Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Help Select Questions for Bush and Kerry

Posted by Roblimo on from the the-two-best-major-party-candidates-in-the-whole-country dept.

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...

43 of 1,501 comments (clear)

  1. 18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Salis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A better electorate question might ask the candidates how they feel about the usage of paper-less electronic voting machines which have proven vulnerabilities.

      There are many ways to tally the votes (electoral college, proportional electorate by state, etc), but if the votes themselves are vulnerable to fraud then democracy of any type is in peril.

      --
      Favorite /. tagline: "On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN." And it was good.
    2. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    3. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Eskarel · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    5. Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

  2. 18-35 #5 CIVIL LIBERTIES/JUSTICE by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  3. 18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY by runderwo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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?

      --
      LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
  4. 18-35 #9 DRUG POLICY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  5. 18-35 #12 ENVIRONMENT by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  6. 18-35 #15 EDUCATION (SEX ED) by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  7. 18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  8. 18-35 #20 GLOBAL ECONOMY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  9. 18-35 #21 GLBT by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  10. 18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  11. 18-35 #24 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  12. 18-35 #26 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  13. 18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS by killjoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

      --
      evil is as evil does
  14. 18-35 #30 LEGAL REFORM by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  15. 18-35 #32 MEDIA/DEREGULATION by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  16. 18-35 #35 PERSONAL by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  17. 18-35 #36 PERSONAL by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  18. 18-35 #37 PERSONAL by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  19. 18-35 #38 SOCIAL SECURITY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. 18-35 #40 OTHER by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:18-35 #40 OTHER by Jerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  21. 13 - 17 #3 ISSUES OF MORALITY by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  22. 13 - 17 #5 PERSONAL by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  23. 13 - 17 #7 TOLERANCE/DISCRIMINATION by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  24. 13 - 17 #8 ENVIRONMENT by Roblimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  25. Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY by MacDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  26. Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY by Spyffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this is the best of the three questions on drug policy. Frankly, they are redundant and should be lumped into one question somehow.

    --
    Sigmentation fault - core dumped
  27. WTF? What about the national debt? by MacDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  28. 4-11 #51 LIKENESS TO PAST PRESIDENTS by craXORjack · · Score: 5, Funny

    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 ?

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  29. Re:Um, that's how the founders did it by harvardian · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
  30. Assessment of questions... by Pollux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  31. The last question to ask by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

    1. Re:The last question to ask by kraada · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

  32. A LINK TO DISPLAY THE DAMN QUESTIONS by Alsee · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  33. Re:Um, that's how the founders did it by balaam's+ass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re:Um, that's how the founders did it by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act