Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Votemaster Is...Andrew Tanenbaum

Posted by Hemos on from the revealed dept.

A reader writes: " www.electoral-vote.com, a site of daily updated maps of the US electoral college based on a number of polls is probably a site that the policially inclined check daily. Well, it has been revealed that the person behind the site, AKA the votemaster, is none other than Andrew Tanenbaum, noted author of numerous CS books." He's also known for a little discussion with someone named Linus Torvalds.

30 of 978 comments (clear)

  1. Worldwide results by ControlFreal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the other side of the ponds, the story is quite different. About 113,000 people cast their vote here. In this worldwide shadow election: Kerry wins (77.1%), and Bush comes second at 9.1%. Surprisingly, support for Bush is largest in the Middle East (many votes from Israel?). Some hilarious (frightening...) responses by US citizens to this shadow-election can be found here.

    Another initiative (about 20,000 people) is here. Results will be published later today.

    It's logical that the results are different than those in the US. However, one wonders how much of a hint some (some) US citizens (especially those posting very harsh comments in response to these shadow-elections) need to realize that it's not just the US that matters in this world.

    Mod me flamebait, if you wish. But before you do, consider: it's not me delivering the criticism, it's 113,000 people (on behalf of a much larger group). I'm just the messenger boy here...

    --
    Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
    1. Re:Worldwide results by wobblie · · Score: 5, Funny

      To sum up:

      "Ich bin ein Berliner!" JFK 1963
      "I'm a Napoleon!" GWB, USS Lincoln, 2003

      Both Berliners and Napoleons are tasty, delicate pastries.

    2. Re:Worldwide results by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 5, Interesting
      But why is the rest of the world against [the Iraq war]?
      Because to them, this war is basically the United States saying, "we have the right to invade anyone anytime for any reason, and there's nothing anyone can do about it". For some reason other countries don't take that well ;)
      This administration is thumbing its nose at the principals behind post-WWII international law (even UN secretary general Kofi Annon, usualy quite subserviant to the US, has called the war "illegal").

      Specifically the ones who do the inevitably dirty work of wars, exporting security to the rest of the world.
      What an Orwellian phrasing. "Exporting security"... that's quite a lot of security we've exported to Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Iraq. Look at what great shape those countries are in now.

      I hope that the Europeans discover independent thought one of these days and stop letting themselves be culturally dominated by American media and American corporations.
      Amen. Lets hope Americans do the same and stop letting ourselves be dominated by corporations and their media outlets.

    3. Re:Worldwide results by Troed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Check the trade balance. It's the US that needs to trade with the rest of the world to survive - not the other way around.

      --
      it's in my head
    4. Re:Worldwide results by C.Batt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your government misrepresented its reasons for going to war. In fact, the correct expression is, "it LIED".

      Saddam Hussein has/had no proven connections to Al Quaeda. No secret relationships with Osama Bin Laden. No Weapons of Mass destruction. No ability to threaten America or American citizens (except those who wandered into Iraq) directly.

      Was he a "bad man"? Oh, probably. But so is Kim Jong Il.

      The reason why there is so much anti-american sentiment is that America (through its governmental representation) is so anti-global-community. So blatantly false in its motivations. And has proven to be very untrustworthy.

      The war was NEVER about terror, Weapons of Mass Destruction, regime change, or making the world a safer place. It was always about securing oil resources and securing a military foothold in the middle-east.

      The rest of the world knew this immediately (except for the UK government). We didn't swallow anything hook-line-and-sinker. We called a spade a spade, and are frankly quite disgusted by the lack of respect that America has demonstrated to the international community.

      At the very least, if the American government would've said, "uh, we're going into Iraq because the instability of the area threatens our Oil supply." At least they would've been honest.

      Are Americans evil? Hardly. My wife is American. I visit my inlaws regularly and they are fantastic folks. So are all of the people I've met on a face-to-face basis. However, the American government is NOT a good representation of its people. All that the rest of the world is saying with these fake votes and inconsequential opinion polls is that we'd like your government to give you the international representation that the good people of America deserve.

      --
      -- All views expressed in this post are mine and do not
      -- reflect those of my employer or their clients
    5. Re:Worldwide results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tough. It's our vote, not yours. I'm getting really sick of these arrogant Europeans thinking their oppinion in our election even matters. We (by and large) hate the French president, do they care? Are they changing their votes because of it?

      You're right, it is your vote, and it's perfectly justifiable for Americans to consider their election a purely internal matter for Americans to deal with.

