Slashdot Mirror


Election Day Discussion

With the polls now already open in most of the country, this is the official on-topic place for all Slashdot readers to discuss the election itself. And get out and vote if you can. Also, if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election. I'm off to vote in a couple hours. Wonder if we'll have Diebolds in my district.

1,718 comments

  1. First Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    First Vote!

  2. SouthPark by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Funny

    Like always, it's a choice between a doosh and a turd sandwhich.

    1. Re:SouthPark by Canuck_TV · · Score: 2

      The problem this time around being that the turd sandwhich also has bits of glass and razor blades in it for flavour.

      Please don't bite it. Not another 4 years of watching you with a bloody mouth...

    2. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on people, vote Bush out. Wouldn't you love to see the look on his smug little face when he loses?

      His father couldn't get re-elected, and neither will he. A sad, pathetic, puppet of a man- nothing without his family's influence and his 'advisors', who are the ones with the real power, deeply evil men such as Cheney.

      History will see him as the worst president yet, fitting as he was never really elected.

    3. Re:SouthPark by Fishstick · · Score: 5, Informative
      >choice between a doosh and a turd sandwhich.

      doosh? what is that? oh, you meant...

      douche Pronunciation (dsh)
      (Medicine)
      n.
      1.
      a. A stream of water, often containing medicinal or cleansing agents, that is applied to a body part or cavity for hygienic or therapeutic purposes.
      b. A stream of air applied in a similar way.
      2. The application of a douche.
      3. An instrument for applying a douche.

      Noun 1. douche bag - a small syringe with detachable nozzles; used for vaginal lavage and enemas

      and also

      Douche Bag http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dou che+bag&r=d

      Main Entry: douche bag
      Pronunciation: 'düsh 'bAg
      Function: noun
      Date: circa 1963
      slang : 1 One with an undescribeable fucked up-ness hence stupidity, poor idea of what's cool, possibly an arrogance about them. 2 One with an intolerable personality.

      Other Forms: Douche, Douchey

      Meat heads are douche bags.

      Dude, stop being a douche bag.

      Dude, stop being a douche.

      Dude, that was a douchey move.


      * why yes, I have nothing better to do today having already voted for the doosh bag ;-)

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    4. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to spell, ace.

    5. Re:SouthPark by obsid1an · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And you really think things are that different with Kerry? He comes from the same background and are even cousins, albeit quite a few branches apart. Hell, they are even frat brothers (if you consider the skulls a fraternity). No, this election truly is a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

    6. Re:SouthPark by RPI+Geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While we're on the topic of comedians' opinions, check this out (links to a webcomic with bad words, if that matters to you).

      You'll already recognize this if you read SSDD, but if not, I think that he hits the nail right on the head. Think about why you're voting for your guy when you go vote. Think if your vote is "thrown away" if you live in a swing state and you vote for a 3rd party. Think about what you'll think of how you voted in 10 years. Get informed and get to the polls, ensure that they do everything properly at the polling place and if not, there's a number to call about it! Hope you don't have to use a Diebold machine, and lastly, remember that half the people will be upset no matter who wins the election but life will go on.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    7. Re:SouthPark by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Funny

      If Turd Sandwitch wins, that'll be 'Freedom Rinse' to you.

    8. Re:SouthPark by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      It's the French word for "shower", which also happens to be used by the Russians.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    9. Re:SouthPark by netsharc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kerry didn't have political connections which made it easy for him to slack off and swindle money during his youth, Kerry is not a drunk, Kerry is not a bible-thumping Jesus-freak who forces his "faith" on others. Kerry volunteered to go to war..

      Please don't vote Bush.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    10. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And you really think things are that different with Kerry? He comes from the same background and are even cousins, albeit quite a few branches apart. Hell, they are even frat brothers (if you consider the skulls a fraternity). No, this election truly is a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
      Whether you like Kerry or not, he has several things going for him:
      • He's a politician (Bush is just a failed businessman).
      • He's capable of thinking for himself, not merely a puppet.
      • He's running against arguably the biggest failure of a president history has seen- look at how much he's screwed up in only 4 years!
    11. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be ridiculous. There ain't no French word for shower.

    12. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, Kerry is just a lying, flip-flopping, liberal, rich traitor.

      Kerry didn't volunteer until he had tried every way under the sun to get out of going. Read your history, Sparky.

    13. Re:SouthPark by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Whether you like Kerry or not, he has several things going for him:
      • He's a politician (Bush is just a failed businessman).

      Meaning Bush has some sense of reality, unlike Kerry the career politician and money-marrier.

      • He's capable of thinking for himself, not merely a puppet.

      What evidence do you have that Bush is a "puppet"? Further, the idea that the President is solely responsible for his entire policy is a joke...he has experts in various narrow fields to advise him. Being President is a management job, and delegation is key.

      • He's running against arguably the biggest failure of a president history has seen- look at how much he's screwed up in only 4 years!

      Bush has done a good job in several respects. His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11. Two million new jobs this year. No attacks on mainland America since 9/11. Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.

      Granted Iraq is not an ideal situation right now. However, it is also ridiculous to call it a failure. We had a valid reason to go to war - Saddam's failure to account for his WMDs. We've accomplished far more than we ever did in Vietnam, at the cost of around 1,100 American lives - as opposed to 50,000 lost in Vietnam. (Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.) There is a good chance (if Kerry doesn't win) that Iraq will be transformed into a stable democracy, which would be a tremendous achievement. It could be the start of major, positive change in the Middle East. There is also something to be said for the idea of fighting terror over there rather than here in the streets of America.

      I think the majority of Americans are smart enough to sort all this out, and we'll see the result tonight - a solid Bush win.

      Now, let's consider the downsides of Kerry.

      First of all, we have no idea what he'll do if by some mischance he's elected. His positions have changed constantly during the campaign, no one knows what he'd ultimately decide to do. It's easy to claim you have a "better plan" when you don't actually have to produce any results.

      His track record is weak on defense, high on taxation - a classic New England liberal. His behavior in the Vietnam era was inexcusable. He is disliked by the military, and morale will suffer terribly if he's elected. He is ultra-rich yet claiming to speak for the common man. (The Kerry's paid around 15% taxes on $5 million income last year, the Bush's paid around 30% on their income.) Kerry will do nothing differently than Bush on the issue of offshoring, they are both globalists. In fact, he is probably more likely to bump the number of H1-B visas, just as Clinton did when President.

      I don't believe Bush is perfect, I don't like the USAPA as currently implemented, and I detest Ashcroft. However, Kerry is such a poor excuse for a candidate, and has such a poor public record, that I have no choice but to support Bush. Sometimes in life we have to make tough decisions. Kerry is simply unacceptable as President.

      It boggles my mind that the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate. The two party system seems a bad idea about now...

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    14. Re:SouthPark by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

      He's capable of thinking for himself, not merely a puppet.

      What are you smoking?!! I want what you have if you believe that! Kerry can't think for himself unless he has Polled the hell out of it, and even then he changes his mind every 15 minutes (well, not that long, sometimes it's even shorter).

      At least Bush has the BALLS to make his stand. I might not like Bush's stance on some issues, but, dammit, you know where he stands and shoots straight!

      P.S. Yes, it is a choice between a Turd Sandwich and a Douche Bag, but a choice of the lesser of two evils, and I'm scared about the Douche Bag.

    15. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What are you smoking?!! I want what you have if you believe that! Kerry can't think for himself unless he has Polled the hell out of it, and even then he changes his mind every 15 minutes (well, not that long, sometimes it's even shorter).
      You've been watching Bush's campaign propoganda again haven't you?
      At least Bush has the BALLS to make his stand. I might not like Bush's stance on some issues, but, dammit, you know where he stands and shoots straight!
      Actually Bush changes his mind a lot too, suddenly last week he went for the Gay Marriage vote:
      "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so ... States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others." George Bush, ABC TV, Good Morning America, Oct. 26, 2004
    16. Re:SouthPark by Pxtl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11.

      You display your bias by calling it the Clinton recession. At any rate, that tax cut resulted in breaking all the records for debt spending. Bush has plunged the USA deeper in debt than was thought imaginable.

      Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.

      No, two new hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. Period. Afghanstan is now ruled by drug-pushing warlords and former Taliban rulers, and Iraq has converted a neutral populace (with an anti-American dictator) into a vehemently anti-American populace (with an American-backed dictator). He's done the same thing with Terrorism that he did with taxes - he postponed them in such a way that it will be a hundred times worse for your children.

      (Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.)

      Funny, I don't hear you using this justification when discussing the psychotic and aimless reaction to Terrorism. I mean, was it _only_ 3000 people who died in 9/11? Death is death, and whether it was 10 000 or 100 000 Iraqis who're dead for some bad judgement, it still sucks.

      And frankly, the Military can "get behind the president" in times of war, whether he's Kerry or Bush, just like they told the civilians to do during the run-up. Their behaviour under Clinton was inexcusable (such as public threats on his life).

      His behaviour in Vietnam was far more excusable than his opponents - he went, he fought, and he found out how horribly it sucked so he did whatever he could to get home (the three-purple-heart-loophole). Then, once home, he informed the people of how badly it sucked. Some people couldn't handle the truth, so they go apeshit on him.

      Kerry has shown far more interest in protecting American jobs than Bush (who does not seem to have shown any) so I don't see where you're getting that H1B note. Kerry has actually campaigned on that platform.

      high on taxation

      Frankly, the US cannot afford the current levels of taxes and spending. Its like running a million dollars of credit because you don't want to make your car payments.

      And he said what is plan is - more international support. And he'll get it too, all he has to do is give the UN some measure of control of their troops Iraq (after all, after this mess do you really expect French troops to take American orders?) and open up the reconstruction contracts to supporting countries.

      I notice you dodge actually listing what Bush's income is. Bush is also very rich, and also claim s to be the common man. How many cowboys own sports teams and oil companies in their carreers (which they run into the ground and fail to see any reprocussions from)?

      Kerry's not stupid. Hey has made a major point that he will finish the job in Iraq. If being "strong on defense" means invading a few more coutnries while still holed up on Afghanistan and Iraq, I dare say that the US needs someone a little less "Strong on defense" or it'll just spread itself too thin.

    17. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      * He's a politician (Bush is just a failed businessman).

      Meaning Bush has some sense of reality

      I fail to see how a priveliged upbringing and a career of being bailed out of failed business ventures by your father's wealthy friends would give someone a sense of reality.
      What evidence do you have that Bush is a "puppet"?
      "The other president; Dick Cheney, backseat driver par excellence"
      He is not only the most powerful vice-president in American history. He is also the most controversial, a man whose decisions have repeatedly given even loyal Republicans pause. Four more years of George W. means four more years of Bush-Cheney: the closest thing to a co-presidency America has ever seen.

      For the past four years the two men have been inseparable. Most vice-presidents have to fight for time with their boss; Mr Cheney sees his several times a day. Most vice-presidents spend their days at state funerals; Mr Cheney, more than anyone else, picked the members of the current administration. Thereafter he helped to shape the administration's policies on everything from energy policy to the invasion of Iraq.

      The Republicans have repeatedly reminded Americans this week that September 11th 2001 defined this administration. But who was in charge on that terrible day? It was Mr Cheney who took most of the key decisions--from hiding the president to authorising the shooting-down of suspicious aircraft--while Mr Bush was holed up in Nebraska.

      (I will post full text as a reply for those interested...)
      Further, the idea that the President is solely responsible for his entire policy is a joke...he has experts in various narrow fields to advise him. Being President is a management job...
      Yes, but I would expect that president to be able to understand and pronounce any long words used by those advisors; Bush cannot.
    18. Re:SouthPark by ErgoErgun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bush has always supported civil unions. He is pushing for a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage. Not civil unions.

    19. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny on so many levels....

    20. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bush has always supported civil unions. He is pushing for a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage. Not civil unions.
      He says that now, but what about last year?...
      White House officials have said that Bush would not have endorsed civil unions as the governor of Texas. In Oct. 2003, Bush issued a proclamation endorsing Marriage Protection Week, a week of anti-gay family events sponsored by more than two dozen right-wing religious organizations, which called on elected officials to sign a pledge not only opposing marriage equality for same-sex couples, but also opposing civil unions and domestic partner benefits.
      More flip-flops here
    21. Re:SouthPark by Fenresulven · · Score: 1

      Kerry didn't volunteer until he had tried every way under the sun to get out of going. Read your history, Sparky.

      You mean like joining the Texas Air National Guard?

    22. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    23. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I just love how you Rednecks use the word 'liberal' as a term of offence, like they're all wimps who aren't man enough to be a biggotted right-winger like yourself :)

    24. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now _that_ would have been a slimy way of getting out of it...

    25. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Interestingly, The Economist backed Bush last time, but now backs Kerry: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm? story_id=3329802
      Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks.
    26. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush is the ultimate flip-flopper, he can't even decide on his religion so for you religious freaks out there, vote kerry, he's always been the same religion

    27. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      At least Bush has the BALLS to make his stand. I might not like Bush's stance on some issues, but, dammit, you know where he stands and shoots straight!
      Yes, that's what you're supposed to think- and you Rednecks just lap up that "got ma gun and ma horse an I'm gonna use it" type crap.

      Gil Scott-Heron pointed this out in the song "B" Movie:

      The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They want to go back as far as they can - even if it's only as far as last week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards. And yesterday was the day of our cinema heroes riding to the rescue at the last possible moment. The day of the man in the white hat or the man on the white horse - or the man who always came to save America at the last moment - someone always came to save America at the last moment - especially in "B" movies. And when America found itself having a hard time facing the future, they looked for people like John Wayne. But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for George Dubya
      - and it has placed us in a situation that we can only look at - like a "B" movie. (of course, he wrote it about Ronald Reagan, not Bush...)
    28. Re:SouthPark by nanojath · · Score: 2, Funny

      More to the point, would anyone choose a turd sandwich over a douche? I mean, I'm a man so a douche is irrelevant to me. I guess maybe I would have to exchange it for an enema. But a turd sandwich, presumably, you gotta eat. I'll take a little squirt of water up the privates any day over eating shit on bread. Even if you aren't being FORCED to use the item in question, I'd rather have a douche sitting around in the medicine cabinet rather than exrement on whole wheat. It's a totally obvious choice. I'm beginning to think the guy that made that comment wasn't all that damn bright, in fact.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    29. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, gotta love LeftDot, where the pro-liberal post gets modded up Insightful and the equally non-flammable pro-conservative post gets modded down Flamebait. Way to go, mods! I'm glad we can always have good discussion here and debate both sides of the issue...

    30. Re:SouthPark by hesiod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Troll.

      I routinely post pro-conservative points and get modded up, if it is a valid point and not based on onesidedness. "Clinton recession" pointing out Kerry's $5Mil and ignoring Bush's $XMil (which is >5) makes him out to be biased and ranting.

    31. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was disappointed with that too; I made the post that http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12806 4&cid=10701695 was replying to, as well as one of the replies. I disagreed with many of the points, but it seemed like a reasoned opionion and didn't deserve "-1 flamebait".
      (And by the way, calling someone liberal or conservative could be considered by them a compliment or a criticism, regardless of whether their political views are Liberal or Conservative.

    32. Re:SouthPark by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      This was about the least informative "informative" post I have ever read. Thank you very much for making this moment in slashdot history possible.

      Love,
      carpe_noctem

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    33. Re:SouthPark by some+damn+guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Economist actually endorsed Kerry, albeit with "a heavy heart". This is not a liberal publication either, folks. It is a conservative publication of the non 'neo' variety, though it is not surprisingly more concerned with the economic, rather than social, side of things. The President got points for his good intentions but in the end they conceded he "has never seemed truely up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it".

      While it is published in England, the largest part of it's readership is American, and based on how they usually go, it was an endorsement Bush should have had in the bag. Most telling, they wrote that their confidence in him had been "shattered". The criticism was almost entirely foreign policy-based. The editors made it clear that a new approach abroad, as well as a greater distance between himself and the extremes of the religious right, were what they required from him to receive their blessing.

      Kerry actually got praise for his voting record as a fiscal conservative and free trade advocate, though it wondered if his recent swing towards protectionism was for real or just politics. He is not without a few big spending projects, like health care, but they guess these probably wont get past a Republican congress anyway. No flying colors here but passing marks in the face of four more years of Bush foreign policy.

      Interesting stuff.

      http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?stor y_id=3329802

    34. Re:SouthPark by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you people are buying that line about Kerry being a flip-flopper. Kerry changed his mind on Iraq because he was MISINFORMED BY THE ADMINISTRATION as to why war was necessary. Bush may have been as well, but even now he stubornly refused to admit he was wrong!

      Being able to change viewpoints based on given evidence is an excellent characteristic of a critical thinker, something Bush, as a fundamentalist, will never be.

      --
      Jeremy
    35. Re:SouthPark by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

      I may be wrong, but I never heard Kerry admin that he was wrong. In fact, I've never heard Kerry admit to being wrong to anything. I don't think I've heard Bush said he was wrong on anything either. Hell, I've been wrong most of the time, but thank GOD for my wife for setting me straight!

    36. Re:SouthPark by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      yeah, on this issue at least he did. Wish he'd been louder about WHY he was wrong... could have turned the #1 criticism into a plus.

      --
      Jeremy
    37. Re:SouthPark by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Well dammit if he volunteered,lets suit him up put a weapon in his hand and send him looking for Osama his mama.
      Kerry only slacked off in Washington and currently swindles us now.Jesus,will he force his faith in the party on us.I am gonna get drunk.
      Damn...Vote for me!
      If you havent been to the polls yet,go down and write in your ol buddy flyneye.
      If you just CAN'T vote for Bush and weren't inclined for whatever unnacceptable reason not to vote Libertarian; Vote for me,FLYNEYE!

      this political message brought to you by the Subgenius Foundation,New Belgium brewries and QuickTrip.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    38. Re:SouthPark by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1
      No attacks on mainland America since 9/11
      And obviously, the only thing that could have had this effect was Bush and Co.
      I disagree. I don't think it was Bush and Co that prevented a mainland attack. I think it was this Magical Anti-Terrorism Spoon I bought on 9/12. I got it from a street vendor who looked like a gypsie. He said it would prevent any terrorist attacks on american soil so long as I eat my Magical Anti-Terrorism Corn Flakes with it every morning. Bush has just been taking the credit - you really should be thanking the spoon!
      Seriously, just because attacks haven't happened since 9/11 doesn't mean that any one person is responsible. Maybe Bush's policies really did stop attacks, or maybe the Evil-Doers(TM) just haven't been planning any lately. Maybe said Evil-Doers(TM) have just been sitting in one big circle-jerk for the past 3 years celebrating a successful attack. Maybe they've only made half-assed attempts. You can't be certain either way who prevented what. What you CAN be certain of is that you can't trust anyone who takes the credit for something that can't be proven.
      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    39. Re:SouthPark by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11.

      You display your bias by calling it the Clinton recession.

      Of course it was the Clinton recession. The stock market crashed before Bush's policies could possibly have had any effect.

      At any rate, that tax cut resulted in breaking all the records for debt spending. Bush has plunged the USA deeper in debt than was thought imaginable.

      Not true. The current deficits are a lower percentage of GDP than at other points historically.

      Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.

      No, two new hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. Period. Afghanstan is now ruled by drug-pushing warlords and former Taliban rulers, and Iraq has converted a neutral populace (with an anti-American dictator) into a vehemently anti-American populace (with an American-backed dictator). He's done the same thing with Terrorism that he did with taxes - he postponed them in such a way that it will be a hundred times worse for your children.

      I disagree. The elections in Afghanistan were a stunning success. I find it amusing that liberals such as yourself heap scorn on something that did so much to advance traditional liberal values such as freedom and women's rights.

      There was already a culture of rabid anti-American hate in both of those countries. It now has a chance of getting better, and I assure you that there are strong pro-American factions in both countries now.

      (Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.)

      Funny, I don't hear you using this justification when discussing the psychotic and aimless reaction to Terrorism. I mean, was it _only_ 3000 people who died in 9/11? Death is death, and whether it was 10 000 or 100 000 Iraqis who're dead for some bad judgement, it still sucks.

      Yeah, it was "only" 3,000 (three times as many as the troops we've lost, eh?). However, it could easily have been 30,000 or more if the terrorists had planned a bit better. Not to be callous, but it was equally bad that a major part of our financial infrastructure was taken out. Together, these events caused $1 trillion in damage to the US economy.

      The bigger concern is terrorists of whatever ilk coming up with NBC weapons that would take out millions instead of thousands. I think that makes the war against terrorism justifiable in it's present form.

      His behaviour in Vietnam was far more excusable than his opponents - he went, he fought, and he found out how horribly it sucked so he did whatever he could to get home (the three-purple-heart-loophole). Then, once home, he informed the people of how badly it sucked. Some people couldn't handle the truth, so they go apeshit on him.

      He went, he fought (to some extent, how well or bravely is very open to question). He most likely injured himself for at least one of the Purple Hearts. Then, when he returned, he committed the truly inexcusable act of lying about supposed atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. This gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and directly hurt American POWs in prison. That alone should disqualify him from being Commander in Chief.

      Kerry has shown far more interest in protecting American jobs than Bush (who does not seem to have shown any) so I don't see where you're getting that H1B note. Kerry has actually campaigned on that platform.

      Once again, Kerry has paid lip service to something he thinks might get him a few votes. We'll see what happens if he actually gets into a position to do something about it. His wife's company outsources as much as any.

      high on taxation

      Frankly, the US cannot afford the current levels of taxes and spending. Its like running a million dollars of credit because you don't want to make your car payments.

      Of course not. That's why the plan, over time, is to

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    40. Re:SouthPark by slim-t · · Score: 1
      Funny, I don't hear you using this justification when discussing the psychotic and aimless reaction to Terrorism. I mean, was it _only_ [idrewthis.org] 3000 people who died in 9/11? Death is death, and whether it was 10 000 or 100 000 Iraqis who're dead for some bad judgement [idrewthis.org], it still sucks.

      I use a similar argument all the time - in 2001 there were 30,622 suicides in the US. So even in the year with the most terrorism in the US ever - you were 10 times more likely to kill yourself than be killed by a terrorist!

    41. Re:SouthPark by Glock27 · · Score: 0
      I just love how you Rednecks use the word 'liberal' as a term of offence, like they're all wimps who aren't man enough to be a biggotted right-winger like yourself :)

      Actually I'm a Libertarian (er neo-Libertarian I suppose), which should tell you how conflicted I am about endorsing Bush.

      A New England Liberal, though, is is a special breed made for spending money and growing government. Nasty, really. =)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    42. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are wrong, I take it you didn't watch the debates. Kerry Admitted he was wrong:
      "Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion [appropriations bill that Mr Kerry voted for and against], I made a mistake in how I talked about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"
      Democrats claim first blood as eloquent Kerry rattles Bush
      Bush, on the other hand, seems to think it's best to never change one's mind, no matter what the evidence.
    43. Re:SouthPark by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      The Economist is an extremely liberal publication.

      It has been, forever. It seems like a 'moderate' publication if you're far-left.

      I can't help but make the estimation that you're farther than far-left.

    44. Re:SouthPark by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      you know, like in that old Springsteen song "Blinded by the light - Wrapped up like a douche, another runner in the night..."

    45. Re:SouthPark by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      Heh, That's one of those songs I never really thought I understood what he was saying, but I'm pretty sure it is

      Cut loose like a deuce, another runner in the night

      pretty funny, though

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    46. Re:SouthPark by totatis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      France has already said it wouldn't send troops to Iraq - period.

      Of course, France won't send troops.
      Try to understand something : for France (and most other European countries), UN, with all its shortcomings and problems, is considered a great institution, with a great goal, peace.
      We sure as hell didn't like the way Bush administration handled the UN. We hate his bullying of inspectors (try to read what Hans Blix has to say about Bush administration, very enlightning), we hate his attitude of saying "fuck the UN, i'll do what I want", we hate some declarations by say Rumsfield, we hate that Bush lied to the whole world to start a war, we hate the corruption the Bush administration shows (Halliburton anyone ?), we hate Bush's declarations of "You're with us or against us" (we can think and make judgements by ourselves, thank you, if you want our support, try to convince us, and don't try to bully us) ...
      My point ? You won't see any French troops going to Iraq, because of Bush.
      If the US had allowed the inspectors to continue their job, if the US had presented real arguments about Iraq, if the US had shown respect to the whole world, then we French might have put some troops in Iraq, like we did in Gulf War I.
      But Bush has been such an asshole that we (French population) won't allow any troops to risk their lives because Bush administration has fucked everything up in Iraq. No way in hell.

      But you should consider that France has a history of following the US (GW1, Afghanistan etc ...), and that should you have a president that cared about the whole world, that respected the UN, we French might be on your side right now in Iraq.
      Put blame where blame is due, and remember : if you're alone (ok you've got Poland, which regrets its support) in Iraq, it is Bush's administration's fault.

      Bush has already secured significant international support, and it's not likely we'll get much more.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't have significant support. The only support you have is from :
      1) UK
      2) countries that were bullied to follow you, and sent a minimum of non fighting troops with you

      Beside UK, no powerful nation followed you in Iraq. France, Germany, Russia, China said no way in hell. Aznar tried to engage Spain on your side, but he got kicked out of office because of that (and because of his lying about the ETA of course).

      You have to consider something very important : here, in France, after September 11th, every citizen felt sympathy for the US, and every citizen thought our governement should side with the US and helps you. We showed our support. We sent troops with you in Afghanistan, and nobody here even thought about not doing that. It was clear in our mind that we had a duty to help our ally, the USA.
      Then Bush talked about Iraq. Then Bush started bullying the UN. Then Bush started bullying Europe. We thought wtf ? Why does America think it has a right to bully the whole world ?
      We thought that an open discussion with the US in the UN would make Bush reconsider his position, and presents REAL evidence that Iraq was a threat.
      But he didn't. He lied more and more. He bullied more and more.
      And then, he started to hurt the UN. And that was the turning point. We felt betrayed. We felt that our support to the USA, our sadness about September 11th, was used to kill a much respected institution. We had the feeling that Bush was using our consideration and our support to promote a new form of imperialism.
      And he did.
      From that point, we started to hate him as much as we supported the USA after 9/11. We, and 99% of the world, thought that he was a bigger danger to world peace than Saddam or Bin Laden. Not because he's more evil, but because he acts as a bully while leading the world's most powerful nation, not some dozens of terrorist or a third world nation. And the idea that our support might have contributed to this new danger was

    47. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      course, manfred mann's version is a bit different


      Blinded by the light
      wrapped up like a deuce
      Another runner in the night.
      Blinded by the light
      wrapped up like a deuce
      Another runner in the night.
      Blinded in the night
      wrapped up like a deuce
      Another runner in the night.
      Madman drummers brummers
      indians in the summer
      With a teenage diplomat. In the dumps with the mumps
      As the adolescent pumps his way into his hat.
      With a boulder on my shoulder
      feelin' kinda older
      I tripped the merry-go-round with this very unpleasing
      Sneezing and wheezing
      the caliope crashed to the ground
      The caliope crashed to the ground and she was
      Blinded bythe light
      wrapped up like a deuce
      . . .
      Some silicone sister wither her manager mister
      Told me
      I got what it takes.
      She said I'll turn you on
      sonny
      oh
      to something strong.
      Oh
      play the song with the Junky break
      And go-cart Mozart was checkin' out the weather chart
      To see if it was safe outside.
      And little early pearly came by in his curly wurly
      And asked me if I needed a ride
      The caliope crashed to the ground and she was
      Blinded by the light
      wrapped up like a deuce
      . . .
      Madman drummers brummers
      indians in the summer
      . . .
      Now scott with a slingshot finally found a tender spot
      And throws his lover in the sand.
      And some bloodshot forget-me-not says
      Daddy's within car-shot. Save the back-shot turn up the band
      Some silicone sister with her manager mister
      Told me I got what it takes.
      She says: "1']1 turn you on
      son
      to something strong"
      She got down bot she never got tight.
      He's gonna make it tonight.

    48. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can't disagree about bush junior, but bush senior was a decent president - kicked iraqi out of kuwait and done it pretty damn good way by leading everyone into the cause, including arabs (only regret might be aftermath with kurds and shias in iraq...). done the right thing instead of being an ideologue by raising tax to cut down deficit (no one likes tax, but we like busted down economy even less). guess this shows genes go only so far...

    49. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as opposed to someone who don't change his direction/mind , even if he brings about armageddon ?

    50. Re:SouthPark by jak163 · · Score: 1

      Recession started in 2001. Stock market didn't cause the recession, and neither did 9/11, it was because Greenspan raised interest rates. Kerry was right to oppose the war and army soldiers did commit atrocities over there. The 'aid and comfort' argument is vague and impossible to quantify, and furthermore doesn't outweigh legitimate criticism of the U.S. First round of tax cuts were not a stimulus as they were back-loaded, and at any rate none of the tax cuts were an efficient stimulus because they were tilted toward those with less marginal propensity to spend. That wasn't the purpose for the tax cuts they were to allow the wealthy to hold on to more of their money. Iraq was a lie and is an incredible disaster. Afghanistan is marginally better but now there's a CIA agent in power.

      You are swallowing the administration's propaganda hook line and sinker.

    51. Re:SouthPark by bernlin2000 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see the look on /. ers faces when Bush wins, which it is obvious now he will do. So many people have said it would be a close race, but in the end it probably won't be as close as 2000. And this time, Bush will actually win ;).

    52. Re:SouthPark by UncleFluffy · · Score: 1

      The Economist is an extremely liberal publication.

      It has been, forever. It seems like a 'moderate' publication if you're far-left.



      Actually, the Economist is fairly libertarian (i.e. classical liberalism) - socially liberal but economically conservative. Whether you map this onto "liberal" or "conservative" in the US sense of the words is, of course, up to you.


      --

      What would Lemmy do?

    53. Re:SouthPark by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "He's a politician"

      Some people consider that a disadvantage.

      "He's running against arguably the biggest failure of a president history has seen"

      Hrm... a Republican president that many say gained the White House because of the presence of a "vote spoiler" drawing away Democratic votes finds himself involved in what many feel is a war for national survival (while some feel it is unnecessary and unjustified, never mind civil rights abuses), but apparently has no clear plan for how to win that war. A quick victory never materialized and many question whether the president and his cabinet have any idea what they're doing, let alone know how to do it. Should be easy for a Democrat war hero to steam-roll over him, right?

      McClellan still lost.

      Is it silly for me to compare Bush with that other "damned Republican?" Probably, but your'e the one without a grasp of history who invited the comparison with such a flippant comment like "biggest failure history has ever seen." Be thankful that you have no idea what "divisive" means.

    54. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why would we want France to send troops to Iraq just to surrender?

    55. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "He's a politician"

      Some people consider that a disadvantage.

      Err, I would think it was an advantage if your job is in _politics_...
      "He's running against arguably the biggest failure of a president history has seen"

      Hrm...[...]

      OK, so that part of the comment was a bit troll-ish. His presidency does hold several records that it would rather not, such having lost the most jobs of any president.

      And I think that there would have been less chance of 9/11 happening without him- both because of his poor international policies, and his failure to grasp the concept of national security before it was thrust in his face.

      Based on the available information, they should have been expecting an airline hijacking well before September 2001

    56. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Economist is an extremely liberal publication.

      It has been, forever. It seems like a 'moderate' publication if you're far-left.

      Err, it backed Bush in 2000, doesn't seem that 'far-left' to me...
    57. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd like to see the look on /. ers faces when Bush wins, which it is obvious now he will do.
      As you can't see my face, I'll describe it for you:
      • I'm a little bit sad, for I think that the world just became a slightly worse place.
      • I'm slightly surprised that 1/2 the population doesn't vote, and half of those who do don't care if Bush runs them into the ground.
      • Above all, I'm glad that I don't live in the US. A lot of great poeple over there, but the average is pretty sad.
      I couldn't put it any better than Mr Bush himself:
      Fool me once -- shame on -- shame on you. You fool me, you can't get fooled again.
    58. Re:SouthPark by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Err, I would think it was an advantage if your job is in _politics_"

      Because politics is viewed negatively by most people out there, usually rating up there with trial lawyers, used car salesmen and telemarketers.

      "His presidency does hold several records that it would rather not, such having lost the most jobs of any president."

      There you go again, forgetting in this instance about Herbert Hoover (among others).

      "both because of his poor international policies, and his failure to grasp the concept of national security before it was thrust in his face."

      What exactly are you complaining about? Should the Bush administration actually apologize about the EP-3 collision instead of merely expressing regret? Was having Vicente Fox address both chambers of Congress the trigger that caused 9/11? I do realize he did manage to snub the Canadians several times, but I didn't realize they were involved in the attacks.

    59. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What exactly are you complaining about? Should the Bush administration actually apologize about the EP-3 collision instead of merely expressing regret?
      Yes! Apologise for himself, and his administration

      Sandy Berger, President Clinton's Nat. Sec. Advisor told Condi Rice that terrorism and al Qaeda would be her main concern. She forgot.

      Richard Clarke, an anti-terrori expert in the first Bush, Clinton and second Bush White Houses presented Rice, Cheney and others with a battle plan to roll back al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The ENTIRE Bush anti-terror team ignore this.

      On 9/9/01 - mere days before the attack - Rumsfeld said Bush should VETO any efforts to move a small % of the Defense budget from Star Wars to anti-terrorism.

      The ENTIRE Bush Admin Nat. Sec. team let OBL and AQ attack us on 9/11. This after The ENTIRE Clinton Admin Nat. Sec. team kept us safe and warned the Bush team. Bush et al have no excuse. The blood of 3,100 is on their hards.

    60. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      An amazing minority of people believe as you do. That makes you an idiot, I guess.

    61. Re:SouthPark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
      GOOD - 1 EVIL - 0

      You are wrong, misinformed, and in denial.....and the light ahs obviously defeated the dark side. You can sleep safely tonight!

      BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    62. Re:SouthPark by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      hey, I didn't moderate myself -- I was going for maybe a funny, nothing more.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    63. Re:SouthPark by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Recession started in 2001. Stock market didn't cause the recession, and neither did 9/11, it was because Greenspan raised interest rates.

      No, the recession started in early 2000 with the tech bubble implosion. It was well underway by the recession. Strangely, the VCs were sick of losing tons of money on companies that never paid off.

  3. Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 4, Informative

    For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!

    --

    "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    1. Re:Vote Libertarian by thesupermikey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i think not. I'm all for 3rd partys and everything, but the they are much more effective at the local level where they can have an impact.

      --
      Mikey
      I've always been the kinda guy to fall for the girl dressed like an eskimo.
    2. Re: Vote Libertarian by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful


      > For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!

      Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Vote Libertarian by atomm1024 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This gets moderated as 0, Troll? What exactly is wrong this opinion? While I do think Libertarians tend to be closet-anarchist nut jobs, this isn't a troll. It's just an expression of a political opinion, which is what this thread is about, isn't it? I mean, it's not like he was saying "For meaningful change, the only choice is GNAA Lysol!" That would have been a troll, but I don't see how this is.

      --
      Signature.
    4. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not when the alternative hasn't defined his own plans beyond "I'll do things better than he did."

    5. Re: Vote Libertarian by Krow10 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      > For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!

      Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?

      Obviously not. Personally, I think that this and the Supreme Court are two differences between the major party candidates that matter enough to me that I will pick one over the other. But I can't blame someone for having different priorities. If the differences between Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas are unimportant to you (or you think they are both equally bad in different ways,) then a third party vote is certainly appropriate. If these (or some other differences) do matter to you and you still vote 3rd party, I think such an idealistic vote is unwise, but certainly your right anyway.

      Cheers,
      Craig

      --
      Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    6. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?

      Yes, indeed, which is why Badnarik is the only logical choice. Kerry certainly isn't a logical choice because:

      • He supported (and still supports) the war in Iraq
      • He supported (and still supports) the USA PATRIOT Act
      • He supports a draft (uh, I mean, mandatory "National Service")

      So, again, for meaningful change, the only choice is Badnarik.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    7. Re: Vote Libertarian by sigaar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ' Not when the alternative hasn't defined his own plans beyond "I'll do things better than he did." '

      Doing things better is a given. Doing worse will be quite a challenge.

      --
      sigaar
    8. Re: Vote Libertarian by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      I would assume Badnarik's relatively isolationist. What his diplomatic skills are like I don't know.

      I think the major issues with Bush were the lack of diplomatic skills couplied with a unilateralist world-view. A decent President could probably have done everything Bush did - reject Kyoto, declare war on Iraq, etc - without pissing off most of the world in the process. I think this goes for virtually any foreign policy - isolationist, multilateralist, etc - excepting, of course, straightforward expansionism.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re: Vote Libertarian by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Obviously not.

      Which takes a lot of air out of the theory that the major parties will make substantial changes to appeal to independents. Some of these independents are forever going to say "So the two major parties are running Mother Teresa and Stalin? They're just the same, lesser of two evils. That's not a choice! My candidate is the only real choice!"

      It's hard to imagine two more completely opposite candidates than Bush and Kerry. If you don't find this a meaningful choice, you will not find any election a meaningful choice- so there is absolutely no reason for the parties to try to get your vote.

    10. Re:Vote Libertarian by Liselle · · Score: 1

      Well, not the only choice. Cobb also works if you want some radical, meaningful change.

      I voted Badnarik in Massachusetts this morning, and was amused to see he was the first choice on the ballot. I know my vote is only a pebble, but I'll be voting 3rd party for as long as it takes to get election reform in this country. And not just on the Presidental level (where it matters the least, imo), but locally, where I can make a difference.

      Unfortunately, I didn't have that option today, because almost every position was a Democrat running unopposed. That's Massachusetts for you. ;)

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    11. Re: Vote Libertarian by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "declare war on Iraq, etc - without pissing off most of the world in the process."

      Of course, the rest of the world (except for Germany, IIRC) was being bribed by Saddam. Russia and France, especially. In fact, France was shown to be interfering w/ the inspection process by giving Iraq advance knowledge of where the inspectors were going.

      I don't think anyone could have taken care of Iraq without making other countries mad. Maybe several years ago, but definitely not today.

      For those of you interested in why Iraq was a threat to the US, you should Read a blog post I wrote on the subject.

    12. Re: Vote Libertarian by Cornflake917 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Right...voting for some one who essentially has no chance of winning will definately cause a meaningful change...you're joking right? Just because republicans say Kerry supported the war doesn't make it true. Yes, he did vote to give the president power to make the decision. But does this mean Kerry would have done the same thing and put us in a middle of a big mess? Hell no. He probably won't in the future either. And I hope you realize pretty much every congress member "supported the war" in Iraq, except for a few. This is partly because republicans did a great job of labeling people as "unpatriotic" if they didn't support the war. A lot of senators didn't want to take the chance of losing their popularity in order to go against the grain (unfortunately).

    13. Re: Vote Libertarian by joeljkp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Kerry supports a draft? Trustworthy link, please?

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    14. Re:Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      closet-anarchist nut jobs,

      As a real "closet-anarchist nut job" I take great offense to that. Worship of the "free" market (which leads to monopolies and labour opression) and strapping prisoners to their beds are not hallmarks of an anarchist state.

      The nutcases in the "libertarian" party of the US seem to want the freedom of anarchy without the responsability to their communities that makes anarchy work.

    15. Re:Vote Libertarian by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Funny
      For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!

      I forget. Which one of these is the Badnarik/Campagna slogan, again?

      • "Badnarik '04: A Meth Lab In Every Garage And A .45 On Every Hip!"
      • "Badnarik '04: Survival Of The Fittest Isn't Just A Good Idea--It's The Law!"
      • "Badnarik '04: Grow A Pair And Vote For Us, You Fucking Sheep!"
      • "Badnarik '04: Men Are Angels!"
      • "Badnarik '04: Government BAAAAAD!"
      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    16. Re: Vote Libertarian by mpe · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?

      What makes you think that John Kerry would be that different from George Bush on these issues. There are plenty of ways in which these two people (as well as the Democratic and Republican parties) are in agreement.
      It tends to be the generally ignored "third parties" in US politics who have any kind of radical ideas.

    17. Re:Vote Libertarian by johndeeregator · · Score: 1

      Today, I voted for Michael Badnarik for president--the first time I have voted for a Libertarian for our nation's highest office. I had been planning on doing so for a year, but had severe doubts last night about whether or not I should just vote for Bush. In the end, I think I made the right decision.

      Happy voting, everyone, and let's pray this is over tonight.

    18. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I read your blog and compliment on your efforts. That being said, I still believe invading Iraq was the wrong choice. If ties to Al-Qaeda is enough to justify invasion than we should have ivnaded Saudi Arabia, a country which gives far more economic support than Iraq ever did. If nuclear or other WMD are the prime goal than Iran was a far likelier target since their program is farther along than Iraqs.

      If the war was really about putting an end to a threat, than we have failed at that as well. Iraq is being a terrorist training ground and numerous caches of weapons remain ungaurded by US troops. The truth of the facts you laid out is that Iraq was no more than one threat out of many, and any direct threat to the US mainland was far smaller than other countries.

      I would urge you to look at what you have written and ask yourself if the war in Iraq has helped counter your points, or if it has made them worse. I think a truly honest look will show you that we are worse off for actions.

      One final note is that, as Bin Laden himself said in the most recent videotape, one of Al-Qaeda's goals is to suck resources from the US. Bush's policies have furthered that aim far better than Al-Qaeda could have dreamed. The constantly changing terror alerts and efforts to protect every nook and cranny are draining State, Local, and Federal coffers at a prodigious rate. That coupled with the constant fear mongering has also led to a hampered economy.

      Even if you believe starting the war was justified, surely you would agree that we ought to start fighting it smarter?

    19. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right...voting for some one who essentially has no chance of winning will definately cause a meaningful change...you're joking right?

      Yes. The more votes third parties get, the more exposure they will get, and eventually meaningful change will happen.

      Just because republicans say Kerry supported the war doesn't make it true.

      Thank you, Watson. Of course, since Kerry's own voting record says he voted for the war, I will trust that instead.

      Yes, he did vote to give the president power to make the decision. But does this mean Kerry would have done the same thing and put us in a middle of a big mess?

      If Kerry didn't want the president to go to war, then he shouldn't have voted to give the president unilateral power to make war. Kerry's argument that he voted "only for war as a last resort" is like saying he cut a branch off a tree, but he didn't make it fall to the ground.

      And I hope you realize pretty much every congress member "supported the war" in Iraq, except for a few.

      Good argument: "Everybody else did it too!" And so what if the GOP labeled people as "unpatriotic"? Do you really want somebody voting for an unnecessary war because they were taunted?!?!

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    20. Re:Vote Libertarian by bsaxberg · · Score: 1

      I voted LP, couldnt force myself to choose between the republicrats or the republicrats.

    21. Re:Vote Libertarian by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1

      His slogan would be the last one. We only want meth labs in pharmeceutical companies, not garages - and being able to carry a concealed .45 would make me feel a lot safer. Your first and fifth points don't make any sense that I can see. Your third one is MY slogan.

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    22. Re:Vote Libertarian by scenturion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that the Libertarians you hear about the most tend to be closet anarchist nut jobs.

      However, there is a bit of revolt in the ranks against the kooks. They've had way too much exposure for too long. For example, One local LP chapter actually rejected the National LP Platform and replaced it with their own.

      I know that if the Libertarian Party doesn't reinvent itself soon and become a genuine political party instead of being more like a philosophical debate club, I (and a lot of people like me) will be leaving it.

    23. Re: Vote Libertarian by Darmox · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about straight from the horse's mouth?

      (via archive.org)

      --
      If I was that drunk, I would have remembered it -- H. Simpson
    24. Re: Vote Libertarian by mpe · · Score: 1

      I would assume Badnarik's relatively isolationist.

      A position which would probably be in agreement with a large proportion (possibly a majority) of the US population.

      What his diplomatic skills are like I don't know.

      The people who an isolationist president would seriously piss off would be the various lobby groups who want the US to be involved in other countries.
      IMHO this would take someone very brave. Since some of these lobby groups have plenty of money and little respect for human life.

    25. Re:Vote Libertarian by honestmonkey · · Score: 1

      Move to Texas, where almost every position was a Republican running unopposed. Cool, huh? Yeah,I voted Badnarik as well, and for any other Lib or Ind candidate on the ballot. Precious few. Let's see if the news actually reports the totals tomorrow. Usually I have a hard time finding out how my candidates did.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    26. Re:Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meaningful change? Like putting thousands of federal workers out of work, along with thousands of tax accountants? Like removing funding from thousands of researchers, decimating the University system and our space program? Like taking Medicare and Social Security away from those who depend on it? Like not building roads or sewers anymore? Like abandoning Iraq to whoever will come in to fill the void?

      I agree with a lot of what he says, but I want to hear the 20-30 year plan, not "The first thing I will do is abolish the income tax." That would destroy the country. Fortunately, congress, and not the president, gets to make the laws, so none of that would happen. Maybe he would be a good choice, that his programs, when filtered through congress, would end up good. I don't know.

    27. Re: Vote Libertarian by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bush was certainly keen on the draft. Of the Miller Genuine variety.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    28. Re:Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem with libertarians is that they have no interest in taking care of the people who are already stuck so far down in the lowest financial ranks of this country. you can parade around all day long claiming that your way is the right way, but the point of a political system is to serve the people. the idea of leaving people alone is a good one, but at this point there are more important issues at hand. like people with three jobs who can't afford to pay their bills.

    29. Re: Vote Libertarian by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      The more votes third parties get, the more exposure they will get, and eventually meaningful change will happen.

      Yes, the stunning successes of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have definately endeared the 3rd party candidates to the American public. Republicans, especially, have been very strong supporters of the Green party this year. I can't imagine why -- maybe it's because their so patriotic?

      Bzzt. The 3rd party helped decide the election in 2000, and as close as that race was it pales in comparison to the results that we'll see in this one.

      In close elections such as this one, it's not so much voting *for* someone you like as it is voting *against* someone you dislike. I didn't vote for my candidate because I liked him -- I voted the way I did because I like his opponent even less.

      Maybe when the election isn't so close, like in 1992 when Perot won 19% of the popular vote and was even included in the televised debates, can a 3rd party gain some recognition. As of right now, however, backing anyone but the Big Two right now will only go unnoticed.

    30. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 3, Informative

      Kerry supports a draft? Trustworthy link, please?

      Of course, Kerry doesn't say the word "draft." He calls it "national service," and it can be either civilian or military variety. It's not a new idea. The Democratic Leadership Council (of which Kerry is a member) proposed it back in 1988. A re-worked version [pdf] of the proposal was published last year by the Progressive Policy Institute (the think tank lapdog of the DLC). Kerry's published plan incorporates steps 1 and 2 of the DLC/PPI proposal by tying government-funded privileges, such as student loans, to service in the military, AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, etc. The third step, which undoubtedly will be passed once the first 2 are completed (and which won't be announced until Kerry is in office), will make national service mandatory using the current Selective Service system.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    31. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I still believe invading Iraq was the wrong choice."

      I agree. Nuke 'em from orbit. Only way to be sure.

    32. Re:Vote Libertarian by Drachasor · · Score: 1

      I know Libertarianism is pretty popular on Slashdot, but there are fairly extreme idealists. These means there are numerous problems with Libertarian positions.

      He has these extremely naive and idealistic idea that all problems facing the country are because of "excess regulation."

      Libertarians are traditionally against almost all taxes except those needed for "minimum" regulation and the military. However, this also ignores the fact that some things you simply need taxes to finance.

      Problems with healthcare? Excess regulation! The fact that preventative medicine costs the consumer a lot less and is given less frequently encourages companies to go with heavy medication has no effect. The fact that the reason why medicine (and education for that matter) cost so much is largely how man-hour intensive these occupations are (this gap compared to regular industry has only been widening) apparently doesn't register either. Decreased regulation won't fix the core problems, whereas increased government funding into robots, AI, research, and even certain kinds of healthcare (or encouragement of preventative medicine) could greatly help. Of course, Libertarians are ostensibly against that.

      The wealth gap? Libertarianism has no problem with it; let it grow as much as you want. Of course, they ignore the massive numbers of poor that couldn't afford education or healthcare; and are free to be exploited by companies thanks to lowered regulations. Public Charities are nice and do good, but they cannot compare to the scope and global ability of a government program.

      Depressions and Recessions? A government that is only minimal won't have the funding to spur the economy back to its feet. Instead it will sit impotently as the economy suffers.

      The environment? Well, Libertarians don't like to talk about that, because they encourage deregulation to such a great extent. Get rid of smart systems of bidding on polution credits that use a market system to control the pollution. Instead allow people to sue when their property is damaged by pollution. The fact that this is hard to tell or that the company might not exist anymore plays no role in this. Forget National Parks, let private ownership control all lands, and then when someone needs more money those lands will be destroyed. Natural Preserves are simply far, far easier to destroy than preserve. An heir can easily decided to get rid of it without the public's consent (and preservation is a public boon), whereas the government cannot easily choose to do this. Irrelevent points to the Libertarian, whose faith in the free market overshadows all evidence of limitations.

      Education? Forget government funded and guaranteed education for every citizen. Instead money will have to come out the pocket of the parents, and too bad for them if they can't afford to educate their kids. This will breed a cycle of poverty that is extremely difficult to get out of. It penalizes quite unduly people with a lot of natural talent born in a poor position. It greatly benefits those of lesser ability born to those who have wealth.

      General Scientific research? That simply isn't financed well at all by private industry. We probably would have never visited the moon or even have a quarter the number of space explorations if we had been going the Libertarian route. A few wealthy and a few non-wealthy contributors is all, and science would greatly suffer. This results in a corresponding suffering in the future when those advances are needed. Oh, and forget the massive numbers of scientists we have trying to figure out how the world works and is; without a lot of government funding there simply wouldn't be a market for so many.

      In contrast, a number of their social values are good, generally speaking, but still a bit lacking. Legalizing Drugs is good, but one should then tax them up to the point that they are still preferable to black market goods, but still an "attractive" choice. Many drugs are so addictive they great

    33. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In close elections such as this one, it's not so much voting *for* someone you like as it is voting *against* someone you dislike. I didn't vote for my candidate because I liked him -- I voted the way I did because I like his opponent even less.

      I am sorry that you feel you have to throw away your principles because the race is close. Voting for evil is still evil.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    34. Re: Vote Libertarian by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point you missed in the blog was that Iraq has been the group that has been consistently, continually targetting the US.

      In addition to those points, you have the added benefits of:
      * Establishing freedom in the middle east. Be sure, this is a strategic, not a tactical, vision. If Iraq is a free, stable country in 5-10 years, then in 20-30 years we will likely have change following in the other countries
      * "If the war was really about putting an end to a threat, than we have failed at that as well." - we haven't failed, we are simply still working on it.
      * Moving the war to Iraq, instead of waiting for it to come to us

      "The truth of the facts you laid out is that Iraq was no more than one threat out of many, and any direct threat to the US mainland was far smaller than other countries."

      Actually, if you look at the details of my blog post, it points out that Iraqi intelligence has had involvement in almost every terrorist act on the US mainland. Several of them are not classified as Iraqis because they are using passports of foreign nationals who they killed when Iraq invaded Kuwait. But the usage of these passports presents pretty clear involvement w/ Iraqi Intelligence.

    35. Re: Vote Libertarian by Darmox · · Score: 1
      He supported (and still supports) the war in Iraq


      While we're in the sKerry-bashing thread, (I already added a backup for the draft one, as I see you did as well) -- I figured I'd add a little more:

      Granted, it is from the Weekly Standard, a bit on the rightist side... but it's Kerry's own words that hit him so hard.

      "The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein?"

      In his own words.

      --
      If I was that drunk, I would have remembered it -- H. Simpson
    36. Re: Vote Libertarian by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Given that everyone running is a nutcase, I think this election is scraping the bottom of the greater evil barrel. You've got the fringe parties who couldn't even get on most of the ballots, then you've got nader who has nothing but "Vote for me, I'm the one true independent". Badnarik, who has yet to demonstrate that he's capable of any form of compromise, or if he's just going to let congress walk all over him. And then theres Kerry and Bush.

      So given that thats my view of the candidates, I voted for Kerry because given a field of incompetent evil losers, I'd like to give someone else a shot at leading this country because you never know, they might surprise us in a good way.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    37. Re: Vote Libertarian by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      Wake up. Unfortunately, the presidential election this season is essentially a referendum on the Bush administration's policy of preemptive war and encroachment of religion into all aspects of government. If you do not vote against these policies you are essentially voting for them. Yes, it sucks and that won't change until reforms occur in our electoral process but if you don't understand the gravity of those two issues, then perhaps you should examine closely the publicly stated agendas of both sides (the two 'major' parties) and the easily exrapolated consequences of those policies.

      I do know where you are coming from with the "evil is still evil" rhetoric. I've voted in three previous presidential elections - never for a Republican or Democrat. There is this time, however, something more at stake than making a statement about the political system by choosing a 'third-party' candidate.

      Not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that not everyone who chooses to take sides between the 'two evils' this time around are a bunch of sheep. Some of us understand that we may have to clench our jaws and bear the pain of voting against someone instead of for someone this time around. (I thank those apathetic citizens who didn't vote last time for this mess.)

    38. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kerry's argument that he voted "only for war as a last resort" is like saying he cut a branch off a tree, but he didn't make it fall to the ground.

      Your argument is that Bush has the decision-making capabilities of a cut branch. Which sums it up about accurately. Can I use that?

    39. Re:Vote Libertarian by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      being able to carry a concealed .45 would make me feel a lot safer

      ...I understand where you're coming from, but I simply don't share your faith in humanity. From my (albeit limited) experience interacting with other people, I've met a significant number of people who are irrational, quick to anger, and who prefer force over reason in settling arguments. I don't believe I'd feel safe if both of us were carrying guns. Think about how many simple assaults, barfights, and shouting matches you see in a given day, week, or year; imagine each participant in said altercation armed with a weapon that can kill as quickly as you can pull a trigger.

      I wholeheartedly believe that citizens should be encouraged to own guns--powerful guns, at that--to the end of protecting the nation from external threat, and overthrowing a corrupt regime here at home. I emphatically do not believe that it is right or appropriate for the general population to carry guns as part of their daily routine. We're simply too volatile as a race to be trusted with immediate access to instruments of instant death. We have tempers. We get enraged. We have limits to our patience. We can become overburdened with stress and frustration, to the point where seemingly minor setbacks can cause us to snap.

      In the past two years, I've been within one hundred feet of two violent altercations. The participants in these altercations were very clearly intent on causing grevious harm; in the most recent case, four guys were all fighting before they were pulled apart. These people were enraged beyond reason and restraint--they were pretty obviously "seeing red". The fights appeared, to me, to be spontaneous. How, exactly, would having, say, twenty handguns distributed amongst participants and spectators alike have made this situation any better?

      Our nation has changed significantly since the 1776. In a place like Manhattan today, you've got about 70,000 people per square mile. Imagine having 70,000 guns in a 1-square-mile area. If even one-one-thousandth of a percent of those people became violently enraged on any given day, you'd be looking at about five violent armed incidents per week per square mile. Given a (very conservative) lethal range of 100 feet, you can expect about 25 armed, innocent bystanders to be placed immediately in harm's way (assuming an evenly distributed populace!) This would simply not be safe, and would fly in the face of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      I have faith in humanity, but I'm also keenly aware that we have some pretty glaring flaws, both individually and collectively. We are emotional creatures, and we all have episodes and incidents we've lived to regret. Arming us 'round-the-clock with instruments designed to kill in an instant is a dangerous, dangerous proposal.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    40. Re: Vote Libertarian by InadequateCamel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (I will start this by stating that I am a Canadian citizen who usually votes NDP - a third party of sorts until this year - but who decided to vote Liberal to ensure the PCs didn't win. You can determine how I would vote in the US based on that)

      I am sorry that you feel you have to throw away your principles because the race is close. Voting for evil is still evil.

      Don't be ridiculous. If one candidate has been shown to be reckless, destructive and absolutely uninterested in his own citizens, voting him out is not "voting for evil". Your vote is a tool that you have decided not to use, kind of like buying a Hummer to drive your kids to school. Sure it works, but you aren't using it to it's full potential.

      Just because you want the 3rd party to succeed doesn't mean that you have to ignore the fact that your incumbent president is a destructive nutjob and refuse to do anything about it. It's your vote; you can shoot yourself and your fellow citizens in the foot/feet with it if you like.

    41. Re: Vote Libertarian by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 1

      "It's hard to imagine two more completely opposite candidates than Bush and Kerry"

      Actually both Badnarik and Peroutka are more opposite from Kerry than Bush is, by far.

      Third parties have always had an influence on the major parties. Many of the major reforms in the US were third party issues that got taken up by one of the major parties. Third parties in the US know they have no chance of winning the presidency, that's not the point. The point is to show the major parties that they are not appealing to everyone. Even if they gain less than 1% of the vote, that is still a lot of people not being represented by a major party.

      Voting for a candidate that doesn't even come close to your views, is actually wasting your vote! Some compromise is OK, but voting for Bush or Kerry compromises my views too much. Both the Republican's and Democrat's are sending this country down the preverbal tube and I for one am voting to stop it! Voting third party is currently the closest thing the US has to a no confidence vote, against the major parties, since not voting sends NO message.

    42. Re: Vote Libertarian by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >In close elections such as this one, it's not so much voting *for* someone you like as it is voting *against* someone you dislike.

      What a complete and total copout. Don't vote for the guy you actually agree with - instead, vote for the guy who you mostly disagree with so that the guy you totally disagree with won't win.

      Doing this will never get you any closer to the government you really want.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    43. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont think that being a computer programmer and getting elected vice president of his dorm in college makes Badnarik qualified for president

    44. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the presidential election this season is essentially a referendum on the Bush administration's policy of preemptive war and encroachment of religion into all aspects of government. If you do not vote against these policies you are essentially voting for them.

      A vote for Michael Badnarik is a vote against Bush. A vote for Michael Badnarik is also a vote against Kerry. (Note: It's also a vote against Nader, Cobb, and Peroutka.)

      There is this time, however, something more at stake than making a statement about the political system by choosing a 'third-party' candidate.

      Well, I disagree with your premise. Voting for a third party isn't "making a statement about the political system." It's saying that I agree with the tenets of the LP (I'm not a registered member, by the way, though I probably will be at some point in the near future).

      I can understand why people feel the urge to vote for the "lesser of two evils." I felt it myself last election, when I ended up voting for Bush (in the heavily Democratic Commonwealth of Massachyoushits--I'm not in the heavily Democratic State of New York). See how much that helped us? I'd rather vote with a clean conscience this time and get rid of my heartburn.

      Not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that not everyone who chooses to take sides between the 'two evils' this time around are a bunch of sheep.

      I never thought that everyone who voted one way or another is a sheep (though certainly a lot of them are -- and I'm sure the LP has its contingent of sheep as well -- though hopefully not as many as the other parties ;O). I believe that a lot of thoughtful and intelligent people can come up with different conclusions. Just like we are here.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    45. Re: Vote Libertarian by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      Yes. The more votes third parties get, the more exposure they will get, and eventually meaningful change will happen.

      Let me see if I follow you...

      Step 1: Increase exposure by running campaign that is guaranteed to lose.
      Step 2: ???? (Something happens)
      Step 3: Get elected to highest office in land.
      Step 4: Profit!

      If you ask me, running a campaign you're sure to lose very, very badly just makes your third party seem like a joke. You're better off trying to gain a firm local/regional foothold and growing your party with more modest goals to prove your worth than going straight for the big kahuna. Perhaps such politicians will rarely get the chance to make policy, but they are often critical swing votes and command their share of influence.

      As proof of this, I would like to point out that elected independent politicians are more common than elected politicians from third parties, and at higher offices as well. Of course, that's partly due to the fact that independents tend to be practical, moderate politicians in touch with their constituents, while most third parties are made up of sweaty-toothed zealots espousing far-something ideologies.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    46. Re: Vote Libertarian by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Yes. The more votes third parties get, the more exposure they will get, and eventually meaningful change will happen.

      Ah I now see what you're saying. Even though there will be no meaningful change this election (who cares that this probably one of the most important elections in quite a while), voting 3rd party MIGHT produce a 3rd party candidate who MIGHT be a slightly better choice than the 2 parties in power 20 years down the road. Sorry man, maybe you think it's worth risking it. But I don't think this country can take another 4 more years of Bush. I'm down with having more and better choices to choose for the presidency. You can say that Kerry supported the war all you want. But you know damn well he wouldn't have made the same irrational decisions Bush had and created this mess we are in now.

    47. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      Don't be ridiculous. If one candidate has been shown to be reckless, destructive and absolutely uninterested in his own citizens, voting him out is not "voting for evil".

      You're right that voting out Bones is not evil in and of itself. However, voting for Skull is evil, and it counteracts any good that voting Bones out might do.

      Your vote is a tool that you have decided not to use, kind of like buying a Hummer to drive your kids to school. Sure it works, but you aren't using it to it's full potential.

      I have used my tool to the best potential possible because I have used it with a clear conscience. As JQA said: "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

      Just because you want the 3rd party to succeed doesn't mean that you have to ignore the fact that your incumbent president is a destructive nutjob and refuse to do anything about it. It's your vote; you can shoot yourself and your fellow citizens in the foot/feet with it if you like.

      Yes, Bush is a nutjob. So is Kerry. I'm voting for someone who is not a nutjob. Foot shooting is not an option--if I get shot at all it will be by USA PATRIOT Act enforcers voted for by one nutjob and signed into law by another.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    48. Re: Vote Libertarian by mikebellman · · Score: 1

      >You've got the fringe parties who couldn't even get on most of the ballots, then you've got nader who has nothing but "Vote for me, I'm the one true independent".

      Um, Michael Badnarik is on the ballot in 48 states and D.C. Nader's only on in 35 genious (ant NOT in OH, PA, TX, CA, MO and many "important states"). Badnarik is the only third party choice in a great number of larger states and therefore could have a "perot factor influence" if (especially the media) people were to only look.

      Unless you think Oklahoma and New Hampshire are going to tip the election one way or the other, AMERICA still has a choice. Oh, check it out yourself - http://www.ballot-access.org

    49. Re:Vote Libertarian by Eric+Berg · · Score: 1

      I understand where you're coming from, but I simply don't share your faith in humanity.

      If he had faith in humanity, I doubt he'd need a gun to feel safe. There is something to be said for the argument that it would deter a lot of violent confrontations if it was likely the person you were itching to harm or any onlooker was packing a concealed piece. How this would balance with hot-headed morons pulling their guns without thinking is up for speculation.

      Eric Christian Berg

    50. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would you waste a vote. all you are doing is throwing away a precious vote. NO ONE will even notice your little meaningless vote for the LP. You are helping bush, period. and that is rediculously idiotic.

      no matter how you analize it you are helping bush. you may as well vote bush. young learner you have much to learn.

    51. Re: Vote Libertarian by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      Because the two options available to 'do better' are politicly unsellable.

      Drasticly raise the number of troops, probably requiring the draft, and suppress Iraq. Commit to many years of nation-building, if that's even possible.

      Take all needed steps to get a high level of international help. I can't imagine this is possible, but it at least would take grovelling to the UN.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    52. Re: Vote Libertarian by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Is this not then a decision of who is my best friend? I chose to vote for the first time in my life for this very reason. I don't feel safe with either, but I know that down one path leads madness while the other offers a fighting chance for the future. Sometimes, discression is the better part of valor, and while we won't win this first battle we can make sure we don't lose the war against evil now.

      There are sacrifices to be made with every decision. I don't consider my principles "lost" because of how I chose. In fact, I would rather back a 50/50 of winning time to improve than face a 99.999% chance of total failure. These "principles" of mine you speak of mean nothing to any candidate -- republican, democrat, libertarian, green, independent, grey fox, etc. They are my compass to help me decide how to live my own life, and will continue to do so unless the government makes it their business to take these choices away.

      That is where my principles stand. To save the very things I hold dear, I must first defend to make sure they are not taken from me first. If making the tough decision to back the lesser of two evils seems like I am compromising those principles, just remember that a temporary stalemate is better than utter defeat.

    53. Re: Vote Libertarian by shayne321 · · Score: 1
      Doing this will never get you any closer to the government you really want.

      And holding on to some lofty ideal that by magic we are going to get a third party candidate from < 1% of the popular vote to > 50% will? I'm all for the idea of getting a third party candidate in office, but it's just that, an IDEA. Let me explain.

      I looked around at my polling place this morning. I was one of two people who looked under 30. The other 50 or so people in my immediate view were easily 60 or older. The woman next to me literally was on a walker and required assistance to physically move herself to the voting booth. While I applaud her for actually getting out to vote, who do you think she's going to vote for? I live in the deep south, the heart of the bible belt. She will vote republican across the board.

      My point is, for every one of us that is educated enough to realize the failures of a two-party system, there are 20 people that will vote republican or democrat because that's how they've always voted. They won't think about it, they'll just vote.

      So what we are left with in the REAL WORLD is to either vote out the nutjob we know has screwed up the country (by voting for an almost-equally-bad candidate) or squander our vote away on a third party candidate. These are the options we have TODAY. The time to change the electoral system is in the 4 years leading up to election day, not on election day.

      --
      Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
    54. Re: Vote Libertarian by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

      Badnarik, who has yet to demonstrate that he's capable of any form of compromise, or if he's just going to let congress walk all over him. And then theres Kerry and Bush.

      Why on earth would I want someone who compromises?

      Compromises between the parties is usually when we get *screwed*. I'd prefer they fight each other and do nothing; usually that works out better for me - fewer taxes, fewer restrictions on my freedoms.

      I understand your point of picking Kerry over Bush because I too would rather have change than stagnation between the two halves of the demopublican parties, but if we ever want any actual changes, it's going to have to be done by a third party.

    55. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      why would you waste a vote. all you are doing is throwing away a precious vote. NO ONE will even notice your little meaningless vote for the LP. You are helping bush, period. and that is rediculously idiotic.

      *yawn*

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    56. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      You can say that Kerry supported the war all you want. But you know damn well he wouldn't have made the same irrational decisions Bush had and created this mess we are in now.

      No, I don't know that. Kerry voted for the war. Kerry intends to send more troops to Iraq. Kerry has no clear plan for pulling out of Iraq. As if that's not bad enough, Kerry also voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. Are those what you call "not making the same irrational decisions" as the incumbent?

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    57. Re: Vote Libertarian by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

      You can say that Kerry supported the war all you want. But you know damn well he wouldn't have made the same irrational decisions Bush had and created this mess we are in now.

      Whatever. Look at the last 100 years. Wars, taxes, bigger government, fewer freedom. It's never really matter which party was in power, the result is the same.

      Where were you when Clinton was bombing Bosnia?

      If you're not voting third party, you're voting for more of the same.

    58. Re: Vote Libertarian by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      As much as I think the two-party system is one of the major flaws in our system of democracy, right now it's the system we live in. It's the rules of the game that say that the most popular candidate wins everything, and everyone else packs up and goes home. As long as these are the rules, we have to have a strategy to make sure we do the best we can within these rules.

      Would a viable third party candidate fix this system? Of course!

      Does the current situation, with two candidates deadlocked at (important statistic here:) 48% vs 46%, mean that any 3rd party candidate is "Viable?" With a maximum of 6 percentage points (not counting Margin of Error) there's no point in pretending that anyone besides #1 or #2 is going to win.

      So, you either have choice #1: madness and greed, or choice #2: something else. At this time, any other choice leads back to #1. Maybe a third option will present itself some day, but until that day comes I would rather back #2 with all my might than allow #1 to dominate this country any more.

      No voting option will ever get me the government I really want. But I can make sure my vote counts for a government I would rather have over one I would much rather not.

    59. Re: Vote Libertarian by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1
      More opposite?
      • Both are planning on increasing operations in Iraq.
      • Both are planning on increasing the hunt for terrorists.
      • Both are promising new spending to pander to voters.
      • Neither has a clue how to balance the budget.
      • Both will use litmus tests for their judicial candidates.
      • Both will have said candidates held up on technical procedures in the Senate.
      • Both want to push changes to abortion law that probably will not pass, but even if they do will probably not pass judicial muster.

      Perhaps you can explain to me where are they so different?

      I vote in just about two-and-a-half hours, and I still don't know who will get my vote. Badnarik's foreign policy ideas strike me as terribly idealistic, and the Green Party just doesn't seem to care about the economy. American Independents don't know what freedom of religion is, and the Peace and Freedom Party is running a convicted murderer.

      Maybe there will be some nice write-in candidates.
      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    60. Re: Vote Libertarian by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      I will push a bill through senate with just the power of my mind!

      You're an idiot, everyone has their own oppinion of exactly how things should be done. Sometimes *Gasp* you need to compromise!

      Kerry Trusted Bush not to make a mess of things, That was a terrible decision.

      But because he made a mistake doesn't mean you should make the same mistake numb nuts!

    61. Re:Vote Libertarian by Bz3rk · · Score: 1

      I voted Libertarian. So say it is like not voting at all. This isn't true; no voting says you don't care. Voting Libertarian syas you don't approve of either corporate owned party.

      More important is the state & local level; there are 18 Libertarians in public office in my state, and over 60 on the ballot. Libertarians are making a difference on the local level.

      http://www.lp.org

    62. Re:Vote Libertarian by wintermute740 · · Score: 2

      "Badnarik '04: Grow A Pair And Vote For Us, You Fucking Sheep!"

      Now THAT is a bumper sticker I would have put on my car! ;)

    63. Re: Vote Libertarian by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Because if you ever want anything to change, it can only be done through comprimises. Comprimise is the heart of politics. The Constitution itself is a patchwork of comprimises- the 3/5 comprimise, the 2 houses of congress, the balance of state and federal power, the balance between the 3 branches of government. Life is comprimise. A leader incapable of comprimise isn't going to help your libertarian principles even in the unlikly case he does get elected.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    64. Re: Vote Libertarian by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      Where were you when Clinton was bombing Bosnia?

      Cherring him on because I had been screaming about what was happening for the past 4 years (includes the end of the Bush I admin). I was writing a letter a month to my local paper essentially calling everyone cowards because of their actions. I was the one saying to either a) lift the arms embargo and let the Bosnian government defend itself or b) go in and actually defend them. Instead we (the world) sat by and did shit while over 7K people were slaughtered in a 3 day period, sometimes in front of UN personnel who were supposed to be protecting them.

      If we're going to have to continually hear about how bad the Holocaust was and have to genuflect every time the subject is brought up I don't want to hear how there is nothing we (meaning the world) can do when genocide is once again being committed. Which is essentiallly what happened.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    65. Re: Vote Libertarian by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Ummm alright lets look at the last 100 years! 1900's we were a nation full of immigrants who were extremely poor and looking for jobs. Women weren't allowed to vote. Black people weren't allowed to use the same facilities/services as white people. Our economy was extremely unstable. Crime and pollution were huge problems. Now lets look what we have at the present. Hmmmmm.... yeah you're right our government has done and EXTREMELY SHITTY JOB! Please. No government is perfect. And all of this countries problems won't just suddenly dissapear if we have more choices to vote for. The thing is that we have alot MORE problems than usual with Bush as our president. That's why the best thing we can do for this country is to get him out of power. Once this happens than we can start talking about trying to getting more parties a fighting chance. How do you know you aren't voting for more the of the same when a 3rd party has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a presedential election? The reason these parties have so much power is because they lie, cater towards interests groups, and are extremely vicious towards their opponents. Do you seriously think a 3rd party would be any different?

    66. Re:Vote Libertarian by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1

      I know Libertarianism is pretty popular on Slashdot, but there are fairly extreme idealists. These means there are numerous problems with Libertarian positions. He has these extremely naive and idealistic idea that all problems facing the country are because of "excess regulation." Libertarians are traditionally against almost all taxes except those needed for "minimum" regulation and the military. However, this also ignores the fact that some things you simply need taxes to finance. Other options also include user fees, import taxes, tax on foriegn entities operating in the US, Voluntary contributions(I know, I know, 'in a pig's eye', but it would happen somewhat if the government didn't tax us to death and avertised for contributions more than once every four years), and a whole load of other ways to get money without taxing us to death. And I could maybe even support a theft-tax... ahh.. income tax... if it was just big enough to support the national defense (as opposed to our current national offense), overseeing interstate and international commerce, and funding congress. Problems with healthcare? Excess regulation! The fact that preventative medicine costs the consumer a lot less and is given less frequently encourages companies to go with heavy medication has no effect. The fact that the reason why medicine (and education for that matter) cost so much is largely how man-hour intensive these occupations are (this gap compared to regular industry has only been widening) apparently doesn't register either. Decreased regulation won't fix the core problems, whereas increased government funding into robots, AI, research, and even certain kinds of healthcare (or encouragement of preventative medicine) could greatly help. Of course, Libertarians are ostensibly against that. That paragraph is so incoherant I'm not sure what half of it means, but I'll try to respond anyway. There are two major regulations that I know of that rather obviously cause the price of medicine to rise. There's Doctor licensing, which could easily be overseen entirely by private consumer advocacy organizations. Making it illegal to practice without a license serves no purpose, as long as people know that such-and-such doctor is not insured, or not certified by organization XYZ, why is it anybody else's business? There's the FDA bungling of perscription certification that keeps drugs off the shelves and away from voluntary human testing for years. Again this could be handled much more efficiantly by a private consumer advocacy. And once again, if you want to take or to help test an un-tried perscription medication, that should be your affair, as long as they're clearly labled as such, and not advertised as anything but potentially very dangerous substances. A third government mess of red tape is government funded healthcare, but I don't really know enough about that to comment. I'm sure you can search for it at http://www.lp.org/ and get a good explanation. The wealth gap? Libertarianism has no problem with it; let it grow as much as you want. Of course, they ignore the massive numbers of poor that couldn't afford education or healthcare; and are free to be exploited by companies thanks to lowered regulations. Public Charities are nice and do good, but they cannot compare to the scope and global ability of a government program. No, it's just that charities aren't allowed to steal money out of my pocket. They have to prove to me that they're actually doing good things first, and they have to be doing it where I want them to do it, which personally would be locally, instead of in an obscure foreign country. But then, I'm a bit callous, and I'm sure there are people who would preffer to send their money to cambodia, viet-nam or mexico. I you're right, I have very little trouble with the wealth gap. I fully intend to be a part of the upper middle class if I can possibly manage it. But even if I'm poor, I'd prefer that my friends have more money to loan me if I need it. Welfare and

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    67. Re: Vote Libertarian by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, older people vote that way because when they were young they decided to go major party and not go the way they really felt. My guess, if you continue to always assume it is the "wrong" time to vote third party or you feel it is a wasted vote, when your 60+ you will be voting for a major party too.

      Change takes time, and young people, that can still think for themselves, are the key to making that change happen. Voting for any party is NEVER a wasted vote, as long as you believe in the party you are voting for. The only wasted vote is one that is never cast, or one cast for someone you don't fully believe in.

      Young people, like yourself, are the key to change, old people RARELY change.

      Let me clue your in, the country is already screwed, and the Republican's and Democrat's are equally to blame for it. Voting for them really doesn't solve anything, and oh BTW, neither one of them is going to cause things to get significantly better or worse. Why not vote the way you really feel, and try to make something postive come from it. It won't happen this election, or next and probably not the one after that, but someday, if enough people vote for someone and not against someone, change can and will happen.

    68. Re:Vote Libertarian by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1
      Yes. I'm a newbie. I hit submit instead of preview.

      Libertarians are traditionally against almost all taxes except those needed for "minimum" regulation and the military. However, this also ignores the fact that some things you simply need taxes to finance.

      Other options also include user fees, import taxes, tax on foriegn entities operating in the US, Voluntary contributions(I know, I know, 'in a pig's eye', but it would happen somewhat if the government didn't tax us to death and avertised for contributions more than once every four years), and a whole load of other ways to get money without taxing us to death. And I could maybe even support a theft-tax... ahh.. income tax... if it was just big enough to support the national defense (as opposed to our current national offense), overseeing interstate and international commerce, and funding congress.

      Problems with healthcare? Excess regulation! The fact that preventative medicine costs the consumer a lot less and is given less frequently encourages companies to go with heavy medication has no effect. The fact that the reason why medicine (and education for that matter) cost so much is largely how man-hour intensive these occupations are (this gap compared to regular industry has only been widening) apparently doesn't register either. Decreased regulation won't fix the core problems, whereas increased government funding into robots, AI, research, and even certain kinds of healthcare (or encouragement of preventative medicine) could greatly help. Of course, Libertarians are ostensibly against that.

      That paragraph is so incoherant I'm not sure what half of it means, but I'll try to respond anyway. There are two major regulations that I know of that rather obviously cause the price of medicine to rise.

      There's Doctor licensing, which could easily be overseen entirely by private consumer advocacy organizations. Making it illegal to practice without a license serves no purpose, as long as people know that such-and-such doctor is not insured, or not certified by organization XYZ, why is it anybody else's business?

      There's the FDA bungling of perscription certification that keeps drugs off the shelves and away from voluntary human testing for years. Again this could be handled much more efficiantly by a private consumer advocacy. And once again, if you want to take or to help test an un-tried perscription medication, that should be your affair, as long as they're clearly labled as such, and not advertised as anything but potentially very dangerous substances.

      A third government mess of red tape is government funded healthcare, but I don't really know enough about that to comment. I'm sure you can search for it at http://www.lp.org/ and get a good explanation.

      The wealth gap? Libertarianism has no problem with it; let it grow as much as you want. Of course, they ignore the massive numbers of poor that couldn't afford education or healthcare; and are free to be exploited by companies thanks to lowered regulations. Public Charities are nice and do good, but they cannot compare to the scope and global ability of a government program.

      No, it's just that charities aren't allowed to steal money out of my pocket. They have to prove to me that they're actually doing good things first, and they have to be doing it where I want them to do it, which personally would be locally, instead of in an obscure foreign country. But then, I'm a bit callous, and I'm sure there are people who would preffer to send their money to cambodia, viet-nam or mexico. I you're right, I have very little trouble with the wealth gap. I fully intend to be a part of the upper middle class if I can possibly manage it. But even if I'm poor, I'd prefer that my friends have more money to loan me if I need it. Welfare and Social security have made our nation forget how to help people by our own choice. We assume of strangers, neighbors or even our close friends and famil

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    69. Re:Vote Libertarian by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      You need to get 3rd parties into congress and the senate before you can hope to get them in to the white house

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    70. Re: Vote Libertarian by blengino · · Score: 1

      If nuclear or other WMD are the prime goal than Iran was a far likelier target since their program is farther along than Iraqs.

      If that was the prime goal U should start invading the US.

      --
      Sorry about my bad english, isn't my natural language
      America starts in Tierra del Fuego and ends in Alaska
    71. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ties to Al-Qaeda is enough to justify invasion than we should have ivnaded Saudi Arabia, a country which gives far more economic support than Iraq ever did.

      Whew! Glad you weren't fighting WWII, othewise we would have had to invade Germany before France (or greater North Africa, or a dozen other place).

      If nuclear or other WMD are the prime goal than Iran was a far likelier target since their program is farther along than Iraqs.
      Easy to say in hindsight, plus we didn't and don't yet have 12 years + 17 broken resolutions against Iran. Iraq posed the greatest logical threat at the time.

      If the war was really about putting an end to a threat, than we have failed at that as well.
      You, CBS, NYT, ABC, LAT, etc. may already think this war is over - hence your premature announcement that "we have failed" - but we're still fighting it. Check back in the next 4 years, we'll let you know when we have won.

      Iraq is being a terrorist training ground and numerous caches of weapons remain ungaurded by US troops.
      Somehow this is worse than when it was under Saddam, eh?

      The truth of the facts you laid out is that Iraq was no more than one threat out of many, and any direct threat to the US mainland was far smaller than other countries.
      Hence the axis of evil. Hold on there, cowboy! We're getting to the rest of them - we can't tackle the whole world at once!

      one of Al-Qaeda's goals is to suck resources from the US. Bush's policies have furthered that aim far better than Al-Qaeda could have dreamed.
      That's like saying "the German U-boat menace's goal was to sink as many ships crossing the Atlantic as possible so as to starve Britain and force the Americans to give up - and look, the Americans just kept building boats!" Bottom line is that, yes, we have to spend resources to win. But our resources are and will continue to overcome them (no thanks to you or your ilk).

      The constantly changing terror alerts and efforts to protect every nook and cranny are draining State, Local, and Federal coffers at a prodigious rate. That coupled with the constant fear mongering has also led to a hampered economy.
      Geez, it was so much better when everybody pretended terrorism was everyone else's problem and we lost the Kovar towers, the Cole, the World Trade Center, etc. Let's get back to that strategy right away!

      Even if you believe starting the war was justified, surely you would agree that we ought to start fighting it smarter?
      Uhhh, we already are. Everyday we are getting stronger, and everyday the enemy is getting weaker. More of our soldiers are cycling through the battlefield, learning and improving, and returning to battle while more of theirs are ending up in body bags. And that's only the tactical side...

      (Score:-5, Conservative nut case)

    72. Re: Vote Libertarian by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      As a pacifis and a leaning socialist I think that a draft for national service (not military) is a good thing.

      I am strongly left leaning except I believe in a balanced budget (like Kerry/Clnton, Bush is an unknown here, because he has no track record nationally).

      Draft bills that don't allow anyone out are anti war , not pro war. I personally believe that it is only ethical to enstate one in a time of peace to promote peace though. Because it is bad enough to have war, but to pull in non volentiers is worse.

      Both canidates support the patriot act and it makes me sick, but I do (foolishly) believe that it will be weakoned under Democratic rule, because the "real" conservatives have been marginalized but the neo-cons and religious right.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    73. Re: Vote Libertarian by Karn · · Score: 1

      The President and Vice President told the American people that Iraq (Saddam) had a hand in 9/11. That was apparently false. That said, why did they go so far as to make outrageous claims that would eventually be disproven? If Iraq was a credible threat, the truth alone would have been enough to convince the American people that we had to go to war. If they didn't feel the truth (or decent intelligence) was good for the American people, then that tells me we need to question their motives.

      Factcheck.org

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
    74. Re:Vote Libertarian by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1
      How, exactly, would having, say, twenty handguns distributed amongst participants and spectators alike have made this situation any better?

      Ah, but you see, that's the beauty of it. Do you think that that barfight would have broken out at all if nearly every person in the bar had a handgun? Even a person who's 'seeing red' has an instinct for self preservation.

      And as for the other situation, if nearly every person in Manhattan had a gun, anyone acually pulling a gun out would be a rather stupid individual, and would likely be shot very quickly with a minimum of colateral damage. I think I'd feel very, very safe knowing that the one dangerously unstable person, even one in ten, let alone one in a hundred or a thousnd, would be seriously overmatched by the various stable people around them.

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    75. Re: Vote Libertarian by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't know much about the LP party. The LP party has many local candidates on the ballot in many different local elections : http://www.lp.org/organization/state.html.
      Plus many Libertarians currently hold office at the local level: http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php
      Badnarik is more a less a "loss leader", some states still require that candidates for office, be a member of a recognized party, and to be "recognized" often means running a presidential candidate.
      The LP is very realistic, they know that in order to succeed, they have to have a grassroots effort, and theirs is very strong and getting stronger.

    76. Re: Vote Libertarian by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Establishing freedom in the middle east. Be sure, this is a strategic, not a tactical, vision. If Iraq is a free, stable country in 5-10 years, then in 20-30 years we will likely have change following in the other countries

      And if the destabilised Iraq collapses into an Islamic state theocracy (Note that Sadr is polling at as much as 50%) in 5-10 years, then in 20-30 years we will likely have change following in the other countries.

      In the end, establishing an Islamic state was on of the goals of the group Usama bin Laden is leading. They tried and failed during the 90's in Algeria and Egypt, and in the end had to retreat to the only Islamic state left: Afghanistan, which had converted to such in the chaos after the Soviet invasion and eventual withdrawal. The fact is, most of the middle east countries are too stable to be upset by bin Laden's terrorist tactics. Of course, the now unstable Iraq is a perfect opportunity for Usama to pursue his vision of establishing a new Islamic state, and having that revolution sweep the middle east.

      Sure, it may pan out as the neoconservatives are imagining, but at the moment Usama's dream looks just as likely. Aren't we supposed to be hunting this man, not helping him achieve his goals?

      Jedidiah.

    77. Re:Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad thing is, I think the libertarian philosophy works much better at the federal level. Let the various localities decide what they want to be politically (people can move to a place they like based on this), but keep the federal government from overstepping its bounds and growing without limit like it is now. Give more power to the states, and let the federal government simply be the glue that ties them together for the good of all. Oh well!

    78. Re: Vote Libertarian by dn15 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to vote for a third party as well but not when there is so much at stake (IMHO) and the election is so close! While I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind your comment, I am of the opinion that Bush really really has to go. If I vote for Kerry it helps make this happen.

      Now in your opinion I may have just sold out to the two-party system. Maybe I did. But the emergence of a strong third party is something that will have to happen over time while removing Bush from office is something that has to happen today.

    79. Re:Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarians and Badnarik are in favor of taxes, as long as those taxes fit in to the scope of the constitution and are within the power allowed, granted to congress, by the people. And incase you haven't read the constitution lately, Article I, Section 8:

      The Congress shall have Power
      To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States[.]


      "General Welfare" can be interpreted in different ways. Since I am not a constitutional expert, I won't speculate here. But it should be clear that congress has gone past the privileges the people gave them.

      The problem with costs of healthcare really is due to regulation. There are a couple different areas to look at:

      The first would be the cost of drugs, which are highly inflated due to government-approved monopolies in the form of patents. Furthered by importation regulations, it allows these companies to charge inflated prices rather than allowing a free-market to set the price.

      The second to look at is the actual price of health care, including insurance. Why is pricing so high? Surely, it doesn't really cost a hospital $1500 to have a chemotherapy patient stay over night at a hospital (not including any drugs or extra care). Aside from those high prices, the doctors have to charge such high rates to their patients as well. Now, these doctors aren't poor, but they definitely aren't making as much as one might think if you look at how much they bill out each year. So much money is being given right to their insurance company to protect them from lawsuits. Of course, you may think that perhaps if they just don't screw up, they don't have to worry about it! Well the issue comes from courts and juries awarding large damages to plaintiffs, that aren't even remotely representative of actual damages. These people should have every right to get awarded actual damages, but these multi-million dollar jackpots are ridiculous, and are counter to the foundation of the court system in this country. Try finding a common law court in the U.S. these days, or a judge even familiar with procedures under that set of rules. Contract law is ruling everything now.

      Restore the system to how it should be (read: deregulate) and things will fall back in to place. Get rid of huge punitive judgments, and doctor insurance rates drop dramatically. This then means that they charge their patients less, and that will lower consumer insurance rates. Health care will be affordable, through deregulation.

      While I don't have time to address all of your misconceptions, I will address a couple more.

      You mentioned education. 30 years ago, before the current Department of Education was created, the students in the United States were ranked 1st in the world at science and math. The latest number I've heard is 21st. Over the short history of the [current] Department of Education, they have run us in to the ground. It is a failing system, and they keep trying to improve it with more and more regulation.

      On the Economy. It can take care of itself. If a free-market economy is allowed to take hold, it should be able to prosper on its own. One of the major issues right now is that we have the Federal Reserve micro-managing the economy. The Chairman can make the economy and stock market go in to a panic at will. There is too much power localized at that position, and under the constitution and 1930's Supreme Court rules, you have to ask if Congress even has the right to delegate their responsibility to the Federal Reserve.

      A free market economy CAN work with the environment. It can get a bit complex, so rather than trying to explain the overall concept, I'll give an example. We have had cars/trucks/vans/buses that produce way too much pollution. People got sick of breathing in that air, and studies show that it is hurting the planet. People start wanting more environmentally friendly cars. That doesn't me

    80. Re: Vote Libertarian by Striker770S · · Score: 1

      The libertarian party mixes the best of both worlds of democrat and republican. they take the economic choice of the democrats, mixed with the republican principles. they dont support a draft (unlike democrats) and strongly discourage war with other nations (unlike republicans). Libertarians also feel that the central government and states should reduce power and the money that disappears from backhand dealing will decrease. They support the 2nd amendment, which is why many people dont vote for them sadly. Badnarik has more leadership than both of these lunitic asses combined. He has my vote... http://lp.org/

      --
      I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
    81. Re: Vote Libertarian by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      Independents need to stop being independent and bring a strong middling voice into the highly polarized major parties.

      As long as we continue to negotiate and compromise between extreme views there is hope for us. Once everyone decides to take their ball home and not play, that is when anarchy reigns.

      The more factionalized we become, the harder it will be to remain one nation undivided - look at the disruption coalition style governments wreak when there is a falling out (India and Isreal are good examples of how this multi-party system can lead to disruptions, sometimes at key points when the government needs to speak with one voice).

      This is why, while I leaned towards independent movements when I was younger, I have come down firmly in my middle age inside of an existing party - to bring moderation over the zealots who have stolen the heart of both parties IMHO.

      The voice of the American People is a moderate voice - elections show this time and time again. It is time for that voice to be heard.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    82. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      Both canidates support the patriot act and it makes me sick, but I do (foolishly) believe that it will be weakoned under Democratic rule, because the "real" conservatives have been marginalized but the neo-cons and religious right.

      While I disagree with your thoughts on the draft/national service, I gotta say, "Amen!" to this.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    83. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot, everyone has their own oppinion of exactly how things should be done. Sometimes *Gasp* you need to compromise!

      So, not compromising makes me an idiot? Fine. I'm an idiot.

      Kerry Trusted Bush not to make a mess of things, That was a terrible decision.

      But because he made a mistake doesn't mean you should make the same mistake numb nuts!

      So, because a negligent senator made the mistake of voting to give an imperial-minded president unilateral power to go to war, I'm a numb nuts because I'm not voting for either one.... I just don't see the logic.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    84. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarians take the economic choice of the democrats? Tax & spend on social welfare to remove the need for personal responsibility for your own well being? Bwahahahahaha!!! Thanks for the laugh!! Heehee!!! :)

    85. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reread that carefully and please note that I mentioned both of them seperately from the "fringe parties" like the reform, communist, etc. parties.

    86. Re: Vote Libertarian by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      Well, I guess that assumes that Bush and Kerry are enemies. Which they aren't. They're allies who just have (slightly) different views on how best to screw over Americans.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    87. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why compromise? Because the alternative is to be rolled over by congress. After one or two years of doing absolutely nothing, congresscritters are going to start saying "Shit, we're up for reelection" and the democrats and republicans WILL compromise to get things that they can agree to override Badnarik's veto on pushed through the system.

    88. Re:Vote Libertarian by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      It was actually environmental issues that caused me to become a libertarian. I grew up in a conservative family in a conservative area, went to school and studied a whole lot of economics, everything there clicked. Since the school is located in the rocky mountains, natural resources are a pretty common interest of students and professors alike.
      Odd that the libertarian contingent has been pushing for market based polution bidding systems since the 80s and you critizise them for it. I'm a firm believer that the only way to achieve true multiple use management is private ownership. The issue I have with government ownership of lands is that the incentives behind activists (both businesses and conservationists) are to maximize their position for land usage. Businesses gain all the benefits of environmental destruction but face very little of the costs of their environmental damage, conservationists face very few opportunity costs of their conservation but most of the benefits.
      Unfortunately this results in agreements that usually take one extreem or the other. If there is one thing I've learned in my rather short life it is that the key to life is balance. Private ownership would bring things back to a balance. As an example take the ANWR surely you can agree that the oil under the refuge is valuable and that the animals on top also have value. Let us presume that you financially support the Sierra Club and I financially support an oil company's management (through stock ownership). The two of us lobby government through our agents to achieve our desired end. If the oil company wins oil will be extracted to signficant detriment to the animals (because the oil company gets very little benefit) beyond what it is required to protect by law. If the Sierra Club wins there will be no drilling to the detriment of the oil company (and its owners and customers). If the preserve were privately owned (by a third party, oil company, or the Sierra Club) there would be an incentive to remove oil that would be minimally destructive to the ecosystem (certainly you agree that there is a portion of the oil that could be extracted without causing major impact to the ecosystem) which would benefit all of us more than either of the current solutions.
      Finally, you mention suits to prevent polution. There is a major problem with that solution that every smart libertarian understands, transaction costs. If they were 0, you could govern in that manner. Transaction costs being the time required to negotiate or file and excecute a suit. The government is a good way of solving problems that carry high transaction cost and spread benefits over many, many people. I don't think you will find anyone but the anarcho-libertarians who will argue with that. As technology improves transaction costs decline, and unfortunately the level of government that exists is IMHO still attempting to solve problems that could be solved by other means. Not every problem should be removed from government's mandate at this point, but many that are still under the government's mandate should be.
      Sure there are a lot of idealistic libertarians (and socialists and people of every political bent) and those people are necessary to dream up the ideas that will filter into mainstream compromises that will eventually change how the government works. I'm voting libertarian this year to send a message to both major parties that they have strayed too far from that ideal (just as the major parties were pretty quick to get a fiscal responsibility clue post the Perot campagin). Will it change anything tomorrow? I doubt it, but will it begin a course that could change the country in a decade? Probably.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    89. Re: Vote Libertarian by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      You should read your own links:

      "It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base, but stopped short of accusing him of aiding the September 11 attacks specifically."

    90. Re: Vote Libertarian by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      1) "Supporting the war" and recognizing that Iraq would be much worse off if we just pulled out now are two different things. I don't think Kerry would have gotten us into Iraq in the first place, and that if he had, he would have had a more effective and realistic plan.

      2) There are provisions of the PATRIOT Act that were a good idea. It's not all about the Feds being able to look at your library account. One provision increased border patrols, and another allowed law enforcement to obtain a wiretap for an individual rather than a particular phone. It just doesn't make sense to require separate warrants for a home phone, a work phone, and a mobile phone.

      Kerry has criticized portions of the PATRIOT Act as overly broad and abuse prone. He wants to revisit these portions. But each section of the act should be evaluated on its own merits. If Badnarik wants to jettison the entire thing, it would probably be better than leaving the entire thing as-is, but it doesn't strike me as a soundly-reasoned position.

      3) In what sense does Kerry support the draft? When did he express such support?

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    91. Re: Vote Libertarian by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > > > For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!
      >
      >Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?

      If whatever you're smoking makes you think Kerry gives a rat's patoot about your rights more than Bush, kindly share it.

      Because just as liberals found themselves on the no-fly-list under the Bush administration, conservatives will be subject to the same treatment under Kerry's.

    92. Re:Vote Libertarian by bfields · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      This gets moderated as 0, Troll? What exactly is wrong this opinion? While I do think Libertarians tend to be closet-anarchist nut jobs, this isn't a troll. It's just an expression of a political opinion, which is what this thread is about, isn't it?

      No. I'd like to believe that a post consisting of little more than "vote Kerry!" or "vote Bush!" would similarly be modded down. Where's the content?

      --Bruce Fields

    93. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he voted to give the president the option. So that the president could use that as leverage to encourage Saddam to behave.

      I thought that's what that vote was about. It was about Congress abdicating their judgement in the matter so that they could toe the line and shirk responsibility.

    94. Re: Vote Libertarian by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      So, every election you write in "Jesus" for President? If all that Bible stuff I read was telling the truth, Jesus would make a much less evil candidate than Badnarhoweveryouspellit ever could. By voting for the least evil of the people actually on the ballot, aren't you compromising your own "don't vote for evil" policy?

      Say that your private calculations have determined that Badnardik is less evil than Nader who is less evil than Kerry who is less evil than Bush. Let's say also that you live in a state where your vote, if cast for Kerry, could have a very real chance of giving Kerry the job. Now, how are you serving your own goals of a less evil government served by voting for someone who has no chance of actually getting into the government?

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    95. Re: Vote Libertarian by raehl · · Score: 1

      Voting for evil is still evil.

      And voting for Badnarik is still insane.

      Besides, voting for less evil is still less evil.

      Why should I vote for Badnarik again? His platform doesn't appeal to me any more than Kerry's does, and Bush's platform scares me.

      Voting for the result that will benefit you the most is completely rational, even if that result isn't what you'd like it to be.

    96. Re: Vote Libertarian by Karn · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, it was just Cheney, not Bush who implied a link between 9/11 and Iraq. What he said was:

      " now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . . "

      This can easily be read as:
      base of the terrorists who had us under assault on 9/11.

      Other things were said, like "He has WMD", "They probably have drones that can deliver WMD", etc. It's no secret that just about every major case for war that this administration has made has turned out to be a flop. The only thing they can say, and that's just about all you'll hear Bush say now, is that the world is better off without Saddam. No more links to 9/11 from Dick Cheney. They essentially scared the shit out of, and lied to, the American public to get their war, because the real evidence and reasons weren't enough to justify it.

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
    97. Re:Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because when I think "impact" my first thought is usually "what is the dog-catcher up to?" Forget the Congress and the President, they're nobodies.

      If you are really for third parties, you would have the sense to vote for them at each and every level they appear on your ballot. Considering that the Democrat/Republican labels are no longer sensible shorthand for liberal and conservative anyway, your best bet is to vote for the person you like most (or to vote strategically against the person you like least by voting for the other front-runner).

      Really. If you're going to wait around for a third party to build it's way up, it's never going to happen. The major parties will game the system until the end of time to make sure that doesn't happen. Besides, even when third party candidates lose at the top level they have an effect--especially if there is a vote percentage required for their party to be eligible for automatic ballot access or state campaign funds. It's an interesting case where losing an election can actually help the party at the local level, where they can then have an impact.

    98. Re:Vote Libertarian by Drachasor · · Score: 1

      The current Libertarian candidate is against market bidding on pollution. I was criticizing him. -Drachasor PS. I'll respond to your reply and others more later, I am very busy for the next 7-8 hours because of Election day and my job. Advanced apologies for the delay.

    99. Re:Vote Libertarian by Drachasor · · Score: 1

      My apologies again. I don't post here a lot and forgot to hit text format for that post.

      -Drachasor

    100. Re: Vote Libertarian by gid-goo · · Score: 1

      That's the biggest load of shit. Which Repubs were being treated poorly under Clinton? Oh yeah, none. What you "conservatives" don't get is that Dems don't go around punishing their opponents, they get shit done. That's why under Clinton we had a good economy, we had a reduced deficit despite the right wing plots to take him down. He didn't spend his time getting Gingrich on the no fly list. So I guess the rethug congress also wasted millions of dollars investigating shit that never happened.

    101. Re: Vote Libertarian by sackeri · · Score: 1

      The major parties won't make substantial changes as long as they are effective at preventing the third parties from getting fair public attention. By hijacking the debates, and promoting the idea that the third parties are stealing 'their' votes, they are eliminating heathly political discourse at our expense.

      Completely opposite? If that was true, then why are their supporters left to choose on their subtleties rather than what they actually say they support? I've never met so many people that feel betrayed on both sides. Both parties have driven so far to the center, they've abandoned their traditional differences. The only signs they still have a side is the petty one-liners they spout out which is mostly regurgitation from their think-tanks and talk shows.

      If the 2004 election shows anything, it's that there is no meaningful choice anymore. If you really want to stir things up, start demanding instant-runoff voting. That way you can choose your favorite candidate, followed by the lesser-evil one without any reluctance, or 'spoilers'.

    102. Re: Vote Libertarian by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      *shrug*

      Times change, and the tools available for controlling the population change with them.

    103. Re:Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Badnarik '04: hookers, Hookers, HOOKERS!!"
      "Badnarik '04: Blow 'em up, and let the UN sort them out!"
      "Badnarik '04: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of pr0n"
      "Badnarik '04: One of these days, one of these days, milkshake... BOOM!"

      *I voted for Badnarik, and not against Bush*

    104. Re: Vote Libertarian by idsofmarch · · Score: 1

      Usually when you cut the branch of a tree it doesn't fall down, therefore voting for presidential power to go to war doesn't necessarily mean one voted for the war. It's not my fault, it's your metaphor.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    105. Re:Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under Badnarik garage meth labs would be as obsolete as backyard stills. If you want meth you'd be able to go to the drug store and buy some. And when you OD and die it won't be on our dollar. And when you go bat-shit fucked-up crazy someone will shoot you. Pretty soon demand for meth will be dying as fast as the meth userers are. Why spend money curing or jailing them when you can make it cheap enough for them to kill themselves?

    106. Re:Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't take faith in humanity, it takes faith in evolution. People who repeatedly popped off and shot with no reason wouldn't last very long. People who make a habit of antagonizing and provoking other people would learn to keep their mouthes shut or they wouldn't last very long either. Nobody is talking about decriminalizing murder. I agree, there would probably be a period of high violence and rapid adjustment, but things would settel down and we would end up with a politer, safer society with fewer assholes.

    107. Re: Vote Libertarian by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      While I would generally agree on your "More opposite?" points (what the heck, here's another: both claim to be able to fix the health care system by eliminating "waste"), I would point out that Kerry is far more likely to get international support for his foreign policy than will Bush. Even if their plans are otherwise identical, it is more likely that Kerry will be able to successfully carry them out. Particularly regarding terrorism, since Bush's policy in Iraq has made him recruitment poster material for Muslim terrorists.

      Finally, the number one reason to vote for Kerry in my mind: Kerry will have a Republican Congress that will restrain him; Bush would have a Republican Congress that will amplify him. Which would you prefer?

    108. Re: Vote Libertarian by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      The Constitution is a hard fast guideline for government.

      And while the Constitution came out of 'politics' it isn't 'politics' which makes it great.

      Compromise is the heart of politics, and politics is a pantload. As little as possible should be controlled by politics. People should just be free.

    109. Re:Vote Libertarian by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      No worries, we're not writing for anything real here I think of everything posted on a web board as conversation. It's the ideas that matter not the grammer/spelling/formatting. BTW, a BR tag will put carrage returns in an html formatted post. I can't wait to hear your comments, not that they will change my mind, but that they adjust the hue is the most interesting part. Hope you keep up tonight. How long do you suppose we will have to wait befroe a winner is declared?

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    110. Re:Vote Libertarian by ml10422 · · Score: 1

      I feel the same way. I've been trying from within to change the Libertarian Party to be more mainstream and welcoming of moderate people. I'm even a candidate in today's election after runnign against and defeating a kooky Libertarian in the primary.

    111. Re: Vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      At face value, you're right about Saudi Arabia. In detail, how much of that support is from the Saudi regime, which might justify military action, and how much is from Saudi radicals, who are a threat to the royal family just as they are to the USA?

      From a practical standpoint, attacking Saudi Arabia is attacking the Holy Land of Islam. That will mean fighting many Moslem countries at the same time, and alienating the rest. Moderate Moslems and regimes will be swayed to side of the radicals and terrosists. Is that wise?

    112. Re: Vote Libertarian by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      First before I begin, I don't dislike Kerry. I don't particularly like him, nor do I really like Badnarik, Cobb, et. al. But the only candidate I would really like is myself, so.....

      But I feel that it is a civic duty to vote out of office those individuals who endanger our civil rights or the constitutional protections for our system. So I voted against Bush and my representative, Doc Hastings.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    113. Re:Vote Libertarian by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      "Badnarik '04: Men Are Angels!"

      Isn't that exactly the opposite of Libertarian philosophy? If you don't think men are noble enough to govern their own lives, how can you possibly expect them to successfully govern each other?

    114. Re: Vote Libertarian by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

      Ummm alright lets look at the last 100 years! 1900's we were a nation full of immigrants who were extremely poor and looking for jobs. Women weren't allowed to vote. Black people weren't allowed to use the same facilities/services as white people. Our economy was extremely unstable. Crime and pollution were huge problems. Now lets look what we have at the present. Hmmmmm.... yeah you're right our government has done and EXTREMELY SHITTY JOB!

      You're right, it has.

      The government didn't change any of those things, RADICALS did. Unpopular outcasts, bucking the system at ever stage of the game. Well, that and a good war to boost the economy.

      I think you illustrated my point, good work. :)

      The reason these parties have so much power is because they lie, cater towards interests groups, and are extremely vicious towards their opponents. Do you seriously think a 3rd party would be any different?

      Yes, when I'm voting Libertarian, where the whole goal is the removal of power from themselves. :)

      If I was voting Green, I might agree... except then I'd be a Green, so I'd fool myself into thinking the nanny-state is what's best for all of us, and tow the party line. But I digress ...

    115. Re:Vote Libertarian by Drachasor · · Score: 1

      Ugh....give me a day or so to compose my overall reply. As far as my comments on health care are concerned though, the primary expense is from the man-hour concentration. Health Care requires qualified workers that must devote a lot of time and money for the right education. This means they must be paid pretty well. Now, the more industrialized and efficient a nation becomes, the less man-hours are needed for goods. This makes the price of goods go down. Most things go down in this way. Health Care, on the other hand, has gone up because it requires even more education and training and the man-hours have not gone down at all. So, to pay for a good you pay for the material cost and the man-hour cost. For most goods this goes down, but for health care this goes up as wealth goes up, because each person involved in the healthcare system needs to be paid and all of their wages are going up. Health Care and Education haven't been industrialized so their cost has shot up a lot because of this. It is a little counter-intuitive, but it is the primary cause of the increased price of both. There are other things that have increased cost, but generally they account for a relatively small amount of the increase. Basically it is an issue of this man-hour gap, and this can only be fixed by technological advances. I can only see this happening in the fields of AI and robotics, primarily, along with improved preventative care for Healthcare. -Drachasor PS. Need to be depressed about the future of America now. I'll get back to other various topics you commented on (and other commented on) later.

    116. Re: Vote Libertarian by Darmox · · Score: 1
      Draft bills that don't allow anyone out are anti war , not pro war. I personally believe that it is only ethical to enstate one in a time of peace to promote peace though. Because it is bad enough to have war, but to pull in non volentiers is worse.


      And I, for one, don't believe it is ethical to enslave one. In a time of peace or war.

      --
      If I was that drunk, I would have remembered it -- H. Simpson
    117. Re:Vote Libertarian by scenturion · · Score: 1

      Well, congrats on beating the kook and helping put a mainstream face on the LP. (You do shower regularly, right? :) )

      But seriously, please keep up the good fight, and check in with some of us "sane" libertarians from time to time at Tim West's blog.

    118. Re:Vote Libertarian by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      Do you think that that barfight would have broken out at all if nearly every person in the bar had a handgun? Even a person who's 'seeing red' has an instinct for self preservation.

      Fewer fights, yes, but that's the trouble with human beings--we're irrational creatures, and when we get worked up, we do things that don't make sense and go against all reason. Hell, when does a barfight ever make sense? When does assault make sense?

      Ubiquitous firearms might cause a drop in incidence rates, but would likely cause an intensification of severity. If some drunken asshole starts feeling up your wife, which is more desirable--a situation where you go home with a few bruises and a police report, or a situation where you (and six other bystanders) threaten homicide on the spot? Does a drunken asshole deserve to be shot to death for groping someone's wife? Does a purse snatcher deserve to be shot to death? Does a boorish mother who rear-ends another car deserve to be shot to death?

      if nearly every person in Manhattan had a gun, anyone acually pulling a gun out would be a rather stupid individual, and would likely be shot very quickly with a minimum of colateral damage.

      You have what I can only describe as staggering confidence in the marksmanship of the average American. Consider that we can't even drive our cars without killing some 40,000 people every year--and that's something most of us practice every single day. You think we're all gonna be good shots?

      The lousy thing about people is that we're good, decent rational individuals most of the time. Every now and then, though, we go and do something truly stupid and irrational. I really, really don't like the idea of granting average Americans the 24/7 option of killing another person at a distance in under a second. We're poorly suited for that kind of irreversible judgement.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    119. Re:Vote Libertarian by TopherC · · Score: 1

      I was actually considering voting for Badnarik, on the premise that Instant Run-Off voting is actually a vitally important election reform for the US. The Republican party so far has the least incentive for establishing it. More votes for Badnarik would help with this. And I live in New York, so "my" electoral votes will go to Kerry either way.

      But then I figured that the popular vote is also somewhat meaningful, and I should really only throw away my vote if I were relatively neutral between Kerry and Bush. I don't like either one really, but I think that Kerry would make a far less-awful president than Bush has been.

      As for Kerry, although his anti-Bush statements have been on target and valid, his own oppinions on what to do in Iraq are unrealistic at best, pandering at worst. He might sound good, but I feel that many of his arguments have no substance. I'm also disturbed by Kerry's incessant trumpeting of Cheney's daughter. I don't know of any "real people" who would make such a big deal out of such a trivial fact, going out of their way at every turn to make polite-sounding comments that are thinly-disguised attacks like these. It just disgusts me. No decent human being would do that. Kerry did. Sigh.

      But all of these issues that might in a normal elecetion swing my vote are suddenly made trivial by the outrageous actions of Bush. His war on Iraq was based largely on evidence of nuclear weapons, which we later find out was such weak evidence that it was more nearly an exhoneration, and Bush knew it at the time he made the announcement! Unbelievable! The way the science was distorted and spun to serve a particular political agenda is remeniscent of things like the Nazi idea of racial supremacy, and even Islamic (and other forms of) fundamentalism, the Christian crusades, etc. We should be smarter than that by now.

      And Bush's nuclear policy is so bad that he should have been impeached on the same day he broke the nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Our outrage at that should have been so tremendous that we demand Bush be impeached, or face a nation-wide revolt to overthrow the government! His plan for bunker-buster nukes is completely implausible. I should have a link handy but I don't -- suffice it to say that these devices are impossible on basic physical principle. And his plan for chemical and biological agent-destroying nukes is also quixotic. A decent-sized nuke would destroy biological agents within about 10 feet of the bomb, and scatter the rest into the atmosphere -- a better *delivery mechanism* than anything else. yet Bush still values these initiatives more than he values a world more safe from nuclear holocaust.

      So I voted for Kerry, for what it's worth. I am writing this after the nearly-inevitable reelection of Bush, and am honestly just beside myself with disbelief. I don't know what to do. Should I flee the country? No, that's a cowardly way out and won't solve anything. My oppinion of the average US citizen has just fallen to an all-time low. I guess the only thing to do is hope for and fight for education reform, so that maybe in a generation or two the U.S. won't be so overpopulated with hopelessly moronic brainwashees, if we're still around to see the day.

    120. Re:Vote Libertarian by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1

      If it's my wife being groped, my purse being stolen, then, yes, they deserve to be shot if they continue to grope after I've pointed my gun. As for the other, do you have any idea how hard it is to shoot someone in a moving vehicle?

      And actually, I have more confidence in the mis-marksmanship of the average american. Most people who can't shoot worth beans and know it will just point and hope unless they're seriously in danger, in which case, they may as well have the option. 40,000 is not a frighteningly large number of people, and I think much of it is due to people forgetting that their car can kill somebody. I doubt they would forget with a gun.

      I think we'd be rational individuals more often if there were more guns around - in the hands of those who want them, that is.

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    121. Re:Vote Libertarian by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      If it's my wife being groped, my purse being stolen, then, yes, they deserve to be shot if they continue to grope after I've pointed my gun.

      On this point: do you believe the capital punishment should be a sentencing option in misdemeanor cases in general? Why or why not?

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    122. Re:Vote Libertarian by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about capital punishment? I'm not quite that far from normal. I'm talking about self defense.

      And unless my aim was really bad, or the dude was really obnoxious, I'd probably shoot him in the foot.

      There are a few crimes that I think ought not be misdemeanors, but I'm no legal eagul, and I don't really know what crimes are misdemeanors and what are felonies. I know I tend to take a rather large amount of offense from gross invasions of my personal space, and would like the option of taking a rather large chunk out of the offender as a purely preventive measure.

      Makes me feel all warm and cozy inside. How about you?

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    123. Re:Vote Libertarian by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      Things like purse-snatchings and drunken groping are generally considered misdemeanors. They're more serious than infractions--speeding tickets and the like--but they're not as serious as felonies. Society has deemed that there are certain punishments that are fitting for this kind of crime, and said punishments are meted out by the courts.

      Claiming "self-defense" in the case of a guy groping your wife is a bit of a stretch. He's being offensive and obnoxious, and should be arrested and punished, but is he threatening your life?

      You say you'd probably shoot him in the foot--unless he were being really obnoxious. Here's the core problem with carrying a gun--you, the individual and victim, become the sole arbiter and interpreter of the law; what's more, you're given the ability to kill--a sentence that's really, really tough to reconsider once it's been carried out. If you feel that you can justifiably shoot a man in the chest for being a real grade-A asshole and grabbing your wife's crotch, why not extend the law to allow such obnoxious crotch-grabbers at trial to face the death penalty for their crime? Is it more appropriate or understandable for an individual to shoot and kill a person in the heat of the moment? Is it cruel or unjust for a court to impose such a stiff penalty on petty crimes?

      If it is reasonable to grant you the means and license to kill somebody for gross intrusions of your personal space, would it not also be reasonable to grant the courts the right to put such offenders to death? Or is there a difference?

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    124. Re:Vote Libertarian by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1

      It's the suggestion that groping and purse snatching ought to be taken in stride that bothers me. You don't really have to go too far back to find a time when nobody would be surprised if you got shot or stabbed in the act of groping someone or stealing their property. Some might say it's because we're more civilized now, and so we don't do that sort of thing, but I'd say we're just morally loose. Maybe I'm just anachronistic.

      How many people would keep going if you pointed a gun at them? Not many. The rest are exceptionally stupid and I don't see anything wrong with stopping them. If they live, which they probably will, they probably won't do it again.

      Besides that, though, stopping someone in the commision of a criminal act IS a different circumstance than having caught them afterward. Nobody would complain if you pointed a gun at someone who was trying to steal your purse, and most people would stop. But what is that threat worth if it's not legal to shoot them if they continue?

      Certainly nobody's saying you should fry them for it if they give up, or even if they get away and get caught later. At that point, there's no concern for stopping the act, and there are much better ways to teach them their manners. It's just that in midst of the act, I don't know whether they're going to get caught, get away or give up and leave, I have no idea how far it's going to go, whether the jerk is armed or how he'll react when I protest.

      what's my best method for making sure that neither me or mine are harmed?

      So... Point a gun, and if he doesn't stop right then and there, shoot him.

      And I'm sure it'll play better in court if they don't die, but I don't really think I should have to be overly concerned for the safety of a fellow who's committing criminal acts against me when I already have to worry about myself and my loved ones. If I'm a lousy shot and know it, I'll aim for his gut and vaguely hope that he lives. If I'm a better shot, I'll aim for his leg.

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    125. Re:Vote Libertarian by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      It's the suggestion that groping and purse snatching ought to be taken in stride that bothers me. You don't really have to go too far back to find a time when nobody would be surprised if you got shot or stabbed in the act of groping someone or stealing their property. Some might say it's because we're more civilized now, and so we don't do that sort of thing, but I'd say we're just morally loose. Maybe I'm just anachronistic.

      Gah, when did I ever say you should take such a thing in stride? Call the freakin' police, have him kicked out of the bar, get his name and sue the pants off him--hell, punch him in the face, if you want a more visceral response.

      But to advocate the use of a deadly weapon in order to stop a comparatively tame crime is simply irresponsible. I don't buy the "people will stop when you point a gun at them" line. If a person is stupid or drunk enough to grope your wife in public, what makes you think that they won't simply lunge at you when you pull a gun? Will you take the time to aim at his foot, then?

      What's life like one week after the event? You've shot another man; you've gone through the police report (and, if you're lucky, you haven't been charged with voluntary manslaughter;) you've been informed that because your bullet severed his femoral artery just above the knee, the asshole groper died of blood loss while in the emergency room; you've taken the week off work to sit through interviews and meetings with police and lawyers; you've seen the guy's wife and kid in tears at the courthouse; your own wife shakes uncontrollably every time she recalls the moment that stream of arterial blood gushed against her legs; you're anxiously awaiting the blood test results of the dead asshole, as your wife cut her already-blood-soaked leg when she fell onto a shard of glass; she has no appetite, has lost fifteen pounds, and hasn't looked you in the face once since you pulled the trigger; and you get to relive the moment you killed another human being every night while you sleep. All because you shot some drunken asshole who was groping your wife. Is it worth that?

      Talk to some people who have killed other people--old soldiers, cops, drivers who have been in fatal car accidents and the like. So long as you're anything short of sociopathic, the act of killing another human being tends to leave some pretty serious scars on the ol' psyche. That sort of thing'll haunt you, even if you're doing it from the comfort of a fighter cockpit. A single pull of the trigger can last your entire lifetime.

      How many people would keep going if you pointed a gun at them? Not many. The rest are exceptionally stupid and I don't see anything wrong with stopping them. If they live, which they probably will, they probably won't do it again.

      Dude, people have a practically limitless capacity for stupidity. Even perfectly normal, well-adjusted, rational people can and will do exceptionally stupid things under the right (or wrong) conditions. What's more, you put the pressure on someone by pulling a deadly weapon and you're likely going to trigger the "fight or flight" instinct. Note that "flight" is only half of that old addage--what options are you left with when your target's instincts scream, "FIGHT!!"?

      Besides that, though, stopping someone in the commision of a criminal act IS a different circumstance than having caught them afterward. Nobody would complain if you pointed a gun at someone who was trying to steal your purse, and most people would stop. But what is that threat worth if it's not legal to shoot them if they continue?

      I'd bet a fair number of people would complain if you shot a purse snatcher. Yes, it's a crime, but not all punishments fit all crimes. Death from a bullet in the back for snatching a purse, while it may satisfy your own sense of justice, would be looked upon by a large segment of society as a heinous and criminal act in and of itself. There's a reason cops don't shoot at pickpo

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    126. Re:Vote Libertarian by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1

      This conversation's getting old and off topic, but it's been fun.

      Maybe I'm marginally sociopathic, but I have very little sympathy for criminals of any kind, and very little tolerance for destructive stupidity.

      If society thinks It's a heinous crime for me to shoot a guy in the back as he makes off with my wallet, then I think that's something wrong with society. That ought to be a perfectly acceptable response. Just for the record, though, I'd let him go unless there was something in there worth shooting about. Replacing credit cards and keys isn't a difficult task.

      All the mishmash about whether or not having a gun would make the situation better or worse is moot. It'd be my descision, in that moment, whether drawing a gun would be a good idea or not, and of course I'd check to see if there were less drastic ways of dealing with the situation. Drawing a gun is a pretty serious thing to do, I know that. Everyone knows that, and most people still probably wouldn't have them even if concealed carry was totally legal everywhere. I'd just rather have the option than not.

      Having a gun doesn't enable me to kill somebody or injure them, it just changes how fast I can do it, and how likely it is that they won't get a hit in.

      And you're right about the drunks. It's illegal to drive while drunk, it darn well better be illegal to pack heat while under the influence. It would cut down on the lethal barfight problem you seem so worried about.

      The other odds I can deal with.

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    127. Re:Vote Libertarian by Moderatbastard · · Score: 1

      Sigh. A valid comment on why anarchy doesn't work and it's modded troll.

      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    128. Re: Vote Libertarian by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There is a third option - pull out and leave them to it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    129. Re: Vote Libertarian by Moderatbastard · · Score: 1
      Doing this will never get you any closer to the government you really want.
      No, but it can stave off the one that you really really (like, really) don't want. That's a better choice than many people get, and it's a lot better than nothing, surely?
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    130. Re:Vote Libertarian by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      No. I'd like to believe that a post consisting of little more than "vote Kerry!" or "vote Bush!" would similarly be modded down. Where's the content?

      A post just saying "vote my candidate" shouldn't be modded down, it just doesn't deserve to be modded up.

  4. Voter fraud! by Mz6 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Well... it looks like we already have our first reports of voter fraud in Phildaelphia, atleast, according to Drudge. I have been trying to see if I can find out if it's true or not through the Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS). So far, their site has been very, very slow to respond. Anyways.. Drudge says that there are reports of over 2,000 votes already being casted on voting machines BEFORE the polls were even open. Is anyone in Phily that can corroborate the stories? Nothing I have seen thus far says which candidate the votes were casted for, but I am very curious...

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:Voter fraud! by wizbit · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, the polling places mentioned are in Center City and North Philly, mostly. Those are (especially N. Philly) primarily districts where the Democratic registration would be especially high, so that (to me) indicates they could be GOP votes that were planted. Don't know, and Drudge doesn't tell us. I've been unable to confirm it as well, and Drudge is known for his share of whoppers, but this is a very disturbing report indeed...

    2. Re:Voter fraud! by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 0

      I live just outside Philly. All I know for sure is that I'm hearing the same thing you're saying all over the news (like the local AM news station, and national ones as well). The votes were for Bush... :-\

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    3. Re:Voter fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If Drudge is reporting it I would suspect Democratic fraud is alleged.

      Meanwhile, the Republican party is engaged in massive, organized vote fraud. Does anyone care?

    4. Re: Voter fraud! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting


      > and Drudge is known for his share of whoppers, but this is a very disturbing report indeed...

      Disturbing, yes, but it has probably been happening all over the country for decades.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re: Voter fraud! by micromoog · · Score: 2, Funny
      Disturbing, yes, but it has probably been happening all over the country for decades.

      Oh, in that case it's OK then.

    6. Re:Voter fraud! by mr_gerbik · · Score: 5, Informative

      Stop spreading disinformation. According to all major news sources (CNN just did a piece on the Philadelphia story), the votes on the machines in question are from previous elections and have no bearing on the votes for this election. They are just resident in memory.

      The GOP are the ones who are trying to get these machines replaced -- not the Democrats.

    7. Re:Voter fraud! by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Sweet jesus, that list is terrifying. Mod parent up.

      Parent AC's link:

      a list of known voter fraud this election. A very _long_ list. What's really scary is how many of them are being perpetuated by actual, official party members and reprasentatives - its disgusting the teflon coating some of these people have.

    8. Re:Voter fraud! by jaxdahl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Got this message from a tailgating friend in Florida about his wife:

      I thought you all would be interested to know what just happened in the past 30 minutes (It is 9:20AM here).

      My wife went to the polls. I voted at the same precinct early this morning with no problems. However, when she went to vote, she was not allowed because they said a) she had changed her address one month ago and b) she had voted absentee. Obviously, neither is true.

      She is now standing in line at the County Election office who told her they had the absentee records on file for her to review once she shows proof of ID.

      It will be fascinating to find out "who" filed a change of address and absentee ballot "in her name". It was obviously intentional (fraudulent) and obviously targeted at a registered Republican.

      Get ready for a rocky ride folks.

      ---

      Anyone hear about anything like this happening before?

    9. Re:Voter fraud! by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to diss the right (I'm probably best decribed as a right-leaning Libertarian, or what I'd consider to be the "Old Right"), but did anyone else notice that virtually all of these incidents on this fraud list have been committed by supporters of the "far right-wing"?

    10. Re:Voter fraud! by EzInKy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stop spreading disinformation. According to all major news sources (CNN just did a piece on the Philadelphia story), the votes on the machines in question are from previous elections and have no bearing on the votes for this election. They are just resident in memory.

      Other sources are reporting the same now. Apparently the poll watchers mistook the machine's "odometers" for "tripometers". Kinda makes all these paranoid Republican types look quite silly.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    11. Re:Voter fraud! by michael_cain · · Score: 1

      I have a friend that does consulting work for states on voting processes, including electronic ones. She tells me that most states have repeated "zero check" steps in their procedure for moving the voting machines from warehouse to precinct. At each step, the totals are read out and recorded, and the machines are cleared if the tally was not zero. The information can be used to identify several different types of attempted fraud. For what it's worth, she worries a lot more about dishonest election judges and officials than she does about electronic or other ballot fraud.

    12. Re:Voter fraud! by drseuss9311 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe that Drudge has been DEBUNKED once again on this one.
      Drudge Debunked once again!
      here's the summary for ya if u can't follow the link:
      The 'votes' that were 'casted' on the machines before polls opened were the ticker (like on an old car's mileage) to count the number of total votes that each machine had processed.
      no big deal ... nothing to see here folks...

      --
      ------ no thanks... I've quit
    13. Re:Voter fraud! by jaxdahl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An update:

      After an hour in the county election office, my wife was allowed to vote. They confirmed to her that someone fraudulently switched her address and voted absentee for her. They obviously don't know who it is, but they do know the address of where they are located (where the absentee ballot was mailed). All they could promise her was that the county sherriff would be investigating immediately and that the duplicate absentee ballot would be invalid.

    14. Re:Voter fraud! by kc0dxh · · Score: 2, Informative

      In fact, something like that turned up this morning in Des Moines, IA, where a husband and wife went to vote. They have voted in this same polling location for 34 years and have been registered to vote with the same address. The wife was told she was registered in Ankeny, a suburb town to the north, and could not vote at her normal location. Again, here, they are registered Republican.

      Perhaps this will turn out to be an organized and targeted attack?

      --

      --- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc

    15. Re:Voter fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't take more than a nanosecond for Kerry to say that the reports were false, even BEFORE he knew who the votes were for. He just assumed that his side had been caught red-handed.

    16. Re: Voter fraud! by jbarr · · Score: 1
      " Disturbing, yes, but it has probably been happening all over the country for decades.

      Oh, in that case it's OK then."

      I certainly understand your sentiment, but it's not that it's "OK", it's that we live in a very different world that is reacting very differently from the way we did in the past. This is an excellent example of how the Internet has radiaclly changed the face of politics. Historically, these kinds of news stories would not have been heard for many hours or even days. The immediate delivery of news now paints a very different picture because it causes an "urgency" which rarely existed in the past. I'm not saying the "urgency" is false, on the contrary, sometimes it is very real. It's just that we need to learn to prioritize the "events" and react to those that are truely urgent.
      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    17. Re:Voter fraud! by Loacher · · Score: 1

      Stop spreading disinformation. This IS Slashdot! What do you expect?

    18. Re:Voter fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude - i hope she's not seeing someone else ..

    19. Re:Voter fraud! by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      History lesson. The new electronic voting booths in Pennsylvania are about 10 years old. They are drop-in replacements for our old mechanical voting booths, using solid state electronics to replace the levers and gears.

      Since it's a drop in replacement, all of the counters are designed to work just like the old mechanical machines. One of the fraud checks is an internal counter that ticks off how many votes have been registered over the lifetime of the machine. If someone "oopsies" and blanks out a precincts votes, it will be VERY apparent because the number of votes cast will not add up in both columns.

      (There is a "Blank Ballot" button, BTW.)

      I rather like the machines. It's a simple LED and pushbutton system. The choices are printed on giant cards. They even put the big green "VOTE" button in the same place as the old red "VOTE" lever. Hell, they even kept the party lever (the topmost button will happily cast a straight party ballot for you.)

      I don't give PA a lot of credit on some issues. But they did electronic voting right. And the did it back in the early 90s.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    20. Re:Voter fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > would be investigating immediately

      Considering the cops are almost universal Democrats and many are union members, don't hold your breath. The cops here didn't do a thing this morning about a mainly white polling location that had its entrance blocked for over three hours. They also refused to stop a group of five Kerry supporters with bullhorns at the entrance to the building where I voted. That contrasts with the several black neighborhoods where I saw cops directing traffic to make things go faster at polling places. Their bias is very plain.

      With that said, it's probably not a criminal issue anyway. My name (first, middle & last) is the same as two other people in the same county and one is a felon. I've dealt with several problems over the past 40 years I've been voting, and every one of them was a clerical error.

    21. Re:Voter fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bullshit.

    22. Re:Voter fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bunch of Pitt students had their voter registrations changed to Republican after signing petitions for things like medical marijuana. Some were even registered without being eligible to be registered. (One was 17, another was a foreign student.)

      So yes... People fraudulently change registrations on both sides and you were lucky enough to catch it. At least the wife didn't mysteriously disappear from the voting rolls or have her registration ripped up or have people try to discount it because the paper it was on wasn't heavy enough. She had something happen that could be discovered and dealt with (and I hope they do.)

    23. Re:Voter fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Item one is: "1. Links to help refute/debunk lies and fraud against John Kerry"

      So I'm guessing the compiler(s) of the list may be just a teeny bit biased, whether intentionally or not.

    24. Re:Voter fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely that the culprit mailed it from their own mailbox. If so, they should be charged with voter fraud and Plain Stupidity.

      In any case: PEOPLE, DON'T FUCK WITH THE DEMOCRACY. Yeah, we all know your cause is the *right* one, but when you undermine democracy itself you're only hurting yourself. Yourself and us all.

      I recommend harsher sentences for election fraud. Extremely harsh.

      Like sterilization or something. Okay, I'm kidding. Sorry to obscure the importance.

    25. Re:Voter fraud! by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Please report back when you know more. I'd love to find out what happened in the end. Post it in your journal or something since it'll probably happen after this article stops accepting submissions.

  5. Bush to win 50% to 48% by XavierItzmann · · Score: 1, Informative

    At least that's what John Fund at the WSJ says this morning!

    4 more years!

    --
    The next pasture is always greener
    1. Re:Bush to win 50% to 48% by paganizer · · Score: 1

      yike.
      I for one didn't do anything to prevent it; I couldn't handle the thought of voting for either asshole, so I wrote in a vote for Ron Paul.
      BTW, when I asked if there was an option for a paper ballot, I was told "no".

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    2. Re:Bush to win 50% to 48% by 10100 · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your pessimism.
      If Bush gets 'elected' for another 4 years, I do believe that he and his administration will have a number of unpleasant assasination attempts to deal with. Of course I would never even think of supporting such a thing /sarcasm

    3. Re:Bush to win 50% to 48% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Bush gets 'elected' for another 4 years

      Listen, that horse is lone dead. Bush was elected just the same way JFK was elected in 1960, except Nixon didn't whine like a baby for two months after election and there were no widespread cases of vote fraud in 2000.

      And before you go off on "voter fraud this and that in 2000", take note that there were voting districts in 1960 that had a 150% voter turnout.

      That is not a typo - some primarily Democratic districts around Chicago reported 50% more total votes than registered voters. Given that the number of votes necessary to turn the election was measured in the tens of thousands, this was more than enough reason to contest the results.

    4. Re:Bush to win 50% to 48% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true. I'm old enough to remember it. If the dead hadn't voted for Kennedy, he'd still be alive. Ironic, isn't it?

    5. Re:Bush to win 50% to 48% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he and his administration will have a number of unpleasant assasination attempts to deal with"

      Judging from the amount of violence already being done by the left, you may be right. Isn't is telling that the left always resorts to violence if they don't get their way? Bunch of whining babies.

      You better hope the Secret Service isn't reading /. today. You may get a visit.

    6. Re:Bush to win 50% to 48% by 10100 · · Score: 0

      No, I don't think that the left always resorts to violence. If that were the case, Bush would have been removed from office shortly after he made it in 4 years ago. However, judging by the feelings of many democrats (and even some republicans), I believe that things could be different this time around. (BTW: I'm not too worried about the Secret Service)

    7. Re:Bush to win 50% to 48% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give one example of left wing violence. By the way, whiners are not violent, you fucking tool.

    8. Re:Bush to win 50% to 48% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. Only I forgot his name and wrote in RuPaul by mistake.

  6. Yay for rabidness! by FortKnox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A place to talk politics that will start off intelligently, and end in a bloodbath where only the extreme sides remain.

    And no one will change their mind, regardless.

    WHAT FUN!

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Yay for rabidness! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! I like to think I'm open-minded enough to change my opinions. Of course, I voted this morning already, so I guess its too late...

    2. Re:Yay for rabidness! by general_re · · Score: 1
      A place to talk politics that will start off intelligently, and end in a bloodbath where only the extreme sides remain.

      Just like the last half a dozen election threads we've had in the last few days. Fun is fun, but do we really need one a day? How about a perpetual, ongoing politics thread, one that never gets pushed off the front page, so that we can at least keep it all in one place...

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    3. Re:Yay for rabidness! by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot man...voting for Bush IS an extreme side. This thread was damned before it started, and the editors pretty much have to know that...but clicks == cash.

    4. Re:Yay for rabidness! by refactored · · Score: 1
      And no one will change their mind, regardless.

      Worse, no one will actually shift their fat butts and actually _do_ anything!

  7. I've been waiting at work all morning for this by HMA2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, something to distract me. I want some extreme polazation in this thread people!!!

    1. Re:I've been waiting at work all morning for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go North Pole! We don't need no stinkin' landmass at our pole!

    2. Re:I've been waiting at work all morning for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Can't help it. Read this article yesterday and found it hilarious. Had to share :-)

      Before posting the inevitable abuse, please bear in mind that the author is American.

  8. Go Kerry! by Adian · · Score: 1, Insightful

    May whatever forces that keep us moving toward whateverness please please please put Kerry into office. Not because I think he's a better man, but he's hella better than Bush.

    --
    Adian
    1. Re:Go Kerry! by evilviper · · Score: 5, Funny
      [...]please put Kerry into office. Not because I think he's a better man, but he's hella better than Bush.

      My head just exploded.

      You don't think Kerry is the better man, but you think he's better than the other man?

      Are you sure you're not one of those undecided voter?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Go Kerry! by wessto · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Go Bush!

      May whatever forces that keep us moving toward whateverness please please please put Bush into office. Not because I think he's a better man, but he's hella better than Kerry.

      --
      Why was this modded Insightful? Oh how I wish I had mod points.

    3. Re:Go Kerry! by drnlm · · Score: 1

      Simply to be nitpicky: if he's not a better man, how can he be better than Bush? Is "Not because I think he a good candidate" is the sentiment you're trying to express?

    4. Re:Go Kerry! by micromoog · · Score: 1

      Haha, you took the original comment and switched Kerry and Bush!!11 U R teh funnie!!!11

    5. Re:Go Kerry! by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a real pathological thing we have going here. We vote for the "lesser of two evils," then act all surprised when we get . . . evil.

      We really need something like instant runoff voting or one of the Condorcet methods. As it stands we get the second most objectionable candidate. We need a system where we can choose the least objectionable candidate.

      In the mean time, how do you justify voting for someone who is terrible? Given the choice between two highly objectionable candidates, I'll vote for one who "can't win."

      -Peter

    6. Re:Go Kerry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm stunned. The moderators of the parent managed to lower my opinion of /. moderation even lower than it was. And I thought it couldn't be done.

    7. Re:Go Kerry! by recursiv · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not because I think he's a better man, but he's hella better than Bush.

      What. The. Fuck.
      You think what? But you don't think what? I feel a nonsense induced coma coming on.

      --
      I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
    8. Re:Go Kerry! by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you sure you're not one of those undecided voter?

      So, what's wrong with undecided voters?

      It's so easy to make that blanket statement and fail to properly identify the classifications of undecided voters (UVs).

      You were probably referring to the Apathetic UV who couldn't care less about anything but simply fufilling their civic duty and pulling some levers. Some wouldn't even care if they decided their vote based on a coin toss, only to have discovered later that someone slipped them a double headed coin.

      Then there's the UVs which listen to all the rhetoric coming from the candidates, looking for consistencies in their campaign speeches, in order to make the the most informed decision as they can under the circumstances. "The lesser of two evils" is their motto. Most of these UVs reject candidate statements more often than a Slashdot moderator does with submitted stories. The remaining statements are mulled over day and night until they arrive at the voting booth on election day between 7PM and 8PM.

      The thing with UVs is that they aren't really counted on pre election polls. This makes party hardliners, or "decided" voters, a little wary of the outcome.

    9. Re:Go Kerry! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      So, if Kerry wins, will the lunatics who have been saying that the US is a dictatorship say that they were wrong or will they be saying that Kerry is just as bad as Bush in order to continue their self-righteous tirades?

      Things are bad, mmmkay?

    10. Re:Go Kerry! by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      It's called BushSpeak...this person is obviously a former Bush supporter. We should welcome this person to the flock and try and help his change from Bushisms.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    11. Re:Go Kerry! by fwr · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for my horse... Lewis Black

    12. Re:Go Kerry! by mpsmps · · Score: 1
      [...]please put Kerry into office. Not because I think he's a better man, but he's hella better than Bush.

      I see no contradiction. He obviously doesn't think Bush (or maybe Kerry) is a man.
    13. Re:Go Kerry! by twbecker · · Score: 1

      So, what's wrong with undecided voters?

      Nothing, as long as it's not the day of the election. Seriously, if you haven't made up your mind by now, we're all better off with you not voting at all. Vote for whomever you like, but have a good reason for doing so.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    14. Re:Go Kerry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      So, what's wrong with undecided voters?


      I think you missed the point. The statement was very contradictory.

    15. Re:Go Kerry! by Lord_Breetai · · Score: 1

      You think what? But you don't think what?

      Let me try:

      kerry > bush while someone_else > kerry

      --
      "You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
    16. Re:Go Kerry! by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Good point. If Kerry gets in, the first thing he will oversee will be the flattening of Faluja. Hardly a visible expression of a negociating stance.

      However I believe that people who disagreed with the initial invasion should bear in mind the responsibility of the powerfull to clean up anything that they have made a mess of.

      It is an entirely open question as to how to mend Iraq from its broken state, with the paucity of information we have in the public domain. I have no idea whether a firm militaristic approach is the best or even the only viable option in the run up to the comming elections in Iraq.

      Kerry will have barely enough time to look at the books before he has to decide on the Falluja operation so it will probably run its course as expected. This being the case it appears that Bush has set the course of Kerrys dominion over Iraq before he has even started - a clever move by Bush. Alternately the negociations over the surrender of Faluja may mysteriously suceed once Bush is back in charge - as the Iraqui militants realise that they are facing erasure and sneak off to continue their activities elsewhere.

      My point is that voting for one of the candidates is an important activity because it does have real world impact, you are entitled to choose the person who decides what happens next. Whatever happens next at the behest of either candidate will affect the world we live in, so get your voting head on and go and make your choice. This year it is an important choice because flawed though the likely candidates might be, they do have differences and either of them could win.

      Even if the critics say that the US acts like a dictatorship are right then at least you get to choose your dictator. May the best man win.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    17. Re:Go Kerry! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      So you're going to throw away your vote because you feel neither candidate is ideal?

      Wake up, the reality of the situation is that one of the two major parties is going to win the election. They don't give a crap if 1-2% of the population votes third party, in fact the candidate who is *least like* the popular third party will actively promote this, since taking votes away from the competition is almost as good as receiving votes!

      I believe that we need campaign reform, and I'd love to see our voting system changed to something like an approval-based system. But voting third party is not the answer to that, the system must change from within.

    18. Re:Go Kerry! by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      So you're going to throw away your vote because you feel neither candidate is ideal?


      No. I'm going to invest my vote in being able to sleep at night. And I am voting for a candidate who I don't believe to be ideal. I'm voting for one that I find tolerable If either of the "major party" candidates were tolerable I'd vote for him.

      I believe that we need campaign reform, and I'd love to see our voting system changed to something like an approval-based system.


      And you propose to achieve this by . . .voting for the same shitheads that are already in there? Wake up, indeed.

      -Peter
    19. Re:Go Kerry! by Cybrr · · Score: 1

      Approval Voting fixes all your woes.

      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
    20. Re:Go Kerry! by slashrogue · · Score: 1

      How do I justify it? If I know my only option is attempting to pick the lesser of two evils, I damn well better pick the lesser to run my country. I also don't enjoy pissing in the wind.

    21. Re:Go Kerry! by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Yes! That's the one I was trying to think of. Damn you Cobb. Damn you for muddling my thinking with all your instant runoff nonsense!

      Seriously, thanks Cybrr.

      -Peter

    22. Re:Go Kerry! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      And you propose to achieve this by . . .voting for the same shitheads that are already in there? Wake up, indeed.

      Obviously, you're an idealist, and I'm a realist. I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't believe my candidate is one of the "shitheads", I think he's the best candidate who has any chance of winning. To vote otherwise would be to help out the candidate I absolutely do *not* want in office.

    23. Re:Go Kerry! by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Hold on a second.

      You said: I'd love to see our voting system changed to something like an approval-based system.

      I said: And you propose to achieve this by . . .voting for the same shitheads that are already in there?

      You replied: I don't believe my candidate is one of the "shitheads", I think he's the best candidate who has any chance of winning. To vote otherwise would be to help out the candidate I absolutely do *not* want in office.

      Are you saying that you'd like to see the voting system changed, but you think it can't happen? Or are you delusional about what "your candidate" will do in office? Or is there some third possibility I don't see here?

      I still insist that this whole thing is pathological. You claim that you help a candidate by not voting for his major party opponent. Can this be true? Let's say everyone was so frustrated with the system that no one but you voted. You wrote yourself in. Would the candidate you don't want in office win because you helped him by not voting for his opponent?

      No. If you don't vote "against" they guy you dislike you simply fail to offset someone else to voted "against" your guy.

      But we fall into this tactcial voting death-spiral, which has given us . . . well . . . look around.

      I perceive that the number of people inured into thinking that "their candidate" is the right man for the job is shrinking. I can only hope that this is true, and that change is afoot.

      In any case, I insist that that change, which you claim to support, will not come from electing and re-electing the same "centrist" candidates.

      -Peter

    24. Re:Go Kerry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure what kind of UV I am. I really can't figure out which of the two I should have voted for. I did vote for Kerry, but I very nearly had to flip a coin.

      The only fault I have with Bush is that he is ignoring US economics and clearly is not aware of the outsourcing problem, I think this is more important that spanking the arabs, though he should be doing both simultaneously. I think he's confused and misled on local issues. As far as the other issues leftists get on him about "the environment", "human rights", "health care reform" I tend to ignore. I haven't heard a good workable plan from them that Bush has veto'd. Until I hear something rational, I'd rather the government did not take the burden. I tend to favor the republican mindset, for no rational reason except that I trust greed more than idealism. Greed can be counted on, idealists tend to be impulsive, random and short sighted.

      I think Kerry is something of an asshole on a personal level. I suspect he would have invaded Iraq in Bush's shoes, and I would have supported him as well. I do not believe he will have congressional support in raising taxes, and I disagree with any intent he has on raising taxes (or his proposals for where to spend the money). He claims he'll do something vague that will help outsourcing, it's not clear what that is but it's a hope. I am disgusted with his lack of coherant vision and this "do what's popular" attitude. Rarely is what is popular also what is correct. I really do not like the Democrat party, it's fractured into so many interest groups that I really wish they'd go bankrupt and start over again. I think we'd all have a better election in 4 years if this were the case.

      So I voted for Kerry, the outsourcing thing from Debate #3 tipped the scales, am I a one issue voter? Perhaps, I don't think so. I am afraid Kerry is going to effectively kill the outsourcing issue in a grander tax bill which will not be passed, However he at least acknowledges a problem, that's a step in the right direction. Otherwise he's going to be hog-tied into being a reluctant Bush, so I may as well choose him.

      So if anyone polled me, I'd say I was "undecided', since as far as I'm concered it really was totally ambiguous which of these two could do the best job. I wouldn't say I made an informed decision, because I woudln't call the trash I see on TV and newspapers information. It's all spin and distraction from real hard problems neither candidate wants to be caught solving. Anyone outside the government who claims to be making an informed decision is a liar, and if they insist they are informed they are a deluded liar. Ultimately every fact I was subjected to was discredited, obfuscated, misleading, questionable or irrelevant. I could either vote with the "hype", vote with my personal greed, or vote based on various suspicions from extropolation of random bogus information. I did the latter....I don't feel good about it, but I'm not a politician, I'm a geek.

    25. Re:Go Kerry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God's honest truth:

      I would vote for a ham sandwich before I would vote for Bush.

    26. Re:Go Kerry! by DarthMAD · · Score: 1

      Your opinion does not matter by use of the word "hella." This just says something about the vocabulary and intelligence of Kerry supporters, IMO...

    27. Re:Go Kerry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may surprise you, but the phrase "lesser of two evils" is not meant to be taken literally. Neither George Bush nor John Kerry are "evil", in any sense of the word.

    28. Re:Go Kerry! by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Feel free to substitue the word "objectionable."

      It's just as true, just doesn't sound as good.

      -Peter

    29. Re:Go Kerry! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      I'll make this simple: voting reform, while important to me, is not the single largest issue. I believe there are much larger issues at stake in this election. There's a time to take an idealistic stand, and there's a time to be pragmatic. This is one of those funky times.

      In the 2000 election, I supported Nader, but my second choice would have been Al Gore (which didn't matter because Gore won my state anyway). I thought the chances of Bush being elected were laughable. Sadly, this was not the case. Bush won Florida in 2000 by 537 votes (10/2/04 Chicago RedEye). I wonder how many voters chose Nader instead of Gore in that case?

  9. Election rigging already? by VC · · Score: 2, Informative

    Drudge is saying voting machines were found with hundreds of votes on them, _before_ polling started in philidepllhia. Anyone know if they use diabold machines there?

    1. Re:Election rigging already? by whome · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. They are talking about old mechanical voting machines. They probably weren't properly zeroed after the last election. This happens all the time, which is why all the machines are checked on election day before the voting begins. Drudge is trying to make an affair out of nothing.

    2. Re:Election rigging already? by gordona · · Score: 1

      I wonder if a recount in ordered whether the Diebold machines will report the same count on the recount as for the 1st count.

      The Countdown to the recount has begun!!!

      --
      "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    3. Re:Election rigging already? by tag · · Score: 1

      Fox News (yeah, yeah -- keep reading) is reporting that the Philly distric attorney checked out one of the 4 machines in question. She says they have 2 counters -- one for today and one for the lifetime of the machine. It's the lifetime that's showing votes.

      Of course, you have to wonder why they aren't *all* showing counts on lifetime.

    4. Re:Election rigging already? by Coolfish · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Drudge is NOT a reliable source of news, information, links, ANYTHING.

      He's very much right wing. That and he's a closet case (read Blinded by the Right by David Brock).

      If you think you are informed when you read Drudge, you are dead wrong.

      KERRY IN A LANDSLIDE

    5. Re:Election rigging already? by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Two lawsuits have been filed in connection with the malfunctioning machine.

      The Republican National Committee is charging that many of the votes present before the polls opened were from convicted felons and illegal immigrants, and wants those thrown out. They say the others should be kept - it's not the voters' fault their ballots wound up in a malfunctioning machine.

      The DNC also filed suit, charging the RNC with trying to disenfranchise the alleged felons and immigrants, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic, according to Census data. They want a corresponding number of overseas absentee ballots to be thrown out, to make it fair.

      Libertarian Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb protested outside the courthouse, asking why there were no ballots on the machine for either of them and demanding equal access to the machines before the polls opened next election.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    6. Re:Election rigging already? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Captain Obvious to the rescue!

      you have to wonder why they aren't *all* showing counts on lifetime.

      Because some of them are new!!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:Election rigging already? by tag · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but even the new ones should have been tested before today and show a few votes. If these are like car odometers (as they should be), there'd be no (legit) way to reset the lifetime count. And I would think they'd have more than four old machines in the city, even if many were new. :)

      The (democrat) mayor of Philly is now on TV saying this was all concocted to create confusion. A "false, malicious" report, he calls it.

      Time will tell. Maybe.

    8. Re:Election rigging already? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I believe everything I read, and I think that makes me a more selective human being... or something like that. Credit to Spinal Tap.

    9. Re:Election rigging already? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily, they could have tested them while having the lifetime counters offline (pull the plug just like in a speedometer). Obviously this plug should be accesible since it may need to be repaired

      Well, as for my mayor (J. Street) - i hate his guts, and so do many democrats here in Philly. Unfortunately, race plays a big deal in voting in this city.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    10. Re:Election rigging already? by learn+fast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Drudge is a propagandist, not a journalist. When the Democrats began sqwuaking about GOP-backed voter fraud, his headline was "Democrats to push voter fraud, whether or not it exists!" Spin, pure and simple.

    11. Re:Election rigging already? by johnpaul191 · · Score: 1

      they are saying the machines have 2 counters.... one for the current year and one for lifetime..... maybe someone saw the lifetime and panicked before knowing what they saw.

      i suppose it is possible some places have new machines still coming in. we first got these electronic machines in 2002. maybe they rolled out more to help with expected turnout, so some places has one new machine and one old one? the philly inquirer article yesterday said there are over 3,000 machines at 1,600 voting divisions. that implies average of 2 machines per place, so maybe one was new and one was not. i'm just guessing here... so this post will be junk in a few hours/days/month

    12. Re:Election rigging already? by bwalling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not rig the machines? We go about screwing with the election in every other possible way as well. Forgive me, but I believe that our elections are one of the most embarassing things about this country. Aside from hanging chads, it's all a farce.

      In Ohio, the Republicans are trying to put white lawyers into predominately black areas to "make sure" their voter registrations are valid.

      In many states, the Democrats were trying hard to get Ralph Nader off the ballots despite his signature collection.

      All over, Republicans and Democrats are frantically trying to register indigents and get them to vote for their guy.

      Republicans and Democrats are paying millions to air ads that come as close as possible to lying about the opposition without actually lying.

      In some state, the Democrats went to court to say that a Catholic bishop was tampering with the election because he said "you're not a Catholic if you vote for Kerry". Dude may be a crackpot, but that's about it.

      Lawyers on both sides are poised to rush into court to contest the aspects of the vote that they feel best help themselves.


      Why can't we just have an open, honest election? If we are the shining example to the world, where's the shine? We complain every four years about low voter turnout, but system is disenfranchising people. Nobody makes me want to vote for them. They all make me want them to be removed from power, but I've nobody left to replace them with.

    13. Re:Election rigging already? by iceperson · · Score: 1

      I wonder how any of them could have been used in an election had less than 200 votes registered on them. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it must be a democratic campaign to steal the election =)

    14. Re:Election rigging already? by wrp103 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in the Philly suburbs, and when we showed up to vote this morning there was an "extra" person who didn't seem to be official, but checked a computer printout. He didn't find our name, and when we told him that we had been voting there for over 20 years, he kept mumbling "you're not on this list". He went outside to talk to the local sleaze-ball republican politician who is there every year.

      The official folks said there was no problem, since we were in the official book (the old-fashioned paper type). I'm wondering how many other Democratic names were "accidentally" lost from the list. I'm also wondering how a first-time voter might react to not being on the list.

    15. Re:Election rigging already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yes, because we all know the quality journalism and fact-checking that goes on behind the scenes at Drudge Report.

      (None.)

    16. Re:Election rigging already? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean their links suddenly point to fiction.
      Drudge is just a blogger. He collects a lot of interesting links to major press organ websites.
      Those sites span a wide political spectrum, editorially, but favor the Republican faction of U.S. politics overall. He also broke the Lewinsky
      story which lead to an impeachment trial. That's excellent journalism. Dan Rather couldn't manage it.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    17. Re:Election rigging already? by monkeyGrease · · Score: 1

      > Why can't we just have an open, honest election?

      Because most people don't think. They react. They react more to dramatic negativity. Campaigns that win do what works. It is Darwinian that way. The problem is not so much the system as it is the voters themselves.

      That is also why in the big picture candidates are getting closer and closer to each other. They are finding the least negative spinnable (appropriately called 'politically correct') positions on most issues.

      People won't think until food starts coming off the table. By then we'll have collapsed beyond repair.

    18. Re:Election rigging already? by mink · · Score: 1

      Republicans in Ohio have made up some flyers telling people that due to voter turn out, republicans are supposed to vote on Tuesday and democrats the day after. They went as far as to use board of elections name and logo and other ting to try to make it look legit. They then started plastering neighborhoods with this fraud.

      Those fuckes responsable should be killed . I'm tired of some ass who cant accept whatever the outcome may be trying to fuck the system up.

      Last week it was some group calling people and claiming to be from the board of elections, telling the people the voting precint had changed and giving them a different place to go. Knowing that if anyone did that they would be givin a provisional ballot that most likely would not be counted.

      Why do these people hate America so much they would rather destroy it then accept the results whatever they may end up being?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  10. While the Poll is obvious... by OS24Ever · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..it is also obvious that Slashdot has an international readership. Would there be any way to re-run the poll restricting it to US bound IP address to see if the race isn't so runaway for Kerry from the slashdot side?

    That being said, I'm all for Kerry to win. But I live in a pretty red state. Though while standing in line to feed my paper ballot marked with a pen into some thing I saw that the few people in front of me had all voted for Kerry/Edwards which I found interesting, considering how little either party has paid attention to North Carolina this year.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by calibanDNS · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also live in North Carolina and voted this morning. I was very suprised to see the large turnout for Kerry/Edwards at my polling station (in Winston-Salem in case you're wondering).

      Considering that Edwards is from NC, I'm surprised that Bush didn't spend a little more time campaigning here to help secure his win. I'm almost certain that he'll win, but it was good to see some friends and family that I know are die-hard Republicans approach this election with an open mind. Note that I'm not saying that anyone with an open-mind will automatically vote for Kerry (or any other non-Bush candidate).

    2. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by castlec · · Score: 1

      would this not be accounted for in the "Can't vote option"???? The poll isn't, "Who would you vote for?" but, "Who will you vote for?"

      --
      When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
    3. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by TuataraShoes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But I live in a pretty red state.

      I take that to mean a Republican state. That's interesting, because in Britain, red represents Labour, which is more left wing. The Conservatives use blue. Red has long been associated with communisim and by extension, socialism. So why do the US Republicans use red? Was blue already taken?

      --
      Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
    4. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by syrion · · Score: 1

      I'm in NC, too... honestly, I feel that the pollsters may have overestimated the Republican hold on this state. Many people I know are voting democrat--and several die-hard Republicans are declining to vote, because they don't like Bush and don't want to vote for Kerry. Erskine Bowles, at least, should have a good chance.

    5. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

      Actually they both would rather have been the black party, but they got stuck wth these names instead.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    6. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by theKinkyRabbit · · Score: 1

      Though while standing in line to feed my paper ballot marked with a pen into some thing I saw that the few people in front of me had all voted for Kerry/Edwards (...)

      I'm not sure I'm getting this. Do you mean you were able to see a lot of already casted votes for Kerry/Edwards, or that you could clearly identify who voted for them by looking at their paper ballot while queueing? That would nullify the voting anonymity, which is a requirement of any democracy, IMO. Please explain.

      --
      Life isn't a bitch. Life is a virgin. A bitch is easy.
    7. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by twbecker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take a look at the polls here (I'm in Durham) and you'll see why Bush feels pretty good. At the State Fair last a couple of weeks ago, you could of mistaken it for a Bush rally - there were that many people with Bush/Cheney stickers. I predict a Kerry/Edwards win in Orange and Durham counties, and that's about it.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    8. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would there be any way to re-run the poll restricting it to US bound IP address to see if the race isn't so runaway for Kerry from the slashdot side?

      The non-USA people are covered with the "can't vote" poll option, so they shouldn't affect the candidate options.

    9. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you on crack? I don't remember any Europeans cheering. Practically the entire world was on your side after 9/11.

    10. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Chilles · · Score: 1

      So who would get stuck with pink then?
      Badarnik or Nader?

    11. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      North Carolina is not yet decided. Almost every Bush state is up in the air, depending on the turnout of America's youth. I'm 21 and living in Wilmington. It pains me to see the elderly voting to send us young people off to war, but if my peers decide to show up this year, we can decide our futures for ourselves.

    12. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm in NC (Greensboro...) voted for Kerry.
      I know more who have also, but I must admit I think I know more that are voting for Bush.

    13. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by bcattwoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I am also from North Carolina so I can explain. Here each voter is given a ballot and provided with a booth (the term booth might be generous here) in which to fill out their ballot. Each polling station then has one ballot box centrally located into which you must feed your ballot. If a number of people were waiting to insert their ballots it might be possible to take a peek at the person's in front of you. There are votes made on both sides as well so it would be difficult to completely obscure your decisions, though if you were really concerned you could find a way.

      More distrubing to me is that no identification is required to vote, other than knowing your name and address. Both of these are available on the board of elections web site for my county (Wake) along with your history of participation in the elections. Seems like it would be VERY easy to commit voter fraud, although I am not sure I would want to risk jail time to give my candidate an extra vote.

    14. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

      Actually, that would be the people of the United States I think.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    15. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Gulthek · · Score: 3, Funny

      Really? When my wife and I went to the State Fair (the first Saturday it was open) it was completely the opposite. Swarms of Kerry signs and stickers and I literally only saw two people with Bush signs.

      When my wife remarked that there were much more people for Kerry than Bush, a random woman near us said, "Lord I hope so!" in perfect southern drawl.

      I don't care what the analysts say, NC was a swing state this election and I believe it's swinging blue this year.

    16. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by jrutley · · Score: 1

      That doesn't work. There's lots of Americans living abroad who will be voting in this election.

    17. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

      I may be voting for Kerry but it sure the hell isn't because of Edwards. That jerk used us (North Carolina) as a stepping stone to run for President, he didn't even serve a term.

      I prefer him over Cheney though.

    18. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's ok when Slashdot blocks web access from non-North-American viewers, but the most vile act of "censorship" when the Bush campaign website does it?

      Right. Whatever.

    19. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..it is also obvious that Slashdot has an international readership. Would there be any way to re-run the poll restricting it to US bound IP address to see if the race isn't so runaway for Kerry from the slashdot side?

      Sure. You could host it on the Bush-Cheney campaign site.

    20. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      Did your polling place run out of the privacy sleeves, too? Sounds like my polling place in MA. I'm surprised that Kerry voters in NC didn't hold their ballots closer to their chests, though; I stood in line for probably 20 minutes, and I don't think anyone saw the non-blank side of my ballot.

      I suspect that NC, like most states, has a reasonable number of liberal voters in cities, and conservative voters in rural areas. You are probably not unusual in voting for Kerry at your polling place, even if your polling place is unusual state-wide in being mostly for Kerry.

      Of course, it's also possible that NC, upon hearing about the missing explosives in Iraq, decided that Bush really wasn't a good wartime president, honest, or a moderate conservative, and switched to Kerry. Electoral-vote has it at 53-45 based exclusively on poll results from mid-October and before, so we wouldn't know until tonight.

      Also, with 53% for Bush and 45% for Kerry, given that 4 random ballots are the same, there is a 44% chance that they are all for Kerry. That is to say, an 8% margin in the voters is not much in terms of how a notable set of ballots will probably look.

    21. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by twosmokes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People looking from afar don't face the same threats that we face in our own country.


      You're right.... they've been facing them for decades.

    22. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      Moderation: +1: Historical perspective

    23. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by chitownIrish · · Score: 4, Funny
      Though while standing in line to feed my paper ballot marked with a pen into some thing

      Hopefully that "thing" was not a shredder...

    24. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      You don't think Wake too? Historically it's wake/orange/durham are Democratic and so was Charlotte area, the rest was republican.

      I live up in Wake Forest, or over, however you look at the map.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    25. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by felis_panthera · · Score: 3, Informative

      I prefer him over Cheney though.

      I think that's really what this whole election is going to come down to... so many of my american friends are voting "against bush" rather than "for kerry"

      --

      The chains are broken
      Loki is free
      Ragnarok is at hand...
    26. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by LetterJ · · Score: 1

      While I had a sleeve for mine and didn't have to wait, my ballot didn't have a blank side here in MN. Rather, the reverse side had 27 judge elections on it, most of whom were running unopposed.

    27. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by AlinuxNCSU · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget that the State Fair is held in Wake County, which is predominantly democratic (and most of the visitors to the fair, especially on weekdays are from Raleigh and Durham. In fact, most large city centers in NC are democratic. The question is whether the increased population and turnout in the cities will offset that of the rural areas.

      I think that the pollsters will be found to be off, but I think when the smoke clears, we'll still be a red state.

      -Alex

    28. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that was indeed the 'official' standpoint made in public after it happened, the real feeling from real Europeans did not match that.

      Reality was, many of them (and in my personal experiences on IRC at least, > 90% of them) cheered among themselves. They may claim otherwise, or deny it when trying to not look like assholes -- but this was the reality.

      (Particularly referring to the Swedes)

    29. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by reverseengineer · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, until recently, there was really no official link between colors and parties- media outlets just chose a scheme and provided a legend for their readers/viewers. Sometimes a party was red, sometimes blue or white. In recent memory, generally presidental elections haven't been terribly close, so the winner would have a huge carpet of states in the same color. In general, red was more popular for the Democrats, likely for the reason you mentioned, that red is identified with leftist parties and causes worldwide, but there was no absolute rhyme or reason to it- in fact, some outlets deliberately blue so as not to associate the Democrats with socialism. In 2000, it happened that most major television networks used blue for the Democrats and red for the Republicans, with white or yellow or even stripes of blue and red to denote undecided states. The closeness of that election and the dialogue regarding electoral votes and swing states was such a big deal that pundits started talking about "red states" and "blue states" as though they had always meant Republicans and Democrats.

      The colors are not official party colors at all ( in terms of a party featuring just red or just blue), and generally signs, banners, bumper stickers, etc. for both parties feature some scheme of red, white, and blue.

      If you go to the New York Times website, you can look at their rather interesting representation of the map, with dark red and blue for solidly Republican or Democratic states, light shades of those colors for states that are not sure bets for a party, but still noticeably lean one way or another, and yellow, for the five truly undecided "swing states."

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    30. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by jthayden · · Score: 1

      But it is so hard to tell which way some people will vote. So many people I work with that I thought were perfectly reasonable human beings are not voting the way I would expect. You have republicans voting for Kerry because Bush lied about the war, and you have democrats voting for Bush because we are at war and you have to support the troops. Others that would appear to have some sort of value system only care about taxes. This election is up in the air because the democratic party no longer stands for what it used to, and the new christian republican party no longer stands for what republicans used to. Old party lines are meaningless now to those of us that have been paying attention.

    31. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. I manage to spend a few "quality" moments with Burlington's Finest Ignoramuses (Ignorami? Ignoramen?) last night. It was beautiful.

      They LITERALLY beleived everything the propaganda and attack machines told them. They were repeating nearly word-for-word the crap spat by Fox News and local idiocy news. It was truly saddening. And they didn't beleive it as if they had spent time learning about it, they beleived it just because they were told to beleive it. It was as if the Borg had melded them into one ignorant collective.

      It was saddening. I felt as if the place was on a "downhill slide into abysmal" (Ignoreland, R.E.M., 1992). And there was nary an opening for logic and reason. It was beautiful. Beautiful in that black-hole-sucking-up-the-light kind of way. Out here it is a lost cause. These people not only don't care, they don't want to care. They have been beaten into submission to not think for themselves.

      I guess they had Jebus beaten into them after all...

      Which is why I'm moving to Chapel Hill. I'm going for apartment-hunting Round 2 probably tomorrow (it's too late today to go, damnit).

      >sigh

    32. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by nadamsieee · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to 'vote' in every contest, even if the person is running unopposed. Election officials seem to find the most moronic reasons to throw out a ballot...

    33. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I think thats sad. The Republicans should have put someone else up to bat, perhaps McCain. And the Dems shoulda put up Dean. Just my $.02.

    34. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      I was there on Thursday and it was mostly Bush/Cheney. I think several factors contributed to this:

      • People work jobs on Thursdays and not on Saturdays
      • Raleigh and Durham are the liberal hubs of NC
      • Kids can't vote, and most of the stickers I saw were next to Kerry/Edwards stickers, stickers for the 4H, etc. Kids like stickers.
      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    35. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by JohnBowman · · Score: 1

      Same in Canada. Liberals are red, Conservatives are blue. The socialist NDP is orange, but the U.S. got rid of all their socialists in the '50s, I think.

      --

      JohnnyB - johnbowman.net

    36. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      way to re-run the poll restricting it to US bound IP address

      First, you'd have to have a way of accurately determining that an IP address is actually in or out of the US. All the attempts to do that so far have only yeilded approximate results.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    37. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't people give the correct answer to this?

      This is the second time it's come up.

      Originally, the Republicans were the left-wing party (abolitionists and trade-protectionists).

      Over the next hundred years, however, the Democrats gradually moved left of the Republicans. Of course, everyone's logos stayed the same, so the US parties now have the opposite colors of the British parties the originals were evoking.

    38. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the elderly sending you off to war, it's the two guys who decided that defending South Vietnam against communists wasn't high on their to-do list.

    39. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because red represents blood, at least on the American Flag!

      /flamebait

    40. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by ionpro · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are correct. I remember the red/blue color scheme going all the way back to at least Bush/Clinton in '92. It may have extended a significant amount before that, but I'm too young to remember.

    41. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Support the troops by giving them a competent leader.

    42. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Uh. Your second point is confusing.

      1) If Raleigh and Durham are the liberal hubs of NC...why does that contribute to you seeing Bush/Cheney signs at the fair? The Fair is held in Raleigh/Durham and the last I checked, Bush/Cheney don't really equate with liberal.

      2) Raleigh and Durham the liberal hubs of NC?? Never get out to Chapel Hill and Carrboro? :-)

    43. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      I think that's really what this whole election is going to come down to... so many of my american friends are voting "against bush" rather than "for kerry"

      Not me. I was voting against Ashcroft. I could give a shit who sits in the white house, but I'm deeply irritated by the robber baron assholes that Bush appointed.

      There needs to be a legal referendum process for deeply flawed choices like Rumsfeld or Ashcroft.

      --saint

    44. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

      How does that make it the same in Canada? If you were going to match parties, the Liberals would match up with the Democrats. Never mind that even the most right-leaning of Canadian politicians would likely be seen as a liberal in the US--centrist at best.

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    45. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always knew the communists would return in the guise of Muslim extremists.

    46. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      The US is not devoid of socialists, but they sure are making it hard to stay here...

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    47. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by kubrick · · Score: 1

      By global standards, the parties are centre-right and far-right though. So maybe they should be light and dark blue?

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    48. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, RED used to be the color that the Democrat states were colored in. Circa ~1970 they were changed to BLUE because the Democrats complained about the Red associtation with comunism. Since then the Democrats have been associated with Blue and the Republicans with Red. Basically the Dems complained and the media changed the color association. Personally I think they should have stayed Red.

    49. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by lowmagnet · · Score: 1
      1. You missed point one about people working during the week.
      2. Chapel Hill and Carrboro are the same place, and both are part of Durham to me, even though they are in Orange
      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    50. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Ah I see. The liberals in Raleigh were working and thus not at the fair during the week. That does make sense.

      Ok ok. Chapel Hill and Carrboro are like Kill Devil Hills/Nags Head/Kitty Hawk but Chapel Hill as part of Durham? As an alumni from UNC-Chapel Hill I think I'm now technically required to challenge you to a duel. :-)

      I will concede that the triangle area is the heart of the Democratic party in NC.

    51. Re:While the Poll is obvious... by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      Some heart, eh? I still haven't visited many areas around the triangle. I've lived here a year, too. There's plenty to do in NoRal so I rarely leave my little comfort circle. I should go to the TMUG meetings in Durham though.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
  11. Here in VA by ZipR · · Score: 1

    We have some other brand of e-voting machine. With no paper, and no network connection -- just a power cord into the wall. Wonder what happens if they're unplugged? Or crash?

    1. Re:Here in VA by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Down in southwestern VA, we get to use the old mechanical systems one more time. I love it. The tactile response of the levers and visuals of the little "x" next to the candidate/decision of your choice. But, really, it's the ratcheting and ka-chung! as you pull the lever to record your vote. It just _feels_ like you're inflicting justice with that pull.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Here in VA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      After you pulled the lever, if the voting machine went DING! DING! DING! DING!, told you that you had just voted for a lemon, and gave you an instant "tax refund", you just played the slot machine. The voting machine is across the street, in the school.

      I'm not sure that the process or outcome is any different though.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Here in VA by JDonahoe · · Score: 1

      Do you also have the non-matching plaid curtains on the steel voting booths? I'm over here in Southside, and I actually feel like my vote is going to be counted. Stupid me.

    4. Re:Here in VA by benhocking · · Score: 1

      In Charlottesville we use eSlate, which unfortunately has the appearance at least of being unverifiable. (Nevertheless, we are the best city in the US!)

      We were split into 3 sections by last name, with my section (middle section - started with H, don't recall where it ended) having the longest line. Nevertheless, I was in and out in under 10 minutes. There were clearly observers present, but they did not seem the least bit intimidating to me, but of course we're Charlottesville, where everyone is nice, public transit actually works, and the weather is always perfect! (OK, maybe I'm overstating it a bit.)

      --
      Ben Hocking
      Need a professional organizer?
    5. Re:Here in VA by ZipR · · Score: 1

      Nope. Just a little touchscreen black box on legs. It's got plastic wings that obscure what you're doing, but no curtains.

    6. Re:Here in VA by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      That's the same feeling I get when I put a breifcase full of money in front of an American politician.

      *light tapping sound* "WHOA who you want me to bomb son?"

    7. Re:Here in VA by cylcyl · · Score: 1

      C'mon, the parent post was more insightful than funny. I think we use the same model in NY. The solid mechanical sound just gives a sense of security that your vote is cast correctly. The poll workers tell me that some of the machines are older than I am! Hard for me to imagine a computer lasting more than 30 years.

    8. Re:Here in VA by deeej · · Score: 1

      ah sweet VA; my folks said the commonwealth might actually fall democrat this year. any truth to this?

      (i used to live in williamsburg, till i left the state for college)

  12. probably optical scan by jon787 · · Score: 1

    We have optical scan machines made by some company other than Diebold over here in Grandville.

    Most of my friend's absentee ballots are identical to mine, so I assume these machines have become pretty standardized across michigan.

    --
    X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  13. Bush Victory Greeting to Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  14. Vote Al Harkrader! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's out network guy, vote for him!

    He managed to switch us to a VoIP phone solution, and still has all his hair, that alone says something!

    Plus, he is the only guy that publically states his desire to 'liberate' the maple syrup from Canada.

  15. Finally! by Z-MaxX · · Score: 4, Funny

    I forgot what it was like to turn on the TV or drive 2 blocks without being flooded with political ads. Yay! Finally back to real life. :)

    --
    Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
    1. Re:Finally! by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just in time to make room for the Christmas ads, hooray!

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
  16. Vote early... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and vote often!

  17. Vote planting in Philly by wizbit · · Score: 3, Informative

    Submitted this, but in case it gets rejected, Matt Drudge is reporting that about 2,000 votes were "planted" in Philadelphia-area voting machines before the polling places opened this morning. I guess it would be un-Drudgelike to mention which candidate the votes favored, but regardless, here's the abstract as of thirty seconds ago:

    Before voting even began in Philadelphia -- poll watchers found nearly 2000 votes already planted on machines scattered throughout the city... One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4 machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly 500... A second location, 1901 W. Girard Ave., Berean Institute, Philadelphia, Pa, had 300+ votes already on 2 machines at start of day... INCIDENT: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia, Pa.; INCIDENT: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa... A gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers at Ward 30, division 11, at 905 S. 20th St., Grand Court. Police were called and surrounded the location... Developing...

    1. Re:Vote planting in Philly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your country is really in trouble!!!

      The US has the biggest mouth in the world, "we are the best, we are the best", "god bless america" rar rar rar. I don't know what sort of news you get there in the states, but from where I sit your country is a terrible place. A place where you all try to enslave each other with money. A place where your last president wasn't even voted in, and you sit back and do nothing. And now the same thing is happening again, I have no doubt those votes in those machines were for George W Bush.

      I plead with the American geeks of slashdot, go do something; talk with your freggin congresman. If that crazy Bush gets in again, I really do believe America will lead the so called "free world" into another war.

    2. Re:Vote planting in Philly by zasos · · Score: 4, Informative

      same as parent - submitted but just in case:

      Salon's.com election news column, War Room reports that early voters in New Mexico and Texas have already reported serious problems with electronic voting machines. Many computer scientists (aka Slashdot readers) have been very vocal about the potential pitfalls of electronic voting. A group of e-voting experts including Barbara Simons, perhaps the medium's biggest critic, has started a blog to interpret what potential problems might mean as the vote -- and mis-votes -- keep coming in. Are there any Slashdoters who may be interested in this virtual bug hunting/.interpretations?

      --

      Just because I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't understand. Homer J. Simpson
    3. Re:Vote planting in Philly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh great, another rumor from Matt whatever-gets-hits Drudge.

    4. Re:Vote planting in Philly by tag · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fox News (yeah, yeah -- keep reading) is reporting that the Philly district attorney checked out one of the 4 machines in question. She says they have 2 counters -- one for today and one for the lifetime of the machine. It's the lifetime that's showing votes.

      Of course, one must wonder why they aren't *all* showing counts on lifetime.

    5. Re:Vote planting in Philly by mordors9 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think it is becoming increasingly clear why the Democrats wanted to bar poll watchers every where possible. We have votes alreay on machines in Pennsylvania. In Ohio we had more voters registered to vote in some counties than there are eligible to vote.

    6. Re:Vote planting in Philly by general_re · · Score: 1
      Meanwhile, lest we begin to think that dirty tricks are the exclusive province of one party or the other, in another state....

      TUESDAY, Nov. 2, 2004, 8:07 a.m. Police blotter: Slashed tires and spitting

      The tires of at least 30 cars and vans rented by the Republican Party to carry voters to the polls were slashed, Milwaukee police said this morning. The discovery was made at 6:30 a.m., said Sgt. Mark Wroblewski.

      The rental cars were parked near a GOP office in the 7100 block of W. Capitol Dr. Wroblewski said "at least" 30 cars were disabled. At least one tire was slashed and in some cases, all four tires were cut. Detectives were on the scene, the sergeant said. Police had no suspects in custody as of 8 a.m.

      - source

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    7. Re:Vote planting in Philly by targo · · Score: 1

      Before voting even began in Philadelphia -- poll watchers found nearly 2000 votes already planted on machines scattered throughout the city...

      Is any major news channel covering any of this? The thing I'm most worried about is mainstream news dropping the ball (just as they did with the Iraq war, Patriot Act, and many other things).

    8. Re:Vote planting in Philly by micromoog · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No one wanted to "bar poll watchers". The issue in question was voter eligibility challengers. It's a different thing.

      I guess facts aren't really important when you're just trying to fan flames, though.

    9. Re:Vote planting in Philly by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      follow up
      "
      The Kerry Campaign says reports of votes already on machines is 'false.'
      "

      you may draw your own conclusions. Especially since the state is critical and the dems are on the verge os losing it.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    10. Re:Vote planting in Philly by vudufixit · · Score: 1

      "A gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers..."
      It's called Open Carry, and it's legal in PA, VA and VT, and many other states.
      It does scare some folks, but it isn't meant that way - usually.

    11. Re:Vote planting in Philly by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      Matt Drudge is reporting that about 2,000 votes were "planted" in Philadelphia-area voting machine

      Scroll up a bit. You'll see this comment:

      No. They are talking about old mechanical voting machines. They probably weren't properly zeroed after the last election. This happens all the time, which is why all the machines are checked on election day before the voting begins. Drudge is trying to make an affair out of nothing.

    12. Re:Vote planting in Philly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a different thing -- they are both trying to prevent vote fraud. Some people believe you should only get one vote.

    13. Re:Vote planting in Philly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are a sick, sad little wretch.

      Better check on that ulcer, it'll getcha.

    14. Re:Vote planting in Philly by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      No one wanted to "bar poll watchers". The issue in question was voter eligibility challengers. It's a different thing.

      No it IS the same thing. In most states poll watchers have the right to raise complaints to election officials about any irregularities they witness INCLUDING the right to challenge the eligibility of a voter they suspect of voting fraudulently. Both parties do this though Democrats have been downplaying it since they feel they benefit more from weaker fraud protections.

      To be fair that doesn't necessarily mean they benefit more from actual fraud (though that is the conventional wisdom) but that they feel the checks against fraud are more confusing or intimidating to Democratic voters.

    15. Re:Vote planting in Philly by mordors9 · · Score: 1

      I really resent the flame bait thing and accusing me of fanning flames. It was Republican poll watchers that found the possible existing votes on the machines. The purpose of the party poll watchers is to watch for voter fraud or irregularities. They then issue a challenge. The Democrat party sued against the state law in Ohio to try and remove the party poll watchers. The case went to the Court of Appeals and they allowed the poll watchers to stay. Tom Daschle in South Dakota wanted to remove the poll watchers out there and filed suit. The judge that he helped put in the position, heard the case and only ruled in his favor around the edges. But I guess the facts aren't important when you are trying to spread disinformation.

  18. newsflash by Vanguard(DC) · · Score: 2, Funny

    go out and vote for Bush and stuff...and stuff...

    [insert redundant political rant here]

    --
    "I think, therefore I get paid."
  19. It can't be said enough... by killthiskid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It can't be said enough times: Americans! Please go vote! Voting is a right you get to keep by the very act of exercising it.

    1. Re:It can't be said enough... by TuataraShoes · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I think it can be said far too much. I'd rather discourage people from voting. Don't make it too convenient. Then only those who have really thought for themselves will vote. The problem right now is that there are too many mindless idiots voting.

      Now before you get too upset, I do think that mindless idiots should have the right to vote. But why encourage it? ...unless you happen to vote the same way as the mindless idiots...

      --
      Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
    2. Re:It can't be said enough... by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
      I do think that mindless idiots should have the right to vote. But why encourage it?

      Because maybe voting will lead at least one mindless idiot to get more involved in the democratic process.

      Whatever the outcome of the election, George W. is still president until January--maybe enough time for him to become a leader instead of a "follower of American politics."

    3. Re:It can't be said enough... by SETY · · Score: 1

      Or in this case voting is a privelage , not a right.

    4. Re:It can't be said enough... by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight. You want me to vote. You don't care who I vote for, as long as I vote. Correct?

      Now, logic tells me that if you don't care who I vote for, then you don't have a preference for the outcome of the election. If the outcome of the election was important to you, then you'd try to persuade me to vote for your preference, instead of just persuading me to vote.

      So, why are you advocating the voting process if you don't have a preference in the first place?

      Alternatively, if you do have a preference, then you do care about the outcome of the election. So what do you you gain by causing an effectively random vote? (My vote is effectively random because you haven't tried to persuade me one way or the other.) You've only introduced an element of randomness into the electoral process.

      In other words, what's more important to you, the fact that people get out and vote, or the outcome of the election?

    5. Re:It can't be said enough... by Holi · · Score: 4, Informative

      After reading the constitution yet again, it looks as though voting is more of a privilege then a right.

      Look at it closely.

      The only reasons they cannot deny you the right to vote are
      1. due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude (Article XV) - Hmmmm and felons can't vote (look at Article XIII which seems to equate your sentence with involuntary servitude).
      2. due to gender (Article XIX). Yay women can vote.
      3. Failure to pay your taxes (Amendment XXIV)
      and 4. Due to age, as long as your are oder then 18 (Amendment XXVI).

      So except for those reasons you can lose your right to vote.

      Use it while you've got it, it's the only way to keep it.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    6. Re:It can't be said enough... by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

      Sure it can.

      Frankly, if you don't know who you're voting for. Don't vote.

      This isn't a high school quiz, where guessing can't hurt. The founding fathers only wanted informed voters to vote.

      If you're not informed, don't vote.

      (or, better yet, get informed.)

    7. Re:It can't be said enough... by scowling · · Score: 1

      Now, logic tells me that if you don't care who I vote for, then you don't have a preference for the outcome of the election.

      Actually, that doesn't logically follow. He only doesn't care who you vote for, not the electorate in general.

      And perhaps he feels, as I do, that the larger the voter turnout, the greater the legitimacy of the results, and that that legitimacy is more important than who wins.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    8. Re:It can't be said enough... by wass · · Score: 1
      because people that listen to Rush all day long will tend to be mindless idiots as well, yet they'll go to vote just as rigorously as a politician.

      So where do you draw the line between mindless idiots? Why should someone that listens to Rush all day long be more enfranchised to vote than someone that watches MTV all day long, for instance?

      --

      make world, not war

    9. Re:It can't be said enough... by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      that the larger the voter turnout, the greater the legitimacy of the results

      So no matter what you believe yourself, you are willing to completely abandon those beliefs if a majority decides they're wrong?

      In other words, majority opinion is more important to you than your own beliefs? Then I must ask, how can you ever know who to vote for? If the majority opinion is most "legitimate", then you'd have to wait until the election is over before you can know who to vote for. Right?

    10. Re:It can't be said enough... by amigabill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about all them people last time around who's votes were thrown out due to lawsuits and all that other nonsense? The first time I was old enough to vote I was disenfranchised. The Ballot was due at the courthouse back home (I was away at college) no later than 8AM Friday morning. I didn't receive my absentee ballot in the mail until Thursday evening the day before it was due. Around 7:30PM was when I made it to pick up my mail that day, so there was no way I could even fill it out and get it overnighted or anything.

      When this happens, you really don't feel like voting again because the hypocrisy of your statement compared to the reality of what is actually done with our votes comes through very loud and clear. Your words are nice and all, but the reality is that a lot of people are told explicitly by what is actually done that no, their vote truely does not count for shit.

      You simply are not going to get many of these people back to vote again. I sat out the election after they said "screw you" to me, but I've been back last time and today. My vote for the president's office doesn't count for much as I'm in Maryland and it is blatantly owned by whoever the Democrat is at the time, but I checked off a name anyway. (Not that I'm against voting for Kerry, I'm registered republican and I didn't vote for Bush, but I didn't check Kerry's name either.)

    11. Re:It can't be said enough... by scowling · · Score: 1

      No, that doesn't follow, either. How any election turns out does not change my beliefs.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    12. Re:It can't be said enough... by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1
      Historically, high voter turn out correlates with more wins for Democrats. If you're a democrat, you probably really want to get the vote out. Apparently there are more people who only sometimes vote who tend to vote democratic than there are who tend to vote republican.

      > Then only those who have really thought for themselves will vote

      This is incorrect. The people who really think things out are just as likely to decide to rationally abstain. After all, no presidential election has ever hinged on one vote, or even came close. Even Florida four years ago came down to 500 something votes- over two orders of magnitude from anyone's vote having any effect at all. Your chances of dying on the way to the polls or back is much higher than your chance of swinging an election.

      Besides, the rational people who think things through are likely to be the ones who see lots of positives and negatives for each candidate, and have trouble weighing the many weighty issues of which is better [worse]. They're less likely to see things in terms of black and white and less likely to think it's incredibly important which candidate they vote for.

      It's the mindless zombies who are the die-hard, knee-jerk zealots who will always get out and vote for "their" candidate. Many of the thoughtful people care less about getting to the polls.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    13. Re:It can't be said enough... by CarlDenny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's actually pretty straightforward.

      You're reading on Slashdot. Statistically, you're more likely to be young, liberal, non-religious. All areas where Kerry's leading. So if 100 people vote because of him, say 60/40, he's just gained 20 votes for Kerry. Here on /., he's probably actually thrown some votes to Badnarik and Cobb as well, which can't hurt.

      But, if he told you to get out there and vote for Kerry, you'd take it as political advocacy. Whereas just saying "get out and vote!" only to people who statistically agree with him is more likely to work.

      It's the basic principle behind Rock the Vote!, minority voter empowerment drives, and bible thumping preachers.

    14. Re:It can't be said enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Presidential] Voting is in fact not a right of citizens of the US.

      "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
      [Article II Section 1 Clause 2, US Constitution]

      So, as I read it, if the legislature of my state decided to do so, I could be promptly disenfranchised[from presidental elections].
      Is this true?

    15. Re:It can't be said enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly. But with today's customs, it would never ever happen. They'd probably make a new law (or amendment, if necessary) against it if anyone tried and looked like they might be successful.

      As I understand, though, the original intent was that each state's legislature would essentially vote for the president. The outcome of the state legislature's vote would direct that state's electors to vote according to its rules. So the people vote for their state government however they see fit, and the state takes that mandate to vote for the country's president.

      I'm not so sure that's such a bad idea, really. After all, in theory, the state legislature will be more informed than the general population, so you get smarter votes. But at the same time, it should be fairly well representative of the people of that state. Not too bad, really.

      Of course like I said at the top, it would never fly in today's political climate. People would cry that their rights are being taken away or some bullshit like that. But really, would it be such a bad thing?

      Then there's the jaded side of me that says career politicians of any ilk are best left without the power to make such decisions alone. They'll fight over politics instead of real issues and make a huge mockery of the election. But then, isn't that what we already have now? The majority of people, even those who make the effort to vote, are idiots. They're easily swayed by the misleading propaganda of whichever side "appears" to fit their values best. And for most people, their values are more based on how they grew up rather than intelligent consideration of issues or even common sense. It's a whole mess no matter how you look at it, and that's the beauty of the human condition. Sit back and enjoy the freakshow! :)

    16. Re:It can't be said enough... by christor · · Score: 1
      Actually it's a bit more complicated than that. The right to vote for president, once granted by a state legislature, is subject to protection by the courts as a fundamental right. You cannot be denied the right to vote, "in the manner prescribed by the legislature," on any ground that would violate the Equal Protection Clause, whether that be age, race, hair color, or any other irrational classification. The legislature is still subject, in choosing the manner of selecting electors, to the dictates of the Constitution - and not merely those you cite.

      While it might be that a state can take back the franchise, appointing electors in some way other than a statewide election, the selection of a nondemocratic method of appointing electors would likely be subjected to attack on numerous constitutional grounds. Who knows what the result would be.

      For more on this, see this snippet from the desrvedly maligned per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore:

      The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28--33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 ("[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated") (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

      The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another.

    17. Re:It can't be said enough... by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      No, that's not how the constitution works. It is not a list of the only rights you have. All rights not restricted by it are explicitly GRANTED. (refer to: 9th amendment)

    18. Re:It can't be said enough... by demachina · · Score: 1

      "3. Failure to pay your taxes (Amendment XXIV)"

      So if I give up my right to vote can I stop paying taxes?

      I think there was some kurfuffle a couple hundred years ago about not having to pay taxes without representation. So if I don't vote I don't think I can be taxed. It also follows all felons should be freed of their tax burden otherwise they are being taxed without representation and that is against everything this country was founded on.

      I do know for a fact felons can vote in Florida. They have to appear before little Jeb and plead for forgiveness and he can pass judgement on them and restore their right to vote. They allow a tiny number of felons to appear before this board, so its nearly impossible to do but one of the Discover channels had footage of one of the hearings. If I were a felon I'm pretty sure voting wouldn't be so important to me that I would grovel in front of little Jeb to get it back.

      --
      @de_machina
    19. Re:It can't be said enough... by demachina · · Score: 1

      I think the best strategy is do what I do and say:

      Don't vote for Bush!!

      Then I'm not advocating a candidate, I'm not even advocating you vote, and I'm not supporting Kerry which is a pretty bitter pill to swallow, but I am advocating the one thing that is universally supported by people around the world who are not dumb, gullible or rich.

      If there are Slashdot readers stupid enough to act based on the stuff they read here then either they don't vote or if they do they don't vote for Bush and that is victory enough.

      --
      @de_machina
    20. Re:It can't be said enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The founding fathers only wanted informed voters to vote.

      They also only wanted rich white men to vote, doesn't make it right. (-:

    21. Re:It can't be said enough... by dcam · · Score: 1

      In Australia you get fined for not voting.

      I'm honestly not sure whether this is a good or a bad thing.

      --
      meh
    22. Re:It can't be said enough... by dcam · · Score: 1

      I'm not supporting Kerry which is a pretty bitter pill to swallow

      I'd have to agree with that. Reading some of Gore's the speeches recently it has been clear to me what an excellent president he would have made. Failing Gore, Dean looks like he would probably have been pretty good.

      Still, Kerry is what is left.

      Also not really my problem, not living in the US and all that.

      --
      meh
    23. Re:It can't be said enough... by demachina · · Score: 1

      Gore's recent speeches are part of the great paradox of politicians. When they aren't running for anything and have nothing to lose, they give gutsy, insightful, intelligent speeches. When they are running and have something to lose they deal out empty rhetoric designed to play to the lowest common denominator, devoid of conviction, swing voter.

      It would have been interesting to have seen what Dean did if he had won the nomination. Everyone loved him when he was a massive underdog, had nothing to lose and was giving gutsy, insightful, intelligent speeches. Just before Iowa he turned front runner and suddenly had something to lose so he started sucking up to the Democratic establishment, lost much of his fire and was turning pretty boring. Since then he's turned in to a real party hack and Democratic insider. One thing I'll always praise Dean for, a month or two before he cratered he said the U.S. should treat Israel and Palestine more even handedly. Saying that in the U.S. is political suicide and in Dean's case maybe it actually was but I think it was the first time in recent memory I've heard a politician do something besides like Israel's boots. I want a politician serving America first and Israel only if its the right thing to do.

      It will be interesting to see, if Bush gets the boot, if sometime down the road he gives some gutsy, insightful, intelli... intelli.... intell... OK I couldn't keep a straight face long enough to finish that one. Heh.

      --
      @de_machina
    24. Re:It can't be said enough... by dcam · · Score: 1

      When they aren't running for anything and have nothing to lose, they give gutsy, insightful, intelligent speeches

      True enough. None the less, I am still very impressed with what he has had to say. Also I think whoever was in power after 9/11 would have had a huge boost in popularity. At that point one is free to do what you really want to do (as we have seen from Bush).

      I'd agree that it is a real pity about Dean. If would have been great to see him run. The speech on Israel was particularly courageous.

      Still I do wonder how he would have fared against Bush. I think is what is effectively a khaki election Dean might have had a harder run than Kerry, war veteran. Although Bush is not a veteran, he falls back on his leadership of the "war on terror", which for some strange reason is approved of by many Americans.

      --
      meh
    25. Re:It can't be said enough... by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      Same thing happened to me today, although because of the new Federal law they allowed me to cast a provisional ballot that will be verified and counted later.

      I am in the County of Alameda in California. I reregistered to vote SIX MONTHS AGO through the DMV as an absentee voter. I even called the County to make sure I was on the roster 30 DAYS AGO, and I was.

      Today, I still have not received anything from them. No absentee ballot. No sample ballots. Nothing. I had to go to the polling place, and they didn't even have me listed there. By the way, even absentee voters are supposed to be listed at the polling place. And I know I was at the right polling place, because my address was listed along with its previous occupant.

      According to the local news outlets, my County is having lots of problems, but the scope of the problem is more widespread than the County would have us believe.

      They say they couldn't register all the late registrations, but I registered six months ago for CHRIST'S SAKE. How much of a lead time do they really need? Six months, or five months before the deadline should be plenty. They're all just a bunch of incompetents.

    26. Re:It can't be said enough... by d-rock · · Score: 1

      What do you have against Geddy Lee?

      Derek

      --
      Don't Panic...
    27. Re:It can't be said enough... by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      Then your personal opinion are more important than majority opinion. Majority opinion is what you advocate when you say "get out and vote, it doesn't matter who for". You're advocating the process of democracy, which is founded on the principle of majority opinion.

      I agree, your personal opinion is more important than majority opinion, so long as you don't infringe on any other individual's right to his own opinion.

      But the question remains, why advocate the process of democracy with no regard for your personal opinion, which is more important than the process of democracy?

    28. Re:It can't be said enough... by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      Also not really my problem, not living in the US and all that.

      The US government currently has troops stationed in over 150 countries throughout the world, and has been at war with someone, somewhere in the world, every year for the past 100 years. The US government is everybody's problem.

    29. Re:It can't be said enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks.
      A very thoughtful response.
      I figure I'll just vote for George William Frederick in the next election.

    30. Re:It can't be said enough... by wass · · Score: 1
      What do you have against Geddy Lee?

      hahaha, the only thing against Geddy Lee is that my friend, who played drums in a pseudo-band from a few years ago was a major Rush fan (She even hooked up with Geddy Lee at some point IIRC), and was always trying to insert weird drum timings at various points in our songs.

      Well, actually all that is pretty cool, so I guess there's nothing I have against Geddy Lee ;-)

      --

      make world, not war

    31. Re:It can't be said enough... by demachina · · Score: 1

      "None the less, I am still very impressed with what he has had to say."

      I agree. I imagine you are talking about the one he gave a few weeks ago in particular. I stumbled across it live on CSPAN and I just dropped everything and listened to it, fascinated, which is a pretty rare response for me to a politician speaking. It was clear, powerful and hitting one Bush nail on the head after another. If he'd been running I would have actually liked voting for him with that rhetoric and I generally can't stand the guy.

      "Still I do wonder how he would have fared against Bush."

      At this point it appears he couldn't have done much worse than Kerry :) Kerry was running against the one of the most incompetent and untruthful Presidents in American history and Kerry still managed to come out on the losing end.

      --
      @de_machina
    32. Re:It can't be said enough... by dcam · · Score: 1

      At this point it appears he couldn't have done much worse than Kerry :) Kerry was running against the one of the most incompetent and untruthful Presidents in American history and Kerry still managed to come out on the losing end.

      It is very disappointing, although not terribly surprising.

      What is interesting is that the election campaign was run largely on fear of terrorism (and associated issues). That appears to have been the tipping point for a lot of people. Our recent election (Australia) was also won on the back of a campaign of fear, except in this case it was Interest Rates. The incumbent was seen as a better choice for managing the economy and keeping interest rates down.

      It is hard to fight against that sort of campaign. You can try to downplay the fears and say they aren't justified, but in your case that means Bush just points back to 9/11 to justify the fears. It is hard to run against.

      Still look on the bright side, Bush now has to fix his own mistakes: Iraq, economy, bridge-building to the rest of the world, Osama. On his performance to date, it is still possible that he mayy mismanage these further, to the point that he takes his deserved position as one of the worst American presidents in history. Also the rest of the world will be a lot more cautious than it was before. In his first term, people couldn't believe that he would do the kinds of things he has done. Now they know.

      --
      meh
    33. Re:It can't be said enough... by scowling · · Score: 1

      [Then your personal opinion are more important than majority opinion.]

      Again, that does not follow, since preference is a sliding scale and not an zero-sum game.

      [Majority opinion is what you advocate when you say "get out and vote, it doesn't matter who for".]

      Nope. I have preferences which I have not stated as to how I would like people to vote. There are majority opinions that I don't like. I do not advocate them.

      I can both advocate the legitimacy offered by a large turnout and deride the result.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
  20. Remember boys and girls, by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    If someone tries to interfere with your vote, holler for one of the guys in blue helmets.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Remember boys and girls, by XenoPhage · · Score: 1

      Blue helmets? None here... And I don't think the kindly elederly lady would be able to do much..

      --
      XenoPhage
      Technological Musings
    2. Re:Remember boys and girls, by calibanDNS · · Score: 1
      Thought I'd post a few links that might be helpful to anyone who's not sure where to vote or what rights they have...

      I don't promise that any of the sites are unbiased , but hopefully they'll help someone who has questions about where to vote and what to do if anyone interferes with your right to vote. I'd encourage everyone else to post links to useful sites here as well.
    3. Re:Remember boys and girls, by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      If someone tries to interfere with your vote, holler for one of the guys in blue helmets.
      How will Cobra help? I'd think they'd be the ones interfering with the election.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  21. Philadelphia Tricks by fixit4u · · Score: 1

    Drudgereports.com has a post that is interesting it talks about voting machines in Philadelphia

  22. Thank God! by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope it's all decided quickly, so the Canadian who sits next to me at work can stop bitching about the election all day every day. I swear she cares more deeply about this than I do.

    And, to her, no, I still won't watch F.9/11, thank you very much. I don't need any extra propoganda in my life.

    1. Re:Thank God! by Grab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, us non-Americans care more deeply. We can't change it! We're scared shitless that the American people are going to do the same as last time and vote in a moral-free, low-IQ weasel, just bcos he says he's a "wartime president" - when the only war on is Iraq and HE created it!

      Grab.

    2. Re:Thank God! by fracai · · Score: 0, Troll

      hmm, someone from outside the US cares more about the US than someone from the US... doesn't surprise me.

      --
      -- i am jack's amusing sig file
    3. Re:Thank God! by provolt · · Score: 2, Funny
      Grab, you just made my day.
      "...moral-free, low-IQ weasel, just bcos he says..."


      Such well-articulated arguments from around the world. And you even included a bonus misspelling in the same sentence where you call a guy dumb! You Rule!
    4. Re:Thank God! by RobinH · · Score: 1

      I hope it's all decided quickly, so the Canadian who sits next to me at work can stop bitching about the election all day every day. I swear she cares more deeply about this than I do.

      Well, as a Canadian who works in the U.S., I'm with you - hope to hell it's over with tonight! I'm so sick of all the locals yabbering on about Kerry-this and Bush-that. Jesus Christ, people - it ain't really gonna matter who wins! Their policies are nearly identical, and they don't have as much influence as you think. Maybe some appointments or whatever, but so what...

      To tell you the truth, from Canada's perspective, Bush is probably friendlier to trade than Kerry, as long as we send token contingents of Canadian soldiers to every country you guys invade.

      I just can't figure out why it takes you guys a year to elect a leader. That's pathetic.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    5. Re:Thank God! by jdreed1024 · · Score: 1
      And, to her, no, I still won't watch F.9/11, thank you very much. I don't need any extra propoganda in my life.

      Why not? It's important to know the arguments on both sides of an issue, no matter how ridiculous or even offensive they might seem. There was a case a while back where a professor was admonished for including passages from Mein Kampf in the reading for a history class on Nazi Germany, and he rightly pointed out that it's impossible to begin to understand the issues in Nazi Germany unless you know what was driving Hitler (it's a little more complicated than 'hatred').

      I just watched Fahrenheit 9/11 back-to-back with Fahrenhype 9/11, and it was interesting to compare and contrast the two movies. And though I wasn't pleased at the idea of watching the latter, it did raise some interesting counter-questions to the ones raised by Moore's film. A film is only propaganda if you let it be propaganda. If you take it with a grain of salt, you'll get a lot more out of it.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    6. Re:Thank God! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I have read many summaries of the movie, and heard endless discussions of it. My workmate "insisted" that I watch it today. I politely declined. I won't be renting Rush's next movie about the evil Pres. Kerry, either. I have many more useful things that I can do with my time than watching a movie about someone's political agenda.

      I could, for instance, be comparing all their views from various sources on the internet, save myself two hours, and use that to learn something useful, like QT.

    7. Re:Thank God! by eclectic4 · · Score: 2

      So, read people's second hand versions instead of viewing the real thing? Which took longer?

      Anyway, while shielding yourself and working hard at not seeing it seems very silly, you could just peruse his very long list of references for every remark in his movie. Kinda makes those "it's all lies!" people seem mentally challenged, but that's just me.

      You see, some of us are smart enough to apply critical thinking to all info ingested, so watching FF 9/11 was very simply an entertaining way of gaining insight into a few things that I was merely mildly aware of, and it was well worth the two hours. 90% of the information contained within was not new to the informed (which would be very few Americans), but the sheer genius of the mode of communication (he won Cannes because it was an extremely well made movie) was worth the watch. I will also watch Rush's anti-Kerry movie for the same reason. I like learning things... first hand. I trust my own critical thinking more than anyone else's (most don't apply critical thinking anyway), and that's the way it should be.

      And if you don't think learning about the agenda of the most powerful man on the planet is "useful", then jeebus, you have some serious value list problems.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    8. Re:Thank God! by flyingace · · Score: 1

      Thats sad but true. I am non-american, but I am very concerned with the results of the election.

      Some of my co-workers with me here "on-site" and away from home, have not even got absentee ballots.

      What else can you expect when the smart ones wont vote ?

    9. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > he's a "wartime president" - when the only war on is Iraq and HE created it!

      Ah, good thing there's nothing happening in Afghanistan, then.

      > Sure, us non-Americans care more deeply. We can't change it!

      Yes you can -- come over here and become a citizen. Though I hear they give you a small history quiz first.

    10. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She probably does. It sounds like you are a pretty average "trailer park Republican". Think Trey Parker/Matt Stone: "USA! USA! USA! Don't bother to get informed 'cause y'all ain't gonna vote anyways!"

    11. Re:Thank God! by Warped1 · · Score: 1

      Appointments to the Supreme Court are nothing to write off ... They're a big part of the system, and have the final say on many things. These guys are appointed for life and will be around (generally) longer than any President.

      Besides ... even though the President may not do much directly, the political influence cannot be underestimated.

    12. Re:Thank God! by Iffy+Bonzoolie · · Score: 1

      Their policies are nearly identical...

      I watched all three debates, as well as a Frontline special sunday night about the history of the two candidates (yay TiVo!), and this statement is just factually incorrect. I don't blame you, though, I've heard it a lot recently and I didn't have any info to verify it's veracity. I was merely anti-Bush before getting some information - now I am very pro-Kerry.

      Kerry has been speaking out against unjust war and war atrocities since he was young and in Vietnam. He was instrumental in exposing the Iran-Contra scandal of the 80s, because he didn't feel that Communism was enough of a reason to support war. He spoke out against the Gulf war, and even against the Iraq war - though he somehow felt he just had to vote for the latter, which is disappointing to me. I guess his argument was that he was voting to give the authority to the president to use force in Iraq, but he wanted the president to wield that authority against Saddam, not the force itself, if that make any sense. But Kerry has always been very strongly anti-war/pro-diplomacy.

      Bush, on the other hand, while using family favors to get into the national guard (a tactic many employed to avoid being sent overseas) - was vocal about how Vietnam was the right thing to do, and that we needed to unleash the full might of the US military to win. Bush has ALWAYS been Hawkish, even while simultaneously managing to avoid actual combat.

      That's just the major important policy stance that seperates them this election. They are vastly different candidates, and neither are particularly moderate, which is where I tend to prefer leaders. Kerry is definitely closer to where I sit, though.

      ...and they don't have as much influence as you think.

      I believed this until Bush came into office. I really did. When he was elected, I wasn't happy, but I said to people, I actually said this, "What's the worst he could do?" 4 years later, my jaw is on the floor and my eyes are glazed over a bit. When a President has a national emergency and a sympethetic legislature, he can make radical, influential changes.

      -If

      --
      Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
    13. Re:Thank God! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Anyway, while shielding yourself and working hard at not seeing it seems very silly, you could just peruse his very long list of references for every remark in his movie. Kinda makes those "it's all lies!" people seem mentally challenged, but that's just me.

      It's not that hard to find rebuttals to Moore's references. It all comes down to which set of lunatics you already agree with.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    14. Re:Thank God! by MacFury · · Score: 1
      I swear she cares more deeply about this than I do.

      He doesn't want to get bombed by our tyrannical leader :-)

    15. Re:Thank God! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      You know what? She judged me as Conservative Republican before she had ever asked me about a single opinion on a political issue, too. She, like you, was full of shit. A Maoist, I've been; A Constitutionalist, I've been; A Libertarian, I've been; but I have never been a Republican.

      At this point in my life, I refuse to let someone else tell me what to believe, and neither do I tell anyone. Besides, when living and working in a foreign country, the cardinal rule for staying out of trouble is to avoid inflammatory topics like politics and religion.

      I'll tell you what. I'll convert to JH, sit next to you, and tell you every day how you need to check out my newest literature, of which there is a never ending supply. When you politely decline, saying that you aren't interested and are perfectly happy with your belief system, I'll insist, turn up the attitude, and leave little notes or "reminders" on your desk for weeks. Eventually, you'll tell me to shut up at work, too. Work isn't for that type of activity. It's for work.

      She has the right to talk about her beliefs outside of work, and I respect that. I have the right to never listen to her if I choose not to, because, to paraphrase Good Will Hunting,
      "I haven't heard anything from you that I didn't already read in a book somewhere." (Probably twenty years ago, at that!)

    16. Re:Thank God! by Grab · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the appreciation, man. ;-)

      Grab.

      PS. What mis-spelling? I wouldn't normally ask, but I really can't see it.

    17. Re:Thank God! by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the Farenhype 9/11 guys. Claiming to be bi-partisan with Zell Miller and Ann Coulter as bi-partisan is quite literally insane. Moore does go overboard with some insinuation, I will admit that outright, but my goodness, that entire page was from a guy that is in that "bi-partisan" trash. I read half of it, and thought it was quite nit-picky, completely missing the big picture most of the times.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
  23. if you choose to not vote by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

    don't bitch about the president during the next 4 years

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
    1. Re: if you choose to not vote by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > don't bitch about the president during the next 4 years

      Corollary 1: If they one you vote for loses, bitch continually for the next four years.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:if you choose to not vote by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      I voted for him last time, and bitch about him all the time now.

    3. Re:if you choose to not vote by Grab · · Score: 1

      Hey, some of us in the rest of the world don't *get* to choose! Who nominated that clown for "Leader of the Free World"? Answer: a few trillion dollars-worth of mineral deposits and an ego you could ski down. Not, for instance, other world leaders, or the UN, or any legal authority...

      Grab.

    4. Re:if you choose to not vote by saintp · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Bullshit!

      I'll bitch about the president all I want -- I'll just refrain from saying, "If only (Bush|Kerry|Nader|Whoever) had won,..." That's because the problem isn't the dude in the suit, the problem is the fact of the president. And when it's the system I oppose, not the person, I reserve full rights to a) refuse to lend my consent to the system by voting; and b) bitch all I want about it.

      This mantra is just one of many aspects of a culture that refuses to see the conscientious refusal to vote as valid. It ultimately reinforces the system and blinds us to change. The "Vote or die," "I don't care who you vote for, just vote," etc., slogans that we hear repeated are, plain and simple, pro-government.

      Another de-voted anarchist refusing to vote.

    5. Re: if you choose to not vote by crizh · · Score: 1

      I recently heard a fascinating theory that voting is equivalent to signing a contract agreeing that the electoral system is fair and that you will abide by the result.

      Thus everyone who votes needs to shut up and those that don't are entitled to complain endlessly that the system sucks.

      Just a theory of course...

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    6. Re: if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corollary 1: If they one you vote for loses, bitch continually for the next four years.

      in short, if you want bitching rights, vote 3rd party!

      anyone know were to get "don't blame me, i voted for the other looser" bumper stickers?

    7. Re:if you choose to not vote by micromoog · · Score: 2, Informative
      This mantra is just one of many aspects of a culture that refuses to see the conscientious refusal to vote as valid.

      The problem with this view: there's nothing to distinguish your "not voting to show disillusionment with the system" with someone else's "not voting because of laziness and apathy".

      Traditionally, the former is expressed by casting a spoiled ballot. With voting machines, though, that's not really possible anymore.

    8. Re:if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if i cannot complain even though i did not vote then the united states is not a free country. if it is not a free country then why vote?. and the lesser of two evils is still evil. none of the people running are trustworthy.

    9. Re: if you choose to not vote by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Corollary 1: If they one you vote for loses, bitch continually for the next four years.

      Why stop at 4 years? My Don't-Blame-Me-I-Voted-for-Gore sticker will stay on my Suburban until the U.S. ratifies Kyoto.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    10. Re:if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey man...if you don't want to vote, thats cool, but watch out. P. Diddy is on the prowl. If you don't vote, he'll pop you a cap. VOTE OR DIE!!

    11. Re:if you choose to not vote by jdavidb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bravo! The whole problem with democracy is that we should not have the power to make so many decisions for each other. Democracy is a "one-size-fits-all" solution in a world where we are all shaped differently. I would never dare to claim the rights over other people that our government of "we the people" claims to have over its subjects^Wcitizens.

      This is the first election where I have been aware of and understood your point of view. I find it extremely admirable and I commend you. For my part I am still voting but I see your point of view and am longing for the day when the truly important things in life are not subject to a vote, as they should never have been subject to the will of either a sovereign monarchy or a sovereign voting populace. For my part as long as I continue to vote, I will vote for our government to exert less and less authority over you. If I had my way, you could opt out of all of our government, not just voting.

      Thank you for holding to your conscience. It is a supreme act of maturity and responsibility to stand up and say, "I do not have the right to make decisions on your behalf, and I will not even try." I hope that you can hold your head up high even if all those around who do not understand you cast stones at you.

    12. Re:if you choose to not vote by v01d · · Score: 1

      The problem with this view: there's nothing to distinguish your "not voting to show disillusionment with the system" with someone else's "not voting because of laziness and apathy".

      The problem with voting is there's no way to distinguish between voting for Kerry and voting against Bush (or the otherway around). I hate Bush and I hate Kerry, so who do I say I want in charge?
      Voting for who I hate least isn't a solution: a vote for Kerry could mean anything from "Kerry is not quite as stupid as a rock" to "Kerry is the Messiah." If I want "my voice heard," I want it heard saying what I intend.

    13. Re:if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a "none of the above" option.

    14. Re:if you choose to not vote by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      Well, poop.
      I thought I'd be in a category by myself by deliberately not voting (simply because politics in general is disgusting and unproductive), but no -- apparently I have to share this category with unrealistic, naive "anarchists".

      You, and other anarchists, should note: People need to be governed. Even if you remove all governing power from the state, impromptu governments will arise out of the population. And this next point is very important: The vast majority of people are not nearly intelligent enough to make important decisions on their own.

      --Colin

    15. Re:if you choose to not vote by enjo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just out of curiosity.. if not democracy, then how exactly do you intend to allow for a reasonable peaceful society to exist? If your 'against the system' are you anti-democracy? Or are you just against the system as it stands in America, in which case wouldn't voting for a candidate that wants to radically change the system (pick a third party candidate) be the rationale (and responsible) course of action?

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    16. Re:if you choose to not vote by OnlySlightly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot about those of us who live in non-swing states. Our vote doesn't count.

    17. Re:if you choose to not vote by bluprint · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of people are not nearly intelligent enough to make important decisions on their own.

      Are you referring to important decisions such as who should run the country?

      Think about your logic for a minute. A person who is not intelligent enought to make important decisions, should be allowed to decide who *is* intelligent enough to make important decisions.

      How can a person be sure that anyone who runs for office is intelligent enough to make important decisions, if that person himself if not intelligent enough to make important decision? Who decides who is intelligent enough to make important decisions? And who picks those people...and so on.

      --
      A modern day witchhunt.
    18. Re:if you choose to not vote by Becquerel · · Score: 1

      Simple only the intelligent people should decide :)

      --
      My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
    19. Re:if you choose to not vote by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Yes, Oligarchy is effective, and our system has (d)evolved into that, Price to play is >$100MUS, which means you either earned it, or were bought by people who earned it, SO you are either intelligent enough to govern or your handlers/owners are, either way you will be "effective" although our(US) system of government is designed to be as inefficient and ineffectual as possible, with state checks vs federal, judicial checks against executive checks agains legislative checks against judicial, house checks against senate, Electoral college checks against popular vote, etc.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    20. Re:if you choose to not vote by orasio · · Score: 1

      But you can't be government-neutral.
      By not going to vote, you are not fighting government. So you must be pro-government.
      Being anti-government is a valid position, when backed up by anti-government actions.

      Just refusing to vote is like proclaiming oneself "anticapitalistic" with a sweatshop-made chinese cotton T-shirt.
      You say you are against the system, but you don't fo anything against it.

    21. Re:if you choose to not vote by Dirtside · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since you think the system is defective, presumably you want the system to change. Are you actually going to do something to get it to change, or are you just going to whine? How about finding a candidate who's for the kind of political reform that you want, and voting for him? Or hell, run for office yourself.

      What's that? Can't find an appropriate candidate, or can't run yourself? Aren't willing to put out any effort to change the system? THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    22. Re:if you choose to not vote by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      It seems that a democracy is what we want, but what we have is a methodically run industrialized corporate America (exacerbated by Bush... big time), which is different.

      I simply think the original poster is confused and angry for good reason, but simply lacks the articulation formed by research.

      Some quotes of interest:

      "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
      -- Dwight D. Eisenhower.

      "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
      -- Abraham Lincoln

      "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
      -- Mark Twain

      "...somebody has to take governments' place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it."
      -- David Rockefeller

      "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it ..."
      -- General Douglas MacArthur


      There's a million of them, it's just a shame none of us realize them for what they are... lessons to be learned.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    23. Re:if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else ever notice that all self-proclaimed "anarchists" are faggy little losers who would be the first to die if anarchy ever arose?

    24. Re:if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually if i don't vote i had no say in picking the bad president. therefore i should be able to complain.

    25. Re:if you choose to not vote by saintp · · Score: 1
      That's true, and it's something I thought a lot about. But casting a blank ballot would indicate that I support the system while disagreeing with all of the candidates. A spoiled ballot isn't something I thought of, to be honest. I like the idea, but I cancelled my voter registration last time I moved.

      I also thought of going to a polling place (or, rather, 300 feet from one) with a sign reading "Voting is a sham," but I doubt I'd get time off for that like my co-workers get for actually voting.

    26. Re:if you choose to not vote by daigu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you miss his point. If you object to the process or some aspect of the process - say to the fact that corporations fund candidates and their campaigns and are candidates are beholden to them - then no matter who you vote for your vote supports a system that you don't believe in.

      If you object on grounds such as these, voting for a third party candidate does not solve the problem. In this election, anarchists have to decide which is the greater problem - George Bush or the system that made him president. Some such as Utah Phillips have decided Bush is the greater threat whereas folks like the original poster disagree.

      I know it can be hard to understand objecting to voting but Utah Phillip's comment about other ways of voting - what he calls the body vote - is a useful way of looking at the issue. When I choose not to vote, I am in fact voting. It is no different than when I skip over voting a particular office because I don't like either candidate.

    27. Re:if you choose to not vote by micromoog · · Score: 1
      I doubt I'd get time off for that like my co-workers get for actually voting

      haha, you're probably right. Just curious, what do you want? Is it the electoral college you're opposed to, or the two-party system, or what?

    28. Re:if you choose to not vote by saintp · · Score: 1
      Dear retard,

      Voting, or running myself, would be supporting the very fucking system I oppose. Great plan, jackass. If you think voting is the only way to change a system, try the following steps:

      1. Pull your head out of your ass.
      2. Read up on Ghandi.
      3. Read up on Trotsky.
      4. Read up on elections in North Korea, Myanmar, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, etc.
      5. Reinsert head in ass.

      That's two ways to crumble the system without voting and three examples of voting being meaningless.

      Perhaps you've heard of Audre Lorde, who famously said: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." Voting will never dismantle the two-party dictatorship, no matter how much indoctrinated zealots like yourself scream about it.

    29. Re:if you choose to not vote by saintp · · Score: 1
      Just refusing to vote is like proclaiming oneself 'anticapitalistic' with a sweatshop-made chinese cotton T-shirt.
      Hrm?

      No it's not. I'm refusing to take part in (i.e., to support the claims to legitimacy of) the system. You apparently think that the only way to be anti-government is to participate in the government by voting. I disagree. I think that, if you're going to proclaim yourself against imperialism, to appropriate your example, you shouldn't take part in it, e.g., by purchasing goods from foreign sweatshop labor.

      Somehow, you expect supporting the system to topple it. That's just backward.

    30. Re:if you choose to not vote by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I allow for a reasonable peaceful society to exist in this way: all persons have any natural rights that do not interfere with the rights of others. One right is the right to defense of self and property. And, as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, it is the right of people to form governments to secure their rights, arranged in such a way as they deem is most likely to secure their rights.

      The right people do not have is to compel others to participate in their system. If seven of us want to get together and run our own communist system, that should be allowed, and we should of course not be allowed to compel anyone else to participate. If we seven want to pool 10% (or 40%) of our income to handle common needs and vote on how those funds should be spent, that's great, but we don't magically get the right to compel anyone else to participate.

      In the society I envision, people leave each other alone, and people who do not leave others alone discover that anyone is empowered to defend their rights. In that system, I would probably be a member of a voluntary democracy. In fact, the vast majority of people might choose to be members of the same democracy. But anyone who didn't want to participate would 1) not have to vote (in fact, not get to vote), 2) not be taxed, 3) receive no government services, and 4) be allowed to set up another system if they wanted for other people to voluntarily participate in.

      Democracy is a great advance. As Churchill said, it is the worst system of all, except for all the others. But democracy, the fundamental concept, is not perfect. A democracy can vote to steal from its citizens for the benefit of a few. A democracy can vote itself into totalitarianism. Do you realize that we could, with a vote, amend the Constitution to take away women's suffrage, or black freedom? We can vote to do things that are wrong, because we allow the government to possess powers beyond those which its citizens possess. The state is not really "we the people," or else it would only be allowed to do what individual people coming together voluntarily in aggregate can do. The truth is that the state in our democracy is a corporate monarch, with most of the same absolute sovereignty that comes with monarchy.

      I want a system where it is asserted that the government "derives its powers from the just consent of the governed." In other words, you and I possess the right to come together and work as one and make decisions through voting or some other method, but we do not possess the right to vote on those decisions for other people. Such a state would have the right to tax, but only those who voluntarily participate. Such a state would have the right to establish a military and courts to defend its participants (citizens) against aggressors within and without. Such a state would be checked not by our "checks and balances/balance of powers" philosophy, which is being demonstrated in America to spiral out of control in the direction of granting the state more and more power, but by other states defending their own citizens and interests.

      There are a lot of names for this: anarcho-capitalism, anarchism, libertarianism. It sounds wild the first time you hear it, but the idea has taken several years to grow on me. And now I realize that this is the only way it rightfully can be: no matter what system I think is best, I do not have the right to force anyone else to participate.

      And what I say is almost exactly what Thomas Jefferson said. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence. I want a society where people are free and vigilently protect their rights. I want a society where nobody has the capability to compel anybody else to do anything. Period. That means a lot of lifestyles would be lived that I disapprove of. That means a lot of things would be said that I disapprove of. And that is everybody's right, so long as they do not interfere with me.

      Just for fun, here's some thinking along the same line, but maybe a bit more

    31. Re:if you choose to not vote by bumagovitch · · Score: 1

      Libertarians/anarchists always amuse me. You think you are against government -- but are you clear about the fact that roads, trash disposal, sewage, regulation of monopolies and corrupt or abusive corporations, protection for quacks & lawyers, not to mention your neighbor are just the beginning of what government does for you?

      If you're a real libertarians or anarchists, you'd better be prepared to give up MONEY as you know it, not to mention property, and this internet thing, and other basic socio-technological structures that you've forgotten are under your recumbent arse.

      Go read some Hobbes, Rousseau, Lock, Mill... you're currently subscribed to a social contract that's about way more than taxes, speeding laws and social security, my droogs.

    32. Re:if you choose to not vote by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Voting for the "hopefully lesser" of two evils is still voting for evil. There aren't any good choices, and this is by intentional design!

      Whoever gets elected, EVERYONE has the right to bitch about him. Neither one is a good choice. I may feel that it would be quite difficult to be a worse president than Bush (Caligula could possibly have managed it), but this sure doesn't mean I like the only other candidate that has a chance of winning. They system is intentionally rigged. The only question is, "Are they rigging the results according to the rules, or are they cheating?". Last time they cheated. This time they've taken care that most of the evidence will be hidden, so it probably won't be provable.

      But I voted anyway. At least I may get a president/congress deadlock, which would be a tremendous improvement over what we've been having. Hell, rolling back every law passed and court decision made since 1956 would be a tremendous improvement, and that gets rid of the civil rights laws, one of the few decent (governmental) things to happen in my life time.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    33. Re:if you choose to not vote by saintp · · Score: 1
      Wow, you smacked the nail right on the head. Personally, I'm a big fan of anarchosyndicalism -- I guess I probably lean a little further left than you.

      One previous poster mentioned that, given the absense of a powerful (monarchical/dictatorial) state, ad hoc "governments" (clans, tribes, gangs, unions, etc.) would spring up. While that's pure horror to the average American, I think that's pretty swell.

    34. Re:if you choose to not vote by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Personally, what I want is condorcet voting ( http://electionmethods.org/CondorcetEx.htm ).

      I know that there are technically things wrong with every possible approach, but if one counts the frequency of occurance and estimates the severity of the problem, the choice seems straight-forwards.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    35. Re:if you choose to not vote by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      ... if not democracy, then how exactly do you intend to allow for a reasonable peaceful society to exist?

      Any system of government would work just dandy as long as it didn't have enough power to do much of anything. As long as the government has little power, it will be respectable. No one will bribe the dictator/king/elected representative, because he has no power to plunder.

      Give any government power, and it becomes corrupt; the more power, the faster and further that goes. This is old news.

      So, any system of government will work, as long as it is sufficiently limited.
      No system will work if it is not sufficiently limited.

    36. Re:if you choose to not vote by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      are you clear about the fact that roads, trash disposal, sewage, regulation of monopolies and corrupt or abusive corporations, protection for quacks & lawyers, not to mention your neighbor are just the beginning of what government does for you?

      Yep.

      you'd better be prepared to give up MONEY as you know it

      Definitely! I'm ready to see competing currencies and let the best one(s) win out. I'm ready to see people pay each other in gold, platinum, electronic accounts, or whatever. I'm ready to see people have to take responsibility themselves to make sure that what they are accepting as payment has value.

      not to mention property

      Property is a right that everyone is responsible for protecting for themselves. And, of course, people have the right to band together for mutual protection of rights. That's a government. That's what Thomas Jefferson said, and I believe it.

      this internet thing

      Amazing how thousands of corporate intranets flourish without needing to be part of the Internet. Amazing how the technology can be used to build any number of networks. Amazing how non-connected networks find ways of connecting to each other. Amazing how all this plays out when you don't have an interfering governmental body like ICANN deciding how it should be for everybody.

    37. Re: if you choose to not vote by sckeener · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > don't bitch about the president during the next 4 years

      Corollary 1: If they one you vote for loses, bitch continually for the next four years.


      Are you sure it is 4 years? I still hear complaining...
      Let us see for just the elections I have voted in:

      Bush Sr: Whose family values? The rich's family values...
      Clinton 1st term: Scandal! You lost money in real-estate.
      Clinton 2nd term: Men have affairs
      Shrub: War (no WMD, no Terrorist links to 9/11, forged documents, etc.) taken a ton of vacations

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    38. Re:if you choose to not vote by sckeener · · Score: 1

      I was fine with your first part, but the second pharagraph...

      This mantra is just one of many aspects of a culture that refuses to see the conscientious refusal to vote as valid. It ultimately reinforces the system and blinds us to change. The "Vote or die," "I don't care who you vote for, just vote," etc., slogans that we hear repeated are, plain and simple, pro-government.

      If you want to protest by not voting, you should go vote and not pick anyone. Turn in a blank ballot.

      Not voting at all just means you don't matter.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    39. Re:if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever notice that the time you wasted typing out that response would have been better spent licking my balls?

    40. Re:if you choose to not vote by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      You forgot about those of us living in counties using Diebold voting machines. Our vote doesn't count either.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    41. Re:if you choose to not vote by saintp · · Score: 1

      Check out this post and my reply.

    42. Re:if you choose to not vote by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Voting, or running myself, would be supporting the very fucking system I oppose.
      Good thing you ignored the part where I said:

      Aren't willing to put out any effort to change the system?

      ...a notion you haven't disabused. Are you actually working to change the system in one of these "work-outside-the-system" ways? Or are you just an armchair revolutionary?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    43. Re:if you choose to not vote by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      While that's pure horror to the average American, I think that's pretty swell.

      I think that about sums it up. The first time I heard the idea, I thought it was madness. The next forty-nine times, I still thought it was madness. But sometime between then (six years ago?) and now, I realized it was the only correct and the only ethical way for things to be.

      Thanks for the pointer to anarcho-syndicalism. My thinking is still in development. Four years ago, I was a "laissez-faire capitalist." Then I finally become a "libertarian." This year I accepted the "anarchist" label. (Through all this I still consider myself conservative and vote in the Republican party ... but that is changing. There are anarcho-libs who came at it from the left side, and those who came at it from the right side. It takes us all awhile to come to grips with all the implications of the beliefs, but in the end we come out remarkably the same, and firm allies.)

    44. Re:if you choose to not vote by toganet · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like you are just rationalizing your own apathy. Why not vote for a third party? At least you can throw your vote away, instead of just letting it wilt.

    45. Re:if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or get laid or the next 4 years either http://http//votergasm.org/

    46. Re:if you choose to not vote by TiredGamer · · Score: 1

      There is no better delusion than idealists who do not read history books and hence miss the point that all their dreams were once reality and the people suffered for it. There is only the assumption that we are better than our ancestors in caves, when we are our ancestors with better caves. The human animal is constrained and kept logical by the society and the laws of society... not because we are better than those before us. Alas, I doubt any dreaming child reading this will do more than expouse their foolish beliefs. Confirmation bias is such a lovely thing...

      --
      No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
    47. Re:if you choose to not vote by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      That's because the problem isn't the dude in the suit, the problem is the fact of the president. And when it's the system I oppose, not the person, I reserve full rights to a) refuse to lend my consent to the system by voting; and b) bitch all I want about it. ...

      Another de-voted anarchist refusing to vote.


      I'm trying and trying to think of a historical example of reform and/or revolution by inaction.

    48. Re:if you choose to not vote by localhost00 · · Score: 1

      As long as I continue to pay taxes, I have EVERY right to bitch about the government. (Yes, I voted today)

      --

      Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

    49. Re:if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are exactly two ways to change the system.
      From the inside.
      From the outside.

      Either one involves work.
      Standing around with a pout on your face and a thumb up your ass doesn't qualify.

    50. Re:if you choose to not vote by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Good thing you ignored the part where I said:

      Aren't willing to put out any effort to change the system?

      ...a notion you haven't disabused. Are you actually working to change the system in one of these "work-outside-the-system" ways? Or are you just an armchair revolutionary?

      Actually, since the discussion is about why he doesn't vote or otherwise participate in the current system, his non-system-participatory revolutionary activities are irrelevant. You are the one that claimed participation was necessary in order to voice your displeasure with the current system. Your attempt to re-cast that last phrase "Aren't willing to put out any effort to change the system?" as being about NON-participatory efforts is absurd, as the rest of your post is (like the entire thread before it) about voting or running for office.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    51. Re:if you choose to not vote by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The same is true of large corporations, though. The problems you mention will happen in any sufficiently large organization that has power. And if you remove government, then what you end up with is nothing more than a government by monopoly corporations, grown from those markets where a natural monopoly is inevitable if you take a laissez-faire approach (and yes, there are such things.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    52. Re:if you choose to not vote by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Amazing how thousands of corporate intranets flourish without needing to be part of the Internet. Amazing how the technology can be used to build any number of networks

      It's not amazing. It's exactly what I'd expect from a system built for compatability FIRST, and profit second. TCP/IP is not a corporate invention. Crap like IPX was.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    53. Re: if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want environmental controls, but you drive a suburban?

    54. Re:if you choose to not vote by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Even if over 50% of the poeple did what you suggest it would not have the effect you are looking for. The effect would be that the minorty who did vote would decide what happens.

      Pick: Armed Revolution or change the system from within. There is no middle ground that works.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    55. Re:if you choose to not vote by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Perhaps you've heard of Audre Lorde, who famously said: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."

      Congrats. You found a famous person just as deluded as you are. Is the current system in the same vien to the one the founding fathers envisioned? I'd agree with you that the answer is no. It's just that I realize one obvious logical implication of this is that it is PROOF that the system can in fact change from within - it was changed into what we have now.

      What are your plans for doing something to change it? The only options are:

      1 - Participate in the system and try to change it from within.
      2 - Revolution and throw the system out.
      3 - Apathy.

      The path you think you are taking doesn't exist. It is identical in effect to apathy.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    56. Re:if you choose to not vote by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Turn in a blank ballot.

      I just got back from voting for "Protest Vote" as a write-in for president. It's a clearer way to make your statement unambiguously. A blank ballot is indistinguishable from someone who is just too stupid to know how to fill it out, or is apathetic. Fill out the write-in blank, and thus make it clear that it is not a mistake on your part.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    57. Re:if you choose to not vote by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Your post would have made more sense in the alternate universe where anarchy is actually possible. Government is inevitable. Take it away and another will replace it rather shortly. If it's going to happen, like it or not, then I'd prefer it to be a democracy to any other system.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    58. Re: if you choose to not vote by PMuse · · Score: 1

      pmuse: "Smell that?... Do you smell that?"

      AC: "What."

      pmuse: "Hypocrisy, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that... I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning... Ya know, that gasoline smell... It smells like... victory."

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    59. Re:if you choose to not vote by shadow_slicer · · Score: 1

      How about a multi-tiered republic with a strong judicial check, and constitutions that place limits on the powers of each tier of independent republic governments (from country to region to state to area to county to city to residential area to home).

      Would something like that work?
      That way only the things that concern everybody get voted on by everybody, and everyone else is independent. The judicial system would be able to actively pursue this (without need for a test case) after recieving a petition.

      Well?

    60. Re:if you choose to not vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro-government=pro-civilization, the very reason humans still exist

    61. Re:if you choose to not vote by orasio · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, while I woute myself:

      I say:
      " But you can't be government-neutral.
      By not going to vote, you are not fighting government. So you must be pro-government.
      Being anti-government is a valid position, when backed up by anti-government actions."

      I mean, that you in fact do have a position in which kind of government you want: a representative democracy, communism, anarchy, corporativism, monarchy. I mean it's very difficult to be neutral in that direction.
      If you vote someone, or vote noone, or don't go to vote _in_a_country_where_that_is_an_option_ you are supporting the system.
      I am just pointing out that refusing to vote is one option in a representative democracy, so you are in fact being represented if you don't go to vote.
      I just say that the only way to fight that system is to actually do something against it.
      In the modern times most people (me included) prefer to fight from the inside of the broken but slightly democrativ system, but in the past people have emigrated countries, made revolutions, or at least gathered popular support for their ideas.

      When you stay at your house in election day, you are in fact being represented, and support the system. Refusing to suppor the system (which requires fighting it) takes much work.

      In my country, Uruguay, we fought it from the inside, for almost hundred years, and past Sunday we elected the first president with an acceptable social policy.

    62. Re:if you choose to not vote by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      I was going to do that but I asked people and they said it isn't worth it. The readers would just ignore it since it has no person on it and then throw it out. If there was a real "none of the above" I would have done that.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  24. Inka-Vote rocks by glowimperial · · Score: 1

    I just voted using the Inka-Vote system here in california that basically replaces the poking coles with ink dots, and it was very nice. I got a paper receipt, like I want, and there is no way in hell that my ballot could be misinterpreted. I feel bad for the folks using touchscreens and diebold machines.

    1. Re:Inka-Vote rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a paper receipt, like I want,

      glowimperial, this is your boss.

      First of all, stop posting on Slashdot and get back to work.

      Second, make sure to bring your voting receipt in so I can verify that you voted the way that company wanted you to. If you didn't, a security officer will escort you from the building; we'll pack your desk for you.

    2. Re:Inka-Vote rocks by glowimperial · · Score: 1

      Hey! I posted this before I got to work. I have been to busy trolling other forums to post here today.

  25. Vote for Kerry! by dourk · · Score: 1

    cause, ya know, a vote for Bush is a Bad Thing.

    --
    Wake up.
  26. Ukraine by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally, an slashdot story that is non-American-centric!

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    1. Re:Ukraine by swiftstream · · Score: 1

      Let's just hope that there aren't as many problems with the American elections as there were with the Ukrainian ones...

      I don't know, though... anybody taking bets?

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
    2. Re:Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm... I was thinking just the opposite... Hope there weren't as many problems in the Ukrain elections as there are gonna be in the US. A lot of the european election observers weren't even let into the voting locations... Boy, this is one circus we'll be hearing about for years to come...

  27. Remove the Chicken-Hawk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The dude was a coward when he could have seen action... Easy to be brave with other's lives...

    Irag was an optional war.

    Virtually his whole org are chicken-hawks.
    wusses.

  28. Voting was fine by AbbyNormal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Voting was relatively easy/painless in PA. Supposedely lines were long this morning (at least at my polling place). VA people are telling me that their polls had lines in record numbers. My parents waited in line for two hours (1 outside the building, 1 inside).

    I'm curious to hear from Ohio voters. Has anyone been challenged yet?

    --
    Sig it.
    1. Re:Voting was fine by grocer · · Score: 1

      Non-eventful when I voted this morning in Toledo, Ohio and no sign of challegers...Lucas County has a list of voters who have been challenged, so I think maybe it shakes out when you sign in. I think I saw one observer but that's it.

      The polling place was busy, so people came out...I usually walk in and get my ballot, today I had to wait 20 minutes.

    2. Re:Voting was fine by Govt+Stooge · · Score: 1

      No challenge in Bellbrook (suburb of Dayton), although the poll workers were not friendly. I said hello, and thank you after I handed him my ballot (punch card, go technology) no response what so ever. Definately long lines, I got lucky the line for my precinct was very short. There were two precincts where I voted, the other one was at least an hour wait at 8 this morning, I don't expect it to get any better throughout the day. Wife's coworker had an hour and half wait in another county. The local radio is saying record turnouts, possibly greater than 60%.

      --
      "Honesty is the key to a relationship. If you can fake that, you're in." --Rich Jeni
    3. Re:Voting was fine by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1
      Not sure which is slower, the poll line or Slashdot.

      Lots of discussion here at work this AM (Northwest Columbus, OH area). All polling places very busy, few challengers visisble or evident, and no one I talked to had actually seen a challenge. One fistfight broke out, supposedly, so maybe that'll get a mention on the local news. Otherwise, sounds like an active vote. I will be going to the poll shortly; will repost if there's anything interesting going on.

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
    4. Re:Voting was fine by Noofus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Took me an hour of waiting in line near Philadelphia. To the point where I was worried about being late for work. Got there just after 7 when they opened. My wife had a problem. Seems they registered her to vote here when we moved, then decided on a whim to move her out of the county. Then claimed they mailed us a letter asking us to confirm that she moved out. We we never got a letter nor did we move...

      They allowed her to vote anyway after showing a driver's lisence and a utility bill with our current address on it.

    5. Re:Voting was fine by JumboMessiah · · Score: 1

      Voted this morning in Columbus, Ohio. Arrived at 7:45AM and waiting in line approx. 1.5 hours. From talking with others in line, they said that previous waits were no longer than about 15 minutes.

      The site had 4 semi-electronic voting booths. You signed in for roll, then was issued a "vote authority" ticket with a ballot number on it. Upon entering the booth, the worker would place your ticket in a folder hanging outside the booth. Inside, there was a big ballot with flashing LEDs on it. As you touched your candidate the LED would go solid indicating your vote. After all selections were made you hit a big green vote button. The clerk then appeared to take a printed ballot and your ticket and place them in an envelope.

      I wanted to stick around and investigate the process more, but there were tons of people there who I didn't want to hold up by quizzing the clerk. I would of done so if I felt at odds with the voting technology, but from observation it seemed like the process was a good balance between the use of electronic mechanisms, ease of use, and having a human readable ballot for counting.

    6. Re:Voting was fine by nikoliky · · Score: 1

      In The Plains, (Athens Co.) OH everything seemed to be going smoothly. I saw one woman turned away, she had not registered yet. There were 4 precincts at my
      polling place, but the longest line was around 30 minutes.

      This was my first time using a punch card and I don't see what the big deal is. It seems pretty damn idiot proof to me, and trust me I've met my fair share of idiots.
      I used to teach middle-school algebra to college students ;) At least we have laws on how to handle (PREGNANT|HANGING|DIMPLED)chads.

    7. Re:Voting was fine by RedX · · Score: 1

      NW Columbus is not a prime demographic target for voter challenges. I'd be interested to hear how things are going in the precincts east of I-71 and down around the campus areas, demographics prime for Republican challenges.

    8. Re:Voting was fine by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1

      Update: 65 minutes from entering the waiting line to completion of voting. 40-50 people in front of me; 34 elective offices and 3 ballot issues to vote on. I'm sure it could have been worse; some people had to wait outside, and its raining here today.

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
    9. Re:Voting was fine by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1
      Well since the TV stations in town are all within pissing distance of those areas, I'm sure they'll do their usual (cue sarcasm) stellar job of reporting what is going on.

      I'm betting it's all a smoke-screen and that the challenges, if any, will be an insignificant fraction of the final vote total.

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
    10. Re:Voting was fine by UglyTool · · Score: 1

      I am East of I-71, West of Cleveland Ave (North Linden area). Apparently, my precinct (23) had the longest lines in the city when I went to cast my vote. It took about 2-1/2 hours to get through. I saw what I thought were challengers, standing quietly behind the tables but, as far as I know, no one had been challenged.

    11. Re:Voting was fine by von+Prufer · · Score: 1

      I voted in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio - Northeast Ohio. It was around 12:30 PM and I was voter #200-something. Not only were there no challengers, but I didn't have to show any ID.

      Bush came here a few weeks ago and pleaded with our mayor to do the right thing. He said: "Mr. Mayor, fill those potholes!"

    12. Re:Voting was fine by RedX · · Score: 1

      UglyTool's area would be one of those where I'd think any challenges would be occurring. Out of curiosity, do you think the long wait was due to a huge turnout in precinct 23 or because of slow voters? Over in the Dublin area, longest wait I've heard is about 1.5 hour. I personally waited 45 minutes at 1pm today, I'd estimate maybe 100 people in line at my polling place, which was for precinct 74-A and 74-H. A couple of slow voters in 2 of the 4 booths at the same time backed things up probably 10-15 minutes, appeared to be new voters.

    13. Re:Voting was fine by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      I would of done so if I felt at odds with the voting technology, but from observation it seemed like the process was a good balance between the use of electronic mechanisms, ease of use, and having a human readable ballot for counting.

      The machines used here in Franklin County, the Shouptronics, have no paper trail.

      At 7.30 we (the pollworkers, I'm a candidate today otherwise I would be working the polls) press a button on the back that closes the polls. The machine performs internal calculations (about 5 minutes worth) and prints off the voting results onto a paper roll (several times.) It also encodes the information onto a data cartridge of some type. Then we pop open a panel on the back of the machine, which was sealed with twist ties, remove the paper receipts, and the data cartridge. Some of the paper receipts are hung at the polling place, others are sent to the board of elections and the county clerk's office, with the data cartridge. The precinct judge takes the package with the cartridge and the receipts and hands them off to a county sheriff at a particular location who ferries them to the county.

      But, having said all that, these are a first generation of voting machines, and there is no paper trail/paper receipt. The machine keeps everything internally until polls are closed.

  29. What happens when your president is an AOHeller by eno2001 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    OMFG!!! ROTFL!!! Osama IS a troll after all!

    He said, and I quote: ...al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."

    And Bush is... a newbie from AOL!

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!1111 ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  30. I'm off to vote.... by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

    .....and really, the presidential race means little to nothing to me, as I hate both of the candidates. I'll vote out the incumbent, because I don't like the way the country's going right now, but that's about it.

    No, my chief reason for being excited is because of the local issues on the ballot--for instance, the city I live in [ Bangor, ME ] has an issue on the ballot to move the police station away from downtown. I personally feel it belongs downtown, where people can walk into it....but anyway. That, and a couple state measures, are the only good reasons to vote for me, other than the general principal of "If I don't vote, I really have to right to bitch about what happens, later"

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
    1. Re:I'm off to vote.... by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      And to update on the voting procedures in Bangor, just to be informative.

      There is no conceivable way to misinterpret the ballot. It's nice and large, printed in 14 point type so even the old people [ of which there are many around here ] can read it. Next to each candidate, there is a "broken arrow"....an arrow that has the middle part missing. To indicate your choice, you use the marker they give you to fill in the gap beside your choice. Then, you take your ballot and feed it to the R2/D2 unit in the corner. .....well, it's not an R2 unit, but it vaguely resembles one, and it warbles happily when you've fed it. It also has a counter on it, giving the count of how many ballots it's eaten. There were two ballots involved: A federal/state one, where the presidential race was on the front, and the state questions were on the back, and a local one.

      Authentication was provided by going up to the nice lady at the desk and telling her your name and address. She repeated this out loud for the benefit of the overseers who were sitting behind, with a copy of the registered voter's list to check against. I didn't see what happened if you're not registered, as I registered a couple weeks ago. [ In Maine, you can register on election day, but I decided it was wise to do so beforehand. ]

      It wasn't very busy at all....the city did well dividing up the precincts to vote in. All in all a pretty decent experience, and I have a lot of confidence my vote will be counted correctly.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
  31. I suggest Civil War! by efuseekay · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think it is high time the Red and the Blue States engage in Civil War!

    THe last time you guys did it was back when the blues elected Lincoln!

    Come on! Gimme Civil War! Wanna Wanna Wanna!

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    1. Re:I suggest Civil War! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the reds have elected Lincoln?
      Although I thought all this talk about Red states and Blue states was just to hype Halo 2...

    2. Re:I suggest Civil War! by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

      HAte to respond to an troll, but technically, Lincoln was elected by the Red States. Thats why the Republicans are known as the "Party of Lincoln"

  32. Good turnout? by northcat · · Score: 1

    I don't live in US. I read about people not turning up for voting. But I saw the long queues on TV. What is the turnout? Is it better than previous elections or is it the same or worse?

    1. Re: Good turnout? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I don't live in US. I read about people not turning up for voting. But I saw the long queues on TV. What is the turnout? Is it better than previous elections or is it the same or worse?

      We're expecting the best turnout in decades, but there's a strip of nasty weather right across the country which might reduce turnout in that area, which includes a couple of swing states.

      I've seen reports of as many as 40% of registered voters participating in early voting, in some towns.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Good turnout? by Swamii · · Score: 1

      I live in Minnesota, a typically left-wing state of the US near Canada. My state's attorney general was quoted today as saying that this turnout is shaping up to be the biggest in state history.

      That said, I voted for Bush this morning; I'm tired of the rhetoric and propaganda from people like Michael Moore, elitist Hollywood, and the left wing newspapers here.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    3. Re:Good turnout? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Turnout is expeced to be much heavier than normal, even for a presidential election. However, we probably won't break the 60% voter turnout mark.

      Yes, sad to say that for a country that preaches to the rest of the world about freedom and democracy and the right to choose their leaders at least 1/3 of us won't even bother to get off our fat, lazy asses and indicate our choice for our leader(s).

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:Good turnout? by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sadly, when Bush wins, Moore simply has another four years of inflaming the angry left.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:Good turnout? by jamesoutlaw · · Score: 1

      I waited in line for about an hour this evening. It's raining here in Memphis and the line was out the door. People were huddled under umbrellas waiting for the line to move on inside.

  33. Kerry's going to win... by nautical9 · · Score: 1

    According to snopes.com, it's already a sure thing! ;-)

    1. Re:Kerry's going to win... by nautical9 · · Score: 1

      Whoops... sorry for the double post - /.'s giving me a bunch of 503's, so I re-typed it. Please mod this (and my parent post) down as redundant.

  34. Long lines early in Chicago by nightsweat · · Score: 1

    Got to the poll at 6:02, polls opened at 6:00. 70 people in line ahead of me in this dark blue area of a dark blue state.

    Are they turning out like that in Texas?

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    1. Re:Long lines early in Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is raining here in Texas. My polling place's parking lot is a bit flooded so people are parking anywhere close and walking. Turn out is very high. Way higher than last presidential election. We also have had early voting for a few weeks and turnout has been pretty high even during early voting.

    2. Re:Long lines early in Chicago by Azchar111 · · Score: 1

      That actually sounds good to me. I'm just outside of Atlanta, GA and the wait time estimate at my polling place was 3 hours at 7:00am. I just got back from checking again (at 10:30) and the wait is only 2.5 hours now. At the rate the wait is decreasing, I'll be able to just walk right in at about 4am on November 3. Ah well, I'll try again after work.

      --
      Caveat Lector.
  35. Site very slow by b4rtm4n · · Score: 2, Funny

    A valiant attempt by the Slashdot editors to slashdot Slashdot itself.

    --
    "goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
  36. First Flamebait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kerry sucks. Long live King George II!

  37. DieBold report by CottonThePirate · · Score: 1

    I voted today on Diebold in Md. System worked ok. My "voter admin slip" which is a piece of paper with all my info(name address etc) was marked with which machine I used, so presumably if that machine blue screens or gets EMPed by a clever trouble maker they can call me up and ask what I voted. You could "change you mind in the booth" which I tried out by unclicking and then reclicking a box. At the end you get a nice summary before hitting the commit button. All in all I like this better than paper, but I wish it printed out a little receipt that I put in a box for recount purposes. Here's hoping for the best.

  38. The most important thing to keep in mind.... by Rahga · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember to vote, or P. Diddy will kill you.

    1. Re:The most important thing to keep in mind.... by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

      Remember to vote, or P. Diddy will kill you.

      He doesn't vote for himself. He just stands outside the voting booth and goes "yeah, unh, uh-huh, thats right, uh".

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:The most important thing to keep in mind.... by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      No, you're thinking of Lil John.

      "Yeeeaaah!"

      "Whaaat!"

      "Okaaay!"

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    3. Re:The most important thing to keep in mind.... by Culturejammer · · Score: 1
      Vote or die, motherfucker, motherfuckerer, vote or die!

      Rock the vote or else I'm gonna stick a knife through your eye.

      Democracy is founded on one simple rule!

      Get out there and vote or I will motherfucker kill you.

      Yeh.

      I like it when you vote, bitch! (bitch!)

      Shake them titties when you vote, bitch! (bitch!)

      I slam my jimmy through your mouth roof (roof!)

      Now get your big ass in the pollin' booth. (booth!)

      I said vote, bitch, or I'll fucking kill you!

      Vote or die, motherfucker, motherfucker, vote or die!

      You can't run from a .38, go ahead and try!

      Let your opinion be heard! You gotta make a choice

      'Cause after I slit your throat you won't have a fucking voice

      'Vote or die! Vote or die!

  39. Relevant sites? by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let's keep a tally of sites with relevant information. Not sure if there's a bias in their reporting of news, but I've come to like Real Clear Politics as a way to keep track of the polls, etc.

    Of course there's always non-US news sites like The Guardian and The Economist's articles regarding the election.

    Breaking "news" also appears on Drudge Report. As far as blogs go, I don't really have any good ones. Any other ones you guys like?

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Relevant sites? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Breaking "news" also appears on Drudge Report. As far as blogs go, I don't really have any good ones. Any other ones you guys like?

      I use Free Republic for live updates from the right, and Daily Kos for live updates from the left. Both sites are highly biased, and admit as such. (I like my bias out in the open where I can see it.)

      Both sites are highly active today with live or near-live reports coming in from voters and observers. Signal-to-noise ratio is low (as you might expect), but half the fun is reading through the "rah rah, our guy's winning" noise to find the nuggets of information that may (or may not) lead to a coherent picture of what's going on out there.

    2. Re:Relevant sites? by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The BBC has a pretty cool Flash election map - presumably it'll get updated with results as they come in, but for a European like me there's lots of historical information too.

      Want to find out how states voted in the past? Or read potted summaries of previous candidates and so on? I've learned quite a lot already. :-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    3. Re:Relevant sites? by mr_gerbik · · Score: 1

      > As far as blogs go, I don't really have any good ones. Any other ones you guys like?

      I like disjointed.org. Coverage from Philadelphia, Columbus and Ann Arbor.

    4. Re:Relevant sites? by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      Later on I was linked to the NY Times map, which I liked a little bit more for different reasons.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    5. Re:Relevant sites? by wass · · Score: 1
      Yeah, that BBC flash map is pretty cool. One thing I like about it is that you can morph the map from geographically scaled to electorally-scaled. That's because many populous states (eg New Jersey) are tiny on the map, and make it look like Kerry is way behind bush compared to big states with very few people (eg, Montana).

      Some other sites have given electorally-scaled maps, but I saw it on the BBC first. I really wish more news networks would show this kind of map because alot of ignorant people just watching the news will get the idea Bush will win in a landslide. I've even heard some people claim after 2000 that they didn't understand how it could have been so close since Bush had way more red on the map than Gore did blue.

      --

      make world, not war

    6. Re:Relevant sites? by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      These may be a bit moot now but the national atlas is cool - click on "history" and you can get county by county popular votes from 2000.

      Fairdata2000 doesn't have all the states but it is MUCH more detailed going down to the precinct level with tons of demographic data.

    7. Re:Relevant sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, this is great. A European who actually reads up and educates themself on the US before spouting the usual venom ... are you sure you are a real European ?

    8. Re:Relevant sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you just want some quick results with a page refresh, the program gets its data from: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/americas/ 04/vote_usa/map/data/f_scoreboard.xml

      (the high-detail data is at http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/americas/ 04/vote_usa/map/data/f_results.xml)

  40. I got my vote on in Virginia by slungsolow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They were touch screen devices that were named "WinVote". The first thing I saw was a blue screen. Man was I scared.

    On a side note, I don't remember seeing voter turnout like this before, but the only elections I was involved with in this state were strictly senatorial or congressional. Those times I was in line for a good 10 minutes, this morning was a little over an hour. There was a great turnout and just about everyone in line seemed pretty excited. The folks at the polls who weren't election officials (people from the different parties) did a good job of helping people out without bugging the hell out of us (handing out copies of the ballots, walking the old people to the building and through the line - BUT not to the voting machines).


    All in all it was a good experience, and I hope it works like this across the whole country.

    1. Re:I got my vote on in Virginia by micromoog · · Score: 1
      I used one of those machines too. Man, it gives me the heebiejeebies when I push the last button and it says "Your vote has been cast!".

      I guess I voted this morning.

    2. Re:I got my vote on in Virginia by Becquerel · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about any other Brits reading this, but i find it amazing that you have to 'wait in line' for any time at all. I've only had the opportunity to vote a few times (say 5) but on each occasion i walked straight in, cast my vote and walked straight out. Don't think i've ever seen a queue more than a couple of people long. I'm not sure if we have loads more polling stations or what, but i know that even fewer people in this country would vote if they had to wait in a queue for an hour. And with turnouts of 60% in the national and 30% in local elections that would seriously dent the mandate of the gouvrnment.

      --
      My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
    3. Re:I got my vote on in Virginia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it amazing too, that I had to wait in line here in Blacksburg, VA. Never before, but today I did. 1 hour. At 11am.

      I think this is going to be a good day for the USA - no matter who wins, at least people got off their asses and voted.

    4. Re:I got my vote on in Virginia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it can backfire. What if there is a huge turnout again and again the winner of the popular vote doesn't get the required 270 EC votes? Do you really expect the public to be this excited to vote again if the system seemingly fails twice in a row?

    5. Re:I got my vote on in Virginia by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      In the US it varies by time of day. Election day is NOT a holiday. A lot of people still have to go to their jobs. Therefore the times immediately before and after typical work hours are very busy at the polls, and the rest of the time it's in-and-out in a minute. ( I went to the polling station at 8:45 AM - stood in line for an hour and realized I was not going to have enough time, and I had a meeting to get to, so I had to leave. I got permission from my boss to duck out of work to go vote at 1pm, and at that time there was NOBODY in line at all and it only took a minute, with lots of poll workers standing around idle looking like they didn't know what to do with their time. These are the same people who earlier in the morning were navigating large crowds toward their respective places and running around in mad dashes.)

      Although it is not officialy a holiday, most bosses are very generous about allowing time off for this in an "off the record" kind of way, since most of them have the attitude that they don't want to feel they were responsible for someone's disenfranchisement.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  41. accuracy and precision by joshtimmons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been wanting to get this off my chest for a while now, and what better forum for this than slashdot.

    We have an election system here in the US that attempts to count every vote. At some point they stop counting and announce the final results.

    Anyway, we learned 4 years ago (and are learning this time too) that the vote is not accurate. It is error prone and sometimes subjective. But I haven't seen anyone attempt to quantify the level of error in the voting process? Why hasn't there been some academic or impartial attempt to measure the margin of error in our polling.

    Why is this important? Because if you don't know the margin of error, then you don't know what the outcome is. Period. If Bush reports 51% to Kerry 49% and the margin of error is 5%, then we don't know who won the election. It's a statistical tie and anyone who announces a winner is at best foolish.

    1. Re:accuracy and precision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I think the supreme court has some sort of issue with someone later actually counting the votes accurately.

    2. Re:accuracy and precision by why-lurk · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, first you would have to known which types of polling equipment was used. Actually, someone *has* done this. The report considered definitive on defective voting was done by CalTech and MIT:

      Reliability of Existing Voting Equipment

      Using an average of "residual votes" weighted by the prevalence of the voting equipment type, they found that about 2.1 percent of all ballots resulted in an uncounted vote.

      I'm going to go out on a limb and say that at least one state (and quite possibly enough electoral votes to swing the election either way) will be "decided" with a margin of victory lower than 2.1%.

      --kirby

    3. Re:accuracy and precision by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, election day exit polling is a hell of a lot more accurate than the crap leading up to an election. Most of the pre-election polls have sample sizes of about 500-1500 or so yielding margin of errors from about 5%-3%. Sample size is what drives the margin of error. Exit polls have significantly larger sample sizes, so the margin of error can become quite small even when looking at comparatively small numbers.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    4. Re:accuracy and precision by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      The thing is, unlike a typical poll where it's okay to declare that two (or more) choices are within the margin of error and therefore tied, an election in the United States MUST have a winner.

      It's better, if only illusorily so, to use possibly-innacurate user ballots to select someone for the office of President than to fall back to the constitutional Plan B and allow Congress to vote in their own candidate.

    5. Re:accuracy and precision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.votescam.com/

    6. Re:accuracy and precision by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's interesting that when counting votes, the attitude is "close enough is good enough"; compare that to the attitude to money, where every last cent is accounted for. Why is it that counting votes is so much more difficult than counting money?

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    7. Re:accuracy and precision by michael_cain · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Anyway, we learned 4 years ago (and are learning this time too) that the vote is not accurate. It is error prone and sometimes subjective.

      Which is quite frustrating. I spent 25 years working for large telephone companies, and the state governments hold the phone companies to MUCH higher standards in billing accuracy than they hold themselves in elections. The most common allowed error rate was one billing error per million records. That standard applied to ballots in the last election would have meant something like 110 ballots with some sort of error. Of course, there would be far more than that number of ballots that contained "errors" since a disturbing number of people mismark their ballots and do not catch their own mistakes. In general, I'm a fan of touchscreen ballots because they make it easier for the voters to check and correct their vots -- far easier than those darned punch cards.

    8. Re:accuracy and precision by andrewirwin · · Score: 1

      A voting system which returns a "not sure, try again" answer would be interesting. I'm not sure that it would be better than a system which, through a random process, selects a winner even when there is not a discernable winner.

      Maybe the problem is with the question: Find a single winner after counting votes from 100+ million people. A huge proportion of voters is disappointed -- not just in 2000 but in almost all elections.

    9. Re:accuracy and precision by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

      I voted this morning in a punch card state (Missouri) and I had *no* problem verifying my votes. Each choice has a unique number (printed on both the ballot & the punch card) and it was trivial to pull my card out of the machine, flip back through the ballot pages, and verify that the chad was gone from the right #s.

      After I did that, *I* put the card in the (locked) collections box. I have a reasonable confidence that A) my card will be read correctly by the tabulating machine; and B) it will still be available should a recount be necessary.

      Now, explain to me how a touchscreen provides anything "far easier" (and more accurate) than that?

    10. Re:accuracy and precision by mattk69 · · Score: 1

      I can't remember the last time there was any voting controversy here in Canada. We mark an X in a box next to the candidate's name with a pencil then stuff the ballot into a box. People then count the ballots by hand and will recount if the vote is close. It's simple, and it works very well. It's very easy to work at a polling station or know someone who does (my wife has worked the last 3 elections) so you know how the counts are conducted. I think that that anyone who wants voting to work a different way might be thinking that they can squeeze an advantage out of it.

    11. Re:accuracy and precision by arnoroefs2000 · · Score: 2, Informative
    12. Re:accuracy and precision by one-of-many · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is a margin of error. When the sample size equals the population, there is no assumed difference between the count of the sample and the count of the population.

      It would be interesting to see the examine ballots see how many human marks were not recorded by the scanner.

    13. Re:accuracy and precision by corngrower · · Score: 1

      Many people aren't as bright as you. A touch screen system will make sure that a voter votes in a valid way. Many people lack the intelligence to check the chad as you did. Also some precints have ballots which are marked with a pen. If there are any stray marks on the ballots, the ballot is not counted. Voters are supposed to request a new ballot if this is the case. But voters may not readily realize that their ballot has one of these marks and hence their ballots will not be counted. A touchscreen system prevents this.

    14. Re:accuracy and precision by michael_cain · · Score: 1
      Now, explain to me how a touchscreen provides anything "far easier" (and more accurate) than that?

      On the system used in my county, I got a summary screen that listed my choices in large, easy-to-read type -- President:Kerry, Amendment 3A:Yes, and so forth. When we used punch cards, I had to flip through the ballot pages, find that Kerry was number 37, and check the punch card to see that the tab for number 37 (now missing because I'd punched it, and tabs labeled in five- or six-point type) was punched. Could I check my ballot both ways? Yes. Was one of them easier to check? I personally found, based on experience with both, the touch screen review page to be MUCH easier than checking the punch card. YMMV. I KNOW that there are people who vote who, even with their glasses on, cannot read the numbers on the tabs on the punch cards.

      Yes, I worry about the opportunities for fraud with the electronic system. I'm not convinced that the processes in place do enough to detect and defeat such fraud. But I do believe that the touch screen made the process of voting easier, and that it will reduce the number of human errors made in the process of filling out the ballot.

    15. Re:accuracy and precision by WNight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quite right. Well-designed paper isn't hard to use and the trail it leaves is well worth it.

      Personally, I think the best bet is to have a touch-screen machine that spits out a punched card (pre-punched) for you to inspect, feed into the checking machine (which also provides the results, unless a manual recount is called for) and if you're satisfied that the second machine verifies the results of the first, it spits the card out into a locked box, or back into your hands if there's an error.

      That way you get the theoretical benefits of a touch-screen. (I work doing UI design - I'm sure the first few generations of machines will be a huge step back.) You also get a paper ballot (recountable if needed) and you get to run it through the counting machine yourself and make sure it reads the same settings you put into the first machine, as well as make sure it's obvious for a visual recount.

    16. Re:accuracy and precision by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Touch screens are a bad toy. I work at a science museum. Every few years the designers try to toss touch screens out on the floor. They are all dead withing 6 months. Assuming that they survive mechanically (most don't) many touch screen applications are too confusing for the general public to use. When I say General Public, I'm referring to the parents and grandparents being dragged around the building by 6-12 year olds.

      Paper ballots are a bad idea on several counts. First off, voting in the United States has to be anonymous. Having a reciept or some tangible sign you voted for one candidate or another is the first step in an ellaborate vote buying scheme. There are a ton of laws about this.

      In my state, the electronic voting machines are just that. Voting booths that use solid state electronics instead of levers and gears to do the counting. All of your choices are laid out on one 3 foot wide ballot in large text. You press the button next to the name you wish to elect. An LED tells you that the machine has registered your choice. A blinking light tells you what slots are still blank on your ballot.

      You can press as many buttons as you want, the machine only remembers the last selection. When you are satisfied with your ballot, you press a big friendly "VOTE" button.

      Internally the machine increments a counter for each one of the buttons you pressed. At the desk in which your registration was checked they have your signature, indicating you voted, and they recorded what machine you used so that in case of a problem with the equipment they would know whose ballot was spoiled and who to contact,

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    17. Re:accuracy and precision by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you know who the vote is credited to? With paper ballots (not receipts - that's something different) you can hold the paper in your hands and inspect the markings, making sure that it's for your candidate. You then put that in a box, confident that a vote counter could do the same thing later and see the same markings you saw.

      I don't believe that the computerized voting is doomed - ATMs seem fairly robust, but I don't trust it as far as I can throw it. Computerized voting needs to be only a way to present the choices and help the marking of the ballot, not the last black-box step.

    18. Re:accuracy and precision by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      The LED clearly tells me that my vote is going to the person I wish to elect. The teams of people checking voters in and periodically reading the counters off the machines assure me that they are checking up on the devices.

      And paper ballots are not perfect. Once your ballot goes in the box, you have no guarentee that someone will actually record it. You have to rely on the integrity of your polling officials. And since you elect them...

      Keep in mind, the electronic voting machines in PA are NOT these stupid touch screens. They are simply solid state versions of the mechanical voting machines from the '50s. One vote, one button, one light. I'm pretty sure if I raised enough of a stink they would let me see the counters before and after my vote to see that the device did in fact record it.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    19. Re:accuracy and precision by snol · · Score: 1

      Heard of Condorcet voting? It asks each voter to rank the candidates from most to least preferable and effectively runs a seperate election for each pair of candidates. If there's a candidate that wins every match, that candidate is the winner. In some situations there is no winner, and not just in tie situations: for example, with candidates A, B, C and 300 voters, say 110 vote A,B,C, 100 B,C,A, and 90 C,A,B. Should A win even though 190 of 300 people prefer C to A? It seems like common sense that since the majority prefers C to A, A shouldn't win, but that problem exists with any choice of a winner in that situation.

    20. Re:accuracy and precision by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      As I tried to say somewhere else in this page, but hopefully a bit better this time, even without sampling error there are possibilities of error. The crucial thing to understand is that the vote count is a measurement of the voter's intention to support a candidate. As such it is subject to measurement error. This error is a function of voter's IQ, difficulty of the ballot, loud distracting noises, angry people queueing, stuff like that. This one is unavoidable, though can be minimized by good education of the voters, designing good ballots, and getting rid of as many distractions as possible. Even then there will be measurement error and differences that lie within it should not be taken.

    21. Re:accuracy and precision by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      In general, I'm a fan of touchscreen ballots because they make it easier for the voters to check and correct their vots -- far easier than those darned punch cards.

      Not today, I was voting with a provisional paper ballot, but the guy next to me had lots of trouble with his touch screen. It kept on recording the wrong vote when he touched the screen. One of the poll workers had to help him out for every entry he made.

      The worst part is that they gave me "I TOUCHED THE FUTURE 'touch screen voting'" sticker. I didn't touch their fucking screen and I would have preferred a "I voted today" instead. And I'm sure the guy next to me would also have preferred the "I Voted" sticker.

  42. Voting by Tomahawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone said to me that, if you are living in an area where the vote is more or less decided (such as a very strong Bush locale, or a very strong Kerry locale), especially if you are voting the other way from the general populus, then don't waste your vote on either the Bush or Kerry side. Instead, vote for one of the smaller parties - if they receive 5% of the vote, then their funding is increased, and they may be able to work on something good in your area.

    This doesn't follow in all counties, just in those that are very very strongly Bush or Kerry, and you are voting the other way. 'Cos if you vote the other way, you vote will more or less be lost.

    Finally, no matter which way you are thinking of voting, go out and vote. If you don't know who to vote for, then vote for a 3rd party. But cast your vote!

    T.

    1. Re:Voting by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ...true, there's little risk of losing your state's EVs, but there is the matter of "winning enough". If the election is close, or if one candidate wins the popular vote while the other wins the EV, you can count on an ugly, protracted, bitter, divisive legal battle in the weeks ahead. We'll be far better off if there's a clear victor in today's election.

      If you have a genuine preference for a third party candidate, vote third party. Don't vote for a third party candidate simply because you're undecided on which candidate you prefer. Sadly, there's more to this election than simply winning 270 electoral votes...

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    2. Re:Voting by IsoRashi · · Score: 1

      This is precisely the reason why I voted for Nader today. I don't have a clue what Nader wants or what he stands for, but in my mind his party is the closest to being able to compete with the big two. My dad seemed to like my reasoning too and said he would be voting for Nader.

      My boss tried to ridicule my choice, said I was throwing my vote away. Well, NJ is very pro-Democratic, so it seems to me no matter how I vote (Kerry, Bush, or other), I won't have that much effect on the final results. In fact, it seems that this is the only way for me to make my vote really count.

      I'm completely with you--give your vote to the little guys and try to get them matched government funding. Choice is always a good thing.

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    3. Re:Voting by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1
      Instead, vote for one of the smaller parties - if they receive 5% of the vote, then their funding is increased, and they may be able to work on something good in your area.

      Or, you could vote for someone with principles, who doesn't believe you should be forced to fund him (through tax dollars) if you don't agree with him, and will refuse to accept matching funds even if he should reach the 5% qualification limit. There are two such candidates for president this year.

      "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

    4. Re:Voting by lupine · · Score: 1

      Even voting for a major canidate in a "safe" state is still worth something because the popular vote is still used to gage public opinion about a canidate. Of course the way bush has used his mandateless presidency to push his far right wing agenda doesnt bare that out, but even so if the president is again elected by the electoral college and not by the popular vote then it might wake people up to the fact that our election system is seriously fucked.

      We need election reform right here in the "worlds greatest democracy", but that wont happen without repeated demononstations of the flaws of our current system. So anyway, vote for your favorite canidate even if you live in a "safe" state, dont stay home because the polls told you who is going to win.

    5. Re:Voting by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 1

      The concept of votes to smaller candidates being 'wasted' is what keeps the USA in it's closed two party system.

      It's true that a vote for a smaller candidate is less likely to result in a win, but that doesn't make it a waste. The more votes go to smaller candidates, the more the major candidates will take notice and change their policies to take advantage of public opinion.

      Not only is no vote wasted, I'd actually argue that votes for smaller candidates had a larger effect than votes for mainstream candidates.

    6. Re:Voting by jazzwind · · Score: 1

      Please don't "not vote" just because your state is already "won". This is what the Republicans want. Read this by Michael Moore . Your state may be marginal. Also, it's important that Kerry be given a clear mandate. (Unless you're going to vote for Bush, then by all means stay home.)

    7. Re:Voting by ponxx · · Score: 1

      > This doesn't follow in all counties, just in those that are very very strongly Bush or Kerry, and you
      > are voting the other way. 'Cos if you vote the other way, you vote will more or less be lost.

      It is nothing to do with what *county* you live in, the only thing that matters is the state...

      Even if your county is 99.9% republican, if the republicans win the state by 1 vote, two extra votes against them in this county would tip the balance.

      At a state level he may be right thought

    8. Re:Voting by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      A nice lady in MA voted for Cobb for me so I could vote for Kerry and sleep at night.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    9. Re:Voting by mwa · · Score: 1
      ...true, there's little risk of losing your state's EVs, but there is the matter of "winning enough". If the election is close, or if one candidate wins the popular vote while the other wins the EV, you can count on an ugly, protracted, bitter, divisive legal battle in the weeks ahead.

      Like the last several months.... Oh wait, that wasn't a "legal" battle, just ugly, protracted, bitter and divisive. Never mind....

      So what do you want to challenge: the constitutionally mandated electoral college or the legislatively snuck in republicrat monopoly on elected offices?

      The first is a long and arduous task, regardless of how outraged people are, and requires 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of the states to pass an ammendment. Repeat after me: It's in the Constitution. No court in the land is going to abolish the electoral college as "unconstitutional."

      The second requires nothing more than not voting for them. And if we don't vote for them, most states now have laws requiring electoral votes to follow the "will of the people" (TM owned by [insert your state here]).

    10. Re:Voting by stanmann · · Score: 1

      And for those two candidates, merely taking 5% of the popular vote will be sufficient to vault them into signifigance.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    11. Re:Voting by wass · · Score: 1
      Not necessarily. That's what I did in 2000, I voted for Nader, living in a clearly obviosly Blue state.

      But the electon was so close in 2000, and will be this year. If Kerry barely wins, Republicans will claim for 4 years he didn't win the mandate. (Even though Bush didn't win a mandate, and lost the popular vote, but legislated from such an extreme agenda one would assume he won 90% to 10%).

      I voted for Kerry this year even though I'm in a Blue state and do like some 3rd parties. Just because I want to give legitimacy to Kerry's administration, if he's elected.

      The best way to gain exposure for 3rd parties is in local elections, that's definitely true. We have a green party sign for the city council rep in Baltimore, as well as Kerry/Edwards signs on our lawn.

      --

      make world, not war

    12. Re:Voting by LetterJ · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that Nader's "party" isn't the same as last time? When you run under different parties in sequential elections, you aren't very tightly affiliated with the party.

    13. Re:Voting by Minwee · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that you should wait until the results of the election are already in before casting your vote.

      Seems like there may be one tiny flaw in an otherwise perfect plan. Is there anybody here who voted for Nader last time knowing that Gore was going to win who can point out what that is?

  43. Vote! by luna69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    > And get out and vote if you can.

    No, no, no, no. Get out and vote EVEN IF YOU CAN'T.

    I don't care how hard it is, how inconvenient it is, what state you live in - think your state's tally is a foregone conclusion? So what - the totals still matter.

    Seriously, folks - no matter which "side" you're on, this election MATTERS. GO VOTE!

    Or don't complain for four years.

    --
    No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
    1. Re:Vote! by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, no, no, no. Get out and vote EVEN IF YOU CAN'T.

      I agree with the sentiment about everyone voting, but I'm finding rather difficult to vote for the US presidency this side of the Atlantic.

      Anyone got any recommendations as to how I can do so? ;-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    2. Re:Vote! by luna69 · · Score: 1

      > Anyone got any recommendations as to how
      > I can do so? ;-)

      I'll bet someone on ebay is selling vote...

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
    3. Re:Vote! by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

      Start swiming, bitch!

      >;)

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
  44. thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Surt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Looks like the early polls are favoring kerry 53/46/1 overall and 300/270ish electorally.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by caitsith01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's your source?

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    2. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Links please? I want to read the good news for myself.

    3. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "...and 300/270ish electorally."

      That's interesting, considering that there are only 529 electoral votes to be won.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    4. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the way this election has been going, I wouldn't be surprised

    5. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do Democrats vote early?

    6. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't just post something like that and not give a source dude. I'm thinking you're just making this up.

    7. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Feynman · · Score: 1
      That's interesting, considering that there are only 529 electoral votes to be won.

      Also interesting, 'cause I thought there were 538!

    8. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by randyest · · Score: 1

      No; late. Democrats vote tomorrow, November 3. Only registered Republicans may vote today.

      --
      everything in moderation
    9. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by ApharmdB · · Score: 1

      What a lame ass joke.

    10. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have at least linked this...

      http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=404 3& n=1

    11. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. And often.

    12. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by wass · · Score: 1
      Well, there was this site (or this one if it's /.ed) run by Andrew Tennenbaum, of Minix fame.

      It's cool, he has been updating electoral college maps for the past few months, based on various polls. I've only followed it for the past few weeks, and it's consistently shown Kerry leading. (Tennenbaum only 'came out of the closet' today to acknowledge who he was, it was pretty funny that I actually heard of the guy that ran that site.)

      I don't necessarily agree with his polling method. He chooses the most recent poll for each state, instead of either weighing or averaging several polls. For example, his current data uses the most recent polls from Wisconsin and Ohio from a notable poll that disagrees with many other polls highly favoring Kerry. Similarly, New Jersey has been shown by several polls to lead Kerry, but as per his rule he's sticking with a known Republican-oriented polling house. So he set his rules awhile ago and is still sticking to them.

      But he has been projecting a notable Kerry win (in electoral votes) for quite some time now, and bases this on his own personal weighing of various polls. His current EV prediction is a Kerry victory of 306 to 218. We'll see how close he comes.

      --

      make world, not war

    13. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows how many there is!

      But we'll all see it when it gets printed out of the Diebold machines..

      God bless America!

    14. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by KenSeymour · · Score: 1

      It is not just a joke. There is a story of fliers being circulated in Allegheny County, PA that say:

      Voters will be able to vote on both November 2 and November 3. In an attempt to limit voter conflict Allegheny County is requesting that the following actions be made:

      Party Voting Date
      Republican November 2
      Democrat November 3

      Here is an scanned image of the
      flyer.

      I have not visited this web site before, so I will not vouch for their credibility, but they have a lot of stories of voter intimidation and suppression.
      Here is a map of their stories

      by state.

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    15. Re:thank goodness, looks like kerry is winning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poll-fairy.

  45. Collapse the System In On Itself. by muntumbomoklik · · Score: 0

    On your ballot, choose to write-in a candidate and write your own name down. If everyone who voted did this, then the nation would have to realign its democratic system. And all of the politicans would be wetting their pants. :)

  46. fairfax county va by UVABlows · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The polls are swamped in fairfax. The procedure is as follows:

    1) Stand in line to get your id checked. If you are registered you get a blue index card.

    2) Stand in a different line with your card and wait for a winvote machine to open up.

    3) When it is your turn you present your card to the election worker that supervises the terminal that just opened up. She takes your blue card and unlocks the machine.

    4) You vote.

    Note that thing differentiating a random person that walked up to the machine and a registered, approved voter is posession of the blue card. Multiple people left after receiving their blue cards, saying they couldn't wait another hour and that they would return later. There is nothing stopping these people from reproducing the cards and returning multiple times. The voting places are an absolute packed madhouse, NO ONE would notice if someone just walked up to the second line with a blue card.

    Did anyone else see any other glaring holes in their election procedures?

    --

    <high-level position here>
    <name of stupid small company here>

    1. Re:fairfax county va by Vanguard(DC) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      im also in Fairfax, and we actually discussed this problem in line. There is nobody double-checking ID's at the booths, and there is nobody making sure people dont walk out after registering.

      the solution should have been to have folks check-in, then be forced to go straight into an area they cant leave from without giving up their card. monitor access to that room ensuring everyone has a blue card and arrives straight from the checkin table, and dont let any blue cards leave the room. (make sure there are restrooms in the second room! lol)

      I've been voting for 12 years, and today was just...odd! there is an underlying tension and general feeling of paranoia that has never been there before.

      it's very strange...

      --
      "I think, therefore I get paid."
    2. Re:fairfax county va by slungsolow · · Score: 1

      It was similar in Arlington (the long lines and the voter cards after registering), but once you got the card you were less than 2 minutes from voting, so everyone just waited.

      I would think that if you went up and verified your registration your name you were pretty much obligated to vote right then and there. Why waste the time you spent in line just to get a business card that says "VOTER". Thats pretty assine.

    3. Re:fairfax county va by josecanuc · · Score: 1

      At my polling place (College Station, TX), the election officials aren't letting any more than about 10 people inside the voting room at one time. You go to the roster and an official finds your name on the registration list, and then gives you a blue piece of paper with your polling district (there are about 30 polling places in the county).

      That blue paper is your "authorization" to obtain a 4-digit PIN from a nearby election official who operates a machine that generates the random numbers. You then take this new slip of paper with a 4 digit number to one of the approx. 10 e-Slate voting machines and enter your PIN and then you may begin voting.

      Sounds very similar to your place of voting, except for the limiting of the number of people allowed in the "voting" room at one time.

    4. Re:fairfax county va by hsmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah I just got back from voting in Fairfax, a fucking MAD house.

      i liked the winvote machines, and how there was no redundency with the system. each machine is independent. how do these fly as standards? what happens if a machine falls and a HD is kicked? what will they do then?

      and for verification, how are you sure your vote is cast?


      No matter who wins, we lose!

    5. Re:fairfax county va by milton_wadams · · Score: 1

      I also voted in fairfax county VA and went through the same procedure. However, the line to get your blue card and the line to "cash" it in for your vote were contiguous, so I don't think it would have been allowed to skip ahead in the line just because you had a blue index card.

      On a side note, there were two democratic "Poll Watchers" there, but Republicans.

    6. Re:fairfax county va by AlinuxNCSU · · Score: 1

      I've done a lot of research into e-voting machines. Verification is a big problem. I think the lack of a paper trail is the biggest problem plaguing these machines. That having been said, there are safeguards and code audits that try to make sure things go smoothly. The idea is good, but these things can always be subverted.

      As for drive failures, this is less of a possibility. Each machine has three separate locations to back up the data--usually to a combination of flash memory and hard disk space, though some use battery-backed-up RAM.

      The WinVote machine also has 802.11b capability, so it's not necessarily true that data is only stored on the machine, though for the most part, officials disable the wireless capabilities until after the election, to aid in reporting.

      I predict that 90-95% of machines will properly report results and will work without problems. That's better than some other methods of voting. In an election that's going to be decided by 1-2% margins, it's definitely not enough.

      -Alex

    7. Re:fairfax county va by david.given · · Score: 1
      Note that thing differentiating a random person that walked up to the machine and a registered, approved voter is posession of the blue card.

      The blue cards are smart cards, right? Don't the machines mark them as being used once you've voted, and so they become unusable until they're reset by the voting officials?

      That's the way any sensible person would design the system; OTOH, this is Diebold...

    8. Re:fairfax county va by UVABlows · · Score: 1

      The lines were nowhere near contiguous and there was no supervision at my polling place. After waiting outside for a long time, you get to the gym where there are 6 unlabeled lines. The odd lines are for people that have blue cards and the even ones are for receiving blue cards. Because the lines are unlabeled everyone was walking around from line to line not knowing which one to go to. There was no one at the back of the 6 lines to tell the voters what each line was for.

      --

      <high-level position here>
      <name of stupid small company here>

    9. Re:fairfax county va by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Vienna, VA, the line was 1.5 hours @ 10pm! A woman standing in line behind me had been voting at the same place for 42 years (she showed me her registration card so I know it's true) and said she had never seen anything like it.

      So you get to the rolls part and they verify you by asking what address you live at, while they are pointing to you name on the nicely readable printout. It would have been pretty easy to give some neighbor's name with a bogus card and get another vote. Then they give you a ripped-in-half blue index card with "Voting Permit" written by hand on one side. I stood in the next line for 30 minutes after that, and meanwhile the exit cuts through the line so there are people going every which way. And a bathroom that somebody could pop out of with a fake blue card and vote again.

      Not that it would matter. The voting is on WinVote machines with no paper trail at all (let alone verifiable).

      So at the end of the day there could be people easily going to several voting places and voting multiple times, zero security, and no way to know your vote even counted. I miss voting in Richmond where at least you got a punch card that went into a giant stack, and there was no delay between getting your card and voting with it. That's probably newfangled now too though.

    10. Re:fairfax county va by UVABlows · · Score: 1

      No, the blue card is a piece of cardboard. The election official that stands over each machine has some kind of plastic card that s/he puts in the machine to unlock the machine after taking the blue card (and doing nothing with it) from the voter.

      --

      <high-level position here>
      <name of stupid small company here>

    11. Re:fairfax county va by STrinity · · Score: 1

      The blue cards are smart cards, right?

      No, they're blue cards. Plain, cardboard cards.

      Virginia is still in the transition to electronic machines. At my polling place there was one WINvote machine and five mechanical ones. You can't swipe a smartcard in the mechanical ones.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    12. Re:fairfax county va by focus242 · · Score: 1

      When I went to the polls this morning, I did not need to show id, a voter registration card or anything. I simply filled out a card that stated my address, signed the "book", and stood in line until it was my turn. Using the NC board of elections web site, somebody could have easily looked up my address or anybody else for that matter in my local area and guessed the closest polling place and posed as a registered voter. This is ridiculous! I don't think anybody in that small town of retirees would try to pull of a scheme like this, but in bigger cities where this mistake is being made, there is more likely a chance that it could happen.

    13. Re:fairfax county va by Loacher · · Score: 1

      The United States of America could learn something from the Unites States of Mexico.

      After 60 years of corrupt elections, we have experience with a lod of fraud and fraud prevention techniques.

      One of the favourite was the Carrousel. To implement the Carrousel, you fill a 10 Ton truck with as many sympathetic people as you can find, and tour all the booths you can making sure everyone votes. Yo repeat since opening till closing hour. Breakfast and lunch breaks are optional, but you MUST provide each voter with a sandwich and a Coca Cola.

      This stopped working once we got voting card with photo. The card gets punched with a special press, and you get your thumb stained with an indelible brown ink.

      Having a brown thumb gives one a good sense of civic achievment, and you can easily tell the absentees apart and bug them.

    14. Re:fairfax county va by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      802.11b on a voting machine? What is stopping a wardriving hacker from taking over the election!

    15. Re:fairfax county va by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1
      I checked out that WinVote website.

      The slogan at the top: "Helping shape American History for over one hundred years" is too rich.

      This makes me think of the quote attributed to Joseph Stalin:
      "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    16. Re:fairfax county va by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that they would return later. There is nothing stopping these people from reproducing the cards and returning multiple times.

      If they tried that, the people in the hour-long line would be liable to kick their asses for cutting in.

      Chances are, when they came back from wherever they were, someone caught them and made them go through the line again.

    17. Re:fairfax county va by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      My card was yellow. :)

      A couple people had to leave, and I think they had to give back the card.

    18. Re:fairfax county va by UVABlows · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't be cutting, they would go to the back of the "people with blue cards line". I guess you had to be there to understand the magnitude of cluster-fuckedness there, but there was no way anyone was getting caught, there were people jumping from and to the back of all the lines because no one was there to tell them which line they needed to be in. Some other voters tried to be "helpful" and tell people which line they needed to go to, but that just added to the confusion because they were frequently wrong.

      --

      <high-level position here>
      <name of stupid small company here>

    19. Re:fairfax county va by Lxy · · Score: 1

      In my precinct, we follow a similar process except that we have paper ballots instead of voting machines. The real kicker? Our slips of paper are black and white, I could easily slip into the back room and run off as many copies as I pleased. The only thing stopping me from doing so is my precinct size, everyone knows everyone so I'd be spotted if I tired to vote twice.

      I can see how larger precints using the same tactics could be easily duped into lettng people vote several times.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
  47. Obligatory post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Diebold is dying!!1!one!!for(int i=0; i549id!eight

  48. 866-OUR-VOTE by base_chakra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you have any problems at your polling place, call the Election Protection hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683). This is not the time for complaisance.

  49. Publishing results while voting continues by Stephen · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'd like to hear what Americans think about results and exit polls for eastern states being published before polls in western states have closed.

    In the rest of the democratic world, as far as I know, this is illegal. It seems to us that it goes against having a fair election. And yet in America it is normal practice. Why?

    --
    11.00100100001111110110101010001000100001011010001 1000010001101001100010011
    1. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by plaiddragon · · Score: 1

      The US is the land of instant gratification. We want to know, and we want to know now. I agree, it could be bad for elections, but I don't think its going to be stopped.

      --
      * * * --they cant all be your best, that would be confusing
    2. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by cameroon33 · · Score: 1

      While this used to be illegal here in Canada, our Supreme Court overturned the law just before our election this Spring. This followed an individual on the East Coast publishing results of the election before polls closed in the West.

      The thrust of the law seemed to keep westerners eager to vote by hiding the fact that, at least here in Canada, eastern results can settle the election outcome. This logic didn't seem to hold water.

    3. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by micromoog · · Score: 1
      As an American, I too think this should be illegal. In fact, I'd go as far as to say no one should attempt to declare a winner until the following morning.

      That said, I'll probably be keeping up with the "score" all day and all night, because it's there.

    4. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no same problem in canada

    5. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by blengino · · Score: 1

      Not only that, in Argentina its even illegal to wear a pin, a t-shirt o somethig that resembles propaganda

      --
      Sorry about my bad english, isn't my natural language
      America starts in Tierra del Fuego and ends in Alaska
    6. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by STrinity · · Score: 1

      In the rest of the democratic world, as far as I know, this is illegal. It seems to us that it goes against having a fair election. And yet in America it is normal practice. Why?

      Because the democratic process exists to safeguard our rights. Sacrificing freedom of the press for fair elections negates the whole point for having the elections.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    7. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sadly, there is NOTHING fair about our election process:

      - Only the candidates from the Republicans and Democrats can win an election, because our voting method sucks and people consider a vote for a "3rd party" a wasted vote.

      - Due to the electoral college, people in sparse states have votes that count more than people in populous states. I'm sick of hearing that the candidates won't visit or pay attention to some rural area without the electoral college. Bullshit. It doesn't matter anyway, the candidates spend all their time in "swing states." The electoral college replaced one problem with another.

      - Due to the electoral college, people voting for the losing candidates in each state have wasted their vote. Imagine a situation where Republicans nearly beat Democrats in the state of California. Let's say it is 45/55 in favor of the Democratic candidate. California is a huge state, and that represents a very large number of votes, but all those Republican votes are worthless. It doesn't matter if the Dem wins California by 1 vote or 1,000,000 votes.

      - As you said, you're allowed to report on polls closing before all polls have closed. You've got exit polling going on and national broadcasts calling the races before all ballots have been cast. This has a direct effect on whether people go out to vote.

      - Voter fraud is rampant. I know this because there is nothing to stop it. There is very little done to prevent people from being able to vote absentee in multiple states. If you try to challenge a voter that is voting in the wrong precinct, you are accused of voter intimidation. Of course there is rampant fraud in this atmosphere. The only thing that could help is secured, connected, electronic vothing methods that would require ID scans and hashing to prevent duplicate votes while retaining anonymity -- but this won't happen in my lifetime (and I'm young).

      - In state elections, the tyranny of the majority is rampant. In California this year, there is a proposition on the ballot that you can vote for to raise the taxes of people making more than a million dollars a year! That is so wrong, I can't even believe it! One group of people get to vote to take money away from another group. OF COURSE it is going to pass! There are more people making less than a million than more. I don't make anywhere near a million dollars, but I recognize lunacy when I see it.

      We need to can the electoral college, and move to a better voting method. (IRV? Approval Voting? Something.)

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    8. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by Stephen · · Score: 1
      Because the democratic process exists to safeguard our rights. Sacrificing freedom of the press for fair elections negates the whole point for having the elections.
      I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it, if only because most countries with free elections and a free press come down the other way. In most democracies, a tiny restriction on the rights of the press for a few hours is seen as a small price to pay for a fairer election. So I don't think you can make such definitive statements.
      --
      11.00100100001111110110101010001000100001011010001 1000010001101001100010011
    9. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by Stephen · · Score: 1
      Due to the electoral college, people voting for the losing candidates in each state have wasted their vote. Imagine a situation where Republicans nearly beat Democrats in the state of California. Let's say it is 45/55 in favor of the Democratic candidate. California is a huge state, and that represents a very large number of votes, but all those Republican votes are worthless. It doesn't matter if the Dem wins California by 1 vote or 1,000,000 votes.
      Maybe I'm nitpicking, but this is not strictly due to the electoral college, but to the way (most) states decide to send delegates to the electoral college. There's nothing to stop states allocating their delegates in a fairer way. Unfortunately the biggest states have a disincentive to do so, because if they do, they will only swing half a dozen votes instead of twenty, thirty, or more.
      --
      11.00100100001111110110101010001000100001011010001 1000010001101001100010011
    10. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Due to the electoral college, people in sparse states have votes that count more than people in populous states.

      Each state gets an equal say by virtue of being one of the United States, then the states with more people get a population bonus.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    11. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by corngrower · · Score: 1
      Are you talking 'when voting' or 'at any time'?

      I certainly hope it's not the latter.

    12. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by raehl · · Score: 1

      One group of people get to vote to take money away from another group.

      Sounds like Congress.

    13. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      - Only the candidates from the Republicans and Democrats can win an election, because our voting method sucks and people consider a vote for a "3rd party" a wasted vote.

      Well isn't that their fault? It isn't the government's job to cure the public of all their little idiosyncracies.
    14. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by hopemafia · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your general opinion that the US elections system is FUBAR, I have a couple bones to pick...

      Regarding the electoral college, and your vote not counting: In a direct popular election, you could say that every vote for the loser doesn't count...since it doesn't matter whether you win by one vote or 1,000,000, you'd still be President. So which is worse, the losing party votes in each state "not couting" or the losing party votes for the whole country "not couting"? In the end, the presidency is a winner take all election...there's no way around it.

      You mention the lunacy of of that CA ballot issue, but fail to see that the electoral college was designed to prevent exactly that kind of thing. The people* of less populous colonies were afraid that the large states would try to impose their will on them, and thus forced the Senate and electoral college to be included before they would ratify the Constitution.

      * Note the "people" was only the rich landed white males, but that has been fixed (mostly, still working on the rich part) by the very government they designed.

      Of course, many things have changed since those days, but I think the EC has served us well, and still continues to do so. The US is still a federation of states, albeit with considerably less sovereignty than earlier (and whether that is good or bad is another discussion altogether). When you vote in CA, you are voting to decide what candidate your state will support for president, because the president is elected by the states, not the people. The people are the citizens of the states, and the states are the citizens of the federal government (weighted according to the Constitution to protect the minority, but respect the majority).

      --
      If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
    15. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well isn't that their fault? It isn't the government's job to cure the public of all their little idiosyncracies.

      Don't be a nitwit. People think their vote is wasted because it IS wasted. There are better voting methods that allow you to cast a vote for your preference while still allowing you to cast "backup" votes for lesser evils.

    16. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by blengino · · Score: 1

      It is the latter. We have a veda (i don't know the word in english), that is, a total prohibition of propaganda (and public reunions -such as futbol, movies, discos-, and alcohol sales, etc.) for 48 hours before the election begins and until it ends (tipically 18:00). That includes the polls also. You can't tell the result of a poll, for the matters the media can only show the candidates voting, and the people talking about the time they have to wait, etc.

      --
      Sorry about my bad english, isn't my natural language
      America starts in Tierra del Fuego and ends in Alaska
    17. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by STrinity · · Score: 1

      I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it, if only because most countries with free elections and a free press come down the other way.

      Well bully for them. But this isn't one of those countries. Freedom of the press is written into our Constitution; fair elections are not.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    18. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      I'd like to hear what Americans think about results and exit polls for eastern states being published before polls in western states have closed

      As an Ohio voter, whose politics on this issue may be gently described as Ohio uber alles, I find myself as concerned about this as much as I do Western TV audiences getting TV programs at weird times (when shifting isn't possible.) There are disadvantages and advantages to living anywhere, and this is just an example.

    19. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by glitchvern · · Score: 1
      I'd like to hear what Americans think about results and exit polls for eastern states being published before polls in western states have closed.

      In the rest of the democratic world, as far as I know, this is illegal. It seems to us that it goes against having a fair election. And yet in America it is normal practice. Why?

      Because our goverment was created before such a thing was possible and momentum carries a lot of weight around here. I was pretty sure after the media called Florida for Gore in the 2000 election an hour before polls had closed in the western much more Republican part of the state, that we would have laws to stop it this time, but our attention was directed elsewhere in the insuing disaster that resulted. We did have a few hearings in Congress on the subject and the media promised to do really better this time around. I am really against the publishing of exit polls before the election is over in all states. It makes me feel good to know this election could come down to Hawaii which is 5 hours behind the Eastern Time Zone
    20. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by oh · · Score: 1
      In California this year, there is a proposition on the ballot that you can vote for to raise the taxes of people making more than a million dollars a year! That is so wrong, I can't even believe it! One group of people get to vote to take money away from another group.


      Sounds like democracy.
      --
      Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
    21. Re:Publishing results while voting continues by SsShane · · Score: 1

      Because we have an unnacountable media, a ghost in the machine that actually thinks for a good number of Americans. It totally freaks me out.

  50. Remember to vote, or else by Savatte · · Score: 1, Redundant

    P. Diddy will kill you

  51. yee haw by comet69 · · Score: 0, Troll

    think of it this way,

    atleast with a Douche, you'll feel fresh and clean.. like a new start.. less worries.. and no iritation..

    however, 4 more years of a turd sandwich, i mean.. how good could that be??

    btw, the drudgereport is the worst source for you news you could possibly use.. right next to fox..

    for such a liberating site like slashdot, since it promotes awesome rebellious operating systems like linux and unix, how could you vote for someone like bush? i almost feel that someone who uses linux, and is passionate about it, as far as its origin, and current day-to-day use, is very contradictory to their political beliefs, and is therefore quite the tard..

    make the right decision.. take a look around your neighborhoods.. cities and communities that are nicely planned are obviously signs of an educated society, and you see Kerry billboards everywhere.. you drive through the boondocks that can't even manage their own sewage, and you see nothing but Bush signs.. they are less educated people, therefore they vote for the less educated president.. and it just so happens they watch fox news.. the most uneducated news network..

    and jesus don't worry about fscking paying taxes... there's absolutely nothing beneficial you can get from life, without investing either time or money into it.. it makes sense.. you want to live a better life? vote for a president that manages your damn money better instead of throwing it away on killing innocent people..

    --
    - Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
    1. Re:yee haw by DaEMoN128 · · Score: 1

      While I take serious objection to the Killing of innocent people comment (I was there for 366 days and the only dead people I saw had recently fired weapons, and our vehicles had recently created holes), the underlying theme of only uneducated personnel vote Bush is rather insulting. I wont vote for Kerry because he has changed his position on several issues that I see very relavent, and he has voted to cut military spending. That in itself is killing of "innocent people". You can't protect if your equipment is broke and unavailable.

      I wont vote for Bush because I disagree with his economic policy.

      I would vote for a third party, but they have no chance of winning, so my vote still dont count.

      Instead I sit at work, knowing that I have no reason to bitch, cant if I want to (depends on how they want to interprit the regs), and realize that I dont care eitherway because it isnt going to change jack.

      BTW, IMO, Kerry's plan may have worked in the beginning, but wont be anymore effective now because of the situation on the ground (coming from first hand expierence).

      --
      Stop signs are only Suggestions
    2. Re:yee haw by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      for such a liberating site like slashdot, since it promotes awesome rebellious operating systems like linux and unix, how could you vote for someone like bush? i almost feel that someone who uses linux, and is passionate about it, as far as its origin, and current day-to-day use, is very contradictory to their political beliefs, and is therefore quite the tard..

      Well, it's like this. I didn't vote for either Bush or Kerry, and truthfully, there aren't really any major differences between them.

      That said, I kind of hope Bush wins because:

      a.) He has a cooler proposal for the future of the space program, and

      b.) There's nothing funnier than an angry liberal, and if Bush wins, there will be lots of angry liberals!

      Hey, it ain't much, but it's something!

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    3. Re:yee haw by comet69 · · Score: 1

      my point was just proven thanks to your fine example of tard-ness...

      --
      - Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
  52. Slashdot stress test by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    This will be interesting as we find out just how many comments the database will handle in one day. I think the previous record was around 2000 or so on 9/11. Happy voting to all.

    1. Re:Slashdot stress test by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Try the attack on Iraq - 4183 comments (including -1 posts)

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    2. Re:Slashdot stress test by abb3w · · Score: 1
      Well, today's slashdot election poll has itself apparently been Slashdotted; I've been alternately getting 503 and 500 errors for the last hour. =)

      The Votemaster is reporting another "attack" this morning, but I think he may have just seen a CNN-grade slashdotting. =) Of course, even at the worst that I saw (when I checked it at 8ish after my morning comics), the attack didn't reach the third of his eight servers. Fortunately, he also reports he has co-workers who are researching flash crowds. Lucky them!

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  53. Slashdot Poll Good News For Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Considering how rabidly Anti-Bush most Slashdot editors and readers are, it's surprising that Bush (or, more accurately, "Not-Kerry") still manages to pull 25% of the Slashdot poll.

    Obviously an online poll isn't accurate, but it could translate into excellent numbers for Bush if you consider that one quarter of a Democrat-biased stronghold plans on voting against Kerry.

  54. Listen to this mp3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The truth about John Kerry. It's kinda scarry ;)

  55. Best of Luck ... by goodhell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to all the candidates who are running today. I sincerely hope that the "best" candidate wins.

    One of my even greater hopes is that whoever loses will concede and allow the victor to take the publicly appointed position. Especially in the presidential race. I feel that this country should unite under the leadership of the president regardless of who they voted for, but whoever was elected. The electoral college, given power by the people, gets to decide who the president of the United States will be for the next four years, for good or ill. I hope and pray that whoever wins will have the courage and fortitude to lead us in the next few years. I also hope and pray the "loser" will have the courage to admit defeat and let the country move forward.

    We may not particularly like the choices, but let's be the best people we can be and progress from there. Best of luck/karma!!!

  56. To our American Friends... by zx75 · · Score: 1

    We Understand Your Pain

    - A very interesting read, article at the TorontoStar. Let me know if you cannot access it and I'll post the text.

    --
    This is not a sig.
    1. Re:To our American Friends... by The+Queen · · Score: 1

      Do ya have a login we can use, perhaps?

      --

      The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
    2. Re:To our American Friends... by zx75 · · Score: 1

      See AC reply to parent (thanks!), article text was posted.

      --
      This is not a sig.
  57. Hey come on! by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

    I can joke about the election as much as the next person, but at least have some composure, people!

    That being said, let's hope there aren't any shennagans with the outcome this time like in 2000 :P

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
  58. Equipment Review: by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 1

    In my county we do things right. No expensive, uneliable, hackalicious electronic gear. I voted with a pen, on a card. That card goes in a scantron machine - the same technology that we've all been using since 7th grade. I'm very happy with voting this way.

    In other news: is it just me or did /. just /. itself?

    --
    Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
  59. Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Skraut · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Tried to vote this morning, Gave my Name, Address, and showed my Drivers License, and was told I wasn't registered. I pulled out my voter registration card, to prove that I was registered, and the attendant looked in her book and told me that there were no voters registered at my address. Despite me having a 20 day old card stating the opposite

    I leaned in and looked at the book (breaking every rule in the book by looking at the book) and saw my name and pointed to it. The attendant looked at my name and stated, "but your drivers license says 2950 Ridge Rd, but in my book it says 2951 Ridge Rd" (an address which does not exist)

    She spent 20 minutes on the phone with the board of elections trying to figure out what it is she was supposed to do.

    Despite having a drivers license with 2950, a voter registration card with 2950, she was bound and determined not to let me vote because her book said 2951. I asked what paperwork I would need to fill out if I wanted to claim that I had moved. She explained that I could fill out the paperwork, but my vote would not be counted until the paperwork cleared. Figuring that would mean my vote would only be counted in a disputed recount situation (if even then) this wasn't acceptable to me either.

    Finally another attendant called the Board of Elections (because I was starting to get very agitated) and discovered I could fill out the change of address forms with me, vote, and then turn the forms into the board of elections today.

    I'm still not convinced my vote will get counted. I was given an "I Voted" sticker, and wondered if I did or not.

    --
    Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
    1. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Leviathant · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Interesting. I haven't voted yet, but I will after work, and I suspect I'll run into a similar issue.

      I moved from Lancaster, PA to Harrisburg, PA at the beginning of October, and changed my address online through PennDOT, who in turn sent my information to the Elections Registration Bureau.

      I received my new Dauphin County registration card a day after the books closed in Harrisburg. The funny thing was that someone had altered my name and changed my party affiliation to Republican.

      I've contacted local newspapers and tv stations, no one cares to follow up. I posted something touching on it on my website, and got mail from another PA voter, his registration never came to him after he moved.

      I talked to Harrisburg, they said it came from Lancaster. I talked to Lancaster, they started out confused but helpful, then turned kind of shady, and told me that PennDOT made the error.

      Either way, I'll bet that even if I do vote, my vote will be thrown out in the recount. I'd like to find out who's going through registrations and tampering them though. That's seriously bad news.

      --
      I am Leviathant and I approve this message.
    2. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Very interesting... I am sorry that you had trouble performing your civic duty today, but I am likewise glad that poll-workers are on the ball and at least doing their job and hopefully your vote will be counted in the end.

      While I am by no means accusing your of any wrongdoing, I understand how even what seems like such a minor detail or error on someones part (transcribing a 0 to a 1) may be used for vote fraud:

      Consider an unscrupulous individual who wishes commit fraud. That person could register to vote using 10 differnt permutations on his legitimate address. Thus to anyone cross-checking the registration rolls, it might slip by in that the names are the same but the addresses are all different. On election day, this idividual might be able to go to each of the different precincts that he registered in, pull out a perfectly form of ID and and in each case make the argument that there must have been a mistake. I don't think this would be easy to pull-off, and it isn't exactly what you describe (your address was correct on your voter registration card) but it is at least conceivable...

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    3. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 1

      If there's a dispute ...

      I thought you were supposed to fill out a provisional ballot?

      Cheers,
      -- The Dude

    4. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by KontinMonet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Call the toll free voter alert line: 1-866-MYVOTE1

      --
      Did he inhale?
    5. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by AlinuxNCSU · · Score: 1

      I know it's none of my business, but I'm just curious. What state do you live in? What is your demographic? (Age, race, ethnicity...)

      Given your story, I think it's plausible that you were discriminated against. I'm just curious what could have caused that.

      -Alex

    6. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you live in VA be sure to submit this http://www.sbe.state.va.us/hava/ElectionDay-Compla int-Form.pdf document.

    7. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Skraut · · Score: 1

      I'm 27, Caucasian, registered as an independant in a very Republican rural Ohio county.

      --
      Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
    8. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Troed · · Score: 1

      Party affiliation?

      On your registration card?

      I don't get it. Actually I don't get anything about elections in the US - you seem to make EVERYTHING complicated. I've never had to stand in line to vote, no one is allowed to try to influence my vote at the voting station, my political views and affiliations are mine only etc etc ... oh, and our votes are counted and ready incl paper trails (they're paper&pen) in just a few hours ...

    9. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Figuring that would mean my vote would only be counted in a disputed recount situation (if even then)
      Uh, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? That makes so little sense it's a wonder you can even remember to breathe.

      I'm surprised you're not claiming Bush is going to show up at your house and personally fuck you in the anus while rubbing your ballot on his chest.

    10. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      So what's your point? It sounds like she did exactly what she's supposed to do: Verify that only people who should be voting are voting. There was a descrepency in the records, so she tried to figure out what she should do.

      Yes, I agree that it was an obvious mistake, but do you really want to pollsters "bending the rules" whenever problems come up? Exactly what rule should be used to "just let people vote"?

      Bravo for the attendent trying to run a fair election.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    11. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The affiliation is actually only necessary for the primaries. In states where they care, you can only vote in the Republican primary if you're a registered Republican. The stated goal is to prevent Democrats from voting for the worst Republican candidate in the primary and vice-versa. The states that do this though typically also prevent people who have registered either way from counting when it comes to getting third parties on the ballot. IE, if you want to support any third party you have to have registered as independent.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    12. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you can't look at the book. Here in Texas, we sign the book right next to our names to prove we voted. In fact, it's specially designed so that the line to sign on is upside-down relative to your name so that the voting officials can read your name and have you sign without having to turn the book around.

      For the first several elections I voted in, I always had to help the official disambiguate my Dad's name from my own in the book, since we have the same name. (The birthdates are pretty radically different, though. :) ) This year Dad and I live in different cities, but I did have the thrill of seeing a second line with my last name, which was promptly signed by my new wife. :)

    13. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      You aren't black by any chance, are you? ;)

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    14. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by dOxxx · · Score: 1

      Is that 1-866-MYVOTE1 or 1-866-MYVOTE0?

    15. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Feynman · · Score: 1

      I recently moved to Iowa from Minnesota, registered to vote by mail, and received a registration card where my birth year was listed as "19yx" instead of "19xy."

      I called the auditor's office and the woman I talked to confirmed that I filled out my registration card correctly, but someone in their office mis-typed it into the system. She told me, "It's a good thing you called. If you had a problem voting and the poll worker called to verify your registration, we would have told them, 'No...there's nobody with that name, at that address, born in 19xy.'"

      Supposedly it's been corrected, but I never received a new card.

      Here's hoping I can vote today!

    16. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My God, that's nothing.

      I tried to vote for Kerry this morning, and was taken aside and gang-raped by a group of rough hairy men wearing Ashcroft and Nixon masks!

      That's it, I'm moving to France!

    17. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by tabdelgawad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The other side of the "voter fraud" coin is "voter suppression". The original poster could've just as easily decided voting was not worth the additional time and hassle. In fact, it's still possible his vote won't count despite trying to resolve the issue.

      This very tradeoff has been playing in the courts in Ohio (see any national newspaper), with Republicans wanting 'election monitors' at many polling stations to challenge possible fraud, and Democrats claiming it's voter suppression. A federal appeals court *today* reversed two Ohio court decisions *yesterday*, and monitors will be allowed.

      There's a balance to be struck here. Guarding against every "conceivable" fraud will have a cost in legitimate vote suppression.

      There's an analogy to a tradeoff between computer security and usability, but I've rambled long enough :)

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    18. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by yali · · Score: 1

      You did the right thing by fighting to have your ballot cast as a regular ballot. If they had not allowed you to, though, then they are required by federal law to let you cast a provisional ballot, and your poll worker should have known this. They can then sort out the situation later on, and if your vote was legit, count it.

    19. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by smudge · · Score: 1

      In my state (NY) you are assigned a voting location based on your address. That said, he would only get 1 vote.

    20. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by corngrower · · Score: 1
      As I voted today, ahead of me was someone who had moved and now lived in a different precint than the one he registered in. He too had been given something of a runaround by election attendants.

      I'm wondering if his vote would be counted as well.

    21. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Texas, we sign the book right next to our names to prove we voted. In fact, it's specially designed so that the line to sign on is upside-down relative to your name so that the voting officials can read your name and have you sign without having to turn the book around.

      Same here in Pennsylvania.

    22. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Skraut · · Score: 1
      The point is, somehow my information CHANGED at the board of elections from the time I registered to vote and recieved a card with the correct address on it, to the time I showed up to vote.

      This means either 1) the board of elections manually typed out the voter registration book, and who knows how many other mistakes are in there...

      or 2) My information was physically CHANGED at the board of elections.

      If my votes are not counted that means that no matter how secure evoting might someday become, a person can still be denied their right to vote by a hacker and a few changed numbers.

      --
      Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
    23. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      In PA we have the same system. It also has a copy of our signature on file so they could compare the two. Since I voted at this precinct before, it was pretty much "Good morning Mr. Woods, machine #2 is open."

      Vote early. Vote often. (I vote in every election.)

      BTW congrats. I've been married 4 years and I'm still getting used to having another person with the same last name in the house ;). Actually 3 now, we had a little one last November.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    24. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by NivenHuH · · Score: 1

      *shrug* somebody in line here didn't have the same address anymore and the polling-person didn't give em any grief at all..

      --
      Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
    25. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Flashpot · · Score: 1

      It must really *suck* to be you, W!

      --
      That which does not kill her only prolongs my agony.
    26. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't understand the statement, you are an idiot.

    27. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      It also has a copy of our signature on file so they could compare the two.

      That's a smart idea. I don't think we have that in Texas, although I could be wrong. Pretty brain dead. We were saying after lunch I could have given my card to anyone and they could have made my vote for me. No ID is required in most circumstances.

      Vote early. Vote often. (I vote in every election.)

      Since 1996 I have been saying that exact same sentence every election day, but as a joke about election fraud. :)

      BTW congrats. ... Actually 3 now, we had a little one last November.

      Thanks. :) Our little one is on the way. Still working out what programming language to teach him or her first. :)

    28. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no understanding to be had in the statement, because it's 100% vaporous bullshit.

      Provisional ballots _are counted_, unless it is determined that the voter is ineligible. They are not "only counted in a disputed recount situation".

      Sit the fuck down, and shut the fuck up, until you fucking learn at least one thing about the US election process. Got it?

    29. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      ROTFL!!!!

      Thank you for bringing a big grin to my face.

    30. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by omeomi · · Score: 1

      In my state, at least (Illinois), you don't have to provide any ID in order to vote. I don't know if this is the same in other states, but I definitely only told my name and address to the person behind the desk, so having the wrong address on my drivers license wouldn't have caused any problems whatsoever. Do other states require identification?

    31. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Siggy200 · · Score: 1

      Had to argue that I registered to vote when I changed my address for a new drivers license. That was over a year ago the polling place never received my registration, now that is Government "working?" for us. But did get to cast my ballot after fifteen minutes of filling out a new registration card and waiting for a slow person ahead of me to get theirs done.

    32. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by guyincorporated · · Score: 1

      Funny, I went in to vote today during my lunchbreak. I was somewhat worried because I hadn't gotten my voter information guide this time around (I'm guessing I tossed it with all the rest of the spam mail I get), and my drivers license lists a different address than my current address (the one I'm currently registered at.)

      So I find my correct line, pull out my wallet, walk up to the bluehair overseeing The Big Book, and give her my name. Looking down, I see it, point to it, and she says "oh, sign here please."

      I do so, she hands me a ballot, and I start voting. As I'm hanging my chads, it occurs to me that at no time did I present any form of identification whatsoever. This has been bothering me all afternoon. Seems like an open invitation for voter fraud.

    33. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      I had trouble voting this morning too, in Alameda County, CA, which uses Diebold voting machines. My problem wasn't related to the voting machines, but it looks like there are problems with how non-electronic votes are being handled (not to mention that Alameda country election workers were instructed not to tell people about their right to vote on paper).

      Despite the fact that I called the Alameda Country Registrar of Voters last week and confirmed that my GF and I had been registered, our names weren't on the list this morning. All we could do was fill out provisional ballots in the hope that it would be sorted out.

      While we were there, a woman came in and requested a paper ballot, the way we were going to if we had been allowed to vote normally. The poll worker responded by giving her a provisional ballot too, saying that those are the only paper ballots they have. So that's how Alameda county is handling people who don't trust the electronic voting machines: they throw them in with the people who may or may not even be allowed to vote. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that these votes will actually be counted (as I understand provisional ballots often aren't).

      Registration problems seemed to be a recurring theme this morning. While we were there we saw more people taking provisional ballots than using the machines. Unfortunately, it wasn't because people were requesting them, but because the rolls were so screwed up. To top it off, the poll location only had three (3) pens to fill them out with. Nice planning guys.

      We spoke to the guy in charge afterward and registered our complaints about the registration problems, the way non-electronic votes were being handled, and the utter lack of organization and knowledge on the part of the poll workers, this guy included. He actually said that we seemed to know more about it than he did. This is not what I want to hear from the people in charge of collecting votes.

      I called the registrar of voters afterward and confirmed again that we are registered and that we did in fact go the right polling location. The only explanation they could give me was that late registrations were sent to the voting locations separately and that maybe they weren't checking both lists. The woman I spoke to took down my complaint about this and the general incompetence we experienced and admitted that this doesn't come as a big shock to her. This last bit makes it even worse. If they are aware of the problems with the people running these things, why haven't they done something about it?

      This is my I Voted sticker.

      (mostly reposted from my LiveJournal)

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    34. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Still working out what programming language to teach him or her first.

      TCL is always good for a laugh.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    35. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      Took me 10 minutes from the moment I parked my car to vote and be done. No harassment, no anything. Voted at a polling station setup in a person's garage 1 mile away from my house here in California. Apparently, you once again have no idea what you're talking, i.e. no real life experience.

      By the way Troed, feel stupid about your prediction that Bin Laden was already captured and Bush was saving him for election time?

    36. Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" by Troed · · Score: 1

      No, why should I? The released tape three days (nice timing, whether it was Karl or Osama remains to be seen) before the election together with how high "terrorism" ranked on the voter's agenda accomplished the same thing.

      Your so-called democratic election is the laughing stock of the world. Yesterday an american writing on a forum my sister visits told everyone that in their county all early votes (before election day) had been "lost". If that would happen here it would be a HUGE scandal - but it seems the US doesn't care all that much about what the people wants.

  60. Re:More clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Site is slow after only 40 comments. Use the mirror.

  61. Dude... by the+phantom · · Score: 1

    you just used the word "hella". Fear my wrath! ^_^ That being said, I am forced to agree with the thrust of your argument: Go Kerry!

  62. All Hail President Kang by darthv506 · · Score: 1

    It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!

    1. Re:All Hail President Kang by flahavin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I voted for kodos.

  63. I already voted... by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 2, Funny

    and I was disgusted to see that my candidate was not on the ballot. I truly believe he can "end global terrorism within 24 hours."

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
  64. However, if you *do* vote, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you still can't complain! After all, you got what you wanted, didn't you?

    The only case in which you really can complain is if you voted for the loser. Or, "better" yet, can't vote.

  65. Kerry's going to win... by nautical9 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    According to snopes.com, it's a sure thing! ;-)

  66. I wanted to make a comment on the polls... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    but I couldn't get on /. I forget what I was going to say - because I am more concerned...did /. get /.'ed?

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    1. Re:I wanted to make a comment on the polls... by Backdraft32 · · Score: 1

      Yep, I keep getting this message... 503 Service Unavailable The service is not available. Please try again later. Its official http://www.patriotwebdesign.us/slash.jpg/ Or if that gets /.'ed http://www.boomspeed.com/backdraft/slash.jpg/

    2. Re:I wanted to make a comment on the polls... by Backdraft32 · · Score: 1

      Of course, I am an idiot and included trailing slashes on my picture links, so they wont work... Try this. http://www.patriotwebdesign.us/slash.jpg or if already /.'ed http://www.boomspeed.com/backdraft/slash.jpg

    3. Re:I wanted to make a comment on the polls... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I have a few statements in my life that are considered my "favorite" and now is the time for one of them:
      dag

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  67. No choices by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    There's only one option here - you must vote for Fxjkhr. And remember - regime change begins at home.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  68. Why bother? It's stolen already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just look at all the machines that had hundreds of votes in them even before voting started. These elections are a complete fraud, they are thoroughly corrupted.

    Why bother voting? Just get out there and riot.

  69. Re:Here in VA -- WINVote by BobGregg · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Northern Virginia, they're using WINVote machines. I used one this morning in North Arlington - and waited TWO HOURS PLUS to vote.

    The wait was not due to the machines, though; they only had one set of voter rolls, and one person flipping through them to verify voters. They had us divided up into A-K and L-Z lines. The L-Z line was maybe 30-45 minutes; the A-K line was the aforementioned 2+ hours. I worry about how many people turned away from the lines, just because they didn't man the polls appropriately...

  70. Take politics somewhere else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the election over it would be nice to see the political discussion get moved somewhere. I've seen a couple mentions of something called "techmocracy", a democractic movement built on digital communication and collaboration.

    It might be worth breathing some life into evolutionary movements like that.

    http://www.techmocracy.net

  71. Your friends are watching you by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All around the world, we're watching you today. We love America, we want you to lead and inspire and show us what democracy and freedom and technology can do. But right now we're feeling scared, confused, and angry about what your President has lead you to do over the past three years.

    Please, give us back the America we admire and believe in. Don't turn yourselves into a religious state. Don't turn your back on the UN and the other peoples of the world - in the end we are people first, American or French or Iraqi or Chinese second. Give us back the America that went to the moon and carried out the Berlin airlift and brought us the IT revolution. Give us back the America of Kennedy's vision and MLK's dream.

    And please, don't let the world's most successful democracy be reduced to a joke with a repeat of last election's Floridan antics.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Your friends are watching you by cmburns69 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I appreciate your desire to see America return to it's former greatness. However, there is one thing that I've heard too many times to ignore. We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

      There is a big difference between the two forms of government. A democracy gives power directly to the people. A republic gives electoral power to the people, and the decision making power to the elected officials.

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    2. Re:Your friends are watching you by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      IIRC hasn't Kerry stated that if he loses then he will in fact start a repat of last election's recount antics?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    3. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a picture world...it'll last longer.

      Many parts of the world have believed and disbelieved in the U.S. at various times in the past. The U.S. shouldn't let that cloud it's judgement.

      We are not a religeous state. We are not a secular state. We are supposed to be an indifferent state on the topic of religeon. When you say don't turn yourselves into a religeous state, you really mean "turn secular". Yeah...like France...and Saddam's Iraq. Great.

      The U.N. has proven itself pointless. It will make endless resolutions and do nothing. (Unless of course, the U.S. does most of the work for it.) How does this benefit American's, or the world for that matter?

      Yes....we are all people first.

      We are alot like the America who went after the Nazi's actually. That was unpopular in alot of areas too...for awhile.

      I don't think Kennedy or MLK would have too hard of a time understanding the conflict we are in. Furthermore, if MLK was honest, he would oppose affirmative action - like Bush - because people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

      Sure...Florida sucked last time around, but you people overseas need to understand that you really don't get to decide what happens in someone else's democracy. Other democracies may elect people you just don't like. So I am going to end this rant, by begging the people of France and Germany to change their current leadership, who I believe have reduced Western European politics to a joke.

    4. Re:Your friends are watching you by Voytek · · Score: 1

      The only thing one needs to know about Arafat is that he wanted to wear a sidearm to the UN.

      The only thing one needs to know about the UN is that they let him.

    5. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it that you are not French ?

    6. Re:Your friends are watching you by skajake · · Score: 1
      >>Give us back the America of Kennedy's vision and MLK's dream.


      Lets see... Keneddy was pro tax cuts, pro military, pro faith based groups...

      MLK was pro freedom....

      Hrmmmmmmm, sounds like we already have what you are looking for

      --

      ~ Maintainer of the Skajake Projects

    7. Re:Your friends are watching you by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "But right now we're feeling scared, confused, and angry about what your President has lead you to do over the past three years."

      You think you're scared? I feel like I've been strapped into the back seat of an out of control taxi driven by a madman, helplessly watching him mow down people on the sidewalk.

    8. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post shows more than a little naivity. It's the same old show - it's the same country that A-bombed Japan (twice), the same country that proudly gave us the Bay of Pigs, deposed democratically-elected leaders in numerous countries, supported Saddam while he was gassing Kurds, etc. If ever there was a true Rogue State, the US is the best example of one. The US has not changed, it has only had a leadership less capable of subtlety.

    9. Re:Your friends are watching you by fwr · · Score: 1

      To (mis)quote the UN Secretary General, the UN is a Bananna Republic. The whole world was led on a humongous propaganda stint funded by the Oil For Food program, and the UN is totally responsible. It is an inept institution that is corrupt to its very core.

    10. Re:Your friends are watching you by iceperson · · Score: 1

      That same US that saved Europe from Hitler and Asia from Tojo. The same US that then rebuilt Europe after WWII. The same US that defeated Communist Russia. God bless the U.S.A.

    11. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the end we're Americans first and don't forget it! We've seen what the world was like before the US. So pardon us, if we don't trust the rest of you bastards!

    12. Re:Your friends are watching you by MC6809 · · Score: 1
      Please, give us back the America we admire and believe in. Don't turn yourselves into a religious state. Don't turn your back on the UN and the other peoples of the world - in the end we are people first, American or French or Iraqi or Chinese second.
      Horse biscuits. I am an American - not a world citizen. I am interested in taking care of America first and the rest of the world can kiss my lily-white American big toe.

      I know, I am the classic ugly american...

      However, anyone that expects me to run *my* decisions through a "world test" can plant their lips right *here*.
    13. Re:Your friends are watching you by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      Dear Friend,
      If the dumbass gets reelected, can I come crash at your place?
      Thanks,
      NardofDoom

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    14. Re:Your friends are watching you by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      And what have we done since? Defended medical students in Grenada from ... what? Sold weapons to Iran, a sworn enemy of the United States, to be used in a war with our (then) ally Iraq so we could fund an illegal war in South America. Get bogged down in a long, drawn out war that tore our nation apart, a war in a failed French colony that we had no business being in. A nice place called Vietnam.

      Yea, we did great things in WWII, and we outspent the Soviets, and hell, we put human beings on another celestial body. But we've lost what glory we had.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    15. Re:Your friends are watching you by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      By all means; if you feel that way, please go.

      When he was young, my father thought it would be the end of the world if Kennedy defeated Nixon. He did, and it was not. Thankfully, Dad didn't leave the country.

      When I was young(er), I thought it would be the end of the world if Clinton defeated Bush. He did, and it was not. I was convinced that would could survive four years, but that we absolutely had to get things right and fix it by electing Dole four years later. Nevertheless, the point was hammered home to me: the world does not end when your political candidate loses. I was upset, but I did not leave the country. Slowly I learned that the Presidency did not affect me directly near as much as my public school system had told me it did.

      We got Bush, like I wanted, for four years. In those four years, I've learned a lot, and to be honest I'd really rather have a third party candidate at this point. But in our system of two choices only, I prefer Bush. And at this point in time, it looks like a 50-50 tossup whether we'll get him or not. But I'm not making noises about leaving the country if we lose.

      Look, I think Kerry is a complete lunatic. I think he's got things completely backward. I think electing him will lead to diminished international respect, especially in Muslim countries. I sincerely hope and pray that he is not elected. I am an "anybody but Kerry" voter.

      But if Kerry wins (and he has a good chance), I'm not going to complain. I'm going to hunker down and spend four more years peacefully attempting to share my views with people. I'm not going to leave the country.

      If you lose, I hope you'll feel the same way. Life will continue for both the victors and the losers on November 3rd (or whatever the next day after we finally decide the results is).

      America's still a great place to be. George W. Bush is not near the idiot you make him out to be. He has not had near the effect on you in the last four years that you think he has. (He appears to have had a tremendous emotional effect, but I doubt that he has really affected your day to day life.)

      Life goes on.

    16. Re:Your friends are watching you by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      the UN is totally responsible. It is an inept institution that is corrupt to its very core.

      Why is it that people continually try to push the argument that the UN is responsible for something when in fact it is the members of the UN that are responsible for whatever goes on.

      Since the US is part of the UN and refuses to work with other nations is it any wonder things don't go the way we would like them to.

      For example, the UN finally got an International Court but the US didn't agree to it because it doesn't want its soldiers subject to the same rules as everyone else. How is it the fault of the UN if the Court can't do it's job effectively when the US, ostensibly it's biggest contributor, doesn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else?

      How about population control? Instead of working with the UN to help control the third worlds population through both education and birth control, the US refuses to participate because condoms are given out as are some medications and even abortions may be performed. Thanks religious-right.

      While it may have been the UN who oversaw the Oil for Food program, it was the individual member nations who did the backdoor dealings, not the UN itself.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    17. Re:Your friends are watching you by Jagasian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nah, we are a hybrid democratic-republic. Some things are directly voted on, others things are accomplished by indirect election etc.

    18. Re:Your friends are watching you by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      I know, I am the classic ugly american...

      Actually, you're not. The ugly American of the book was a good guy, an engineer (and his wife) who did things well and people independently decided to follow their ideas. He and his wife made friends and spread goodwill wherever they went.

      You're more like the classic red state population of the 2000 election. They think they're independent tough guys, but they receive more money in federal handouts than they put in. Federal welfare queens.

    19. Re: Your friends are watching you by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Horse biscuits. I am an American - not a world citizen. I am interested in taking care of America first and the rest of the world can kiss my lily-white American big toe.

      I also am an American, and I'm interested in doing what's right.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    20. Re: Your friends are watching you by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > > But right now we're feeling scared, confused, and angry about what your President has lead you to do over the past three years.

      > You think you're scared? I feel like I've been strapped into the back seat of an out of control taxi driven by a madman, helplessly watching him mow down people on the sidewalk.

      Me too, but he feels like one of the people on the sidewalk.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    21. Re:Your friends are watching you by servognome · · Score: 1

      There is no "former glory", there is good and bad in history. The US established a republic with democratic values, but also continued promoting slavery, it established a bill of rights for its citizens, but also conquered native americans as part of "manifest destiny." We defended south korea from north korea, helped stop genocide in bosnia, supported afghanistan against the Soviets (and trained and armed those who would eventually attack us with terrorism), supported "friendly" latin american dictators; There's good and bad in the history of the US as there is in every countries' history.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    22. Re:Your friends are watching you by CFTM · · Score: 1

      Excellent point, the world will continue to turn regardless of who wins the election. The fact of the matter is this election really is between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwhich. Unfortantely, it's almost always between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwhich and I suppose that is something that I need to come to accept.

      I've become cynical towards the American political system because I don't feel like they really care what I think or what would be best for the people. I've become apathetic and could just careless, they're both going to do some things right and some things wrong. One may piss the rest of the world off waving his texas flag while the other will back down from tough situations. Niether approach is better, just different.

      So I didn't vote. I didn't not vote as a protest against the system or trying to express my distaste for the candidates. I choose not to vote because I don't give a flying fuck. One is as good as another and niether are worth an hour and a half of my day to vote for, I guess Puffy is going to come kill me now.

    23. Re:Your friends are watching you by stienman · · Score: 1

      All around the world, we're watching you today.

      Cool. I like good comedies too. Have you seen the Three Stooges?

      We love America, we want you to lead and inspire and show us what democracy and freedom and technology can do. But right now we're feeling scared, confused, and angry about what your President has lead you to do over the past three years.

      Well, he polled us pretty hard throughout his presidency on major issues. I was one of those who not only said that I support the war against Iraq but knew that my brother then serving in the reserves would likely be called to active duty. I'm sorry that you disagree with our actions, but the President did not act alone. The President, Congress, and the majority of the Americans agreed to carry out this action, among other actions. The fact that the evidence was innacurate was disappointing, but would not have changed my opinion. The UN ceased to be useful when they passed resolution after resolution against Iraq which were, at best, only partially fulfilled, and at worst flaunted.

      Please, give us back the America we admire and believe in. Don't turn yourselves into a religious state.

      Very unlikely. Compared to Europe, yes - we're very puritanical. Compared to the USA of decades ago we're far from a religious state. The simple fact is that the majority of US citizens are Christian and vote accordingly. This is declining, though, so we're slowly approaching Europe's version of secularism.

      Don't turn your back on the UN and the other peoples of the world

      Heh. So which is it, you want us to become unilateral, or multilateral? Neither - what you want is for us to do what you think is in your best interest. Sorry. We do what is in our nations best interest and include an astounding amount of humanitarian work as well. When the UN and other countries cannot enforce their resolutions, then we cannot stand by them when we must enforce them.

      - in the end we are people first, American or French or Iraqi or Chinese second. Give us back the America that went to the moon and carried out the Berlin airlift and brought us the IT revolution. Give us back the America of Kennedy's vision and MLK's dream.

      Well, we're working on going to mars. Is that not visionary enough? Visionary men are found every where. There are few who actually engage that vision and bring it to fruition. There are even fewer who have visions worth sharing with the whole of the US, nevermind the world.

      Care to suggest some candidates with that legendary vision? There were none involved in this election - these are all old politicos who were molded long ago and have yet to stray. Vision can be a scary thing - it takes the right vision, at the right time, with the right person to be succesful.

      And please, don't let the world's most successful democracy be reduced to a joke with a repeat of last election's Floridan antics.

      We, as voters, have little control over that. Unless we can rein in the parties, unless we can change the voting system or methods on a state by state basis, unless we have a strong desire to go out and work hard, it isn't going to happen.

      If, however, this election goes as badly as 2000, then there may be some movement towards a better system. As imperfect as it is, the electoral college is not going to change for a long, long, time. However, individual states can and should implement some other method. I favor instant runoff because it's the simplest to understand - and any voting system must be stupid-simple - even though there are inherent biases and flaws, it is significantly better than the current majority methods. Whether the electoral college votes are apportioned or granted en masse wouldn't matter as much, but hopefully in time this would also change.

      If one small state implemented it, it wouldn't be long before it caught on in other states.

      -Adam

    24. Re:Your friends are watching you by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      So if it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, I shouldn't mind.

      "It's only the Jews and Communists that are being imprisoned. What do I care?"

      And America isn't really that great. 3Mb asymmetrical broadband with dynamic IP? Fuck that. 40 million people without health care? Fuck that, too. Tax money going to kill nice, innocent, benevolent people in a stupid war started by lies? Fuck that especially.

      The only thing that's kept me from leaving is the fact that I'm not rich or experienced enough to go.

      However, there is a condition where I won't go: If a movement starts to oppose the government, one that shares my beliefs in decentralization, breaking the corporate oligarchy, environmental protection and human rights. And that has a chance of changing things. I'll stay for that.

      But if this country decides it's behind a man who stands for everything I oppose, why should I stay? It would be perfectly obvious that my views aren't represented, and are in disagreement with the vast majority of the population.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    25. Re:Your friends are watching you by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you say don't turn yourselves into a religeous state, you really mean "turn secular".

      And watch, everyone, as he quickly sets up his straw man... very deft!

      Yeah...like France...and Saddam's Iraq. Great.

      And look! Look how he knocks it down! Excellent form!

      Nice work putting words in the mouth of the grandparent. Did he say "secular state"? No. He only said the US is, in effect, becoming a theocracy, and in this, I'm not sure I disagree. The government is working very hard to insinuate Christian values into it's workings, from it's policies on abortion and stem cell research (even to the point of releasing disinformation), "faith based initiatives" in place of proper social services, supporting the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, attempting to codify that marriage is between a man and a woman *in the constitution*... I could go on.

      The separation of church and state is paramount. As you say, this means the goverment should be completely indifferent on the topic. And in case you didn't realize it, things like "under God" being in the pledge of allegiance fly straight in the face of this doctrine.

      The U.N. has proven itself pointless.

      Only because the US (and other major powers on the security council) veto anything useful.

      We are alot like the America who went after the Nazi's actually. That was unpopular in alot of areas too...for awhile.

      Holy shit! This is simply outrageous! Revisionist history, anyone? The US went into WWII only AFTER Hitler started driving his war machine across Europe. This is in absolutely NO WAY at all similar to the US's approach to Iraq, which involved attacking, unilaterally, a country which posed absolutely no threat to anyone!

      Sure...Florida sucked last time around, but you people overseas need to understand that you really don't get to decide what happens in someone else's democracy.

      Unless, of course, you're the US, in which case you can stomp around the world installing dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders all you like.

    26. Re:Your friends are watching you by donnz · · Score: 1

      Well you do not RC, sorry. Kerry has simply said he will protect peoples' right to have their vote recounted. IIRC the 2000 debacle was caused by a refusal to hold a recount in certain closely fought districts. In all other democracies I know of the right to hold a recount is fundamental, and requried to maintain confidence in the system. Only in America has the right now been challenged.

      --
      -- Free software on every PC on every desk
    27. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging from the tenor of most of the reponses posted so far, the only things a 'friend of America' can expect from the US are arrogance, derision and condescension. Even if there is a change in leadership in the US, I fail to see how this will in any way change a majority of the US population's profoundly ignorant and bigoted world view

      Is it any wonder the US has so few friends?

    28. Re:Your friends are watching you by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      We are still not a religious state. Why is everyone convinced we are?

      50 years ago white people couldn't marry black people. 50 years ago a president added 'under god' to the pledge of allegiance to show we were a god fearing nation. more than fifty years ago the scopes monkey trial brought creationism out of the classroom.

      We were a religious country for about 150 years. We have made so many strides against it, moving towards secularism, that's its ridiculous. People think because Bush got elected that suddenly we're a religious theocracy. Its just not true. Abortion is still legal. Gay Marriage is becoming legal. All sorts of non-religious things are happening.

      Americans are abandoning religion anyways. after the catholic priest diddling little boys scandal, people just don't care as much about religion. Massachusetts, where I live, used to be one of the epicenters of catholicsm. Now churches are closing.

      You don't like Bush, that's fine. Say it. stop saying we're becoming a crazy religious state.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    29. Re:Your friends are watching you by MC6809 · · Score: 1
      You're more like the classic red state population of the 2000 election. They think they're independent tough guys, but they receive more money in federal handouts than they put in. Federal welfare queens.
      Really? Do you know me so well?

      I am going to pay approx $25K USD in state and federal taxes this year. What about you?

      Where do I get in line for the handouts?

      I don't know about tough, but yes, I am independent. I can mill and cast metal, raise vegetables and livestock, shoot a firearm, reload ammo, code in LISP, Ruby, Forth, and C#, design digital control systems, and compose and record music.

      I am all for spreading goodwill - however, I don't give a flip what France, Germany, or any other "oil for food" groupies think about my actions.
    30. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

      From an earlier post :
      Bush is what now ? pro-faith based, pro-army like Kennedy and pro-freedom like MLK ? Try arrogant warmonger for size. That might be a perfect fit.

      Its the arrogance that gets to me. Why do these posts always want to slap the hand that reaches out to them.

    31. Re:Your friends are watching you by McFarlane · · Score: 4, Informative


      Um, most people in the world use the word "democracy" to mean "representative democracy"

      A republic run by representative democracy is not an oxymoron. (A republic can be democratic or non-democratic).

      Democratic* republics: USA, Ireland, France
      Non-democratic republics: Syria, Belorussia

      In turn a democracy can be a republic or not a republic.

      (*By "democratic" I mean a representative democratic government - people drop the representative because it is a pain to write it out when every serious non-pedantic person knows what they are talking about already).

      --
      [We don't come from a planet. We come from a grid sector.]
    32. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know what the Florida thing was about?

      It was about Florida judges deciding that, contrary to the state election rules, that they were going to allow recounts in selected counties. They were going to rewrite the rules after the game was played, as it were. They could have done a full statewide recount, but Gore's lawyers didn't want to see that happen for some reason.

      And the USSC said no. No changing the rules after the fact.

      In any event, in all the unofficial recounts that *were* done, Bush won every single one.

      So it looks like there's something that's challenged, alright, but it's not the "right to recount".

    33. Re:Your friends are watching you by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      If you solve the health care problem by putting up your own money to help, you are a noble person. If you solve it by voting money out of other people's pockets, you are a thief. Why is health care more important than the issues those people were going to solve FOR THEMSELVES with their own money? Perhaps in their case an education or retirement (two other problems the government attempts to solve for everybody and fails at) is more important. You "solve" the health care problem (with a "solution" I doubt would truly solve anything) and cause worse problems as a result.

      Perhaps people could afford health-care if we weren't stealing through taxation 40% of every dollar people make so that we can "solve" all their problems with government intervention. Robin Hood in this case is an incompetent Quixotic thief who only makes problems worse. Meanwhile, I'm not particularly happy that Teresa Heinz Kerry's federal tax burden last year came out to only 10%. I thought we were supposed to make the rich pay most of this?

      The pathetic thing, for me, is that ten years ago conservatives were telling Hillary Clinton she was bonkers for trying to give away these kinds of "freebies," but now that Bush is compromising by unquestioningly assuming that this is the right thing to do, people like you STILL aren't backing him! Bush is far closer to YOUR view on this than mine.

      As for decentralization, let me tell you that I am at least as big a believer in decentralization as you are.

    34. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a non-American, I would be delighted if you would pass your position along to Blair, Howard, et al. You can tell them that you think they are suckers for going along with you because you are only interested in looking out for number one. You can also give that pansy Bush a piece of your mind. You do realize that that little wimp has been going to the UN again for aid don't you? I would be much happier if you guys took responsibility for your actions and cleaned up your own messes (Iraq, Afgahnistan etc.) rather than wrecking the joint and leaving it for someone else to clean up like some kind of petulant teenager.

    35. Re:Your friends are watching you by uujjj · · Score: 1
      We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

      Democracy comes in 2 flavors: 1. direct democracy: citizens vote directly on the laws themselves. examples: ancient Greece, California. 2. representative democracy: citizens elect representatives to determine laws. synonym: republic. examples: India, Canada, Indonesia, Chile, United States of America.

    36. Re:Your friends are watching you by Evil+Poot+Cat · · Score: 1

      "There's nothing to see here...please move along...no pictures please...blahblahblahblah."

      We are still not a religious state.
      Yes, we are. Have been, most recently since January, 2001.

      Why is everyone convinced we are?
      Hmmm....abortion rights? Stem Cell research? "faith-based initiatives?" Tom Delay extolling the admission of China into WTO as a wonderful opportunity for the Christian mission? Gay marriage? The "marriage penalty?" Opposition to every single legislative concept that would allow somebody else to act in discord with religion?

      50 years ago white people couldn't marry black people.
      Irrelevant to this topic.

      50 years ago a president added 'under god' to the pledge of allegiance to show we were a god fearing nation. ...at the clergy's request.

      more than fifty years ago the scopes monkey trial brought creationism out of the classroom. ...and the same people who currently run the White House and Congress have been trying to force, sneak, and otherwise hack creationism back into the classroom ever since, if it ever actually left.

      We were a religious country for about 150 years.
      And we still are, and still will be. Not to be confused with religious rule, nice try though.

      We have made so many strides against it, moving towards secularism, that's its ridiculous.
      And it doesn't matter when the theocracy legislates against anything contrary to their religion, and controls the public resources for their own gain.

      People think because Bush got elected that suddenly we're a religious theocracy.
      They're correct.

      Its just not true.
      Yes, it is. When 2/3 of the government is run by a party which itself is driven by taliban, that's a theocracy.

      Abortion is still legal. Gay Marriage is becoming legal.
      In which states? And who wants federal prohibition of the "unholy" unions? Oh yeah, that's right.

      All sorts of non-religious things are happening.
      Boogedy, boogedy.

      [snip abandonment text...]

      You don't like Bush, that's fine.
      Bush is a placeholder for a party, and we see through him.

      Say it. stop saying we're becoming a crazy religious state.
      No, because I'm not a liar.

    37. Re:Your friends are watching you by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 1
      For those that didn't catch the references made by the grandparent, he's probably referring to a popular (and often accurate) generalization that the many 'rugged', 'independent thinking', outspoken voters in Republican-dominated states are often farmers. They (often, no always) depend on gigantic federal subsidies to make a living. The irony is that these are often the same Republicans that can be heard saying that their taxes carry lazy welfare recipients.

      17 of the 20 states that receive the most dollars in federal aid per dollar paid in taxes are Republican dominant states. These Republican-voting states receive more money from the Fed than they pay in with taxes.

      And to the parent, you do *sound* like one of these people, but the grandparent never said you were one.

    38. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush isn't the radical you make him out to be, and it's not as if you liked us before.

      Thus, to hell with you.

    39. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are partially correct.

      A Repulican form of government is where individual rights and libeties are paramount or supercede group rights.

      A Democracy is where mob rule or group rights are paramount to individual.

    40. Re:Your friends are watching you by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      You see, that's why I'm for decentralization: If we don't put health care into the hands of some massive disgusting bloated central governmentthen we have better control over it.

      However, if it's run by a corporation, we won't ever have control over it, no matter how man collusion laws we pass. Since we need health care, we either get it from a corrupt corporation or die.

      So the choice is between getting health care from a corporation (whose only motive is profit, at any cost) or a government (whose only motive is to keep as many people employed as possible), I'll choose the government.

      And don't think of it as solving it by taking money out of one person's pockets. First, healthy people benefit everyone by decreasing missed work and school days, and decreasing the incidences of rampant infectious disease. Second, most people are paying for health care anyway. If we spread the cost amongst more people, costs go down for everyone. That's how insurance works. Finally, an insurance company has no interest in lowering the incidences of disease. It increases costs, which they can point to as a need for an increase in revenue. If there is a quantifiable social cost in a sick person, there's an economic benefit to keeping that person from being sick.

      My vision isn't some huge office building in Washington for socialized medicine. My vision is a local clinic and/or hospital, which is funded by a nationwide tax and redistributed to local health officials based on population density.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    41. Re:Your friends are watching you by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Good god, imagine the uproar if George W. Bush wanted to do that.

    42. Re:Your friends are watching you by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      whoa, slow down . there were too many facts, well backed up and well thought out. My head is spinning. Oh well, you're convinced of your views regardless of evidence. That's nice.

      Abortion is still legal. Gay Marriage is becoming legal.
      In which states? And who wants federal prohibition of the "unholy" unions? Oh yeah, that's right.


      Gay Marriage is legal in Massachusetts. I live there. Abortion is legal here, too. I'm pretty sure Abortion is legal everywhere.

      Are there religious roots and traditions still present in american culture, and to a small degree, in governance? Yes. Is our government beholden to the will of a church or religious institution? No. If you would like to see what that is truly like, I recommend you visit Saudi Arabia or a like country. The justification for their legal and moral code is scripture. Our justification for our code is the declaration of independence.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    43. Re:Your friends are watching you by MC6809 · · Score: 1
      For those that didn't catch the references made by the grandparent, he's probably referring to a popular (and often accurate) generalization that the many 'rugged', 'independent thinking', outspoken voters in Republican-dominated states are often farmers. They (often, no always) depend on gigantic federal subsidies to make a living. The irony is that these are often the same Republicans that can be heard saying that their taxes carry lazy welfare recipients.
      I may sound like one of those people - however; I do not receive any federal subsidies - farm or otherwise.

      In fact, I am against farm subsidies as I feel that they cause Americans to have a warped sense of what food actually costs.

      The average coder has no concept of what a loaf of bread or gallon of milk costs to produce as he/she pays the shelf price plus a harder to define cost in the form of taxes.

      OTOH, a friend of mine who is a dairy farmer can tell you to the penny what a pound of milk costs him to produce. Then the feds tell him how much he can sell it for...
    44. Re:Your friends are watching you by Rayonic · · Score: 1
      Judging from the tenor of most of the reponses posted so far, the only things a 'friend of America' can expect from the US are arrogance, derision and condescension.

      To be perfectly realistic, we were responding to a arrogant, derisive, and condescending post.

      I fail to see how this will in any way change a majority of the US population's profoundly ignorant and bigoted world view

      And that's another perfect example.

      You have to come to terms with the fact that people outside of the U.S. have a biased and shallow understanding of America, with few notable exceptions.
    45. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi this is America, we have tried to tell you to leave us alone, but you dont seem to be getting it. We do not give a shit about you, any of you, so stop following us around. Nobody here gives a shit about any of your elections, please go bother the British or some shit.

    46. Re:Your friends are watching you by DarthMAD · · Score: 1

      Do not profess to speak for the people of the world excluding the US. America is still the greatest country in the world by far, and is as great as ever as far as I can tell. Also, the problem was not with all Floridians; it was the Democrats, who apparently suck at voting... badly. Seriously- I live in Florida and I saw the ballot. All they had to do was punch a hole next to the candidate of their choice- it wasn't that hard.

      The only choice when any of you goes to vote today is to vote to re-elect George W. Bush as President of the United States. President Bush knows what it takes to oppose the evil of terrorism, and has led our country on our recovery from the tragedy of 9/11. President Bush will not bow before the UN and ask their permission to use force to defend the US. Perhaps most importantly from an idealogical standpoint, President Bush will not turn us into a socialist nation like Canada or many of the European countries. He will stick with the ideals of capitalism and liberty on which this great nation was built.

      So, when you enter the voting booth today, do the right thing and vote for George W. Bush. Do not vote to surrender the US to the will of terrorists and the UN.

    47. Re:Your friends are watching you by mikeg22 · · Score: 1

      Here we go again...

      America is both a Democracy and a Republic. We are not a direct democracy, we do not make every decisions purely through a popular vote, which is what you may be alluding to. We vote democratically for our representatives, making our government an indirect democracy. The word "Republic" is pretty much synonymous with "Indirect Democracy" as far as how they are used to describe the United States government (Both just mean a government where the people elect their representatives). So, we are both a democracy and a republic.

    48. Re:Your friends are watching you by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2, Interesting
      By this reasoning, there is not a single democracy on the planet. There are republics (USA, France, China, Russia, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Lybia, Italy), monarchies (England, Netherlands, Denmark, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, Marocco) and anarchies (Somalia, Iraq). That's it.

      But also we have plenty of democracies (USA, France, England, Netherlands, Denmark), a few communists (North Korea), feudals (Saudi-Arabia, Marocco, Jordan), theocracies (Iran), basic dictatorships (Lybia, Syria), anarchies (Iraq, Somalia), and a new form I call media-cracies (made this one up to describe Italy and Russia. US might qualify here as well, but not sure.).

      In any case, I live in a constitutional monarchy in which electoral power is given to the people and the decision making power is given to the elected officials. We call this a representative democracy, in contrast with a direct democracy (the ancient Greek ideal), not a republic, as our head of state is a queen, not a president.

    49. Re:Your friends are watching you by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      No one's saying that the right to a recount isn't necessary. The point is that if there's not a clear reason for a recount (either a close race or shady things going on) then there is NO reason to do this other than being a poor loser and insisting on dragging things out and wasting time and money

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    50. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While it may have been the UN who oversaw the Oil for Food program, it was the individual member nations who did the backdoor dealings, not the UN itself.
      Great Point! Remember to use it the next time you hear someone criticize Halliburton's handling of Iraqi subcontracts.
    51. Re:Your friends are watching you by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we are witnessing America's death throes. There seems to be no good outcome possible this election. Perhaps we will eventually learn from our mistakes and come back all the stronger and better; I certainly hope so. But, frankly, I think we are past the beginning of the end of America. The rotting corpse will remain, but not the spirit that gave her life.

      In any case, I hope others continue to pick up the torch of the Enlightenment and shine its light upon the world. Freedom isn't slave to any country, place or thing. It is something we are born with and must fight to keep from governments, religions, and other oppressors. Freedom is yours; assert it while you can.

      You may wish to have a looks at:
      http://www.europeanfreestate.org/
      http://fre ewest.org
      http://freestateproject.org

      BTW, I live in Florida. Tonight I plan to continue getting really drunk, cry in my Guinness, and not think about the weeks of lawsuits that will probably follow the vote.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    52. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Floridian you damn foreigner.

    53. Re:Your friends are watching you by Psychotext · · Score: 1

      Hi, this is Britain. Leave us out of it! You're ok all the way over there in America, but we're connected to France and Europe by a big rail tunnel. The stench of garlic and wine is almost unbearable!

      The Eastern European women are pleasing additions to our country though, and the containers bring new ones every day. ;-)

      --
      People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
    54. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Horse biscuits. I am an American - not a world citizen. I am interested in taking care of America first and the rest of the world can kiss my lily-white American big toe.

      I know, I am the classic ugly american...

      However, anyone that expects me to run *my* decisions through a "world test" can plant their lips right *here*.

      ...And we should listen to you, for what reason?

    55. Re:Your friends are watching you by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Onec again you're looking to us to fix your problems. It's really totally irrelevant to me personally where the rest of the world stands on our politics. That's been a constant here for centuries. WMDs and religious nonsense aside, Saddam was walking all over the UN and the UN were letting him do it. The US supported that resolution for 10 years.

      Bush has a habit of making bombastic statements but I agree with that decision. For 10 years Saddam has been playing cat and mouse. He won't anymore. WMD's in Iraq? Well now we know for absolute certain there aren't any. UN investigators are now free to go ask permission from other countries to see their secret nuclear programs, and turn away if they're not allowed inside. You can rest assured that Iraq won't be bombing you, at least until/unless we leave it to go feral. It doesn't have to be that way, perhaps the UN can succeed where the evil American's fail? Up to you, either way we'll protect our interests and no more.

      If the UN is not going to back up it's threats, then it really is a defunct organization and we're all better off spending our time elsewhere. If and when the delegates sent to the UN are prepared to back up their own policies and their own countries are equally prepared to back their policies with blood, I can at least have some respect for what is done there. Talk of peace rarely acheives peace, sometimes it has to be backed by action. Only idealistic teenagers believe that peace can be attained only by peaceful means.

      Remember we are a republic, not a democracy. No one pretends that our system is perfect and odd occurances do happen. That we have ways of dealing with them without cival war is enough. We have an election system with that ideal that was designed for a different era, but has been modified over the past hundred years in the same way some would patch a kernel. Radical change to it is not advisable, it's been fought over for a long time and any change needs careful thought. Perhaps the federal government needs to make no change immediately? States can spearhead reform and their results can be evaluated. These are ideas that are in action.

      Remember too that while slightly over half voted against Bush, slightly under half voted for him. A great atrocity this was not, nor was it illegal. If anything it may have awoken some to the fact that the more legit voters participating in an election, the less the impact of voter fraud will be. Any discussion on who would have won if a particular incidence of possible voter fraud was squashed is hysterical nonsense, the kind Gore wisely had enough sense in bowing out of. Regardless of which officials were bending the election, the only conclusion we could draw is the country would have been satisfied with either candidate.

      Don't pin the blame on us, and don't hold our election system responsible. Any elected leader would almost certainly have done things somewhat different, but I suspect the outcome would be identical. We never needed the UN, didn't even want it, and only care about it when we're not directly involved. It's positioned in NYC precisely for this reason, we just don't care enough to disrupt it, but we can protect it since it behooves us. We sat by for 10 years when we didn't perceive any danger by letting "world politics" handle Iraq. Then something happened that woke us up to the fact that we were inadequately policing our enemies and we ignored it no longer.

      So my fellow foreign nations, you have to help us help you. If we come to an agreement on how to handle a disruptive nation, we need to back that agreement and deal with offenders in such a way as to not leave doubt about our sincerety. If we come to an agreement that nuclear, biological or chemical weapons are not to be developed, then we need to police and enforce this at all costs. If you ban murder in your country, do you only police this if the perpetrator is convenient to arrest? No, you may spend millions of dollars figuring out who he is, and bringing him to justice. So to must you poli

    56. Re:Your friends are watching you by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right, you're totally different because you have a little piece of paper that says 'US Citizen' on it. If aliens landed tomorrow you could show them that and they would instantly understand that you are totally and utterly different from a human being from, say, Australia.

      I must say, your comments are the best explanation for why September 11 happened and the best explanation for why you guys have not been successful in Iraq or in preventing terrorism since that time.

      I believe al Qaeda is inviting you to "plant your lips right *here*"...

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    57. Re:Your friends are watching you by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      MLK was honest, he would oppose affirmative action - like Bush

      Bullshit. MLK would want justice for the wrongs that had been committed. I always wonder how anti-affirmative action people can support prison sentences - after all, the crime was committed in the past, this is the present. Let's just call it even and move on with our lives.

      Kennedy understood that international diplomacy involves more than mindless aggression and 'you're either with us or against us' machismo crap. He understood the subtlety, he understood the need to understand the aims and needs of other nations in formulating foreign policy. He wasn't afraid of force and exercises of power, but only as a genuine last resort (compare with Iraq: threat to United States: 0.0%).

      Your Nazis comments don't even bear replying to, the world begged you, BEGGED you to come and help in Europe for several years before Pearl Harbour finally got you involved.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    58. Re:Your friends are watching you by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      I'm not naive, I know all about these things. I know all about the horrors of the civil war, about what happened to the native American peoples, about the way Mexico was done over, about US interference in South America and the Middle East over the last 50 years, about the CIA importing drugs and the whole shebang.

      But I still firmly believe that if Bobby or Jack Kennedy had lived America would be a far, far better, more generous, more internationalist place. I believe they died because they gave people that dangerous thing called hope, and they threatened a country where powerful interests didn't control the government (Bobby especially).

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    59. Re:Your friends are watching you by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Why is it that people continually try to push the argument that the UN is responsible for something when in fact it is the members of the UN that are responsible for whatever goes on.

      For the same reason people tend to blame the government when they don't realise (or want to realise) that the power to change things is in their own hands, I suppose.

      Great post, anyway. The UN has no power other than the aggregate of its member states.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    60. Re:Your friends are watching you by dcam · · Score: 1

      This works until you want the help of the rest of the world, as you did when Colin Powell went before the UN with that speech.

      If it treats the rest of the world in this way, it can expect the same treatment in return. America does not live in a vacuum.

      --
      meh
    61. Re:Your friends are watching you by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      God, I love how Bush and the right have totally twisted this one phrase. I wish Kerry went back and clarified this, because it is too important of a concept to let die down.

      He was not suggesting that we get UN/somebody else's approval for every military action that we make. The point was that we're all humans on this earth and if we're going to bomb a certain group of it, we'd better be able to provide irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing to back it up (even if it's never requested). The USA developed a good reputation over a century of world warfare, and then blew it all away when we attacked Iraq on the premise that they possessed WMD's and planned to use them against us. Not only was that untruth, it was at the very least purposeful ignorance of the facts and at the worse, purposeful misinformation to the American public and the world.

      As a Libertarian, one might call my ideas for foreign policy "isolationist" in that I don't want to meddle in the affairs of others unless there is a threat to the interests of my country or its citizens. So I would say that I agree with your statement, but I had to point out that it was a misinterpretation publicized by the right to disparage John Kerry.

    62. Re:Your friends are watching you by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      Prison sentences end though. When would you suggest that Affirmative Action end?

    63. Re:Your friends are watching you by dwbryson · · Score: 1

      Iraq, which involved attacking, unilaterally, a country which posed absolutely no threat to anyone!

      Do you know what totalitarianism is ? I assume then that no threat to anyone included the population of the country that was slowly being starved to death with lack of food an resources. Lest us also not forget the gas'ing of the kurds in the 80's during the wars with Iran.

      A few weeks ago I ran into an Iraqi exchange student at a party. She had come to the U.S. as part of a preliminary exchange program, and having lived he whole life under Saddam she was agast at the anti-soldier sentiment here.

      She told me of how a student a her college wrote a disparaging article about Saddam in the school paper. And so the following week Saddam sent troops in to behead the entire staff of the paper in public. Other random students were grabbed on the grounds of the school and had their eyes put out, ears cut off, hands cut off. She also mentioned that is was not a rare occurance and quite par for the course.

      Threat to no one indeed.

      Unless, of course, you're the US, in which case you can stomp around the world installing dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders all you like.

      I think you have confused the terms "deposting" and "democratically elected". Depositing would imply that the United States imposes the rule of one individual. And democratically elected would imply that the people elect the rule of an individual. Much like what took place in Afghanistan last week.

      --
      - "Never let a computer tell me shit." - DelTron Zero
    64. Re:Your friends are watching you by csguy314 · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, you're the US, in which case you can stomp around the world installing dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders all you like.

      Now to be fair, the US isn't the only country that has done this. And, as other countries grow in prominence, it won't be the last to do so either.
      And it doesn't matter which party is in power either because the Dems support illegal invasions and overthrows just like the GOP. There's really very little difference in the end goals of the foreign policy of Democrats and Republicans.
      This is, I think, one of the reasons that Iran endorsed Bush for president. Both Bush and Kerry will seek the same goals, though the means to those ends may differ. Bush struts around insulting everyone and driving everyone away from the US. This can ultimately weaken the US position internationally.
      Kerry will try to acheive the same goals, but won't go out of his way (as Bush has) to alienate traditional allies. This will maintain, or strengthen the US position (compared with its current status).
      I believe that's the reason that Iran endorsed Bush because, in the long run, he's far worse for America and, they believe, better for the rest of the world. Effects of his reelection in the short run, however, are another matter.

      --
      This is left as an exercise for the reader.
    65. Re:Your friends are watching you by slapout · · Score: 1

      Turn off your Dreamcast and slowly remove your copy of Crazy Taxi.

      Then take your pills.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    66. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is still the greatest country in the world by far...President Bush will not turn us into a socialist nation like Canada

      That's funny. I think the United States (America??) is around 10th on the "best country" list. That's 7 or 8 below Canada.

    67. Re:Your friends are watching you by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 1

      And there's an excellent example of exactly why America will never return to the kind of greatness this foreign person (and I) wish for: Pathetic, pedantic idiots like cmburns69. Once and for all, Mr. Dumas: A republic is a *form* of democracy, like a constitutional monarchy is also a *form* of democracy!

    68. Re:Your friends are watching you by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I assume then that no threat to anyone included the population of the country

      No, actually I wasn't including that. I was referring to the fact that Iraq was absolutely no threat to any of it's neighbours (as opposed to, say, Germany) and as such, it is in no way similar to Germany. But, thanks for, yet again, demonstrating how to efficiently create a strawman argument.

      Moreover, if you really want to use that argument, one could ask why the US hasn't stepped into a host of other countries who are committing as bad, if not worse atrocities (you've heard of the Rwandan genocide, right?), and have done so more recently than the 80's.

      So, no, as much as you'd like to believe it, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with such noble aspirations as freeing the Iraqi people. It was a great way to post-justify the invasion, though.

      she was agast at the anti-soldier sentiment here.

      And I'm agast that people don't understand the difference between being anti-war and anti-soldier. Why is it that protesting a war, which is a result of the actions of a government, is equivalent to protesting soldiers, which are merely instruments of said government? Oh, wait, I remember, it's because 1) people are *idiots*, and 2) the US government, in it's attempt to garner support for said war, makes this connection, and the aforementioned idiots believe it.

      I think you have confused the terms "deposting" and "democratically elected".

      And I think you're confusing the term "depositing" with "deposing", which would involve the US removing democratically elected representatives like, say, the Prime Minister of Iran.

    69. Re:Your friends are watching you by dwbryson · · Score: 1

      No, actually I wasn't including that. I was referring to the fact that Iraq was absolutely no threat to any of it's neighbours (as opposed to, say, Germany) and as such, it is in no way similar to Germany. But, thanks for, yet again, demonstrating how to efficiently create a strawman argument.

      No Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors like germany was in the 30's. That I will submit. However saying that they are no threat is clearly untrue if one merely reads the 9/11 commission report. One can find it online downloadable in pdf format, I suggest you do so.

      Moreover, if you really want to use that argument, one could ask why the US hasn't stepped into a host of other countries who are committing as bad, if not worse atrocities (you've heard of the Rwandan genocide, right?), and have done so more recently than the 80's.

      Other nations had not been asked 10 years ago to disarm and blatanly ignored UN warnings as well as turning away UN weapons inspectors.
      Pile on top of that various governments around the world saying that Iraq was in posession of weapons of mass destruction, including our own and there is no reason to believe otherwise.

      Now, whether or not there actually were WMD's there is another story all together. But the intelligence was there, the UN was sitting on their asses not enforcing their own policies on weapons inspections, and meanwhile the entire culture from that area of the world was being used as a sesspool of american assassin training camps.

      If you've seen team america Hans Blix's character says what happens when you don't do what the U.N. says "We send you a nasty letter saying how angry we are at you"

      So, no, as much as you'd like to believe it, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with such noble aspirations as freeing the Iraqi people. It was a great way to post-justify the invasion, though.

      Maybe you don't understand how democray works. If a free and open society prevails in Iraq it sets a precidence for the whole region. The freedom of the people is a nice benefit and side effect of that whole region being able to police themselves. Installing democratic values defeats the terrorist mindset and allows the people to destroy those forces without our help. That way we don't have to go hang out there anymore. Sure it isn't a fast process, but it has to start somewhere.

      And I'm agast that people don't understand the difference between being anti-war and anti-soldier. Why is it that protesting a war, which is a result of the actions of a government, is equivalent to protesting soldiers, which are merely instruments of said government

      Yeah I agree it's rediculous. One can clearly be anti-war and still support our troops. If we don't support our troops then when we really need them they might not have confidence that they are doing what we really want to be done.

      And I think you're confusing the term "depositing" with "deposing", which would involve the US removing democratically elected representatives

      ah my misinterpretation then.

      --
      - "Never let a computer tell me shit." - DelTron Zero
    70. Re:Your friends are watching you by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Other nations had not been asked 10 years ago to disarm and blatanly ignored UN warnings

      Funny, my impression is that, over the last 10 years, UN inspectors had personally seen many weapons being destroyed, and Hans Blix himself didn't feel that Iraq was in possession of any WMDs.

      Pile on top of that various governments around the world saying that Iraq was in posession of weapons of mass destruction

      You mean the US and UK? Riiight, that's a real pile. AFAIR, no other nation *except* the US and UK felt that Iraq was in possession of these weapons, and were very dubious of their "proof".

      But the intelligence was there,

      Well, no, actually it wasn't. The best they could come up with was rather fictitious mobile chem weapon factories, and those mysterious tubes that were supposedly being used for building centrifuges, ignoring the fact that they were the *completely wrong type of tube*. But, hey, apparently intelligence is more a matter of opinion.

      meanwhile the entire culture from that area of the world was being used as a sesspool of american assassin training camps.

      *snicker* Is there *any* proof of this? And are you telling me it's any better now, with the power vacuum that exists? Please...

      Maybe you don't understand how democray works.

      And maybe you don't remember your history. Installing democracies in areas that don't historically have them hasn't gone terribly well in the past.

      If a free and open society prevails in Iraq it sets a precidence for the whole region.

      Assuming, of course, that a free and open society prevails. Of course, if you look at the past in say, countries like Iran, that generally doesn't happen, unless, of course, an external entity is "monitoring" the elections (like the one in Afghanistan). But, hey, I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

      Oh, and BTW, you do realize that such a democracy may just be seen as cultural imperialism on the part of the US, right? And *that* has never bred hatred or terrorism.

      Installing democratic values defeats the terrorist mindset

      Does it? See, I thought increasing economic prosperity, ensuring people have food, jobs, and a place to live in safety, and not *killing their countrymen* was a good way to defeat the terrorist mindset. Apparently Bush doesn't agree, though, since, prior to the war, most people had all of those things (yes, including safety... your average Iraqi was pretty safe, over all), and now they have none of them.

      That way we don't have to go hang out there anymore.

      HAH! If you think the US will just vacate the area after an "approved" government is installed, you're even more deluded than I thought.

    71. Re:Your friends are watching you by burninginside · · Score: 1

      i wish i could mod up your post...

      people seem to forget history so quickly

    72. Re:Your friends are watching you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Hrmmmmmmm, sounds like we already have what you are looking for

      Hear, hear. Kennedy was a shrewd politician who used inherited wealth and populist propaganda to gain the presidency. Kennedy brought the world to the brink of Armageddon with hyper-aggressive strategic arms posturing. Kennedy employed scaremongering to get tenouous public approval to funnel our soldiers and lifeblood into, of all places, the tarpit of southeast Asia, setting the stage for an expensive and bloody overseas conflict and further destabilization of the region - akin to turning a firecracker into a powder keg and tossing it into a bonfire.

      You're right - it all sounds familiar. Even assuming Kennedy really was a great President on these and other merits, as suggested by GP, the economy and world climate are completely different today. Isn't it possible that a nineteen sixties cold war mentality is no longer applicable, assuming it ever was in the first place?

      > MLK was pro freedom....
      Well who isn't? "The terrorists?" Check this out: everyone, including Osama and his simple-minded jihadi ilk, seems to have his own idea about what constitutes liberty, and how to go about securing it. In today's reality, no one entity can claim to have a monopoly on the ideals of freedom or the methods employed for meeting them (this includes good, God-fearing righteous folk here and elsewhere). The election results say that the dominant political paradigm in the US is the Republican platform, on average. Does that mean that this interpretation of freedom is decidely right, absolute, the same as MLK's? No. It's simply the current operative definition. And seeing as some of the points contained therein are antithetical to my ideas of freedom, I will continue to vote for alternatives. We'll be seeing y'all again, starting in 2006 and in the years to come.

  72. Get out and vote! by rbolkey · · Score: 1

    If we all do our part, we could have every lawyer in the nation tied up for years!

  73. Already voted... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
    And I am dismayed to say that I voted using a punch card (Presinct 6 of Harper Woods, MI)! I'm especially dismayed after having voted here using the "draw a line" optical voting method in which you draw a line between the two parts of an arrow pointing at your candidate of choice. It looks sorta like this:

    >- ->

    Needless to say, I examined the punch card ballot very carefully for any hanging chads, but I'm unsure the 100 people ahead of me did the same...

    I wonder if we'll have to recount in Michigan:

    "This is Wolf Blitzer reporting from Detroit, where the 2004 presidential election still hangs in the balance after massive voting problems two weeks ago. Coming up next wil be a debate between Robert Novak and James Carville over how best to tar and feather Jon Stewart. Tucker Carlson will be flogging Stewart with his bowtie."

    Oh, God, please finish this election by the end of the week! ;)

    1. Re:Already voted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the fact that you couldn't properly spell the word precinct lead them to believe you were to fucking stupid to use anything but a punch card.

    2. Re:Already voted... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      Or that you are too scared to post under your own user name leads us to believe that you are truly a coward, Sparky.

      Be a man and state your opinions under your user name, dipshit.

  74. Voting for a third party? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately in this two party system voting for a third party is like masturbation, it sure feels good, but in the end you're only screwing yourself.

  75. Re:More clickbait by general_re · · Score: 1
    I don't know about anyone else, but /. seems to be slowing way down for me. Must be a fair amount of traffic.

    Say, forget the election - who wants to see if we can slashdot Slashdot? ;)

    --
    ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  76. Who did you vote for and why? by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

    President: John Kerry
    Every other partisan position: Libertarian, when available

    Why - My views are strongly libertarian, but I felt that 4 more years of Bush was too much to risk, he has done so much harm to this country. I feel that Kerry is the better of the two for the job. If I was not in a battleground state (I am in Iowa), I PROBABLY would have voted Badnarik; however even then I would have thought twice. His website pre-nomination had a ton of kooky views on it that have quietly been removed since then, like wanting to strap down criminals guilty of violent crime to their beds for the first month in jail so that their muscles go through atrophy and they are no longer a physical threat to anyone. I wish I was kidding, and I wish I could post the link but as I said the page has changed and I can't find it on any of the archive sites.

    1. Re:Who did you vote for and why? by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      Since you live in Iowa, it probably won't matter if you had voted Libertarian. Much like our neighbors to the east where the Democrats use the zombie vote, the Iowa Democrats have been wrapping up the "near dead" vote from the states numerous care centers.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  77. honest concern about voting system by NYTrojan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes I voted, but I honestly don't understand why I bothered. I live in a state that is as far from battleground as possible and voted for the 'other guy' When the electoral college takes over and casts their lot with the overwhelming majority here my vote will be thrown on the floor. Ignored.

    I don't see how I am not being disenfranchised here. Yes I know slashdot leans toward the liberal side, but it can't be that hard to understand how I feel... Voting Republican in New York is the same as voting Democratic in Texas. You don't count. When it's all said and done, you simply don't count. I can't be the only person who feels this way. Why is my voice meaningless simply due to some silly boundary drawn on a map? Can anybody give me a good reason why we don't use the popular vote... aside from the fact that politicians will no longer be able to ignore those of us in states that aren't 'battleground' ones?

    and SHAME on Colorado for turning down that bill that would split their EC votes based on the popular vote. Give yourself a voice people!

    I can't be the only person who feels this way.

    1. Re:honest concern about voting system by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      SHAME on Colorado for turning down that bill that would split their EC votes based on the popular vote.

      Turned down? AFAIK, it's on the ballot today, and if it passed it takes effect today. The following was posted to CNN at 9:41 AM EST today:

      In Colorado, voters will be asked to approve Amendment 36, which would apportion the state's electoral votes based on the percentage of votes each candidate wins instead of the current winner-takes-all method. If passed, it would take effect immediately.
      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    2. Re:honest concern about voting system by Skraut · · Score: 1
      A AGREE 100%, and this is from someone who lives in a "battleground" state. First of all I wish the candidates would have to "spead the wealth" with the campaign adds so that we aren't so swamped by them. Secondly, you're also less of a Citizen by voting from one of those states.

      Take New York for instance... According to the 2000 census, the US has 281,421,906 residents. Of that, 18,976,457 live in New York. In other words New York represents 6.74306% of the US population. With New York having 31 of the possible 538 Electoral Votes, that means that New York only represents 5.76208% of the possible Electoral Votes. That means that if you vote in New York, only 85.45199% of your vote is counted.

      You have to obey 100% of the laws, a soldier who gives his life from New York gives 100% of his life, and the IRS is definately going to require 100% of your taxes. Yet when it comes to electing the President, the country only cares 85.45199% about what you think.

      Compare that to Wyoming which has 0.175% of the population but 0.557% of the electoral votes. So each voter in Wyoming is worth 3.719 New York Voters.

      For an interesting perspective, look up the great 3/5ths compromise, and realize that if you live in a populous state, the government doesn't consider you worth much more than a slave.

      --
      Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
    3. Re:honest concern about voting system by dollargonzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have to define what you mean by being disenfranchised. Taking this to an extreme, how is your vote "counted" any more if you voted for the candidate that lost? it's still a majority vote, just among a different group of people. one way to look at it is to see that with the current system, there is a greater "voter power," where power is defined as the probability of overturning an entire election. your vote *is* counted, it just happens to be in the minority, so the outcome is unchanged.

      --
      BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
    4. Re:honest concern about voting system by wanerious · · Score: 1

      It's a result of you being first and foremost a resident of your state before your country. States still retain some notion of independent entities.

    5. Re:honest concern about voting system by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I disagree - your vote always counts in some way, shape, or form, even if it's only a vote of dissent. In the last election GA (where I lived) voted in the first republican governer since reconstruction. Arnold won in California. Things change.

      Please don't think splitting electoral votes is a good thing... it's what gives states a voice in presidential elections. As soon as you split the vote, your state ends up probably only awarding one or two electoral votes (in other words, New York, with 31 electoral votes, ends up cancelling out 15 to 15, with 1 going to whoever the winner is.

      You'd marginalize your state. Who's going to stump NY for one electoral vote?

      The only reason people are asking for these splits is because, in this election, the edge would go to John Kerry. The only problem is they then have to live with this decision in future elections.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    6. Re:honest concern about voting system by koreth · · Score: 1
      You don't count. When it's all said and done, you simply don't count.

      Not true. If there's another discrepancy between the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the electoral vote, the hue and cry to change the electoral college system will be a lot louder than it was in 2000. Your vote still counts toward your favored candidate's overall popular vote total, whether or not it makes any difference to your state's selection of electors.

      That's why I voted for one of the major candidates instead of a third-party candidate this year like I have in the past -- I'd much rather have the one I voted for win the popular vote, even if he loses the electoral one.

    7. Re:honest concern about voting system by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Wyoming gets the same say as any other state in the union, and New York gets a bonus for having more people. That's why they named the country the United States instead of the United People. Why is it that so hard to understand?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    8. Re:honest concern about voting system by michael_cain · · Score: 1
      Why is my voice meaningless simply due to some silly boundary drawn on a map? Can anybody give me a good reason why we don't use the popular vote...

      Relax, your side is gaining ground. Electors used to make up their own minds about who to vote for. Electors used to be chosen by state legislatures, another layer of indirection that has been eliminated. Slowly but surely, power is being transfered from the states to the federal government. Under the current system, though, a minority of 17 states can block an amendment to the Constitution.

      The Founders recognized the need to provide a great deal of protection against tyrannies of the majority. Changing to direct popular vote for President reduces one of the protections that the rural states have. What would you offer to the 17 most-rural states in exchange for giving up their current disproportionately large voice in the EC?

    9. Re:honest concern about voting system by multimed · · Score: 1
      We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. As such the Constitution set things up so that the states elect the President. Individual states can dole out their electoral votes any way they see fit--generally winner (of the popular vote) take all but there are exceptions. This is probably one of the last vestiges of federalism left.

      You definitely aren't the only one who feels the way you do, and you most certainly are being a good citizen by expressing your concern. But I wish people were more careful with throwing the d-word around--the more it's used trivially, the less powerful it is. Your vote counted according to the rules in effect when you voted.

      If you don't like the system, find out more about it--if you still don't like it, try to change it.

      As far as Colorado goes I think most states are foolish to split their electoral votes. On average, voting is 50-50 and the candidates will not bother working to get one electoral vote. The best thing a state can do to make a candidate visit and address their issues is keep their electoral votes as one block.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    10. Re:honest concern about voting system by InfraredEyes · · Score: 1

      As a Brit who is a long-term resident of the US, I am staggered by the number of people who seem to think that "my vote doesn't count" if they vote against what appears to be an overwhelming number on the other side (e.g. voting Bush in Massachusetts). Your vote does count, even if you are heavily outnumbered and this is why:

      (1) It is always important to keep ideas alive. Even a minority party has a role to play in a democracy by raising questions that would otherwise go unasked. You are helping to maintain the viability of that minority.

      (2) Over time, the political color of a place can change. Demographics, economics, whatever it is -- ten or twenty years from now, your lot may be in the ascendant, and this will be partly because you voted for them.

      How do I know this? Twenty years ago, when I still lived in the UK, I was a poll watcher for the Liberal Party in a constituency (Brit equivalent of a precinct) where the Libs. ran a distant third to the Tories and Labour. Over time, the Liberals (now known as the Liberal Democrats) have emerged as a major third force in UK politics, and have been the only consistently pro-European party in Parliament. Take the long view -- it does make a difference.

      PS Why is red the color of the Republican Party? I'm guessing they don't sing "The Red Flag" at their conventions.

    11. Re:honest concern about voting system by I+am+the+Bullgod · · Score: 1

      To see the benefits of the electoral college, look at the election map. The current system keeps elections balanced between population centers and rural areas. If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would never leave the coasts, leaving us poor saps in the sticks with no way to hear empty promises every 4 years ;). It's a way to ensure that all regions of the country have a balanced say in the election of the president. It's amazing that people question the electoral college when a close election comes up, but have no problem with their representation in the legislative branch, which follows the same principles. In short, VOTE! If you're concerned about your vote not counting on a national level, the same can't be said about your local and state elections.

  78. Vote early and often! by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

    Plenty of business at my polling place this morning in solidly-kerryville Massachusetts. Got a big piece of paper and a pen and filled in the little ovals, just the way god intended.

    I don't recall the name of the machine taking the completed ballots--I do recall it was not 'diebold'.

    They did have print-outs posted for each machine to confirm the counts started at zero.

    Ron Reagan was on Howard Stern this morning making some goods points in the anti-bush campaign. Some guy who already voted for bush called to say what a mistake he had made. If only others can learn from that mistake.

  79. Straight vs. split by epcraig · · Score: 1

    Are slashdot voters lockstep partisans, if not how are your votes split? Just curious...

    --
    Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
    1. Re:Straight vs. split by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Nope, no lockstep here. As a rule, for the last several elections, I've been voting against my partys choices in the Primary election and against my party in the General election. Why? Because here in PA my party has been hijacked by a small, vocal group of ideological thinkers who are hell bent on making sure their ideas get forced down everyone elses throats even if it means taking away rights from the people.

      Anyway, depending on who I'm voting for I stay with the two big parties but will vote for a third party candidate in various races depending on the office.

      I vote for the person (or against in this case), not the party.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  80. Defense & Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, let's see... Bush is obviously ramping up for a general draft (military recruiting is way down for obvious reasons, yet he's building lots of new empty military training facilities; oh plus he tried to reduce the combat pay for soldiers). He's denied people the right to leave the military when their terms were up. The number of high ranking military officials who've resigned because of his policies is quickly getting hard to keep track of. Plus there's this little bit about how he has our countries "defenses" being used for copyright enforcement, is making it impossible to export "sensitive" code (in spite of the fact that the outsourcing policy he promotes guarantees that most such sensitive code is written overseas anyways).

    This guy has harmed our defense and our economy significantly in the last four years. Think we should give him another four to see what he can do?

    1. Re:Defense & Economy by Vanguard(DC) · · Score: 1

      hmm.. ok, i'll take you on..

      1) please list these supposedly new and "empty" military training facilities.

      2) please tell me how keeping the experienced soldiers in the field until their rotation is up, regardless of their scheduled ETS, is a bad thing...?

      3) please list the high-ranking military officials who resigned SPECIFICALLY due to Bush's policies. that should be easy considering how many you claim to exist.

      4) if it's deemed sensitive code, why would you want it exported? for profit? thought so... I take it you are referring to cutting-edge encryption code? if so, then as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't let it leave the NSA, let alone the borders...

      5) when/where did Bush attempt to reduce "combat pay"? It's been known for quite some time that it would remain at a steady and sufficient $225/mo, and seperation pay would remain at $250/mo. In fact, Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is increasing an estimated 6.2%, staying well ahead of COLA and inflation increases.

      And last, but not least, where do you get you steaming piles of misinformation? just curious... try something new: backup your statements with facts and sources.

      bring it.

      --
      "I think, therefore I get paid."
    2. Re:Defense & Economy by Feneric · · Score: 1

      While I can't address everything you brought up (the poster of the message you're replying to will have to do that) I can answer a couple of your questions:

      1. please list these supposedly new and "empty" military training facilities.

        The only new training facility expansion I could name was in Fort Jackson (which happens to be one of the largest basic training facilities in the U.S.). Being an inquisitive sort, though, and knowing that the military tends to employ civilian contractors for the construction of such things, I took a quick look through the publically available DoD contracts to see if there are any others being built. It turns out there are a lot of new facilities being built with planned finishing times in 2004/2005. Check it out yourself through DefenseLINK. So this one does seem to have some merit.

      2. please tell me how keeping the experienced soldiers in the field until their rotation is up, regardless of their scheduled ETS, is a bad thing...?

        Apparently soldiers in garrison are also being extended beyond their ETS, so your argument doesn't hold here. Personally I can see arguments for and against keeping soldiers past their ETS; right now we're not officially at war and if I were a soldier in our "volunteer" army and was told I couldn't get out at my originally agreed period, I'd be pretty upset. On the other hand, if we're expecting big trouble it makes more sense. Since we're being told that Iraq is under control and everything is fine, should we be expecting big trouble?

      3. please list the high-ranking military officials who resigned SPECIFICALLY due to Bush's policies. that should be easy considering how many you claim to exist.

        I'd assume that the original poster is probably referring to Generals Newbold, Franks, Shinseki, Keane, and White (that I can think of -- there are probably more). You've got him here; these people didn't resign because of Bush, they resigned because of Bush's Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (and in some cases they didn't so much resign as retire early). Of course, one could also argue that there's really not much difference...

      4. I take it you are referring to cutting-edge encryption code? if so, then as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't let it leave the NSA, let alone the borders...

        Oh come on, if you have any software background you must surely realize that the stuff deemed too hot for export these days is hardly cutting-edge. My company has to actually import OpenBSD CDs from Canada rather than getting them domestically because of the crazy restrictions on software exports currently in place here.

      5. when/where did Bush attempt to reduce "combat pay"?

        I didn't know about this and Googled around for it. It looks like Bush was reported as doing so in the summer of last year. Realizing it wasn't going over well politically, it was quickly dropped. Apparently in August of last year the tune had changed to one of no increase in combat pay (at least as publically argued in the debate over the Fiscal Year 2003 Supplemental Appropriations bill).

        In fact, Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is increasing an estimated 6.2%, staying well ahead of COLA and inflation increases.

        Even if this is true, basic pay is only increasing by 3.5%, and that's certainly not ahead of other increases. I can see where they may not be too happy.

    3. Re:Defense & Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll answer your questions.
      1) The big one (with added room for two battalions that we'll never get without a draft) is in Fort Jackson.
      2) It's not just experienced soldiers, it's all soldiers, and we're not at war although you talk like we are.
      3) Check the lineup of Army Generals who resigned/retired before they'd take the Chief of Staff job, or resigned/retired because of differences of opinion while on the Chief of Staff job: Tommy Franks, Eric Shinseki, Thomas White, Gregory Newbold, et all.
      4) You're missing the point. It shouldn't be deemed sensitive at all if it's all just outsourced to begin with, and most of the crap that's so declared in any case is hardly worthy.
      5) Summer of last year. It was pretty widely reported on at the time. It even made some newspapers.
      So I guess my "steaming piles of information" aren't. None of this is secret. I'm sure you'll be able to find documentation if you bother to look.

  81. I've got your polazation right HERE, bud! by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > I've been waiting at work all morning for this
    >Finally, something to distract me. I want some extreme polazation in this thread people!!!

    Vertical! Horizontal! My really cool sunglasses!
    North! South! On a magnetar!
    vi! EMACS! Written in COBOL and ported to Windows 95!
    Positive! Negative! Me adjusting the jawstrap for my tinfoil hat and forgetting about my fillings! OUCH!

    And what the fuck is polazation anyway?!? If the jawstrap on my tinfoil hat didn't hurt my teeth so damn much, I'd be immune to this sort of strategery by Karl Rove (the only guy diabolical enough to imagine cramming Michael Moore's fat ass into an Osama bin Laden costume for Hallowe'en!) tryin' to convince me that you're really a Kerry operative makin' fun of our President! You can't fool me! Can't you see the violence in'erent in the syst------[tape runs out]

    1. Re:I've got your polazation right HERE, bud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CIRCULAR polarization is the one true faith, infidel!

      As long as its not right-handed.

    2. Re:I've got your polazation right HERE, bud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Kill Righty!!!!

  82. Do you welcome your Islamist overlord? by magarity · · Score: 0, Troll

    Uncle Osama urges you to vote for Kerry if you know what's good for you:

    Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.

    Read the entire rant not just the select bits you hear on the news. Note especially how the person whose organization planned and executed mulitple terrorist attacks (African embassies, USS Cole, first WTC bombing) during the Clinton administration claims that 9/11 was because of Bush's policies concerning the Palestinians. Who was the #1 overnight guest in the Clinton White House? Arafat!

    1. Re:Do you welcome your Islamist overlord? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative
      Who was the #1 overnight guest in the Clinton White House? Arafat!

      That's very interesting considering the lists released by the Clinton administration don't even show Arafat as ever having stayed at the White House. For reference:

      First term list of guests
      Guests from 1999 through August 2000 (you'll have to click the link in the article to see the list)

      Your source to back your claim?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Do you welcome your Islamist overlord? by Telepathetic+Man · · Score: 1

      I don't care what religion one follows, when it comes to American politics. Except when it comes to militant fundamentalists of any religion like George Bush and the "haves and have mores" that he calls his base, or Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which coincidentally translates to "the base".

      --
      Just because you can, does not mean you should.
    3. Re:Do you welcome your Islamist overlord? by magarity · · Score: 2, Informative

      That list you quote is "from a list of guests" and is NOT a complete list.It is from the Washington Post and another Post article says "President Bush, insisting that Arafat take more decisive action to rein in Palestinian militants, has refused to invite him to the White House, where Arafat was a frequent guest during the Clinton administration."

      From American Spectator:"Bill Clinton, for example, invited a terrorist to the White House who had conspired in the deaths of Americans, even letting him sleep and sate himself at taxpayer expense as an honored guest for weeks at a time. His name was Yasser Arafat, the Kato Kaelin of the Clinton years, bunking so frequently at the White House the press described him as a "constant guest." One of Arafat's terrorists, marveling at his White House residency, was able to brag to the press, "Arafat was a guest at the White House more often than Netanyahu was."

      What a stunning example of the slashdot mod system that your partial list is 'insightful'...

    4. Re:Do you welcome your Islamist overlord? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then obviously the Clinton administration lied (surprise, surprise) when the list of guests was presented OR the Washington Post, CBS News and all the other news organizations who had the same information failed to include Arafat on the list.

      As far as inviting a terrorist to the White House, Bush I did the same thing by inviting Yitzhak Shamir so using that as an article leader really doesn't do anything other than show the bias of the American Spectator.

      Further, nowhere in anything you presented does it say that Arafat was the #1 guest during the Clinton administration. The only thing that is mentioned is that Arafat was a frequent guest who stayed there more than Netanyahu. So what? If Netanyahu stayed there for a total of 2 weeks and Arafat was there for 3 weeks that would meet the qualification of staying there more than Netanyahu.

      As far as the mod system, well, we all know it's a crap shot.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Do you welcome your Islamist overlord? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then obviously the Clinton administration lied (surprise, surprise) when the list of guests was presented OR the Washington Post, CBS News and all the other news organizations who had the same information failed to include Arafat on the list.

      Or maybe you're too fucking stupid to comprehend the difference between "guest" and "overnight guest". Just because Arafat was a frequent guest does not make him a frequent overnight guest, moron.

  83. Rumor: Bush to commit suicide before conceding by ferrellcat · · Score: 0

    He has a single pretzel in his jacket pocket. When Karl Rove comes to him tonight with that look on his face that its over, Bush will pop the pretzel into his mouth, close his eyes and begin to chew.

  84. Lots of Questions by Thunderstruck · · Score: 1

    1. I have a black and white TV that I seldom watch, what the heck is all this red/blue state stuff?

    2. Can we please stop calling any citizen of a United State "American"? There's a reason the word "United Statesian" was never used... If you live in the Union, you're a citizen of your state. American's can be Canadian, Mexican, Panamanian....

    3. Did I hear right that Senator Daschle has obtained a court order keeping only Republican poll watchers out of polling places on South Dakota Indian Reservations?

    4. Anyone want to tell me about the wonders of some neat new technology and help me overcome post-election depression?

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
  85. who'd you rather have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as first lady... Laura Bush or Theresa Heinz-"Scarry"Kerry?

  86. Here in McLean. by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Got up at 0500, at the poll (at Langley HS) at 0600, out at 0630. By the time I left there were well over 100 people in line to vote. Line snaked around the gym, through the door, and around the outside of the gym.

  87. Let's Rebuild America: O'Reilly and Bruce by d102804 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    If you care about this country, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.

    president:
    vice-president:

    O'Reilly cannot win even if he garners a majority of the votes because most states require even write-in candidates to register their candidacy. Nonetheless, O'Reilly can have a "Perot Effect". If he garners a large enough percentage of the vote, then the dominant political parties will adopt his ideas. After Perot lost the race for president, the Republicans adopted most of his ideas for the "Contract with America", of which most became law.

    Here is what O'Reilly supports.

    1. affirmative action on the basis of economic status, not ethnicity
    2. putting the national guard on the border to defend it (note: many European countries use the military to defend the borders from illegal aliens)
    3. using air power to stop despots in countries where the population is hostile to Western culture (i.e. never again sacrifice American lives for ingrates like the Iraqis)
    4. allowing homosexual couples to adopt kids
    5. the minimum wage
    6. strong legislation to protect the environment
    bottom line: Bill O'Reilly for President

  88. Voting machines by festers · · Score: 5, Funny

    No Diebold in Dupage County, IL, I'm glad to say. :) We have the "fill in the oval, let the Scantron machine scan it" setup. I guess when your county is 90% Republican you don't feel the need to rig the election with a bogus computer voting system. ;)

    --


    -------
    "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    1. Re:Voting machines by slagdogg · · Score: 1

      The scantron machine in my very politically balanced district is made by Diebold ... so I've got the ... ummm ... well, something of both worlds.

      --
      (Score:-1, Wrong)
    2. Re:Voting machines by mstra · · Score: 1

      Same thing, but for the opposite party in Cook County. We're punchcards here. Frankly, I'm amazed that they even bother to have us vote - they might as well give us pre-punched Dem ballots.

      --
      Photography, technology, and my dog Scout - http://mattstratton.com
    3. Re:Voting machines by nightsweat · · Score: 1

      DuPage (where I grew up) is trending purple. Lots of previously urban moving out to the burbs and big exurbs like Naperville are creating Dems. It'll be a battleground in the next few elections. Probably not this one, though.

      --

      the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  89. Voter Problems in Louisiana by chemstar · · Score: 1

    Orleans Parish

    - 441 S. Jeff Davis: machines not working

    - 1949 Duels Street Run out of Provisional Ballots

    - 3411 Broadway, Terrell Mary Church magnet school: voter says only one machine working.

    - 3900 Louisiana: machines not working

    -Benjamin Banneker School, Burdette (only one machine working; machine for a whole precinct not working)

    - Jackson School (ward 1 Precinct 1) No keys for machines

    - Joseph Bartholemew Golf Course Club House

    - Little Woods Elementary

    - Live Oak Middle School

    - Louisiana Parkway Between S. Broard and South Dorgenois not working.

    -McDonogh 28 on Esplanade

    - Mc Main Sr. High School: no machines

    - Phillips Jr. High School: one machine working but not working right.

    - Shirley Jefferson Canter

    Jefferson Parish

    - 38th Street voting place (Arizona St. and Arkansas) people are not on the books.

    - 400 Flock St: no machines.

    - Firestation on Mississippi avenue

    - Hazelhurst Community Center at Causeway and Jefferson in Metairie.

    - No machines at Melody between Vets and I-10.

    - Precincts 41 and 42 at Lakeshore Playground: provisional voting problem.

    - Precincts 44 and 45 (unsure of exact location but it is on Lake Avenue in Metairie) machines not working.

    Plaquemines Parish

    - Boothville-Venice Community Center (Venice) - Chris Goodwyne (Asst. Principal Boothville-Venice HS) 985-534-7520 (not working).

    St. Bernard Parish

    - Willie Smith School (not working) and long lines and precincts changed without notice.

    Tangipahoa Parish

    - Vineyard Elementary: commissioner allowing only provisional voting (says Sec of State only allowing this); people are not filling out forms but still voting, and afraid their votes aren't counting.

  90. The Liberties by targo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hi all,
    I cannot yet vote in this country but I would like to remind you of the importance of this, and encourage you to vote.
    There are certain ideas and principles that are central to the political heritage of our country: freedom of speech and free assembly without fear of persecution, the right to be secure against arbitrary search and seizure, the right to a fair and speedy public trial, and above all, the idea that all people are created equal, and have these unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of race, origin or religion.
    These principles have often distinguished the U.S. from other, less fortunate places places in the world. People have admired it because of that, and the country has been able to hold the moral high ground because of adherence to these ideas.
    However, although these rights should be unalienable as values common to all human beings, they cannot be taken for granted unless people take an active role in participating in the political process and ensuring that these values are held up. I have lived under three quite different political systems in my life, and not all of them have allowed its citizens to have these liberties. Through my own experiences and memories of my friends, I have seen how they can be granted and taken away, and it always happens because of either the activity or inactivity of common people, people like you and me.
    So please go out and vote, and encourage your friends to do the same. And whatever your political affiliation is, I hope you think about these rights when making your choice.
    Thank you.

    Targo

  91. Central Illinois by dlapine · · Score: 1
    Rural Illinois has had high turnout this morning. The polling people said that we had 30 minute waiting times- this in a town of 12K.

    Didn't see any "observers" from either party there. Still using punch card ballots, so no "Pre-stuffed" machines here.

    --
    The Internet has no garbage collection
    1. Re:Central Illinois by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      I waited in line for about an hour in Rossville, Georgia (population 3,511). The line snaked out of the building, across the parking lot to the street, and down the street half a block.

      My guess is that it's a polling place for significantly more than just the city limits of Rossville (I actually live just outside the city limits myself).

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  92. I was disenfranchised. by Gannoc · · Score: 4, Interesting


    A year ago, my wife and I moved from an apartment to our house.

    A week later, we went and got our drivers licenses changed, and both registered.

    I registered Green, she registered Republican.

    A few months later, we both received our registration cards.

    She voted this morning.

    When I tried to vote, after waiting for two hours I was told that I wasn't on the rolls. 20 minutes later of me refusing to leave, especially since I had my voter registeration card, they told me that I was registered at my old address.

    Which is garbage, because I _never_ registered to vote at my old address.

    Evidently, this is pretty common. Now i'm expected to say "Gosh, i'm not going to wait another two hours to vote. I have to get to work."

    Well fuck them, i'm voting after work today. I don't care if i'm there for 6 hours.

    I'm still disenfranchised, as I cannot vote for my local representatives.

    1. Re:I was disenfranchised. by RIP · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sorry, I must be totally out of the loop here in Europe..

      but when you register to vote you actually have to say where your vote will go?

      or am I reading this wrong?

      --
      /* We dance to the sounds of sirens and we watch genocide to relax*/
    2. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Telepathetic+Man · · Score: 2, Informative

      I assume your question is about the party registration, for the voter registration card. Its actually optional, whether you want to declare you voter affiliation or not. And if you do declare it, you do not have to vote according to your affiliation. I don't why people do register a party affiliation, as I personally choose not to. If I had to guess, it would be because of pride or the feeling of needing to belong.

      I hope that helps!

      --
      Just because you can, does not mean you should.
    3. Re:I was disenfranchised. by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why do you need to register as a party supporter? Up here in Canada, the voting list is automatic via the tax rolls and you can register at the polling station right before you vote, if they messed something up. It takes about 10 extra minutes (as long as you have your driver's licence and\or a recent phone or hydro bill with you name and address on it to prove residency in the riding).

      Not dissing you, but I don't have to say whether I'm and NDP, Liberal, Green, Bloc or Conservative supporter at all - that's what the ballot is for. Why is it that you have to do that down there? Really, I've always been curious of that and it's never been explained.

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    4. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Holi · · Score: 2, Informative

      In America they cannot deny you the right to vote due to non-payment of taxes. thus creating a voting list from the tax rolls would be unconstitutional.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    5. Re:I was disenfranchised. by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      Two words, "Provisional ballot".

      request one if they turn you back again. It may not be a fool-proof system, but it's better than not trying.

    6. Re:I was disenfranchised. by kiscica · · Score: 1

      And also because, in some states, one must declare a party affiliation in order to vote in that party's primary elections.

      Kiscica

    7. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Eamon+C · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, they cannot deny your request for a provisional ballot. I believe what needs to be done next varies from state to state.

    8. Re:I was disenfranchised. by HillClimber · · Score: 4, Informative

      As an explanation to our non-US observers: It may seem odd to have to list your party affiliation. The main reason for this is to determine who can vote in which "primary" election, where Republicans chose the Republican candidate (Bush), and Democrats chose the Democratic candidate (Kerry), earlier this year. You can also state an "independent" affiliation, in which case you may not vote in the primary election but can vote in (today's) general election. No matter what affiliation you state, you can vote for any candidate (or no candidate) in the general election.

    9. Re:I was disenfranchised. by WolfgangVonEstevez · · Score: 1, Funny

      At least you married one of them. So when the Gestapo comes, maybe they'll take it easy on you and the bruises won't last all that long.

    10. Re:I was disenfranchised. by chammel · · Score: 2, Informative

      In some States party affiliation is required because of they have closed primaries, only those registered in that party can vote in the primary. Other States like Virgina do not require party affiliation to register.

      --
      Neutrons are slippery little rascals, they can fool you. They can bounce and show up around corners you don't expect.
    11. Re:I was disenfranchised. by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Agreed. And it's the same up here. It doesn't matter if you PAID your taxes, it matters that Revenue Canada has your address and sent you you tax form (this info is shared with Elections Canada to create the voter's list, which is shared for all elections - federal, provincial or municipal).

      That's it.

      And if that isn't right or you don't pay taxes (like University students), you simply show up to the polling station in your riding with some documentation as to your identity and proof that you live in the riding - like a lease agreement, a phone, cable, sewer bill etc (even a Visa statment is acceptable, as long as it has you name and adress on it and you have another form of picture ID that proves you are the person on the bill).

      Very simple and verey effective.

      We also mark an X on a paper ballot, which is then scanned so we get both electronic counting and paper ballots in the event of a recount. And we usually know the winner of the Election the night of the election (In 2000, our government called an election, had a 36 day campaign, voted and declared the winner and started back to business between the time of your election and the date the Supreme Court appointed GWB).

      Just an FYI that Canada is not some draconian place. We have a pretty effective democracy up here.

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    12. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "As an explanation to our non-US observers: It may seem odd to have to list your party affiliation. The main reason for this is to determine who can vote in which "primary" election, where Republicans chose the Republican candidate (Bush), and Democrats chose the Democratic candidate (Kerry), earlier this year."

      Thanks - that's always puzzled me.

      Why don't they just let party members vote though? Do they not actually have party members? (In the UK you would join the Labour Party, Conservative Party etc and, if that party's constitution allowed it, you would help choose the leader who would then have the opportunity to become the PM at a general election.)

    13. Re:I was disenfranchised. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Most people aren't actually "party" members, they merely prefer or affiliate with a party.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    14. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Holi · · Score: 1

      Just an FYI that Canada is not some draconian place. We have a pretty effective democracy up here.

      I am sorry if that was inferred by my post. It was not my intention nor my belief.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    15. Re:I was disenfranchised. by dmuth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Call The Election Protection Coalition at 866-OUR-VOTE. They can help.

    16. Re:I was disenfranchised. by superstick58 · · Score: 1
      What is confusing is that each state has different methods. Here in WI we don't need to preregister. Like you said, if you show up with an ID and a bill you can register at the polls. Also, I preregistered and only needed to give my name, address, and maybe some other info like telephone (I can't remember because I did it at a bar) but not my affiliation.

      Which brings about another another thing. People are pushing registration and voting so much this year that I was approached while sipping a brew at the pub. Quite convenient in one way and a little annoying in the other. I've yet to see if it works or if it was just a shady marketing ploy to get my contact information.

    17. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Most people aren't actually "party" members, they merely prefer or affiliate with a party."

      Thanks.

      I don't suppose you could clarify who pays for the administration of this system - the parties or the tax-payer - or is it simply assumed to be a zero cost addition to voter registration.

      Finally (and sorry for asking to many questions :-) - what's to stop everyone affiliating to the party they dislike the most and voting for the most lame duck candidate in the primaries? Presumably it's just a case of it happening, but not in large enough numbers to have an affect?

    18. Re:I was disenfranchised. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      The disincentivization(I just made up a word) of the other party(approx the same size) doing the same thing, combined with the advantages of selecting "the best" candidate for your party.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    19. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      what's to stop everyone affiliating to the party they dislike the most and voting for the most lame duck candidate in the primaries?
      A famous liberal troublemaker here in Seattle did just that in 2000. See, he was afraid that if McCain got the nomination then the Republicans might win, because McCain had a chance against Gore. But that incompetent, unelectable boob Bush obviously had no chance, so our troublemaker infiltrated the Republican party and campaigned for Bush in the primaries.

      Turns out it's not such a good strategery after all.

    20. Re:I was disenfranchised. by RIP · · Score: 1

      it helps somewhat =)

      what I don't understand is though, if you read the parent, it seems as if the election workers somehow knew what he was registerd for.. to me it sounds like information that should only be allowed to the party if you want to vote in the primaries.. no?

      --
      /* We dance to the sounds of sirens and we watch genocide to relax*/
    21. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Bobman1235 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry, I must be totally out of the loop here in Europe..

      but when you register to vote you actually have to say where your vote will go?

      or am I reading this wrong?


      You don't HAVE to, but you CAN. And you're not saying where your vote is going (IE a person registered as a Republican is under no obligation to vote as a Replublican), it's just stating which party you're "affiliated" with.

      It's totally optional.

    22. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If I had to guess, it would be because of pride or the feeling of needing to belong."

      One good reason is so you can vote in your state party elections. Although I think that is a poor way to do it.

      Another good reason is party support. As an example in PA I was unable to vote for my candidate because my state ballot did not arrive in time. A email to Democrats Abroad got me an emergency ballot so that I could. A Republican co-worker (also from PA) encountered similar success days earlier from the Republican party.

      Still I wish that the whole election process of balloting would be more like Canada. There my wife can just check off her choice and disputes are very rare indeed. There an impartial federal agency backed by scrutineers representing all parties on the ballot ensure things are fair.

    23. Re:I was disenfranchised. by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      In Pennsylvania you get to vote in your party's primary election if you are registered. Some states allow you to vote for any and all parties' candidates.

      And, besides, it gives them an easy way to track down opposition members and put them into concentration camps.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    24. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't have to register as a party supporter - it's entirely optional. However, only parties with a sufficient number of registered voters are eligible to have their candidates on the ballot and get election funding. Also, being registered with a particular party may be necessary to vote for that party's candidates in the primaries (where they decide which candidate will actually run for that party in the main election). I used to register with a major party for the primaries, and then switch to one of the smaller parties that I like to support for the main election, but my state has gone to open primaries, so I no longer see any reason to ever register for a major party.

      Basically, think of it as a pre-election vote of confidence in the party.

    25. Re:I was disenfranchised. by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      Aaarghh. infer:=imply

      I am sorry if that was IMPLIED by my post

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    26. Re:I was disenfranchised. by Black+Acid · · Score: 1
      Why don't they just let party members vote though? Do they not actually have party members? (In the UK you would join the Labour Party, Conservative Party etc and, if that party's constitution allowed it, you would help choose the leader who would then have the opportunity to become the PM at a general election.)

      By placing the party affiliation option on the voter registration form, party affiliation can be centralized. This way you can't join the Democrat Party and Republican Party and vote in both primaries.
    27. Re:I was disenfranchised. by daliman · · Score: 1

      I work for the Electoral Enrolment Centre, New Zealand (http://www.elections.org.nz). We don't count the votes, we just make and maintain the rolls. Here, you can walk into a polling booth on the day, enrol then and there, even if you've never enrolled at any address, and cast a vote. Your enrolment will be checked and, if valid, your vote will be counted. Why the hell doesn't something similar happen there? It sounds like fecked up organisation - unless you're bent towards conspiracy theories ;) BTW, the office vote here is for Kerry. Or anyone that isn't Bush.

    28. Re:I was disenfranchised. by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 1

      No problem, that's what I figured.

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  93. About these Diebold machines... by kleinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I voted this morning (in Ohio) using the electronic Diebold systems. I am well aware of the issues behind them because of their architecture, but I have to give them credit for their easy interface. If someone says they couldn't use it properly because it is too complex then they probably couldn't operate a shopping cart. If you have not seen them they are a white surface with lights that blink where you have not voted and a solid light where you have. Black boxes group the different candidates and issues. This is nothing like I was expecting. I assumed they had a more ATM like interface, which would have been more difficult to use I think. My only complaint was we only had five machines so I waited in line for two and a half hours (I got there at seven thirty).

    Happy voting.

  94. Vote for the Dark Lord in 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither of the mainstream candidates is nearly evil enough. Vote Voldemort in 2004!

  95. Support George Bush on Wednesday, Nov 3rd by srobert · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Don't forget that those voting for President Bush are to vote in the SPECIAL ELECTION, on Wednesday, November 3rd.

  96. Mark voters thumbs with an ink pen by nounderscores · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should mark voters thumb nails with a marker pen once they've voted. That'll fix it.

    1. Re:Mark voters thumbs with an ink pen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Taliban removed my thumbnails, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Mark voters thumbs with an ink pen by illcare · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know you are joking but in a few countries, including my home country Turkey, they use a special ink to mark the right index finger.

      The ink does not come off for about a week, no matter what you apply to it.

    3. Re:Mark voters thumbs with an ink pen by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      You obviously want to disenfranchise those thousands of poor souls who have NO THUMBS! How DARE you attempt to discriminate against voters because of their disabilities!!!

      ;-)

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    4. Re:Mark voters thumbs with an ink pen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This was actually done in the Chilean election in 1989. After voting, each voter put their thumb on a green stamp pad, marking it with ink that was very difficult to remove.

    5. Re:Mark voters thumbs with an ink pen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ink's too easy to remove. I'd say we perforate a hand (or other body part).

  97. i am dissapointed by tofupup · · Score: 1

    As someone who feels passionate about the injustices in the world and the u.s. i am rather dissapointed by the u.s. and world's support of kerry. I think we deserve better candidates for presidents of the United States - as we seem to like religion so much some one like a martin luther king, or someone like mother tersa, maybe rosa parks. The anybody but bush is ideology is childish at best. We deserve better.

    1. Re:i am dissapointed by Meisda · · Score: 1

      So who should I vote for then if I'm passionate about the injustices in the world?

  98. Voter Ignorance by SonicSpike · · Score: 5, Informative

    I personally do not think that everyone should be voting. In fact I think a lot of people SHOULDN'T be voting!

    Ignorance is rampant and I would rather have an intelligent informed nation choosing their leader based on facts, logic, and rationale rather than emotional responses, self-interest, and personality marketing/propoganda.

    The Cato Institute published a report which is here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-525es.html [Cato.org] and it details its findings on the study of voter ignorance. Here is an excerpt:

    "Overall, close to one-third of Americans can be categorized as 'know-nothings' almost completely ignorant of relevant political information," writes Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, in "When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy."

    "Most of the time," Somin notes," only bare majorities know which party has control of the Senate, some 70 percent cannot name either of their state's senators and the vast majority cannot name any congressional candidate in their district at the height of a campaign."

    Overall, voters tend to be "abysmally ignorant of even very basic political information... the sheer depth of most individual voters' ignorance is shocking to observers not familiar with the research."

    A few examples from many in the report:

    * The Patriot Act? What's that? Three-fourths of Americans say they know little or nothing about it. 58 percent say they've heard "nothing" or "not much" about it.

    * Seventy percent don't know about the $500 billion new drug benefit added this year to Medicare, which Somin describes as "probably the most significant domestic legislation passed during the Bush administration."

    * A majority cannot make even a rough estimate of how many Americans soldiers have been killed in Iraq.

    * 61 percent believe that there has been a net loss of U.S. jobs in 2004.

    * Over 60 per cent don't know that, during President Bush's term, there has been an explosion in domestic spending (about 25 percent above previous levels) that has enormously increased the national debt.

    * Last year, 58 percent of Americans could not name a single federal Cabinet department.

    And such voter ignorance is, alas, nothing new:

    * In 1964, at the height of Cold War tensions, only 38 percent of the public knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO.

    * In 1994, after Republicans took control of Congress under the highly-publicized leadership of Rep. Newt Gingrich, 57 percent of Americans said they'd never heard of Gingrich, despite the avalanche of press coverage.

    * In 1996, 67 percent couldn't name their congressman, and only 26 percent knew that senators serve six-year terms.

    * In the 2002 elections, only 32 percent of voters knew that the Republican Party controlled the House.

    In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

    Mass ignorance is easy to exploit and sway opinions based on nothing more than emotions.

    And in conclusion I say that if you do not truly understand the issues, have a good concept of how the government and the world works, and grasp the ideals and principles of what this government was founded on and it's history - then stay the hell out of the voting booth!

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
    1. Re:Voter Ignorance by Telepathetic+Man · · Score: 1
      Ignorance obviously doesn't matter. Even President Bush probably can't name anyone his own cabinet. Not only that, but the movie "Farenheit 9/11" showed how ignorant the ignorant Congress was in passing the Patriot Act, in that pretty much no one even read the bill.

      I guess its kind of bewildering. If either of the established candidate get into office, its proof that nothing has changed in America except that the overall I.Q. of the populace has continued to drop. Who is to blame for that is debatable, there sure isn't a lack of places and people to point fingers at. Makes one wish they had more then ten fingers.

      --
      Just because you can, does not mean you should.
    2. Re:Voter Ignorance by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      But I bet most voters can tell you which candidate they think is more charming.

    3. Re:Voter Ignorance by div_2n · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nonsense. Intelligence or being informed is not a prerequisite to freedom. If people can be asked to die for their country or to pay taxes or to be subjugated to the laws of the land, then they should have a chance to exercise their opinion over the leaders even if they just close their eyes and point.

      If you don't like it, I think there are a few countries where you might fit in a little better.

    4. Re:Voter Ignorance by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      I swear to fucking god, my brother just told me that Bush would be the better president because Kerry hasn't been president yet and so has no experience. This from someone who gleefully admits that he

      * never watches the news
      * doesn't care about the news
      * doesn't think it matters

      God help us all.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    5. Re:Voter Ignorance by manifest37 · · Score: 1

      Too bad we don't actually vote for the president.

    6. Re:Voter Ignorance by Tonytheloony · · Score: 1

      But what happens when these people turn a country into a police state or a theocracy? After all people that have been declared mentally irresponsible lose their right to vote, as do convicted felons.

      Personnaly I'd rather live in a country that respects human rights rather than one that's just a democracy (after all, democracy in the strictest sense only means that the majority gets to decide).
      Frankly, where would you rather live?

      --
      The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
    7. Re:Voter Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... even if they just close their eyes and point.

      Which is why each presidential hopeful generally runs around saying that the other guy is a bad man, rather than saying what they stand for (if they even stand for anything this week). The average person is a moron and our system sucks because they are in the majority. All people are not created equal. The country would be a better place if it was run by smart people. It isn't, that sucks, too bad for the smart people that have to live w/ this crap. Where is Ayn Rand when you need her?

    8. Re:Voter Ignorance by yardbird · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The book "The Wisdom of Crowds" discusses this. In a nutshell: groups make good decisions even if most of the people in the group have incomplete or even bad information, because the errors in the individual votes tend to cancel each other out. By this argument, even people with only half a clue should vote.

      --
      Free, legal music for iTunes users.
    9. Re:Voter Ignorance by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Intelligence or being informed is not a prerequisite to freedom. If people can be asked to die for their country or to pay taxes or to be subjugated to the laws of the land, then they should have a chance to exercise their opinion over the leaders even if they just close their eyes and point.

      If you don't like it, I think there are a few countries where you might fit in a little better.

      Not all US citizens have that chance to exercise their opinion over the leaders. If you're a Republican in CA, or a Democrat in Texas, you have zero influence in this election.

      So your equating freedom = one person, one vote and anything else = un-American is based on at least 2 dubious premises.

      Fighting wars, being taxed and being subject to laws are (notionally) for the good of the people and the country. Elections should be exactly the same.

      The reason we allow everyone to vote is because we believe that is the best way to elect good leaders. Now that may be the case, but such important issues should be discussed.

      If all the electorate was competent at electing leaders, then Bush & Kerry wouldn't be spending millions on adverts of hyenas and other such propaganda.

      The question then becomes: can we find any process that we can trust to decide who is qualified to vote?

    10. Re:Voter Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An informed and participating populace is one of the assumptions of a democracy/republic. The main claim (to fame) of a democracy/republic is that the government represents the people (accurately). When the assumptions are false, nothing can be said about the conclusion.

      Unfortunately convention asserts that the conclusion of a false conditional is true (vacuously), but actually the claim that the govt represents the people cannot be held up. Which is the case.

      Not that other places don't have that problem. The population in every country in Bush's coalition of the greedy opportunists and boot lickers opposed invading Iraq, but their govts had different schemes for them.

      If you don't understand this, I think there are a few systems that might fit you better.

    11. Re:Voter Ignorance by phildo420 · · Score: 2

      Well, once upon a time, long long ago, America had a slight 'balance' to this system known as the Senate. The Senate was appointed by the random smart people pointed at by the many dumb people and so you had the balance between the Representatives (directly chosen by the semi-idiots of America) and the Senators (indirectly chosen/appointed by those chosen by the semi-idiots)

      Then 'democracy' fevor overrode sense, and so now the Senate is a popular vote election.
      Good idea, if everyone votes informedly, but now our government is entirely chosen at random by people who just vote for what the other people around them are voting for *(in MANY, not all, cases)

      I say, screw full democracy (look at what it did for Greece back in their golden age) and go back to half and half. That way, atleast, the appointed Senators and the elected Representatives have to duke it out so that you have something inbetween what the 'general' public thinks they should have, and what the more educated people think they should have. This might also help certain things such as healthcare reform, social security reform, government 'regulation' reform and such pass since we'll have some more impartiality in the government instead of a bunch of senators trying to get re-elected every year, a la Kerry and wonderful plans such as the Boston "Big Dig" and that 14 billion dollar price tag.

      I could go for smaller pork barrel projects! And those pork barrel projects are aimed at....WHOA! The constituents? REALLY? So that in the middle of the "Friends" re-runs, Senator X can go "Remember how I built that really cool thingy for you? Vote for me!"

      Alright, sorry for the rambling, but having worked in CS and being involved economics (as consumer, small business, and student) and listening to both side's arguments, you'd think that neither Bush nor Kerry had the slightest idea of what their econ teachers taught them in school.

    12. Re:Voter Ignorance by StormyMonday · · Score: 1

      Feh. This always leads to "this shows that [members of the not-my party] are stupid and should be prevented from voting". This isn't democracy; it's a one-party tyranny.

      Oh, and don't suggest a "nonpartisan" voter test. There is no such thing.

      BTW, the Cato Institute is a pseudolibertarian think tank that invariably supports social Darwinist and international corporatist viewpoints. Everything they say fits their agenda. Nonpartisan, they ain't. Looks like this one is from their "poor people are stupid" file.

      --
      Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
    13. Re:Voter Ignorance by superstick58 · · Score: 1
      This brings to mind a statement from a former professor of mine that I consider to contain some truths.

      "In order for democracy to be successful, a large (informed?) middle class must exist."

      This doesn't mean that the vote should be confined to the middle class or above, it just shows that as the middle class of a country begins to diminish (as may be the case in the US), the foundation of the democracy begins to collapse. This may also explain why democracy has a tough time taking hold in some developing countries.

    14. Re:Voter Ignorance by edp927 · · Score: 1

      This brings to mind a thought I had while getting my coffee before I went off to vote this morning. What this country needs is privatized, market driven, voting. I mean really, I think we've proven time and time again that the government can't properly run an election. Imagine how much more involved voters would be if they had to pay to vote.

      Now, before all you lefties get all bent about it, let me finish. I know you're thinking that paying to vote sounds "undemocratic", perhaps even "unamerican". You're probably thinking that this will lead to the "disenfranchisement" of the poor, but If you knew anything about modern market capitalism, you'd realize that you're really not seeing the whole picture.

      While applying market pressure to voting would surely drive up the cost to the point where only the very wealty could afford to vote independantly, this is not the whole story. Most people would, in fact, be able to vote through group rates available from their employers. (Think about it, what major multinational company -- unfairly disenfranchised by our current system -- wouldn't want an army of voters on its side?) Much like we've already done with health care, and providing for the elderly, this would shift the difficulties of the management of democracy itself onto the shoulders of private enterprise. Just imagine the huge improvements in efficiency!

      Eventually, this system could rid us entirely of our unnatural, and antiquated dependance on traditional, inefficient governments, and provide quite a boost in productivity. As a citizen of one of the worlds largest computer companies, I am certainly looking forward to it.

      ----------

      In all seriousness, political discussions on slashdot always make me squeamish. It seems that during the bubble, every man woman and child employed or studying in the tech field drank heavily of the free-market koolaid. Understandably, mind you, since it's awfully reassuring to believe in the all-knowing self-regulating market, when you want desperately to beleive that your stock in trade is not unbelievably overvalued. Understandable, too, that it is reassuring for techies to treat the byzantine actions of society as a predictable set of actions by game-theoritically rational agents.

      The fact of the matter is, however, that the market has proven time and again (in mild, medium and catastophic flavors) that it simply cannot regulate anything as well as we, as humans who have to suffer through its vagaries, require.

      To bring this rant back to topic, voter ignorance comes in lots of colors. People near sensitive voting equiptment should not throw stones.

    15. Re:Voter Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why our government is a REPUBLIC, and why we have an Electoral College.

      So everybody can vote!

    16. Re:Voter Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I somehow agree. An ignorant voter is very dangerous and potentially harmful for the nation. But Here are the game's rule : Every one with at least 80 in I.Q. votes, and it is everyone's task to educate the nation, to praise for the virtues of knowledge and education, the necessity of free speech and free medias. When the population interests more in knowledge and education and less in violence and "strength", you will have a win.

      It is everybody's every day duty. Are you planning on writing a book, making a film or a video game ? Do you plan to play in a show ? Prefer knowledge. Make the pen stronger than the sword, win the fight by refusing it.

      Hate all these stories where a hero causes himself a lot of trouble by incredible stupidity and solves everything thanks to violence and kung-fu skillz!

      This message is brought to you by the Anonymous Resistance Movement.

    17. Re:Voter Ignorance by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're putting words into the original author's mouth. The parent never said anything about an intelligence test or that foolish people should be legally prevented from making a vote. That's something I absolutely agree with. I think you make a terrible decision as a human being to participate in a process that you really don't understand, but I definately don't think anyone should legally prevent people from voting on account of 'intelligence.' His statement wasn't a call for legal action to prevent people who don't know what's going on from voting, it was a call to people to stop encouraging everyone to go out and vote. That's something I totally agree with.

      That being said, I really don't understand how anyone can possibly claim that getting a bunch of ignorant people to participate in the political process helps anything. I firmly beleive that this world would be a lot better if fewer people voted.

      Consider all of the stupid aggravating crap that politicans say and do. Consider all of those stupid attack ads and assinine twisting of records and the way they embellish what they've accomplished while trying to make it look like the other guy is worse than a murderer/rapist. You've got to realize why they do that - it's becuase there are so many people voting who don't pay attention to the issues and are persuaded to vote based on the assinine messages that the politicans send out. If we would stop encouraging mouth breathing morons to vote, the politicans wouldn't have any reason to do all of that bullshit.

      Consider this hypothetical situation - there's about 30% of the population that pays close attention to what goes on in politics. And those two groups are more or less evenly divided between two sides. If you're a political candidate in that situation, you're never going to win anything by appealing to the small percentage of the population that actually votes. The only way you can win is by crafting a policy platform that sounds good to people who never bother to vote. You also need to reach out to those people and get your message to them, which means you need a lot of money. So the fact that there are large numbers of uninformed people weilding a lot of power immediately leads to the monetary corrpution of politics, and the creation political policies that are designed not to make sense or work but to appeal to individuals who, by their very nature, don't understand the workings of government.

      I am not calling for intelligence tests or restrictions on voting, because I'm no fool myself and I realize how those would easily be abused. I just think If we'd get rid of this idiotic national idea that nonparticipation is bad, and instead everybody agreed that it was better for uniformed people not to vote, that things would work out better for our great country.

      --

      My blog
    18. Re:Voter Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and this is one of the reasons for the electoral college... to prevent elections based on mass popular polls and mob rule

    19. Re:Voter Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is nonsense.

      So what if the 1% intellectual elite knows what's best for the country, when the majority of 49% will overwhelm their vote. And how do you make people educated, when they're kept like cattle and not allowed to even vote?

      The elite needs to influence other people what is important in this election. Here in Europe we read about many brave people who are engaging themselves in activating the public to vote. I suggest you do likewise, unless you're republican, by which your post suddenly makes sense.

      Yes, ignorance can be painful to tolerate, but that's YOUR problem. What do you DO about it other than grasping at ideas that simply WON'T work?

      Democracy is heavily dependent on the citizens. Elite parties have been tested and tried in Soviet Russia, and it didn't work. There's just too much corruption, secrecy and hidden agendas for that to work.

    20. Re:Voter Ignorance by npdoty · · Score: 1

      I don't know the names of either of my senators.

      I don't see how that should affect my eligibility or suitability to vote. I've followed the election closely, I've done research on the people I can actually vote for where I live (neither Senator, whatever their names are, are up for reelection, but I know my Representative).

      Which is not to say that I don't think we should teach our populace more about our government, or even that I shouldn't bother knowing the names of my senators, but it certainly doesn't make me any less qualified to vote.

    21. Re:Voter Ignorance by horza · · Score: 1

      The Patriot Act? What's that? Three-fourths of Americans say they know little or nothing about it. 58 percent say they've heard "nothing" or "not much" about it.

      Educated people would says that three quarters of Americans say they know little or nothing.

      A majority cannot make even a rough estimate of how many Americans soldiers have been killed in Iraq.

      That would be "The majority" as you don't tend to get more than one.

      Etc. You always have the elitist Democrats that believe your average American is too thick to vote. There are different kinds of intelligence though. Just because you don't have a couple of college degrees doesn't mean you can't tell when money is being put in or taken out of your pocket. You may have family in the armed forces which pushes you one way or the other. I disagree with your blatant Communist manifesto where only a few official party officials should have life and death rule over the plebescites.

      Being English living in France, I'm going to get together with a Canadian friend and a few others and spend the morning drinking and watching the election. I've even caught the sense of excitement this side of the pond. Good luck to y'all which-ever way you're voting!

      Phillip.

    22. Re:Voter Ignorance by Y2 · · Score: 1

      Back when I used to stay up too late (and watch too much TV), I saw Jay Leno ask a bunch of random people questions from the US Citizenship test. Nothing but stammers and absurd answers. Then he asked new citizens. World of difference.

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    23. Re:Voter Ignorance by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Just 'cause you think you know everything, that doesn't mean that you do know everything. Encouraging the supposedly-uniformed to not vote would simply mean that the arrogant and egotistical (who will be sure that they are among the enlightened) will be disproportionately represented. While the shy, the timid, and the insecure, who may actually be better informed, will stay home.

      Also, to quote Dilbert, intelligence has less practical applications than you might think. Voting on intuition may seem like a bad idea, but overall, I'm not really sure that it's any less reliable than voting on basis of possibly false or misrepresented information.

      Overall, I think I'd rather have everyone vote, and take my chances, than try to keep certain "special" people from voting (and still take my chances). Frankly, I think there's enough arrogant know-it-alls in politics already. :)

    24. Re:Voter Ignorance by Frostalicious · · Score: 1

      Intelligence or being informed is not a prerequisite to freedom. If people can be asked to die for their country or to pay taxes or to be subjugated to the laws of the land, then they should have a chance to exercise their opinion

      Of course everyone should be given the opportunity to be heard. However if you don't educate yourself, others will take advantage of your ignorance to impose their will upon you voluntarily. That's why politicians lie and newsrooms spin. In this way, knowledge is a prerequisite to freedom.

      The populace is generally ignorant. Unfortunately you can't force knowledge upon them and you don't want to disenfranchise them.

    25. Re:Voter Ignorance by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      And that's EXACTLY how Hitler got in power! It kills me when people think the EC is unfair because that very system is designed to be a final fail-safe/proxy in case times are desperate.

      Just imagine if some Arab detonates a nuke in one of our cities during an election year! Well if a canididate rises up and says that the US will now make it its duty to destroy all Arabs on the face of the planet and completely abolish their existance, a good portion of the US would vote for that guy based on his ideas at the time. The cry for blood (and rightly so) would be so large that it would outweigh reason and logic and would probably end up trampling the Constitution. The EC is here to prevent this.

      The EC is there to prevent exactly that sort of thing from happining.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    26. Re:Voter Ignorance by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      I am not suggesting anything about anybody being elite.

      In this country we have a right to vote but we also have a responsibility to understand the issues and the canididates.

      Unfortunately a lot of people tend to forget the second part of this.

      My argument is that mass ignorance is very damaging to the democratic process and that if you don't understand how things work, then don't vote and quit screwing up the country for those of us who take the time to educate ourselves on the issues.

      It is also not the responsibility of anyone to do anything for anyone else. I happen to have a high IQ (as do many others on /.) but that doesn't mean I should go teach school or write opinions and publish them. The burden is on each and every individual - that's the idea of personal responsibility; it comes with democracy and individual freedoms.

      And I'm libertarian not a Republican. for more info check out http://www.lp.org

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    27. Re:Voter Ignorance by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      I am not suggesting anything about anybody being elite.

      In this country we have a right to vote but we also have a responsibility to understand the issues and the canididates.

      Unfortunately a lot of people tend to forget the second part of this.

      My argument is that mass ignorance is very damaging to the democratic process and that if you don't understand how things work, then don't vote and quit screwing up the country for those of us who take the time to educate ourselves on the issues.

      It is also not the responsibility of anyone to do anything for anyone else. I happen to have a high IQ (as do many others on /.) but that doesn't mean I should be forced to go teach school or write opinions and publish them. The burden is on each and every individual - that's the idea of personal responsibility; it comes with democracy and individual freedoms.

      And I'm libertarian not a Republican. for more info check out http://www.lp.org

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    28. Re:Voter Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. I'd rather see 90% of the registered voters come out, even if they haven't heard of the candidates. Back the 60's, it was shown that the educated class was hawkish on Vietnam while the working class wanted the government to pull out. Back in the 30's it was the working class who demanded reasonable work laws. "They" have been right far more than "we" have.

      Nowadays the most ignorant political positions I see come from the "semi-educated", people who either listen to AM hate radio or read current events "non-fiction" without a knowledge of history to filter it through. They think they are smart and will vehemently attack the "sheep", but in reality they aren't thinking critically.

      I'd rather trust our common political future to the random masses -- that have a track record for morally correct positions -- than the brainwashed elite.

    29. Re:Voter Ignorance by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about an intelligence test or that foolish people should be legally prevented from making a vote. I think one makes a terrible decision as a human being to participate in a process that you really don't understand, but I definately don't think anyone should legally prevent people from voting on account of 'intelligence.'

      My statement wasn't a call for legal action to prevent people who don't know what's going on from voting, it was a call to people to stop encouraging everyone to go out and vote.

      Yes the Cato Institute is libertarian in nature

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    30. Re:Voter Ignorance by mewphobia · · Score: 1
      Nonsense. Intelligence or being informed is not a prerequisite to freedom. If people can be asked to die for their country or to pay taxes or to be subjugated to the laws of the land, then they should have a chance to exercise their opinion over the leaders even if they just close their eyes and point.

      Disclaimer: I'm not american or living in america.

      But if voters aren't informed, then everyone looses their freedom. Patriot Act anyone? Just because you fight in the army doesn't mean you get a say in how it runs.

      It seems to me that the american elections are no more than a popularity contest. How can that be good for a country? The only way a country moves forward is by smart people making good decisions. You can't make a good decision unless you are well informed.

    31. Re:Voter Ignorance by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Also, to quote Dilbert, intelligence has less practical applications than you might think."

      And what does intelligence have to do with knowledge again?

      "Encouraging the supposedly-uniformed to not vote would simply mean that the arrogant and egotistical (who will be sure that they are among the enlightened) will be disproportionately represented. While the shy, the timid, and the insecure, who may actually be better informed, will stay home."

      Maybe you should read the post you are responding to first :) There is a difference between encouraging someone not to vote and not encouraging someone to vote.

    32. Re:Voter Ignorance by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 1
      "Most of the time," Somin notes," only bare majorities know which party has control of the Senate, some 70 percent cannot name either of their state's senators and the vast majority cannot name any congressional candidate in their district at the height of a campaign."
      You know... I couldn't have told you my candidates as of yesterday morning, but my wife and I sat down and read up on each of the candidates and proposals on the ballot last night. We spent about three hours looking them all over and made our respective choices. We didn't get flustered with all the handwaving, shouting, badmouthing, etc. that goes along with pre-election advertisements. We just looked at their web sites, read their stances on the issues, discussed them, and made our choices based upon our impressions of them. No real emotional attachment, just looking at how they feel about what we feel is important.

      ...and it only took us a minute a piece to fill out the ballot. The reason why we had such a long line at my voting precinct was not the number of people but that they were all spending 3-5 minutes a piece dealing with Diebold's latest creation. And yes, the one next to me deadlocked during a guy's vote. The elections officials simply rebooted the machine, gave the guy a new flash card, and destroyed the old one.

      --
      There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
    33. Re:Voter Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Intelligence or being informed is not a prerequisite to freedom. If people can be asked to die for their country or to pay taxes or to be subjugated to the laws of the land, then they should have a chance to exercise their opinion over the leaders even if they just close their eyes and point.

      If you don't like it, I think there are a few countries where you might fit in a little better.


      Absolute nonsense. If people are not intelligent enough to make informed decisions about who they elect and allow themselves to be lied to by their representatives, they are neither free nor "exercising their opinion" over their leaders. They are playing into a well baited trap.

      Closing their eyes and pointing is equivalent to betting all their money at the roulette table. The odds are stacked against the uninformed and they are simply taken advantage of. This is partially a personal failing on their part, but also a failing of society to perpetuate a constructive and thoughtful political mindset. The schools don't teach politics, families don't teach politics, and heaven help us if media is the only remaining source of information about politics.

    34. Re:Voter Ignorance by div_2n · · Score: 1

      Not words, word. So the author never mentioned intelligence. The rest still holds true.

      I don't care about bad or good. I say this country is free and people can vote informed or not and no one has any business changing it. I say it again--being informed is NOT a prerequisite to freedom or exercising it.

    35. Re:Voter Ignorance by LittleStone · · Score: 1

      No, you still haven't addressed the real issue, which is, those who are informed should have tried their best to inform those who ain't. That's how to prevent corruption. You are just blaming the wrong in politics on people who make did not educate themselves to be informed.

      The real problem is, the most informed just do nothing and let politicians manipulate the media, political system and uninformed citizens. Then turning your back to blame people being manipulated?

      Luckily I'm in Canada and our media are doing their jobs satisfactory. If they don't, at least I do my job to complain loud to my government and other media. So far it is still working, so I don't have to go the route to blame uninformed of being manipulated.

      --
      A sig is redundant.
    36. Re:Voter Ignorance by o'reor · · Score: 1
      That's a very interesting point. However, given the situation, do you think that any republican delegate in the EC is likely to vote *against* Bush ? Would it even be seen as legal ? Since they are registered as republicans, is there not a rule that forces them to vote for the republican candidate ?

      I don't thing the EC would prevent some kind of Hitler from getting into power. His party would have appointed its own EC delegates first, and nothing would prevent them from voting for him.

      But that's only my point of view. A further discussion on that point would be interesting, I'm pretty ignorant on those details of the US constitution...

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    37. Re:Voter Ignorance by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      The real problem is, the most informed just do nothing and let politicians manipulate the media, political system and uninformed citizens. Then turning your back to blame people being manipulated?

      The thing is, the politicians have enough money to get ads on TV and radio. Your general group of informed voters either join with those politicians to spread the word (many times a false and manipulative word), or they just don't have the cash to compete for ad spots.

      So it's because of powerlessness, not laziness.
    38. Re:Voter Ignorance by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Well the idea of the EC is that you have scholars and professionals that are not supposed to be swayed by the public opinion or political climate of the moment.

      I am sure it isn't 100% foolproof but it is simply one of multiple checks and balances which help ensure the foundations of this country are maintained.

      Unfortunately I am not privy to the specs of how the EC works and if it is based upon individual state law or federal law. If you want to read it (it isn't that long) visit here:
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/con stituti on.overview.html

      another great read is:
      http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/independ/dec lar.h tml

      Both of which had the ideals of John Locke's Social Contract (consent of the goverened):
      http://radicalacademy.com/hcdffilehom e5b.htm

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  99. When all else fails, vote for deadlock. by notmikey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't like Bush very much, he seems too willing to sell my freedom in the name of security (and being one of the "he who would surrender freedom for security deserves neither" crowd, it's a sticking point for me. I don't like Kerry, either; I think he's promised too much this election. I do want to see the things he's proposed come to fruition (better education/healthcare, decreasing the defecit), but I doubt whether it can really be done. But more than that, I distrust a single-party goverment. The House and Senate will go to the Republicans--the system so strongly favors incumbants that it's only likely to shift a few seats. Pair that with a Bush presidency, and you've got two thirds of government covered. On top of that, at least 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices are likely to retire, and with a willing legislature, Bush can act carte blanche in his appointment of the most extremely conservative judges he's able to find. That's the entire federal government dominated by the right. Put Kerry in instead, watch what happens: Congress and the President will have to fight for every inch on their agendas and when Supreme Court appointments come around, Kerry will have to look more toward the middle for his judges, belaying fears about him appointing from the far left. If it works, it works great. If it doesn't work, it's deadlock. But I'd rather have deadlock than giving my government over to the agenda of a single party, left or right.

  100. Move on, MoveOn.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some MoveOn.org maroons were handing out literature at polling locations in Ramsey County, MN (that's around St. Paul). State officials faxed a press release with several similar situations. (Sorry, press release not online yet...)

    1. Re:Move on, MoveOn.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard a report on the radio that moveon.org members had set up a table that had a sign saying, "Check-in Here" at one polling place. Clearly illegal, but what do they care?

  101. I *can't* vote... by f00Dave · · Score: 1

    Every blog, community, news site and even webcomic I've read today is telling me to vote. I CAN'T. I'M CANADIAN.

    Is it really so much to ask that people who *insist* on telling everyone that they *must* vote prefix their sermon with "if you're an American"?

    *sigh*

    --
    .f00Dave
    1. Re:I *can't* vote... by smack.addict · · Score: 1
      Is it really so much to ask that people who *insist* on telling everyone that they *must* vote prefix their sermon with "if you're an American"?

      Yeah, it is. Get over it.

    2. Re:I *can't* vote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't you vote? Thousands of non-citizens are voting today, including illegal immigrants from Mexico, mostly for J. Kerry. What's to stop you?

    3. Re:I *can't* vote... by flynns · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
  102. Voting in Grand Rapids by tverbeek · · Score: 1
    I was pleased to see the same old punch-card voting gear at my polling place. We've never had any horribly designed ballots, and with the machine there on-site to confirm that your ballot's valid (something we had well before 2000), I have fairly high confidence that my vote will be counted... and can be recounted, if needed.

    We had a couple rent-a-cops where I voted, which is new. The public schools closed for the day, because so many of them are polling places, and the current climate of fear (to say nothing of uncertainty and doubt) made the administration of the schools nervous about safety. Since my polling place is a private school that stayed open, they city hired security for it.

    My only real concern is just the outcome. I know that the GOP is going to sweep the local (West Michigan) races, and the constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions and anything else that tries to give gay couples rights similar to hetero couples is going to pass. So depending on how the presidential race comes out, I may have to start learning "O Canada".

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  103. Face it people. by nil5 · · Score: 0

    In C:

    while(dems suck) {
    for(i=0;i
    In PERL:
    while (chomp $_)
    {
    s/who you like/who you dislike + four more years/g;
    print
    }

    FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!
    FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!
    FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!

  104. Fool me once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shame on you.
    Fool me - we can't get fooled again.

  105. voting probs in MI WITHOUT electronics by ryane67 · · Score: 1

    got to the polls at 7:00am and they were having people re-vote already..
    The felt tip pens they were using were bleeding through the paper ballot and onto the other side causing the reader machine to not accept them.. great..

    so I stood in line for an hour and a half to voice my vote anyway.

    --
    ?SYNTAX ERROR IN LINE 42
    1. Re:voting probs in MI WITHOUT electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, In MI for me they had the classic voter machines, great turn out, and fantastic people at the poll.

      God bless the USA!!

  106. Making America into "a Shining City on a Hill" by d102804 · · Score: 1
    If you care about this country, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.

    president: Bill O'Reilly
    vice-president: Tammy Bruce

    O'Reilly cannot win even if he garners a majority of the votes because most states require even write-in candidates to register their candidacy. Nonetheless, O'Reilly can have a "Perot Effect". If he garners a large enough percentage of the vote, then the dominant political parties will adopt his ideas. After Perot lost the race for president, the Republicans adopted most of his ideas for the "Contract with America", of which most became law.

    Here is what O'Reilly supports.

    1. affirmative action on the basis of economic status, not ethnicity
    2. putting the national guard on the border to defend it (note: many European countries use the military to defend the borders from illegal aliens)
    3. using air power to stop despots in countries where the population is hostile to Western culture (i.e. never again sacrifice American lives for ingrates like the Iraqis)
    4. allowing homosexual couples to adopt kids
    5. the minimum wage
    6. strong legislation to protect the environment
    bottom line: Bill O'Reilly for President

  107. How to avoid electing chickenhawks: by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Voted only for veterans!

    They know the true costs of war. And they realize when it's really neccessary.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:How to avoid electing chickenhawks: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that Bush is considered a verteran, too?

    2. Re: How to avoid electing chickenhawks: by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Voted only for veterans! They know the true costs of war. And they realize when it's really neccessary.

      Well, some don't, but at least those will protect our precious bodily fluids.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:How to avoid electing chickenhawks: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alledgedly.

    4. Re:How to avoid electing chickenhawks: by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what you are really saying is, never vote for someone like Bill Clinton? Or Hillary in '08, for that matter?

      That sounds radical, but you might get support for it.

      Now here is an interesting question. If you are only voting for veterans, do you care what their peers say? Imagine, for example, that hundreds of veterans that served with candidate when they were in service, or who knew important deails of their service, protested against the candidate? Shouldn't they be listened to? After all, a candidate's legislative record or business record faces scrutiny, should their military record be considered? Or are you simply engaging in demagoguery for momentary advantage in this election? Are you going to believe this in the next election?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:How to avoid electing chickenhawks: by follower_of_christ · · Score: 1
      1) Why do we have veterans on both sides of the aisle that say 'X' war was necessary or unnecessary?

      2) They know the true costs of war.
      Which veteran? The one that has actually seen war and was injured in it? The one that was actually in battle and saved other soldiers' lives? The one that comes home only serving 25% of their designated tour and attempts to politically stop the war? The one that trains to be a soldier but never actually makes it to the war who has made the decisions on 2 wars previously? How about the decorated commander that just retired as a 45 year combat veteran who doesn't fear war at all. His view has more credibility when it comes to the true costs of war, but will he know whether its really necessary?

      3) Are soldiers that have served on the front lines who have seen the horrors of war to be trusted? There are LOTS and LOTS of psychological consequences of war. That candidate may avoid war when it is totally necessary, because he's basing his decision of an atrocity that he saw vs relieving the suffering of a people like the Jews for instance.

      My point is this; no candidate will know the "true costs" or consequences of any war. They can calculate up front what "might" happen, but the veteran on the opposite side of the battlefield is calculating also and in the end the struggle ends up somewhere entirely different than where the "veteran" thought it might. No one can see the future. I'd think someone serving in the government for the past 20 years would have better knowledge than a soldier that served in 1 tour of duty. Both candidates fit that description.

    6. Re:How to avoid electing chickenhawks: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yeah well, it's one thing to go whole hog and saying veterans only, but then this dude, who skipped out of serving in the 'nam thanks to his daddy (in fact skipped out of "skipping out" in the guard), goes around dressing up in fighter pilot's flight suit to land on an aircraft carrier with the banner shouting "mission accomplished!" when the war has just started. at least clinton kept his head down instead acting like douchebag idiot that bush junior is (and didn't get us into fucked-up war like iraqi one).


      also, those "peers" (i'm assuming you are refering to those "swift veterans for truth" guys) are funded by Republican backers thru backdoors, and even then, their contention is that kerry should have received fewer medals, and oppose him in following his conscience to protest against the wrong war. yeah that takes a lot away from kerry, who *volunteered* to go to vietnam when gozillian other guys like bush (and yeah, clinton, too) pulled connections/other means to avoid going (and again, bush didn't even fulfill his end of the bargain for that but let off cuz of his daddy). do you have any sense of proportion?

    7. Re:How to avoid electing chickenhawks: by blonde+rser · · Score: 1

      Did you vote for Dole over Clinton? Please reply.

    8. Re:How to avoid electing chickenhawks: by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      Ok, as other posters have pointed out my point was simplistic nearly to the point of uselessness. I guess the best we can apply this maxim is to weigh actual service in favor of lack thereof. (Ignoring the whole debate about Bush's "service" record.)

      As far a Dole vs Clinton, I voted for neither. In Dole's case, there were other issues that ruled him out in my opinion. I did have my concerns about Clinton for this very matter though.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  108. Best online interactive electorial US map by pdjohe · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is the best interactive electorial college map I found on the Internet. Clicking on the button 'Electorial votes' changes the proportions of the states to reflect the electorial college. Lot of stats and fun to play with too.

    As of now, I believe after reading this that the states are going to be voting almost exactly as the did in 2000, and it will come down to Florida making the call, yet again!

    1. Re:Best online interactive electorial US map by eries · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link - that little map was one of the best I've seen in the whole campaign.

    2. Re:Best online interactive electorial US map by multimed · · Score: 1
      I don't like that one at all--showing the relative proportion of electoral votes is a good enough idea, but I've seen better implementations, this one just looks kinda silly. Also it has the following text on top of the page: "Note: This feature is no longer being updated. Complete results are available here." But the link has everything blank yet (which is fine, no final results yet but wiping out the poll info makes it pretty worthless). Anyway, you can't change it on your own to see the numbers. IMHO, two much better interactive charts are:

      The PBS electoral vote map which lets you play with the numbers and provides previous presidential election maps and

      The LA Times Electoral Vote Trackerwhich also lets you switch each state's results as well as providing more info on polls plus how each state went in past elections by the state rather than by the year (like the PBS one)

      See all you flash bashers, there are some good uses for flash.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
  109. Replace election with Reality TV Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say, let's get rid of all campaign finance laws. Blow it wide open. Then we create a new reality TV show called "Who Wants To Be POTUS." A field of interesting candidates is introduced, we get to know a little bit about them, put them in interesting situations, and like deciding America's next pop sensation, we dwindle down the playing field until we have a favorite. The interesting thing is the candidate wouldn't need to spend even a dime if they're already on TV every week. If anything, the people who are calling the 900 number can be seen as contributing to the candidate that they support.

  110. The devil you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is better than the devil you don't!

  111. VA reporting by The+Queen · · Score: 1

    VA people are telling me that their polls had lines in record numbers.

    I vouch for that. I waited nearly an hour; the line was out the door at one point. Never have I seen the place look like that - usually it's just me and a handful of old people. Today it looked like the pharmacy line at Wal-Mart during flu season.

    Lots of single moms and minorities out this morning. Maybe VA has gone Republican more than not in the past, but I feel semi-hopeful today.

    --

    The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
  112. Here's what I noticed in the poll ... by adzoox · · Score: 1

    "Also, if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election"

    That you could care less for 18% of your readers ... most likely the ones that pay the subsciption fees for ad free page views.

    When I wrote you a few weeks back - you replied that the site was getting to partisan and that you'd fix it.

    Anakin: "If you didn't notice I came to save you Master"
    Obi Wan (chained with arms above head looks at Anakin being strung up with chains to be executed): "Good job!"

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  113. Diebold Voting Machine Experience by digitaltraveller · · Score: 1

    I voted this morning. The first thing I saw was the 'Diebold blue screen'.

    This worried me for a sec, but the machine swiftly went to the candidates and correctly cast my vote without a hitch. Well, except one teeny tiny problem. I dialled it in from Australia.

    Just kidding, just kidding. See my earlier post.

  114. And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... that Rome fell on a tuesday.

  115. An alternate choice by Fr05t · · Score: 1

    http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2463

  116. Seeing other's votes - how so? by zoney_ie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is it possible to see what people in front of you vote? Certainly here in Ireland, and I had assumed in most other democracies, one secretly marks one's ballot in a screened off area, and then places it folded up into a ballot box. I.E. it's a secret ballot.

    --
    -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    1. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it possible to see what people in front of you vote? Certainly here in Ireland, and I had assumed in most other democracies, one secretly marks one's ballot in a screened off area, and then places it folded up into a ballot box. I.E. it's a secret ballot.

      They do things very differently in the US. For some reason people in the US appear to think their methods are better than those employed in the "free world" :)

    2. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Every state I've voted in has always had a curtain. Maybe it's a N. Carolina thing?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    3. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by OS24Ever · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's kind of odd. You get a private little booth to mark the ballot. But then you have to go stand in line and stick it into some kind of motorized paper sucking thing. So while standing in line with nothing to look at I noticed the people who were standing in front of me holding their ballots out in front of them...

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    4. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by Mojojojo+Monkey+Inc. · · Score: 1

      My state (Michigan) basically uses the same method. However, there's a "privacy sleeve" envelope-thing that you're supposed to slide your completed ballot into once you leave the voting booth (although our "booths" were little more than podiums with blinders on either side, so people could still walk up behind you and peek over your shoulder if they really wanted to.) Then you just feed the top part of the ballot into the scanning machine which sucks it all in, and give the sleeve back to the voting officials. If done properly, no one else should be able to see your vote. If people don't really care if others see how they voted, then they could just wave it around their heads if they wanted to.

      This was my first time voting, and it's interesting how different the experience was from my expectations (probably influenced by TV or movies and such... I was expecting something more "stately" and "important-looking", not a crowded elementary-school gym with a dozen different lines)

    5. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by theghost · · Score: 1

      It's possible to keep it secret (sleeves and folding, etc.) if you want to, but it's not required.

      --
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    6. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most places in the US do have a screened off area, but voting methods vary not only from state to state but by county and even by district. You'll see just about every possible method of voting being used somewhere, I wouldn't be surprised if there was someplace that takes votes by throwing darts blindfolded at a ballot.

    7. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by legirons · · Score: 1

      "You get a private little booth to mark the ballot. But then you have to go stand in line and stick it into some kind of motorized paper sucking thing."

      The similarity to a shredder is purely coincidental...

    8. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      This was my first time voting in NC. Previously I've lived in KS and voted in multiple elections. At that time you just folded it in half per the instructions and stuck it in a box and off you went. I didn't see any sleeves anywhere, and didn't get any in the primary elections I participated in either.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    9. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by UrgleHoth · · Score: 1

      And a sad fact of this is that the most imaginative the powers that be can think of as an improvement are the diebold pseudo random number generators. Today we voted by filling ovals on thick paper stock, then sticking it into a slot into the scanning recepticle. I held my paper face down and fed it into the slot that way. Only the peepers with the spycams on their shoes would be able to see how I voted.

      --

      Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
    10. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by iriles · · Score: 1

      That's weird, I don't remember it ever being like that here in california. Maybe there just was never a line in front of the ballot box.

      For the past two elections we've been using diebold machines in my county. :( So it's been a while since I've used a ballot box, instead I sign up for an absentee ballot.

      The thing that trips me out about voting is that they never want to see my ID. They just cross my name off a list. So buying someones vote requires nothing more than using their name and address to vote for them. Of course it would be easier to simply sign them up for an absentee ballot.

    11. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      With optical scanner machines you vote at a private station but feed your ballot into one common machine. You have a sleeve that you can hide your ballot in. In my state the top of the ballot (with no information on it) sticks out so you can put that into the machine & it will suck the ballot out without anyone being able to see your vote. However it's often easier to take the ballot out of the sleeve and feed it in which might allow the person behind you to see your vote if they're nosy.

    12. Re:Seeing other's votes - how so? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      We have the exact same system here where I vote in Wisconsin. I found an interesting technical solution to the peeping eyes problem - I turned the ballot upside down while I was carrying it.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  117. It's like Aliens Vs. Predator... by vudufixit · · Score: 1

    Whoever wins, we lose. Both parties are taxers and spenders (at all levels, not just Executive - since Bush's tax cuts, my LOCAL taxes have risen to make up for lost federal subsidies). Both parties pretend to be pro Second Amendment, but will trade our gun rights away at the first cynical opportunity. Both parties will gladly trade our freedom for security - witness the huge bipartisan support for the Patriot Act. As usual, I'm voting for Libertarians and marijuana reformers.

    1. Re:It's like Aliens Vs. Predator... by krgallagher · · Score: 1
      "As usual, I'm voting for Libertarians and marijuana reformers."

      I watched the debates during the Democratic primary. I think it was an MTV sponsored debate, all the questions were asked by young adults. That was one of the questions asked of the candidates, "Have you ever smoked marijuana?" I do not remeber what Kerry or Edwards response was. Most of the candidates admitted that they had and that they had even inhaled. And still it is a crime in this country to engage in an activity that most of our elected officials have done.

      --

      Insert Generic Sig Here:

  118. PHILLY: not diebold machines... Danaher ELECTronic by johnpaul191 · · Score: 2, Informative

    the Philly machines are now the Danaher Controls ELECTronic 1242 voting machine. i don't think any distric in Philadelphia has had the vintage 1950's mechanical machines for over two years now. they rolled out these machines for the 2002 elections. it was a local big voting year because it was the Mayoral race.

    as for the drudgereport story..... it has not made local news that i caught. not sure what the deal is with it.

  119. Write-In Trouble in Illinois by fenris_23 · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I tried to write-in a vote for Nader in Illinois and was told by my precinct captain that my balot would not be "signed" and counted.

    Apparantly, we actually do not have the right to vote for whomever we choose. It is actually up to the states to decide for whom we are allowed to vote.

    It really sucks to be told for whom you are allowed to vote.

    1. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is election fraud, contact your local party representative immediately.

    2. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by fenris_23 · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Here is an update.. I discovered that Nader is indeed a valid write-in candidate here in Illinois but the polling station did not receive the "list" of valid candidates before I arrived to vote.
      I do not have the ability to go back to the polling station today because of work and graduate school obligations so I decided to just submit my balot in a way that the balot would be "signed" so that I could at least vote. Therefore, I can no longer spoil my balot and vote for the person I intended.
      This system is so crooked.

    3. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Here is an update.. I discovered that Nader is
      >indeed a valid write-in candidate here in Illinois
      >but the polling station did not receive the "list"
      >of valid candidates before I arrived to vote.

      Somebody, somewhere, who knew or should have known and should have prevented this situation, was criminally negligent.

    4. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way, you're throwing away your vote. What's the difference?

    5. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by shimmin · · Score: 1

      In Illinois, you must write both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates down on your write-in to make a valid write-in vote. Thus, merely writing Nader's name down without his running-mate's will not work.

    6. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by mstra · · Score: 1
      Hmmm. In Cook County we had write-in stuff for all the offices. Although I don't know how the magical scanning machine would know it had a write-in. My guess is that when it saw ink there, it would just zoom it into another pile.

      Or maybe there was a punch hole for write-in...I didn't notice.

      --
      Photography, technology, and my dog Scout - http://mattstratton.com
    7. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by acherrington · · Score: 1

      I live in chicago (north side - 4200 block of clarendon) and the election judge said the following :

      This guy just tried to write in ralph nader and it broke the machine (punch card reader). I know this, BECAUSE THE IDIOT ANNOUNCED IT TO THE WHOLE CROWD.

      another fine example of chicago politics.

      --


      Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
    8. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by hacker · · Score: 1
      "Either way, you're throwing away your vote. What's the difference?"

      There is no such thing as "throwing away your vote", if you actually vote.

      Please go take a basic Civics or Government class and learn what it means to vote.

    9. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Illinois was called for Kerry around the time of the primaries. So its not like a Nader vote will make an electoral difference.

      The only real wasted vote is voting for someone who you don't believe in.

    10. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by PhilipMckrack · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize electoral votes were allocated according to primary elections.

      With the record turnout this election is having I think that no state is "guaranteed" other than the home state of the candidate, but then again that has been lost as well.

      But I do agree with your sig :)

    11. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      If Nader can garner enough votes to exceed the margin between Bush and Kerry, then they are certainly NOT throwing their vote away. If a Nader vote "won't make a difference," why do you think the Dems are squirming so hard about it? It makes a HUGE difference-- it can mean the difference between who wins or loses, and sends a very important message-- that if the Nader voters WANTED to vote for either of the candidates, they'd get their way, being a large enough force to make the difference, but they don't because they know both of the choices are losers.

      A voter for Nader is a vote to keep the third party foot in the door. The rest of you seem content with a simple choice between corporate loser-shill A and big buisness crack-whore B. The more pissed of you get at Nader, the more power it gives his message, so please, flame away!

    12. Re:Write-In Trouble in Illinois by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Time to make a stink in Illinois over that one.

      I wrote-in Nader today in California, though it was a bit confusing. I had printed out the instructions from Nader's web site which described how to do it on at least four different types of machines, and the machines at my venue turned out to be none-of-the above and were completely different-- all the others there was a space on the ballot card to write-in, but with mine the gray sleeve had a bunch of places to write in office and candidate. No pen though, and I got flustered enough digging one up that I forgot and left my Nader write-in instructions in the cube. I didn't intend to, and after leaving and then realizing it, I thought-- uh, oh, hope it doesn't cause some kind of stink. Then I thought, on the other hand, maybe it wouldn't be so bad if it did! Some voters may have thought it was provided as part of the general instructions...

      Chances Nader will even beat the margin are probably slim in California, but the old squeeze-play the gruesome twosome do on third parties is really abhorrent to me, and I see no reason to stop letting them know it in whatever little ways I can. I mean, at the very least the stress these guys have been subjecting themselves to must be horrendous-- maybe we can burn them out so much they won't have the energy to mess with stuff any further. Even the little bit Nader gets is enough to keep the pressure cranked on John and George when things are so close.

      In 2000, it was clear to me that George W. Bush was an accident looking for a place to happen. And he did not disappoint in the least in that regard, in fact, exceeded my wildest imaginings. But the Dems were actually worse-- just rational enough to keep things from going too far all-at-once which spelled a long, slow, painful decline instead. Far better to get the worst over with quickly and hope some lessons get learned, IMHO, otherwise it'll just keep on happening. Without traumatic failure, "business as usual" remains far too acceptable. New lessons need to be learned, and the best lessons are often learned from the biggest mistakes-- George sure did deliver on those...

      No matter who wins, they are now inheriting a collossal lose-lose mess. Huge deficits, worst international relations of all time, long-term QUAGmire in the middle east-- and we've divided our friends and united our enemies. If Kerry wins, the Republicans'll say "I told you so" every time something goes awry, and if Bush wins, the Dems will do that. And Kerry made way too many promises than we can afford. In either case, more taxes are no doubt on the horizon, and we're gonna need some way to shore up our overextended military which noone wants to think about. And the Republicans have been keeping their financial gut sucked in so hard to try to keep the economy looking good for the election, that when they finally get around to breathing again after the election all hell could break loose. Neither candidate is going to be able to "solve" the problem in the next term-- but at least if the Republicans win, there'll be far fewer folks thinking we were on the "right track" and that Bush did the "right thing" by the time 2008 rolls around, maybe there'll be a better chance then to "trow da bums out!".

      The real shame is those true-blue heroes who valiantly rose up to defend us are paying the biggest price for these mistakes. I vote we stick George back in his uniform along with Rumsfeld and Cheney and order them to Iraq to deal with their mess firsthand.

  120. Remember - In California by jwbrown77 · · Score: 1

    It is state law that you must be provided a paper ballot if you request one. You aren't forced to use the electronic voting machines.

    --

    -----
    How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
  121. Re:Democrats are Better at Fraud... by wizbit · · Score: 1

    You should look up "whiskey wagon voting" or something similar. It was commonplace in the 50's in the deep south, places like Louisiana and Missouri used to have voters literally booze it up on a cart/wagon/truck and drive people around to vote at several different polling places multiple times.

    Fun!

  122. the poll workers don't even know where to vote... by dR.fuZZo · · Score: 1

    I live just outside Omaha, NE. I went to vote and a woman ahead of me in line was having a conversation with the poll workers. Her name wasn't on the list. She had always voted at that location and hadn't received any notice that she was to vote elsewhere.

    The poll workers told her to go talk to the Election Commission to find out where to vote. They said that had been happening to other people, and they had no idea where those people were supposed to vote. An area had just been annexed into Omaha, so it might have been related to that...

    The surprising thing, though, is that this woman that couldn't vote said she had just been at the Election Commission to pick up ballots. She's a poll worker, and she can't even figure out where to vote...

    --
    -- dR.fuZZo
  123. In late-breaking news, FOX Network ... by quarkscat · · Score: 3, Funny

    has determined that George W. Bush has won, with 2% of the East Coast results tabulated (Bush - 56% // Kerry - 49%). George W. Bush heartily thanks his allies at Diebold for their assistance in bringing these latest poll figures.

    1. Re:In late-breaking news, FOX Network ... by flibuste · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bush - 56% // Kerry - 49%

      Am I too old for Maths or is that 105% of votes? No wonder why you have to recount votes and the majority doesn't always win in your country...

  124. Slashdot runs Diebold, apparently by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

    Before any slashdotter starts feeling to smug about our own tech prowess or too cynical about the electronic voting machines, take a moment to notice the Polls section of Slashdot is down for the count. When I read about today's poll I tried to go vote but got a string of "Service not available" error messages.

    Have we slashdotted slashdot?

    Electronic voting is so over-rated. I voted using a paper ticket here in Washington DC, and even that was kind of a mess. Once you've filled out the card you run it through a scanner, which counts your vote. But the scanner was jammed, so the cards were deposited into a locked bin instead, for manual counting later. I'm not suggesting any malfeasance here, just pointing out things *always* go wrong - blame it on Murphy if you must point fingers - and having a paper trail is a good thing.

    As for SlashPolls, get back on line, dammit, so I can vote! Or should I just write it down on a piece of paper and mail it to CowboyNeal myself?

    --
    If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
  125. Bush has brought meaningful change... by raehl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The government can now hold you indefinitely without trial. Rich people are richer, the deficit is skyrocketing, we've invaded Iraq and killed 100,000 Iraqis...

    Or did you mean POSITIVE, meaningful change?

    I'm voting Kerry. I like his lies better.

    1. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Informative

      "we've invaded Iraq and killed 100,000 Iraqis..."

      Actually, that figure does not say that Americans were the killers. That figure includes all "excess deaths" that occurred in Iraq. In fact, only half of those deaths were do to violence, and it does not say what party was the cause of the death.

      You should see what Iraqis think about this.

      And, there were _many_ good reasons for invaded Iraq, a few of which I've listed elsewhere.

    2. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by danila · · Score: 4, Informative

      This site does not represent all Iraqis. It's just a site set up by an American guy called Steven Moore (he worked for the American occupation administration). He clearly if not pro-Bush agenda, then clear job description as a USA-paid PR guy. So the site has some blatant lies and a lot of creative distortion of facts.

      Read more about it in this Indimedia article: The truth about "thetruthaboutiraq.org".

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    3. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm voting Kerry. I like his lies better.

      And I'm voting Kerry... I like his ties better.

    4. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      New Scientist also has an article which figures the civilian death toll to be around 100,000. One of the other undereported items is that while roughly 1,000 US troops have died, four times that amount have been wounded severely enough to be sent home, and over 8,000 total have been wounded thus far.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    5. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      and you cite your evidence from an article that says:
      "I guess from these facts we can conclude that..."
      The article threw together some whois information and made conclusions about who and what this guy is all about.

      But I think the point is that there is no site that represents all Iraqis. Just like there's no site that represents all Americans. The information contained there, like any site, is to be used together with other information gleaned from other sources. I feel it should be used to counter the negative reports we see each day. News outlets love doom and gloom - don't believe me? Watch your local news each night.

    6. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      It's a shame Bush can't just say "hey, Saddam was a threat, he had nothing to do with 9/11, but for the past decade, he's ill-cooperated with the international weapons inspectors, and we were concerned about his history of using non-conventional weapons against his people and his opponents. The worst-case scenario has come to pass, we were wrong, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Our invasion has only served to topple a brutal dictator and temporarily throw Iraq into disorder. Pulling out now would be irresponsible and make matters worse. The WMD mission is over, now the mission is to ensure the Iraqi people can control their own future."

      But Bush has said nothing of the sort and continues to happily ignore the fact that the American people believe Saddam has something to do with Al-Queida or Sept 11. People have died in the service of this deception.

      You can present all the good reasons to invade Iraq, but you nobody can attribute them to Bush because he's still clinging to his gutless deception. I can only assume it is to manipulate public opinion.

      Bush, knowing the truth, should have pushed the international community harder. This bizzare decision for the U.S. to proceed jeopardized the legitimate objectives for the war, and put U.S. troops into somebody else's back yard.

      You're right that given the info we have, the war is not insane. But clearly given the info we have, Bush is.

    7. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You should see what Iraqis think about this.

      Yeah, I'd like to hear what Iraqis think about this. But the link you provided does NOT point to what Iraqis think; it points to a partisan outfit that is interested in peddling its own "truth" (somewhat like the "Swift Boat veterans for truth"). You want to know the "truth about Iraq"? How about you look at Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War. The children that Jim Hake cites were "killed under Saddam" ? They were killed by the UN sanctions. Before GW-1, Iraq was a pretty decent country. The Iran-Iraq war sent it on a downward spiral, but the GW-1 and sanctions prevented it from ever coming back up.

      I'm sure none of this will make any difference to you because your colored glasses won't make you see any different. But remember this: Iraq was the only secular regime in that region! Today, the muslim mullahs run the place.

      It was a place where women and minorities had equal rights. Women could fucking DRIVE in IRAQ! Something they cannot do even today in Saudi Arabia, your "ally". Women held high positions of power. Remember Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi PM? He was a Christian! Imagine, that: a Christian PM in a 95% Muslim country! Let me know if you find such a thing ever again in the Middle East.

      Regarding your "good reasons" for invading Iraq: your cherry-picking of the facts leaves much to be desired. In isolation: yes, Saddam was a bad man. But, why not apply the same reasoning to states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Just because their leaders were shrewd enough to hoodwink Bush into thinking they're his "allies"?? While you point to the passports, etc. as evidence of Iraqi hand in terrorism, you conveniently ignore the fact that countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been openly funding and training terrorists for decades! Almost every single terrorist of the past decade got training and support in Pakistan.

      There are a dozen countries out there that have been international pariahs for decades (while Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam), but the US never chose to invade them. Countries like Syria have given shelter for terrorists since the 60s; and yet Colin Powell prefers to talk to them.

      Your "good reasons" are nothing more than a poor attempt at justification after the fact.

      It reminds me of the old fable of the wolf and the lamb. Both are drinking from a stream. The lamb is downstream from the wolf, but the wolf has designs on it. The wolf accuses him of polluting the water he's drinking. "But, I'm downstream", bleats the lamb. "How could I be polluting your water?". The wolf thinks about this for a second, and then says "Your mother insulted me the other day" and promptly proceeds to eat him.

      It is quite surprising that you claim to be a follower of Christ, and yet you look away when innocents are being slaughtered. Where's your religion? Where are your teachings? Oh right! They don't apply to Muslims! That must be it.

    8. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Kazrath · · Score: 0

      >Rich people are richer, the deficit is skyrocketing, we've invaded Iraq and killed 100,000 Iraqis... I'm sorry but you really need to take a few steps into reality. First - When HAVEN'T the rich gotten richer. It's always been "It takes money to make money". Second - The Deficit is not "Skyrocketing" It's no longer on a downward trend over the next 10 years. I Deficit is already HUGE. And finally - You really need to actually READ the news article claiming 100k iraqi's are dead. They never stated there are 100k dead. They stated that our equation of 250% better chance of dying equates to 100k people dead. There are only 15k reported dead... and i'll be nice Give or take 10k

    9. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "But Bush has said nothing of the sort"

      Then you haven't honestly listened to what he has said.

      "the American people believe Saddam has something to do with Al-Queida"

      He did. The 9/11 report even said so. Bill Clinton's indictment of Osama ben Laden said so. In fact, one of their known agreements included weapons development.

      "or Sept 11"

      There are several possible links between Saddam and 9/11. None of them are hard enough to say for 100% certain, but they are there. In fact, the families of 9/11 have won a judgment against Iraq for its complicity in 9/11. They at the very least knew about it beforehand, as their national paper described it a few months in advance, including the specific targets. It said Saddam would attack America with the vengeance of the bedouins, hitting the Pentagon and the White House, and strike America on the arm that is already hurting (ref. 1993 WTC), and that America would curse the name of Frank Sinatra (referring to his song, "New York, New York").

      Even so, Bush has NEVER ONCE himself tied Saddam or Iraq to 9/11. He has tied him, rightfully so, to Al-Qaeda.

      "You can present all the good reasons to invade Iraq, but you nobody can attribute them to Bush because he's still clinging to his gutless deception."

      Actually you're just lying about his position. Maybe if you listened to him instead of what others say about him you would know the truth.

      "But clearly given the info we have, Bush is."

      Of course you fail to mention that Bush probably has a lot of info that we have no access to.

    10. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah not going to waste a post on this: Why the hell is it not spacing after a return carriage. I switched it to plain text. Worked fine before I started using a registered account.

    11. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 0, Troll

      "It is quite surprising that you claim to be a follower of Christ, and yet you look away when innocents are being slaughtered."

      Actually, I think that the war in Iraq will prevent the future slaughter of the innocent.

      "Oh right! They don't apply to Muslims! That must be it."

      I'm sure putting words in other people's mouths help you feel good about everything you believe.

      "But, why not apply the same reasoning to states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?"

      You have to start somewhere. The hope is that after Iraq becomes stable, in 15-30 years it will help stabilize the whole region. That might not be true, but forgive me if I have a little hope for the world.

      "Remember Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi PM? He was a Christian! Imagine, that: a Christian PM in a 95% Muslim country! Let me know if you find such a thing ever again in the Middle East."

      Of course, if you disagreed w/ Saddam, he'd cut off your hands. His son would rape your daughters. But since he wasn't prejudiced against religions I guess it was okay.

      "The children that Jim Hake cites were "killed under Saddam" ? They were killed by the UN sanctions."

      No, they were killed because Saddam didn't use Oil-for-Food to get food, he used it to bribe leaders, support Al-Qaeda, and other things.

    12. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by shaneFalco · · Score: 1

      when the patriot act was up for renewal the ACLU was asked to point to specific abuses of it. There was not one abuse. The accusations that the patriot act hurts americans is meaningless democratic bitching.

    13. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      "...has NEVER ONCE himself tied Saddam or Iraq to 9/11..."

      Exactly in the same vein as Michael Moore can defend every fact in his "documentary". He's done everything but actually put the words together in the same sentence.

      First hit on Google:

      http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm l

      Unless you're hiding under a rock, you know exactly what I'm talking about here.

    14. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Unless you're hiding under a rock, you know exactly what I'm talking about here."

      I honestly don't. His point was that we have to go after terrorists and terrorist states wherever they are. His point was that attacking Iraq was the best way to prevent another 9/11. I don't know of ANYONE who was confused as to what the president said. I know a lot of people who think Iraq was behind 9/11, but not because of what the administration has said.

      I think he was pretty clear, and was not pulling Michael Moore-ish tactics.

    15. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >In fact, the families of 9/11 have won a judgment against Iraq for its complicity in 9/11.

      Only because there was literally no defense brought forth for Iraq. On top of that, the US government is refusing to allow payment of the judgement because it might cut into Halliburton's oil revenues in Iraq.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    16. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats a credible and unbiased link you posted jesus.christ.org.give_me_an_f'n_break. this is a political election, not a religious event.

    17. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Only because there was literally no defense brought forth for Iraq."

      You don't think it's interesting that the Iraqi national paper had predicted the strike and the targets months beforehand?

      "On top of that, the US government is refusing to allow payment of the judgement because it might cut into Halliburton's oil revenues in Iraq."

      Haliburton would not be affected either way. Haliburton is paid by the US, while Iraq would be the one who paid the families.

      But remember, the point of forgiving Iraq for its past debts and faults is because it is now a new government. Completely. If I'm selling hot dogs on the street corner, and sell you bad hot dogs, and then someone else starts selling good hot dogs on the same corner, are you going to sue _them_ for what the previous guy did?

      It's not like the people of Iraq had any choice before. When we elect a president, we had the choice before, and we have the choice now. The people of Iraq had no choice before, and therefore are not really liable.

    18. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup..."domocratic bitching" sure is useless. Get the guns! Lets shoot everyone who thinks this is a democracy!

    19. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "So the site has some blatant lies and a lot of creative distortion of facts."

      It would be nice to point those out. The article you list doesn't mention any.

      Do you think the polls he is doing is inaccurate? Do you think his bias is beyond the bias of those anti-war researchers (they mention this themselves) who claim Iraqi casualties at 100,000? Do you have anything other than innuendo?

      I'm not saying this guy is the clean bill of truth, but certainly there is nothing in the link you provided which lends any factual doubt onto the website.

    20. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, I think that the war in Iraq will prevent the future slaughter of the innocent.

      And what makes you think this? Have you ever seen how many Americans (and 100x that many innocent Iraqis) have been killed since "Mission Accomplished" ?

      You have to start somewhere..... The hope is that after Iraq becomes stable, in 15-30 years it will help stabilize the whole region. That might not be true, but forgive me if I have a little hope for the world.

      Just 'hoping' without some common sense is sheer idiocy. Have you read the history of this region? Do you know that while you are preaching "democracy" right now, for decades the US has gone out of its way to prop up totalitarian and brutal regimes? Even today, who is the biggest supporter of the Saudis? Yeah, you got it right: the US. The same Saudis who refuse to shut down the pipeline of funding for "charities" (which are a front for terrorists). Where 100s of little schoolgirls were allowed to burn to death in a shool fire because they weren't suitably covered up when trying to escape from the flames! And don't forget: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

      Of course, if you disagreed w/ Saddam, he'd cut off your hands

      ROTFLMAO... you dimwit. The same system of "justice" is practiced in many Islamic countries. Look at the number of beheadings that are done in Saudi Arabia.

      No, they were killed because Saddam didn't use Oil-for-Food to get food, he used it to bribe leaders, support Al-Qaeda, and other things.

      Ha.. I knew you'd trot out the Party line. Your critical thinking skills are as close to zero as I've ever seen anywhere. The 9/11 commission itself said there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

      Just to show how ignorant you are, let me tell you one more thing. Did you know that the head of Pakistani Intelligence wired $100K to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, a few weeks before 9/11 ?? Here's a fucking smoking gun proof that points to Pakistani state sponsorship of the 9/11 hijackers. And what does your messiah W do?? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

      Please don't think I'm angry at you. I feel pity for you: for, one should pity the fool that knows not, and knows not that he knows not. And you are one big fool who knows not.

    21. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 1
      as their national paper described it a few months in advance, including the specific targets. It said Saddam would attack America with the vengeance of the bedouins, hitting the Pentagon and the White House, and strike America on the arm that is already hurting (ref. 1993 WTC), and that America would curse the name of Frank Sinatra (referring to his song, "New York, New York").

      Wow.. that ass from which you dragged this "factoid" out must be pretty big.

      Can you point to any sources? In particular, can you point out the page of the 9/11 report where this is mentioned? After all, if the Iraqi dictator had used these exact words, then surely the 9/11 commission would have looked into it, right? (Hint: I did a Google search with your phrases, and got no hits).

      It just boggles the mind to see someone claim to be a "Programmer/Analyst" and yet fail to show the analytical skills of a 2-year old.

    22. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Kerry voted for the PATRIOT act, so clearly you cannot vote for him either.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    23. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Thangodin · · Score: 1

      You don't think it's interesting that the Iraqi national paper had predicted the strike and the targets months beforehand?

      Yes, it is, but not because the information was unusual. The White House had all the pieces: the timing, that Al Queda was involved, the use of planes as bombs, and the knowledge that a group of Muslims were learning how to fly jets in Florida but had no interest in learning how to land them. The Israeli's knew something was up, and tried to warn the Americans. Alarm bells were ringing in intelligence servics in Europe too. And now your telling me that the Iraqi national paper also predicted it?

      Jesus Christ, what would it take to get it through their thick skulls? How dumb can these people be?

      And you want these people in charge of your security?

    24. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Women could fucking DRIVE in IRAQ!

      That's interesting. There was a show about Iraq on last night on the History channel. It explained that one of the main reasons the Baath party and thus Saddam were able to gain control was because of a very liberal (for the region) gov at the time before the Baath party took power. The liberal gov. was giving rights to women(property ownership, etc...) and the conservative Baath party disagreed and finally overthrew the gov.

    25. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Your critical thinking skills are as close to zero as I've ever seen anywhere. The 9/11 commission itself said there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda."

      You should try reading the 9/11 report. It said it had no operational ties (they didn't plan together) but they did have strategic ties (money, training, and weapons development). The oil-for-food scandal was unearthed _after_ the 9/11 report, and includes funding for Al-Qaeda.

      "ROTFLMAO... you dimwit. The same system of "justice" is practiced in many Islamic countries. Look at the number of beheadings that are done in Saudi Arabia."

      Quite true. I don't see how that is a counterpoint.

      "And what makes you think this? Have you ever seen how many Americans (and 100x that many innocent Iraqis) have been killed since "Mission Accomplished" ?"

      You don't think there might be more than one mission? We defeated Saddam. Mission accomplished. Now we need to establish the peace. Do you think that we should not have declared victory in WWII even though it was 4 years between victory and elections in Germany?

      As for Saudi Arabia, it's a difficult problem. Internationally, they are very powerful in helping in the war on terror. However, their government is an oligarchy ruled by consensus. While the head of the government is very progressive, other elements are not. It's tough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

      As for the connection to Pakistani Intelligence, I've seen that charge repeated, but I've never seen any backup for it. Do you have a link? Also remember - the head of the government is trying to get rid of terrorism, although many under him support it. What to do there? It's possible he could improve the situation massively on his own. Wouldn't that be a good way to try it? And that's exactly what we're doing.

    26. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Jesus Christ, what would it take to get it through their thick skulls? How dumb can these people be"

      I agree here. But 9/11 woke them up. The US has been sleeping wrt terrorism for a while now. Clinton was even covering up terrorism in order to not have to go to war.

      However, I don't see how anyone else who has been running for office in this election would have done any better. I do think our current crop of politicians are morons, but I think Bush is one of the better ones. Kind of a sad state.

    27. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      Nevermind about the link, I managed to find one. Of course, the information is mostly hearsay. The information they did find was a link to Umar Sheikh. After discovering this, Pakistani Intelligence relieved him of his duties.

    28. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 1
      It's possible he could improve the situation massively on his own. Wouldn't that be a good way to try it? And that's exactly what we're doing.

      I just can't stop laughing at your sheer lunacy. And why didn't you try this with Saddam?

      God.. if people like you are what "programmer/analysts" are like these days, no wonder we are outsourcing work to India.

    29. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      CBS News Link

      "According to the lawsuit, a columnist writing under the byline Naeem Abd Muhalhal described bin Laden thinking "seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert, about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."

      The columnist also allegedly wrote that bin Laden was "insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," a possible reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. "

    30. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 1
      Of course, the information is mostly hearsay.

      LOL... the same guy who thinks that the fact a terrorist looked sideways at Iraq is confirmed proof that Iraq was involved, now dismisses hard evidence (phone records, money trail, etc.) as "hearsay".

      You are quite the brainwashed puppy, aren't you?

      A more cynical man than I would posit that you were actually being paid to put forth these half-baked and half-assed theories on sites like Slashdot. There can be no other explanation as to why you seem dumb as a brick.

    31. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by galaxyboy · · Score: 1
      Read more about it in this Indimedia article: The truth about "thetruthaboutiraq.org".

      This site is stupid. It claims that Steven Moore is linked to the GOP. So what? Who cares? That does not automatically translate to mean that Steven Moore is lying. The site provides no evidence to back that up.

    32. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "And why didn't you try this with Saddam?"

      Because he was unwilling. Unlike what the media would like to tell you he WAS NOT complying with the UN resolutions. We've been trying this for 12 years. We were finally faced with the facts that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear program, continued to do chemical weapons research (although not mass-scale production, we think [Syria may prove that differently]), continued to increase the range of his missile system far beyond what was allowed, helped fund Al-Qaeda through oil-for-food, provided terrorists with sanctuary, was increasing the amount of money payed to Palestinian terrorists who kill Israelis, and is implicated in numerous attacks on US soil, and I'm sure I've left a few things out.

      I think 12 years of that is a good enough try.

    33. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "the same guy who thinks that the fact a terrorist looked sideways at Iraq is confirmed proof that Iraq was involved"

      Actually, I've left out a lot of information I didn't find to be credible, and ranked the information I do have according to credibility.

      "now dismisses hard evidence (phone records, money trail, etc.)"

      I haven't seen such evidence. The sites I saw only used phrases such as "believed to be". Do you have a link listing the hard evidence?

      "A more cynical man than I would posit that you were actually being paid to put forth these half-baked and half-assed theories on sites like Slashdot."

      Then why are you bothering? I love it when people say "If I were a lesser man..."

      The reason I'm here is that I'm on Slashdot a lot lately. And, technically, I am being paid to be here, by my liberal boss who doesn't mind if I participate in forum discussions during work time, especially political ones (he's a big political activist himself -- for Kerry -- so he can't say much).

    34. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 1
      Jesus! I never thought I'd meet anybody as dumb as you are.

      Fuckin' idiot, here's what you wrote in the grandparent:
      as their national paper described it a few months in advance, including the specific targets. It said Saddam would attack America with the vengeance of the bedouins, hitting the Pentagon and the White House, and strike America on the arm that is already hurting (ref. 1993 WTC), and that America would curse the name of Frank Sinatra (referring to his song, "New York, New York").

      And here's what is written in the CBS News link that you provided:
      According to the lawsuit, a columnist writing under the byline Naeem Abd Muhalhal described bin Laden thinking "seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert, about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."

      The columnist also allegedly wrote that bin Laden was "insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," a possible reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

      SEE THE NAMES I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.

      You take Bin Laden's quote, and attribute it to Saddam. Way to go, moran!

      The only thing you have in common with an "analyst" is "anal". Take some friggin' remedial reading lessons, will ya?

    35. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      I accidentally said Saddam instead of Ben Laden. Sorry. It was an accident. If you read my point, it was that it was Iraq's national paper who said that Ben Laden would strike America, denoting at least foreknowledge. That WAS my point. I'm sorry I mistyped one evil leader instead of another.

      "You take Bin Laden's quote, and attribute it to Saddam. Way to go, moran!"

      Oh, mistyping during a long, heated discussion is the worst of all atrocities! May the skies fall on me!

    36. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 1

      Because he was unwilling. Unlike what the media would like to tell you he WAS NOT complying with the UN resolutions. We've been trying this for 12 years. We were finally faced with the facts that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear program, continued to do chemical weapons research (although not mass-scale production, we think [Syria may prove that differently]), continued to increase the range of his missile system far beyond what was allowed, helped fund Al-Qaeda through oil-for-food, provided terrorists with sanctuary, was increasing the amount of money payed to Palestinian terrorists who kill Israelis, and is implicated in numerous attacks on US soil, and I'm sure I've left a few things out.

      When you go on such a rhetoric (e.g. provided terrorists with sanctuary; implicated in numerous attacks on US soil), you sound almost like a paid shill. I think you should retract some parts of the statement, unless admitting a mistake is considered a bad thing!

      S

    37. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      But Bush has ties to Australia, and as we both know Australia is populated by criminals, so I clearly cannot choose the candidate in front of you!

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    38. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 1
      It is fun to watch a brainwashed moron like you keep repeating the Party line, with his fingers in his ears while his head is up his ass.

      Prepare for another reaming...

      We were finally faced with the facts that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear program,
      Facts? What facts?? Everyone from the UNSCOM and IAEA down kept saying he had nothing. Oh, you mean like the Uranium he was buying from Niger as your messiah claimed? HA! Every one laughed at that sloppy forgery.

      continued to do chemical weapons research
      Well, guess what? Half the college Chem students can build "chemical weapons" (obviously, not in the college YOU came from, looking at the dull-as-a-snail brain that you have). Take a look at the Meth labs plaguing the midwest. Look at the nerve-gas attack in Japan. You don't need a tinpot tyrant to do chemical weapons research. Sling together some household cleaners and you'll have some pretty potent stuff.

      helped fund Al-Qaeda through oil-for-food
      Again, the village idiot doesn't get it. There was no such link! And the Saudis gave 1000x more money to Al Qaeda (and continue to give to this very day). Stop cherry-picking your "facts" and open your blind-as-a-bat eyes, moran!

      is implicated in numerous attacks on US soil
      Another "fact" from the big ass of his.

      I'm sure I've left a few things out.

      The only things remaining are: Saddam helped bury Hoffa; Saddam actually trained Oswald; Saddam was seen crawling away from the alien crash site in Roswell; the palaces Saddam built were actually built for Elvis; and, just a few weeks ago, Saddam was seen digging around on Mt. St Helens.

    39. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Rasputin · · Score: 1

      The "Patriot" act was designed specifically to circumvent normal oversight. How can you file a complaint if you don't know your rights are being violated?

      --
      "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
    40. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "It takes money to make money?" The continued concentration of wealth in the hands of a few powerful individuals corrupts our society, hurts everyone, and in the form of media consolidation it is shaping into one of the most serious threats to democracy we've ever faced. We need more than glib chatter about "it takes money to make money."

      It's one thing to allow those with money to pursue business ventures that will reap further profits. It's another thing to allow them to buy up news outlets by the hundreds, and use that power to support the candidates that will pass legislation friendly to their business interests.

      In short, "It takes money to make money" is fine, but "It takes money to buy the media coverage and the legislation and the politicians to make money" is corrupting.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    41. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by danila · · Score: 1

      Actually, the lies and distortions are on the site for everyone to see. I started writing my post, then decided to do a whois search, then search for the guy's name and found the article on indimedia, which said it all well.

      The myths listed are bullshit. No sane person would say most of those things, he intentionally distorts the actual real world complaints about the war to sound like they come from some evil Iraq-haters.

      1) The Americans are not "forcing democracy on the Iraqis", in fact they just jailed innocents, limited freedom of press, placed a puppet government, killed tens of thousands and committed countless others crimes.
      2) It's not that all Iraqis want an Islamic theocracy, it's just that some Iraqis want to establish it and some Iranians, Afgans and others want to help establish it. Meanwhile, the only guy, who could unite the hostile tribes of Iraq and oppose the cleriks, is in the prison.
      3) It's not whether anyone wants the impossible - to get them out, it's just that noone ever wanted them in.
      4) The site twists the facts as it was the United Nations that killed those kids who died from malnutrition. And it masquerades Iraqis opinion as fact. Reportedly Iraqis don't support UN, so this proves that UN would not help. And this is despite the fact that UN was successfully humanitarian and peace-keeping operations all over the world for decades.
      5) First, the US supported Saddam when he was killing Kurds. Second, Saddam didn't kill as many people as some claim. Third, that was a pretty fucked up country and much more would die if there wasn't a strong leader such as Saddam (and they wouldn't remain a civilized secular state, as under Saddam). Fourth, Saddam didn't threaten anyone and, fifth, there were no WMD, which were cited as the only reason to invade.
      6) Iraqis had decent life under Saddam, especially before the sanctions. Furthermore, this isn't really important. Americans are being killed, Iraqis are being killed.
      7) There is hope, but it's not terribly likely that the United States would manage to win it.

      It's too late and I am too tired to compose a more coherent reply, so I hope this would suffice. As a finishing note, I just want to say that any bias the media has about Iraq is pro-Bush, pro-government, pro-patriotism, anti-thinking bias. One only needs to remember the last year to realise it. There are very few journalists who managed to voice dissent loudly enough during that time inside the US.

      Steven Moore is a dirty scum, don't succumb to his lies.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    42. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "obviously, not in the college YOU came from, looking at the dull-as-a-snail brain that you have"

      Enjoy the personal attacks, do you?

      Sorry I don't have links to disprove ad-hominem attacks.

      Oh wait, I do.

    43. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "I just want to say that any bias the media has about Iraq is pro-Bush, pro-government, pro-patriotism, anti-thinking bias."

      That's one of the funniest things I've heard all day. Except for the "pro-government", "anti-thinking" part. It is true that the media has a really wierd love/hate relationship with government that is independent of the office-holder. However, they are definitely NOT pro-Bush or pro-patriotism (they've had to do a little of this to keep the viewers from hating them, but it's mostly just a ruse).

      Most people who think that the media is pro-Bush are those who listen to Noam Chomsky too long. Noam Chomsky is pretty famous for completely ignoring the intricacies of international relations and the actions of every other party in order to make America look bad. Of course, if he is your standard, then sure, the media is pro-Bush.

    44. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by horza · · Score: 1

      Something they cannot do even today in Saudi Arabia, your "ally".

      I was reading in the Economist many months ago that being able to have a base in Iraq would be a godsend for the USA as they would be able to quit Saudi, a regime they've never got on with.

      But, why not apply the same reasoning to states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Just because their leaders were shrewd enough to hoodwink Bush into thinking they're his "allies"??

      Uh? Since when was Pakistan an "ally"? A truce has been called with them for political expediency as they share a major border with Afghanistan, but in no way are they an ally.

      Everyone knows about Pakistan and their links to terrorism, hence their sporadic shows of arresting supposed terrorists occasionaly to try and appease the USA who are putting the squeeze on them. You may remember they got bribed into co-operation.

      [snip rubbish fable and racist abuse]

      Phillip.

    45. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 1
      Since when was Pakistan an "ally"?

      Sigh... need I point you to the source ?

      Another case in point: A Q Khan. This guy was peddling nuclear know-how (and I literally mean peddling: he had distributed brochures on how his labs would give you the machinery to enrich Uranium and train your people at arms fairs) to all and sundry, and yet he was let off without even a slap on the wrist. This guy (AQK) gave nuclear know-how to North Korea, Libya, etc. and yet nothing happened to him.

    46. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 1
      Shit.. didn't mean to hit submit so soon.

      I was reading in the Economist many months ago that being able to have a base in Iraq would be a godsend for the USA as they would be able to quit Saudi, a regime they've never got on with.

      Nice theory, but not true. There are several little states out there (like Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, etc.) which would (a) love to have a US Base, and (b) wouldn't be able to say no anyways.

      If noone else, Kuwait certainly is USA's bitch. They owe us bigtime for saving their hides in 1991.

    47. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Quixote · · Score: 1
      Now that I have demolished your nice little playpen, you're resorting to whining?

      While people like you play with toy soldiers and make "phoosh! phoosshh!! bang! boom!!" sounds, there are real soldiers dying out there in Iraq, who answered the call to duty and gave their all. The least you can do to honor their sacrifices is to pursue the truth, however unpalatable it may be!

      Fuckin' liars like you are what we fought in Germany in WW2, and kicked their asses.

      Make no mistake: truth will always prevail, regardless of the number of snivelling bastards like you trying to spin it.

    48. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Saddam helped bury Hoffa; Saddam actually trained
      >Oswald; Saddam was seen crawling away from the
      >alien crash site in Roswell; the palaces Saddam
      >built were actually built for Elvis; and, just a
      >few weeks ago, Saddam was seen digging around on
      >Mt. St Helens.

      LMAO! One minor correction on Mt St Helens- in Johnnyb's universe, that was actually Bill Clinton's fault...

    49. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The oil-for-food scandal was unearthed _after_ the 9/11 report

      Actually, that's been public knowledge since the late 1990s, and large amounts of detail were released, based on Iraqi oil minstry records, well before the Commission reported.

      and includes funding for Al-Qaeda

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If anywhere, Al Qaeda got some logistical support from Iran rather than Iraq, and those two countries were hardly allies.

    50. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA have always got on well with the House of Saud, just not with the wider religious community there.

    51. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Actually, that's been public knowledge since the late 1990s, and large amounts of detail were released, based on Iraqi oil minstry records, well before the Commission reported."

      Large amounts of detail have still not been released, even from the UN, who doesn't like to look for terror ties within its own organization.

      "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

      How on earth does this qualify as an extaordinary claim?

      "If anywhere, Al Qaeda got some logistical support from Iran rather than Iraq, and those two countries were hardly allies."

      So, out of curiosity, why is it that ben Laden, in 1998, all-of-a-sudden decides to mention Iraq throughout his speeches, when previously he gave them little notice?

      http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.06.20/news2. html

      9/11 commission never looked into oil-for-food

      "One obvious "elsewhere" that no one seems to have seriously considered was Saddam's secret geyser of money, gushing from the so-called Oil-for-Food program. That possibility is not discussed in the 9/11 report, and apparently it was not included in the investigation. A 9/11 Commission spokesman confirms that the commission did not request Oil-for-Food documentation from the U.N., and none was offered."

    52. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      If you search for "Sept 11" Iraq and Confusion, you'll get plenty of hits.

      http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Sept+11%22+ Iraq+Confusion&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

    53. Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... by rastachops · · Score: 1

      Hah, you think you have a democracy, it's a dictatorship.

      Why don't you haven *independant* government bodies? Surely it would not harm a democracy if the truth reached the people. Sort that out, then try and justify the hundreds of millions spent on election campaigns when 1/10th of the budget could easily have sufficed and the rest gone to helping people who need it. And how about allowing proportional representation rather than the passing of power between two like minded parties?

      Grah, another 4 years of a dictator in control of a country who think's it owns the world.

  126. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not to mention conservative groups bulk-challenging votes in Ohio.

    After SWVFT, Diebold, and this, how can anyone defend the mentality of the right in America? Oh, right, if Kerry wins the economy will tank and the terrorists will invade Wyoming, like they did under Clinton.

  127. Vote Diebold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote in DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS for President. Sure, it's a throw-away, but in my area, Kerry's got a lock on the Electoral Votes, so...

    At least I'll know whether my vote got counted when I see the full results.

  128. Democratic responsibility by nuggz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No
    If you are a member of a democracy you should always make your opinion heard.

    Tell your President, Prime minister, governor premier mayor, MP, MEP, MPP, senator congressman, alderman, councillor etc what you want.

    Their job is to represent you, and work in the best interest of their consitiuents and the area as a whole.
    To do this they MUST know your opinions.

    If you were them and lots of people write/tell you what they want, don't you think that might influence your stance on issues?
    If the politicians really thought they wouldn't get re-elected if they voted for the invasion of Iraq, they wouldn't have authorized it.
    With recall legislation becoming more popular this is even more important.
    Even Bush would get a little nervous if people started recalling their Republican Governors to replace them with Democrats.

    FWIW I emailed my MP (Federal representative) about a do not call registry, his assistant emailed back the letter my MP had previously sent requesting such legislation.

    1. Re:Democratic responsibility by Glove+d'OJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since when are we a Democracy? All this time, I thought that we were a Republic... Albeit a democratic Republic, a Republic just the same...

      People should RTFC!

      --

      wwjd? jwrtfm!

    2. Re:Democratic responsibility by marktaw.com · · Score: 1

      Since when are we a Democracy? All this time, I thought that we were a Republic... Albeit a democratic Republic, a Republic just the same...

      Yes, we were a Republic, but now I think we're an Oligarchy

      Speaking of Republics, there was an intersting book written by that name a few thousand years ago that talks about how society should get rid of anyone who disagrees too loudly with the way things are done...

    3. Re:Democratic responsibility by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Tell your President, Prime minister, governor premier mayor, MP, MEP, MPP, senator congressman, alderman, councillor etc what you want."

      You new to this Democracy thing? Not sure how it works outside the U.S. but unless you are making at least a 4 figure contribution to one of his campaigns he isn't going to be paying any attention to "what you want", he may look like he is listening but I assure you his brain is thinking about where he's going to get more campaign contributions and you aren't it.

      Of course if your position is the majority position among his constituents he will do "what you want" if its necessary to get him elected. In that case you really don't need to tell him what YOU want because he is looking at a poll to tell him what "you in the collective want".

      Once you make a 4 figure contribution to his campaign you can count on him calling you up and bugging you everytime he needs more money as long as you are under the contribution limit and maybe even when you are over it.

      Another effective method to get "what you want" is to offer him a high paying consulting job with a 7 figure salary when he retires from government. This tactic has a down side because he is of marginal value after he quits and takes the job though he will probably still be good at lobbying his friends that are still in government. On the plus side you can land some really juicy legislation you might "want" this way. For example if you are a giant drug company you use this tactic to tell Billy Tauzin "what you want" in a multibillion dollar windfall from the Medicare "reform" act passed last year, by for example adding a clause making it illegal for the Medicare administration to negotiate the price when they are buying billions of dollars in drugs. Tauzin is the congressmen who shoved this abomination through Congress and last I heard he was going to retire and take a lucrative job with a drug company lobbying group.

      I'm guessing if you can get photos of him in a compromising position that would probably work to communicate to him "what you want" too.

      --
      @de_machina
  129. Vote Badnarik! by JohnnyX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get your country back.

    Yours truly,
    Mr. X

    ...Badnairk is badass...

    1. Re:Vote Badnarik! by LesPaul75 · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother. I hope to see the day when people are informed enough that a Libertarian could actually win.

    2. Re:Vote Badnarik! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Badnairk is badass...

      Why don't you learn how to spell your candidate's name before you go around trying to shill for him?

    3. Re:Vote Badnarik! by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      I voted for him - I don't expect him to win though. I voted for him because I think Bush is the lesser of 2 evils and I would rather have Bush win than Kerry.

      I live in TN so I am willing to bet that Bush will win here and thus able to chance voting for the canididate I think is best - this way my vote is still not "wasted" but yet I ensure the lesser of the two oligopolistic evils wins the state. I also get to send a message to the Libertarians that they have my support!

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  130. Re:Here in VA -- WINVote by nosilA · · Score: 1

    It was A-K,L-Z at my precinct too (western Fairfax). The L-Z line was about half as long as A-K. I got there before the polls opened and it took me an hour to get through (A-K). I'm not sure why they had to divide it up like that - they easily could have broken up the sheets of paper at a different point.

    High voter turnout is great though... I'm happy to wait in line if it means that more people are voting.

  131. Slashdot poll result slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said democracy does not have any more hope?

  132. Re:More clickbait by crizh · · Score: 1

    and same as yesterday the whole site is plastered with ads from OSTG Techjobs in the UK.

    So if things go badly today you can jump ship with a single click.

    --
    Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
  133. Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sorry, I'm not going to vote for anyone who doesn't have the experience to do the job. Bush was unqualified when he took office, and he had at least served in elected office. The only elected position Badnarik has held was Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

    Badnarik has good credentials as a geek, and I'd probably hire him for a programming or systems administration job, but he has no political experience whatsoever. Hell, he wasn't even able to get himself elected to the TEXAS House of Representives. If he (and the Libertarian party in general) are serious about getting into the White House, they need to set their sights a little lower at first: GET PEOPLE INTO OFFICE. *ANY* OFFICE. Local level, state level, whatever. School boards, town/county council, state legislatures, judgeships, etc. This serves two purposes: it shows people that Libertarians actually *can* work with the system and it gives the office-holders actual EXPERIENCE to run for higher office.

    Even more importantly, if and when they are actually able run a serious Gubenatorial or Presidential candidate, that person when elected will actually have a BASE OF SUPPORT in the legislative and judicial branches. You can't change the system from the top-down; you have to work from the bottom up.

    IMHO the most effective place for the LP to start is getting some Libertarian Judges elected. Judgeships are usually not as highly disputed as Legislative or Executive offices, but they hold a LOT of power. A Libertarian-controlled judiciary would be in the position to check the worst execesses perpetrated by the Democrats and Republicans.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by tdemark · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You have a very good point, but it also begs the question:

      Are you supposed to vote for who you think will do a better overall job or who best represents your beliefs and opinions?

      Personally, I was really torn by this very question for the last few weeks...

      - Tony

    2. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Liselle · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Badnarik has good credentials as a geek, and I'd probably hire him for a programming or systems administration job, but he has no political experience whatsoever. Hell, he wasn't even able to get himself elected to the TEXAS House of Representives. If he (and the Libertarian party in general) are serious about getting into the White House, they need to set their sights a little lower at first: GET PEOPLE INTO OFFICE. *ANY* OFFICE. Local level, state level, whatever. School boards, town/county council, state legislatures, judgeships, etc. This serves two purposes: it shows people that Libertarians actually *can* work with the system and it gives the office-holders actual EXPERIENCE to run for higher office.
      Good thing they already thought of this, eh? Click here, pick a state of your choosing, and behold all of the Libertarians in local positions.

      (aside: Jesus it's hard to post with all of these 503 errors, I can't even check to see if this is redundant)
      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    3. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by TheCabal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, it cuts both ways:

      Do you want someone who has spent their entire professional career in politics, with no "real world" experience? Someone who doesn't know how much a gallon of gas or milk costs?

      It's hard to relate to the very people you're supposed to be leading/representing when you've got no connection to them at all.

    4. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jesus.. i bet hes kicking himself in the ass for getting kicked from the die bold software engineering team.. almost makes me wish i didnt have those two computer trespassing felonies.

      vote badnarik in 2600!

    5. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      Judgeships in this country are non-partisan positions. You can elect libertarian-minded judges, but you can't help the (capital-L) Libertarian Party this way.

    6. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Tassach · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Are you supposed to vote for who you think will do a better overall job or who best represents your beliefs and opinions?
      Heh. I've given up hope on either. I'm just voting for the one who'll do the least amount of damage, which is Kerry.

      A third party President would likely unite the other two parties against him, allowing Congress to pass veto-proof legislation. It might be interesting, but since there's no viable 3rd party candidate, this isn't a serious option.

      A Republican President will keep the House, Senate, and Presidency in the hands of one party. The Republican-controlled Congress has already proven itself to be Bush's lap-dog, giving him anything he asks for. [I'd be just as opposed to the Democrats controlling everything, BTW]. Another 4 years of total Republican control will kill the last vestiges of freedom we have left.

      A Democratic president will unite the Democratic minority in Congress behind him. He'll have to struggle and COMPROMISE to get anything done, however, because the Republicans will likely retain control of both houses. This should cancel out the more extreme partisan agendas coming from either party. This will at least keep the far-right fundimentalist Christian wing of the Republican party in check, and they're the ones who really scare me.

      The most important issue for me is the fact that potentially 3 supreme court justices are going to die or retire in the next 4 years. Right now the court is balanced between an arch-conservitive wing and a moderate liberal wing, with one swing justice who leans to the left. Another Bush presidency combined with a Republican-controlled House and Senate will allow them to stack the deck with more hard-right, anti-freedom justices like Scalia and Thomas. However, any Kerry appointee will still have to be confirmed by the same Republican Congress; therefore Kerry would have to chose someone moderate in order to get them past the Republicans. Scant as it is, this is the best hope we have to retain at least some of our freedoms and undo some of the worst excesses of the last 4 years.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    7. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by rattler14 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ignorance can be astounding sometimes...

      1. Sure, experience in other offices helps, but a 3rd party candidate shooting for high offices will always lose in an entrenched 2 party system.

      2. Badnarik may not have held an office with a little name sign on his door, but has been studying the US constitution for over 22 years now. In fact, he teaches an 8 hour class on the constitution, which is available online for your viewing pleasure. He's been teaching it now for at least 4 years, but possibly more. I bet senator Kerry and presient Bush couldn't even tell you what article of the US constitution describes their position, much less what it actually says their powers are.

      I could go on, but it's not worth my time. Libertarians actually go after a lot of this country's problems from the fundamental root, rather than using broad sweeping generalizations like "a safer america is what we want".

      --
      my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
    8. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by sadcox · · Score: 1

      One of the major differences of the LP over the one, err, I mean two major parties that currently have a stranglehold on our political system is that the platform is based on a logical application of an idea--protection of personal property and privacy.

      In my view, I'm not voting for the man. I'm voting for an idea I believe in.

      --
      "He hated Mexicans, and he was half Mexican. AND he hated irony!"
    9. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by westlake · · Score: 1
      Click here, pick a state of your choosing, and behold all of the Libertarians in local positions.

      I clicked on New York and found all of eight Libertarians holding offices statewide, a real political force.

    10. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1

      Actually, the libertarian philosophical cornerstone is based in non-initiation of force. We obey the laws our government sets for us becaust it has the power to use force ugainst us to make us obey, that force being fines, prison and ultimately a gun. Where does the government derive it's right to use force against us? From it's supporting people. So when it comes down to it, the Libertarian philosophy is that if you wouldn't point a gun at your neighbor to force him to do something or shoot him to stop him from doing something, then the government shouldn't either. Apply that idea to every situation imaginable, and you'll have the libertarian view of what the government should and should not be involved in.

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    11. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Ancient+Devices+King · · Score: 1

      I just looked at that site. Granted, I did not look at every state listing in detail, but the offices held by Libertarians that I saw were things like library board of trustees, police commissioner, school board, elections inspector and zoning board. None of these are real policy making positions, nor do they have any real chance for advancement into higher levels of politics. If third parties really want to become real players in the political scene, they need to at least have their people in positions like county board and preferably more important ones like state assembly (I actually voted for the Green party county board candidate and the Socialist state assembly candidate this morning). You might even be able to win a Congressional seat in the right area! The only thing it does to have a 3rd party candidate running for senator or president is to draw attention to your existence, and it's not always in a good way.

      --
      -"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
    12. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by q-the-impaler · · Score: 1

      I just realized that Bush, and every other past President, doesn't know what a gallon of milk costs because the secret service won't let them go to the grocery store.

      Talk about public servitude. No matter who's President, there will be some sort of disconnect. The question is: how much disconnect did they have before they became President?

      --
      Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
    13. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Tassach · · Score: 1

      This thread aptly illustrates another of my problems with the Libertarian party: libertarians can't even seem to agree on what Libertarian philosophy actually IS. Sigh.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    14. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by glitchvern · · Score: 1
      Another Bush presidency combined with a Republican-controlled House and Senate will allow them to stack the deck with more hard-right, anti-freedom justices like Scalia and Thomas.

      The House does not matter in regards to appointments. All presidential appointments are confirmed only by the upper house of Congress, the Senate. Most people think the Senate will stay in Republican hands, but it could go either way.
    15. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      So the idea is to vote in a government incapable of doing anything.

      Someone is VERY VERY AFRAID... Or maybe has a red tape fetish.... mmmm sexy....

    16. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1

      Agreed. There are quite a lot of Libertarians now who heard some of our policies, liked our stance and joined up without ever running into our core value. But if you trace any stance back to it's root, it's the non-initiation of force

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
    17. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Log+from+Blammo · · Score: 1

      Considering the mess that professional politicians have created in the U.S. over the last 80 years, I would much rather see a few geeks give it a shot.

      The worst case scenario I can imagine is that the entire federal government is replaced by a very small script.

      --
      "This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
    18. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Wile_E_Peyote · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm not going to vote for anyone who doesn't have the experience to do the job. Bush was unqualified when he took office, and he had at least served in elected office. The only elected position Badnarik has held was Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

      Here is a list of notables who held no elected position (not including president):

      Dwight D. Eisenhower
      Andrew Jackson
      Herbert Hoover
      Thomas Jefferson*
      George Washington

      *Thomas Jefferson was a candidate for President and came within 3 votes of winning, but was appointed Vice President.

      Given that, I am not sure about the whole experience thing. Sure I would like them to know what the hell they are talking about, but being a senator, mayor, congressman, etc. does not IMHO give you the necessary chops to become President.

      Maybe we should stop electing all these proffesional politicians and lawyers...

    19. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Striker770S · · Score: 1

      but he has no political experience whatsoever. Hell, he wasn't even able to get himself elected to the TEXAS House of Representives. do you understand that texas is a REPUBLICAN state, and so elects REPUBLICAN house members? And to say he has no political experience. Look at Kerry, what the hell did he do during his time in the senate!? All i can say is not too much. And we all know Bush cant lead, but at least Badnarik is better than both presidential nominees. And down the line all we will hear is "Cant blame me, i voted for kodos..."

      --
      I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
    20. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      Given the job that the last few presidents have done (going back to Ronnie)... I wouls almost rather have a noob in there. Raw uncut idealism surrounded by aides with experience (cabinet, senators, representatives etc). Sometimes the only way to fix a broken system is to break it again.

    21. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      Given the track record of the last few presidents of stature (billy and ronnie) I would rather have a noob in the mix. Raw uncut idealism surrounded by aides of stature and experience (cabinet, senators, representatives, judges etc). Sometimes when a system is broken you have to break it even more to fix it.

    22. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by sadcox · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Personal property applies to things I own as well my body and mind. Respect of personal property means that I respect others things, body, and mind as well.

      As long as their choices do not affect me (us), I (we) have no right to legislate their decisions, even if we wouldn't choose those things for ourselves.

      --
      "He hated Mexicans, and he was half Mexican. AND he hated irony!"
    23. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by tanglewilde · · Score: 0

      Your comments are sensible and mostly accurate. But I have 1 beef to pick with you.

      There is no far-right fundimentalist Christian wing of the Republican party. I find it very sad that people who try to stand up for basic tenets of this country's heritage, such as the notion that the country was founded as 'one nation under God', are disregarded as far-right fundimentalists. On the contrary, it is those who strive to tear down our birthright and make it illegal to worship how we choose because it might make someone else uncomfortable that should be feared. Maybe you feel like words like 'under God' don't belong in national texts, so you support their cause. What you don't realize is that you actually empowering them to take away your freedom to choose to speak as you will, to believe as you choose, or to live as you choose.

      If you were referring to those who are pro-life or who oppose giving extra rights to gays and lesbians, then you fail to realize that these views are held by vast numbers of americans and cannot therefore be described as far-right fundamentalist views.

      As for me, I'm in a pickle, I agree mostly with Nader except for his views on the two or three issues most important to me. But they didn't put his name on the ballot here anyway.

    24. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by winwar · · Score: 1

      "I find it very sad that people who try to stand up for basic tenets of this country's heritage, such as the notion that the country was founded as 'one nation under God', are disregarded as far-right fundimentalists."

      Well, considering the founders were by and large not Christian (Deists would be a better description) and that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution I think the notion that the country was founded as "one nation under God" is INCORRECT. Note that I did not say they were atheists-but that there was a strong inclination against a GOVERNMENT run (and supported) religion.

      "If you were referring to those who are pro-life or who oppose giving extra rights to gays and lesbians, then you fail to realize that these views are held by vast numbers of americans and cannot therefore be described as far-right fundamentalist views."

      And this is the reason for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Protection against the tyranny of the majority. And yes, the concepts of pro-life and anti-gay/lesbian views can be considered far-right fundamentalist views because they are HELD mainly by them (although I find it interesting how you worded things-proof that how you frame the question or debate often leads you to the answer you want-most people are agains "extra" rights for instance, not many are agains "equal" rights....) In other words, how many people who hold these views DON'T consider themselves conservative Christians?

      "On the contrary, it is those who strive to tear down our birthright and make it illegal to worship how we choose because it might make someone else uncomfortable that should be feared."

      Yes, I fear them. It tends to be people cloaked in the Christian religion. The right to worship how we choose includes the right NOT to worship. The right to be left alone by the government. Government dictating who can get married, who has rights, etc. based on RELIGIOUS ideals is a BAD idea.

      Let's face it, when most people say government shouldn't support religon, they really mean they shouldn't support a religion I DON'T APPROVE OF. Conversely, religion in government is okay, as long as it is one I APPROVE OF. You can see it in the poll results. The ten commandants-fine, the bible-fine, the Koran-uh, well, we'll get back to you....

      If individual religions, not supported by the government want to do that, I don't care. Any religious person who sees government imposing religious ideals as a good thing is a fool. Because after you have invited it in, it may start imposing things YOU don't like...

    25. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by plover · · Score: 1
      "Supposed to" is the wrong word. The system is designed so that you can vote on a candindate based on whether you think his wig is tall enough, or if his socks match his belt, or if he doesn't have a five o'clock shadow. You do not "have" to vote in any particular way, you do not have to supply reasons, you just have to apply pencil to paper (or finger to touch screen).

      And the candidates are fully aware of this and take advantage of it. Lawn signs are a great example: they almost never have issues, they simply have a candidate's name, hoping you'll remember it when you step into the booth. Listing issues might actually repel someone who bothered to read the sign, but a name is just a name.

      Anyway, I voted for a "different" reason than either of yours: I voted "against" a candidate, which is to say I voted for the candidate most likely to be elected to prevent his opponent from being elected. I would have voted for a ham sandwich if I thought it would have kept the "evil" candidate from winning. I did not vote for the candidate who best represented my feelings on the issues, because he did not stand a chance. I selected a second-rate candidate who I had no respect for because I feared the consequences of his opponent's election.

      But in the end, it really won't matter. Too many people are going to vote for the guy who goes to the same church that they do, nevermind the fact the candidate lied to the public about his church attendance and piety (that would be both of them, for those of you keeping score at home.)

      --
      John
    26. Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President by Tassach · · Score: 1
      You can elect libertarian-minded judges, but you can't help the (capital-L) Libertarian Party this way
      I'm not interested in helping the Libertarian Party. I'm interested in preserving freedom and opposing tyrrany, and making sure the world my children grow in as at least as good as the one I grew up in.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  134. middlesex county ma by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the check-in procedure did not exactly meet my expectations this morning.

    I expected to have to show ID, especially since I recently moved and this would be the first time voting in my new precinct.

    At the check-in table for my precinct I was asked my address, and then my name. Polling guy shuffles his papers, "John Doe?" [former resident of my house]

    Now this is no huge social engineering feat on my part, and not really a big revelation--I know who I bought the house form; I've been getting his mail for the last 6 months--but how easy would it have been for me to just go along, "Why yes, I am John Doe."

    But even after I corrected the polling worker on the name, I wasn't asked for ID or proof of residency. Shouldn't there be something in the rolls indicating a new registration? Also, this is the first time I have voted without signing anything. The poll worker just checked a box next to my name.

    Given my location (gee, you think Kerry will carry MA?) there isn't much motivation to exploit the situation. But if this was a swing state, or there was a local race I had an interest in, what (other than my own honesty) would stop me from going back to polling the place after work as John Doe? And what's stopping John Doe from coming back and voting where he really doesn't have a legal right to vote?

    (When I registered at my new home, I received a letter from my old home town stating I had been removed from their system, but I only moved 5 miles down the road. John Doe moved out of state. While his appearance on the rolls this morning could mean he has not registered yet at his new address, and so could not vote twice, it could also mean his new registration has not been communicated back his old precinct. