I find it backwards that we pass laws to give illegal immigrants benefits normally enjoyed by taxpayers before addressing the real problems of their failure to pay taxes.

Instead of dealing with the problem, the actual illegal immigration, we deal with the symptom, the illegal immigrants. Politicians won't touch the situation because of the Mexican lobby. Would they be able to convince their Mexican constituency that they could increase the ease and volume of legal immigration, and use the saved money to fund better border patrols, for the benefit of all?

If the Mexican people like our government so much, why don't we just open the border, then when Mexico has all of 10,000 citizens left, we'll annex it into the U.S. I know I know, impossible, ignorant, etc, but it would be neat.

Questions for Bush

[Lightning Hopkins]

This question will never make it to the President, but I'd like to know how he responds to the arguments against the Iraq invasion presented by Brent Scowcroft in 2002 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h tml?id=110002133)
Or George Bush Senior's statement in 1998 that invading Iraq would have "incalculable human and political costs" (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp ) He also said "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. We don't gain the size of our victory by how many innocent kids running away -- even though they're bad guys -- that we can slaughter. ... We're American soldiers; we don't do business that way." (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bus h.htm)
Or Dick Cheney's assessment in 1991 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/che ney.htm)in which he said that "I think the proposition of going to Baghdad is fallacious," that invading would get the U.S. "bogged down in a quagmire," and that "Saddam Hussein's offensive military capability, his capacity to threaten his neighbors, has been virtually eliminated."
I want to know how the President (or anyone else, really) can reconcile the 2003 invasion of Iraq with these pronouncements. Obviously the situation has changed over the years, but it clearly has not changed enough to prevent the situation that Cheney described.

Re:MOD UP

[CaptainCarrot]

"Feudal system?" Show me a serf legally bound to the estate he was born on and I'll believe you.

Perhaps what you're trying to say is that the States as political units are obsolete. I disagree: small political units are the essence of self-determination. Large, monolithic governments cannot make allowances for local conditions or the local will of the people; this was part of the reason for the failure of the Soviet Union. In any event, this would be a draconian change to our system necessitating a virtual rewrite of the Consitution. I doubt you'll find much support for such an undertaking.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the electoral college was put into place because a direct popular vote would have been impractical. That had nothing to do with it at all. See my reply to an earlier post in this thread for a link to the Federalist Paper discussing Presidential elections.

What's really really sad...

[mabu]

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.

Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist.

[jotaeleemeese]

By Margaret Thatcher of course.

And so where the Israleis fighting for their own state.

And so on and so forth.

Be careful, your terrorists, freedom fighters, etc.

The States choose the President

[mveloso]

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?

How about Income Tax Reform?

[dooglio]

Why is there no question about this? Specifically, I'd like to hear what the canidates have to say about the Fair Tax proposal http://www.fairtax.org/.

Missing questions

[zaxios]

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?

Re:CHARGING PRESIDENT WITH HIGH TREASON #1 questio

[Lightning Hopkins]

I like this sort of brazan challenge to common sense. How do we know that the world is round?

Well:
It would take me all night to list all Bush's lies, but here's a few. The falsehoods told by George Bush (and most other politicians) can fall into five categories: Self-contradictions, falsehoods stated while ignorant or with a plausible after-the-fact claim to ignorance, statements that are only technically or half-true, lies by implication, and outright lies.
Some outright lies:
The single worst lie Bush has told, I think, is that the terrorists attacked us "because they hate our freedom," and that "America has been called to defend its freedom." That isn't true (defend it from what? Radical Muslims cannot take away an American's freedom; the government can), and it's clear that he said it mainly because if you can invoke the word "freedom," you've got a pretty good soundbite. If you can get Americans united in what they believe is the cause of freedom, you can get most of us to blindly play 'follow the leader' even to the point that we will eschew freedoms and the right to privacy in the name of freedom.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html
"They ["the people we're dealing with"] hate our freedoms."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020328.html "They ["an enemy that are nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers"] hate what America stands for. They hate our religious tolerance. They hate our freedom of speech. They hate freedom of the press. They despise freedom. They despise freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html
" On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. ... freedom itself is under attack. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. ... This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. ... Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us."
In fact, the Al Qaeda group attacked us because it is a group of Islamic extremists that believes that the force of what they call "jahiliyya" (infidelity), represented by the West and epitomized by America, is on a crusade against Islam. Usama Bin Ladin turned his focus from the Soviet Union to the United States when he became aware that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the Muslim holy lands. He came to see the United States as "the head of the snake," ultimately responsible for all the regional conflicts in the Middle East, citing America's apparent support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the growing global effect of American culture, and other influences. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a fatwa declaring it the duty of what he believed to be "real Muslims" to kill Americans.
They don't give a shit about freedom. There was no terrorist group sitting around in a cave at one point that suddenly decided, "Hey, you know? America is way too free. Let's go hijack some airplanes and let's show 'em." Freedom doesn't enter into it. What they hate is what they percieve as our "imperialism" and what they call our "crusade against Islam." It's quite irrational, but that is the al Qaeda assessment of the world. If there is a madman on the loose, you should at least want to know what has driven him mad so that

Re:Um, that's how the founders did it

[CaptainCarrot]

You're not offtopic at all. IMO, you cut to the heart of the problem.

The electors are appointed by the political parties to vote for the candidate whose name appears on the ballot. In some states they're legally bound to vote for that candidate, but in others they're not. (Some Southern Democrats refused to vote for a Roman Catholic in the 1960 election and cast their ballots for a different Democrat. Imagine if enough of them had done this to throw the election to Nixon.) You don't know who they are because, in a very real sense, who they are makes no difference at all. Nothing is done as the system was envisioned to work.

Electoral voting helps prevent local heroes...

[Dr. Zowie]

... from becoming President without the `consent' of the rest of the nation.

quoth the parent:

For the sake of discussion, I will ignore the fact that the current USA system actually increases the power of high-population areas, and instead use the simplifying interpretation that rural states get a small advantage.

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.