      Oddly enough though, whenever another country has elected a leader that Americans happened to dislike, you always went in and removed them. It didn't matter if it required an invasion (too many to list), a kidnapping (Panama), an assassination (Cuba), or a fake coup (Guatemala), you supported it.

      And to think all we're doing to express our dislike of your leaders is letting you know about it. Oh the horror! But you're getting pissed that we would dare interfere in your election by *talking about it*? What a fucking hypocrite.

    6. Re:Worldwide results by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm getting really sick of these arrogant Europeans thinking their oppinion in our election even matters.

      You are shortsighted and and dooming our efforts to defend ourselfs against terrorist attack if you think overwhelming world oppinion is irrelevant.

      The world - our staunchest allies - they all beleive that the US has been lying and that *WE* have become the rouge nation. I'd say the evidence is that they are right, but even if they are wrong, the fact is that they do beleive it. The fact is that they no longer trust us. The fact is that they no longer support our efforts to track and catch or kill terrorists.

      How the hell are we supposted to find and catch or kill terrorists across the globe - even in nations that have been our staunchest allies - when we no longer have their public support and police support and intelligence support and their military support?

      Bush has been increadibly damaging to our international relations. Bush has destroyed our capacity to find and catch and kill terrorist cells outside the country and planning attacks on us.

      We are talking about Australia, and England, and Mexico, and Canada. And yes, France and Germany as well.

      Bush is famous for saying "you're with us or you're against us". Well he got his wish, now the entire world is against us. How the hell are we supposed to keep out terrorists when even Canada and Mexico are against us?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. Serious questions by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I imagine the replies to this post will mostly be drooling fawning over Andrew Tanenbaum, much like the Jon Stewart/Crossfire article, I'd like to actually ask some meaningful questions. (And please note that I have great respect for Tanenbaum, but don't understand a couple of his central points, described below.)

    Why does running a statistical analysis website that gathers information on polls and aggregates them into something quasi-meaningful "support" the Democratic candidate?

    Yes, yes, I'm well aware that while incognito he had said on numerous occasions that he was a Kerry supporter, and a Democrat. But he himself says:

    Why Did You Do This?

    In a nutshell, because I want to be proud of America again.

    Meaning that Kerry can somehow make him proud again. Ok, fine, but what does running electoral-vote.com have to do with that? The question "Why Did You Do This?" implies that he is "do"ing something to influence people to vote in a particular way, which I simply don't see that website doing. In fact, other than the admittedly editorial sections of the site, I have found the site to be remarkedly unbiased.

    He then goes on, at length, describing/proving that the world "hates" Bush/the administration/etc. This comes as absolutely no surprise to me. However - and FORGET about "Bush" for a second - how does "hating" someone have any logical correlation with whether their positions or courses of action are appropriate or inappropriate? That would seem antithetical to the viewpoints of most progressive persons. That's a serious question, but I doubt I'll get any serious answers. And this is an important question, because the fact that so many abroad "hate" Bush, and somehow getting more Americans to understand that, is central to Tanenbaum's multitude of statements on the topic. Why does "hating" someone mean what they're doing is wrong? (I will concede that a leader of a nation being hated probably makes it vastly more difficult to do diplomatic work, but that is somewhat tangential to my core question.)

    The rest of this post amounts to what are essentially footnotes on this topic, but I believe are critical to the discussion of the belief that Kerry can somehow to a better job.

    So let's address these things. The world "hates" Bush, and Kerry can somehow not only fight terrorism more effectively, but will also bring respect back to the US.

    Sen McCain said it best yesterday on Face the Nation:

    "I also believe that President Bush has a vision and a view that the war on terror is not going to be over until we have some democracy in the Middle East, and I don't think he means by imposing that at the point of a bayonet. But I do believe that he's correct that the issue of radical Islamic extremism is not going away until those countries have some kind of freedom and democracy, and I think that's his long-term goal."

    Now, before you start spitting and sputtering about why the US is in "Iraq", then, well, reread that last statement. I'm not going to beat around the bush, as it were, any more: the US is in "Iraq" because it was an easy target in the region, period. Not because Saddam tried to kill Bush's "daddy", not because Bush is an angry dry drunk, and not because Cheney has a secret plan to line his pockets and that of Halliburton. This isn't a black-and-white zero-sum game where there is only one reason the US is in Iraq. There are myriad reasons. But the prime one is that it is part of a comprehensive, omnibus strategy to bring free or quasi-free governments to the region, in the hopes that more of the same will be encouraged, even as organizations like al-Qaeda redouble their recruiting efforts. This strategy will make things worse in the meantime. Possibly a lot worse. People will hate us. Including some people who will ultimately be protected by our actions (i.e., Europe).

    Panislamic radicalism will not go away on its own

    1. Re:Serious questions by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice long post. I can sum it up easy. While he is clearly a Kerry supporter, the polls are non-biased and based on existing polls.

      If you followed the site for some time you would see that. There is even a movie on the site to show you how much the polls have been swinging back and forwards.

      If anything his site shows how pointless polls are, or that the undeceided voter is completly clueless and changes their mind every 5 minutes.

      The only poll that really matters is tomorrows.

      On another note "600,000 Iraqis". Can you quote a source for that? The only figure I can find is for displaced and not killed under sanctions. Also you should note that Saddam was grossly inflating the deaths (especially children deaths) in order to try and stop sanctions.

    2. Re:Serious questions by benhocking · · Score: 5, Interesting
      how does "hating" someone have any logical correlation with whether their positions or courses of action are appropriate or inappropriate

      I would guess that for many people the causal connection is backwards from what it appears you are suggesting. I.e., people "hate" Bush because they think that he his positions or courses of action are inappropriate. I personally don't hate him, but his positions and courses of action are why I'm voting against him. (Yes, I'm one of those many people who are voting against Bush more so than voting for Kerry. I've never been particularly partisan, but have always thought that respect for the environment was very important.)

      the US is in "Iraq" because it was an easy target in the region, period [and to bring freedom, democracy] ... This isn't a black-and-white zero-sum game where there is only one reason the US is in Iraq.

      I do believe that the reasons you've listed are primary reasons we attacked Iraq. I'm still undecided as to whether the reasons were sufficient. Saddam was an evil person, and only time will tell whether we've helped to secure freedom and democracy for Iraq or whether we've prepared the way for a worse dictator. (The US has a bad track record with this - think Khomeni, etc.) Nevertheless, I do think that there has been significant profiteering going on, (e.g., Haliburton), and that is very disturbing.

      An interesting thought experiment is to imagine what would have happened had we invaded Germany and removed Hitler instead of ceding the Sudetenland to him. People probably would have said we were overstating the threat, etc. Was Saddam as big a threat as Hitler? (Remember, Hitler had no WMD's either,) Maybe not. But if we had removed Hitler when he invaded the Sudetenland, Hitler wouldn't have been as big a threat.

      However, even if you believe we should have attacked Iraq, it is hard to believe that Bush followed a well thought out plan. I think a good diplomat could have bargained with France, Germany, and Russia and gotten them on board. I know that seems impossible now, but that's only because Bush has so alienated them that it's difficult for even them to imagine ever helping us.

      Of course, my number one reason for voting against Bush is because of the number of policies he has enacted that have rolled back the environmental policies enacted under Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton.

      --
      Ben Hocking
      Need a professional organizer?
    3. Re:Serious questions by Diabolical · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have to ask yourself a very serious question: Is it the responsibility of the USA to bring democracy to the middle east?

      The rest of the world sees differently. It is not our responsibility to tell another nation whether their way of life is correct or not. Hell, the US has big problems of their own without fighting wars in other countries.

      It is this mentality that has brought the problems to the US in the first place, their constant meddling into the affairs of foreign countries. Hell, Saddam Hussain, Osama bin Laden and their cohorts are PRODUCTS of this meddling.

      The rest of the world is looking very cautiously at the actions of the worlds most powerfull country. Just like children look cautiously to the school bully. Because that's how the USA is percieved right now. A bully running around pushing other people out of it's way to get what it wants..

    4. Re:Serious questions by toddt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Moderate, or reply? Moderate, or reply?

      Reply it is.

      Your comment makes some excellent points about foreign policy. Unfortunately, they're points that I feel you understand better than our president does.

      Yes, it's key to stop Panislamic terrorism. It's critical to our safety, to peace around the world, to a solution to the mid-East crisis. All that.However, our methods have, to put it mildly, sucked a whole lotta ass. We did a really, really fantastic job of just bombing the shit out of Iraq. We shocked 'em. We awed 'em. And then we alienated 'em.

      Instead of enlisting aid to actually secure the peace (rebuilding infrastructure, training Iraqi civil forces, promoting education), we chose to go it alone. Why? Because we'd be better at finding the WMDs without interference.

      But at the point that we'd won the war, the WMDs didn't matter! They made a reasonable excuse for invading, but after the war, they were pointless.We'd already invaded, we were now stuck there, WMDs or no WMDs. They really only mattered for political points. At that point, to really do good in Iraq, we needed to make it perfectly clear that we were *not* there as conquerors, that we were *not* there to stay, and that we were *not* there to subdue Islam. We needed to make rebuilding Iraq a collaborative, global effort. We needed help. And Bush did NOTHING to seek it out. That's why it's our boys who are being killed, and it's a big part of why terrorist recuiting efforts are so incredibly successful in Iraq today. (Yes, I'm forgetting Poland. I know.)

      And that's why Iraq is a debacle. That's a big part of why the rest of the world has come to really hate us. That's why I think voting for Bush is a mistake. Does Kerry have the solutions? Probably not. Certainly not all of them. But he's someone that the rest of the world doesn't actively despise, and that opens a lot of doors. We need help in Iraq if we're going to instill a workable democracy. Bush can't get it. Perhaps Kerry can.

      And all that's to say nothing of Bush's really miserable record on the environment and science. Stifling stem cell research? Ignoring global warming? Overruling EPA guidelines on arsenic and air quality? Come on, now...

      Todd

  3. Amazing by fname · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just read the votemaster description, and came over to Slashdot to submit the story. Funny. Despite being a small, self-run website, this is one I don't think Slashdot can even begin to take down (650,000 hits/day), although it's been the subject of DDoS attacks in the past. Being the computer wizard & all-around smart guy that Mr. Minix is, he's prepared for this by setting up backup site (just increment the number if it's down).

    Mostly, I can wait to see how Linus is inspired by this project, writes his own version and then invites the global electoral community to help him make it even better. Take that! (j/k)

  4. Re:And unfortunately, a site that won't load today by j0shwalk3r · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have been a longtime reader of his site. He has mirrors up on electoral-vote2.com on up. I think 5 was the highest I last heard, but I'm sure he'll be putting up more after gettting a good slashdotting. And he thought the people trying to DoS him was bad...

  5. Re:Had to be non-US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's a US citizen living abroad:

    "My name is Andrew Tanenbaum. I am one of the 7 million U.S. citizens living abroad. I am a professor of computer science at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Most of you have never heard of me but in an itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny corner of the universe I have done enough stuff that Google has somehow managed to dig up 10,000 pages referring to me."

  6. Turnabout is hardly fair play. by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you were to set up the same vote for say England you would be luckly to find many people in the US to know who is actually running against Mr Blair.

    1. Re:Turnabout is hardly fair play. by SiliconJesus · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you were to set up the same vote for say England you would be luckly to find many people in the US to know who is actually running against Mr Blair.

      If you had the same question in the United States, you'd be shocked to find that most Americans think he's the King.

      --
      Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
  7. Re:Had to be non-US by cloak · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's a US Citizen, just not living in the United States.

  8. Hey Linus - you won! by rfinnvik · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.electoral-vote.com was running Apache on Linux when last queried at 1-Nov-2004 15:33:26 GMT :)

  9. He is still a US citizen by bitingduck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except he's a US citizen living abroad, which is not the same as not a US citizen.

    A friend of mine recently moved to Canada for work and told me that lots of US expats she knows there are voting for the first time in years (often for the first time since they left). If you're living abroad you vote in the last state where you were a resident and you only get to vote for president (maybe senate, too, but I think just prez). Many of those people last lived, and are very likely to vote for Kerry (in Canada, the far right is mostly to the left of the US Dems).

    It's going to be an interesting election night...

    (sarcasm appreciated except for the nit)

    1. Re:He is still a US citizen by HeghmoH · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm an expat in France and I just voted absentee for the first time in this election. (It's the first time because I was in the US for the last one.) I got what appeared to be exactly the same ballot as everybody else gets, which had the election for president, house and senate seats, state legislature seats, various positions for the city, and even a referendum. It's possible they won't count the others, but none of the material they sent indicated this, so I doubt it. This is in Wisconsin, and other states may be different.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  10. Intellectually honest? by slykens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've followed this guy's site for the last few months and I think he has recently developed a problem with his intellectual honesty.

    He is an unabashed Kerry supporter, not in and of itself a bad thing, but he is discarding poll results favorable to the President in order to show a Kerry victory. For example he claims to have averaged recent polls in Florida but a Quinnipiac poll from 10/27 thru 10/31 shows an EIGHT point Bush lead. How he ends up with a 2 point Kerry advantage with that in the average I don't know.

    Today is his worst showing yet, in my opinion, and he may be indirectly helping the President. If Kerry supporters believe their man is going to win and win big then voters who are not as committed may not show up to vote.

    Remember Karl Rove asking where the FOUR MILLION evangelicals were in 2000? If people think their man will win regardless of their vote then fewer people will make the effort to vote and strange things can happen.

    1. Re:Intellectually honest? by crazyfreakid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slykens, he ALWAYS uses the poll with the most recent median date. He's currently using a Zogby poll with a median date of 10/31 in Florida, making it more recent than the Quinnipiac poll. He has explained this many times over the past few weeks: He only averages polls that have the same median date and polling length.

  11. Electoral College is Obsolete by jaylee7877 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on ELECTORAL COLLEGE (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.

    As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where politics are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:

    1. MICROPOLITICS VS MONOLITHIC ELECTORAL SYSTEM

    Most states are Monolithic Electoral Systems. Votes are tallied in each state and the winner of each state recieves all of the electoral votes for that state. Even if 49.9% of voters are for candidate #2, the 50.1% for candidate #1 means he gets all of the state's electoral votes.

    While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually are in politics, the debate is essentially over. Micropolitics have won.

    The only real argument for monolithic electoral systems was performance, and there is now enough evidence showing that micropolitics systems can be just as fast as monolithic electoral systems systems (e.g., Florida 2000 never would have happened if we would have just counted up every American's vote and the candidate with the greatest percent over 40% would win) that it is now all over but the shoutin'.

    2. Portability

    The Micropolitical Voting system was made to be portable to other future democracies such as Iraq, Afghanistan and has proven that it is scalable to nation states as large as China and India, the Monolithic electoral system would involve much more work in creating districts, states, commonwealths, etc. to the point that it is really not worth porting and would need to be started from scratch.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not unhappy with the Electoral System. It will get all the people who want to turn Micropolitics into a true democracy off my back. But in all honesty, I would suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" nation look around for a micropolitical-based, portable political system.

    1. Re:Electoral College is Obsolete by johndeeregator · · Score: 5, Informative
      Idea: Read the Constitution.

      You do not get to vote for president. None of us do. Your state does. You vote for your state's electors, since that is the election system your state has set up. It is the state's choice to cast all of its votes for the state's popular vote winner (although one state currently has a ballot measure which would split up the electoral votes in some situations). We have a federalist system. If you do not and cannot understand the governmental system we use in this country and why we use it, then it's probably best that your vote "doesn't count."

  12. Ob AST by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Never underestimate the voting power of a country full of hax0rred Diebold voting machines hurtling down the highway of democracy.

    - Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 2004.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  13. WHY must "the famous thread" always be brought up? by hkb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it that everytime Andrew Tanenbaum is mentioned on Slashdot, the "infamous thread" must be brought up, and not much else? This man IS UNIX history.

    Tanenbaum was around looong before Linus/Linux. Before Linux even began, before Soft Landing Linux, those of us who wanted UNIX on our home computers used/loved Minix.

    Minix was the technology that sparked a lifetime love of UNIX for many a users, not just the younger Linux.

    Occasionally, I'll reflect on the beautiful blue console of my Amiga, on which I ran Minix off of 3 (as I recall) floppies.

    So please, let's not dismiss Andrew Tanenbaum's role in computer history. Remember that his shoulders are the giant's that Linus has been standing on.

    I can't wait to see what the people standing on Linus's shoulders come up with...

    --
    /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
  14. Hopefully, the lawsuits will happen by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually hope there are thousands of lawsuits. Besides helping to expose both the D and R partys shenanigans, I want to have them bust up diebold and those other election fraud companies forever, and get rid of the notion of pre hacked black box voting elections, and shakeup the population to stop being such utter sheep when it comes to something as important as this. If it takes a thousand lawsuits, better that than the alternative, which would be a full dictatorship shortly once these machines are entrenched all over and legitimised by an "accepted vote tally" and they know they can get away with it. 2002 was a test, and they "got away with it". If they do the same in 2004, that's it, it's over.

    This is my opinion of course, but I think it has a lot of merit based on what we know so far.

  15. Re:If anything, that crap is counterproductive by SlashDread · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, as a European, want to firmly say:

    4 more years! We love Bush! All Europeans think Kerry is a lame-Americain! Boo Kerry!

    Really!

    "/Dread"

  16. "It's our vote, not yours" by llywrch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reading this retort, I was immediately reminded of Tannenbaum's comment about the bully in his school. If you really _don't_ care what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S., then don't be surprised when they aren't willing to help us the next time a terrorist attack strikes us.

    Considering just how crappy our economic health is at the moment, an international boycott would only make things in the U.S. worse, irregardless of the size of our economy. And I wouldn't be surprised if that came to pass.

    Geoff

    --
    I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p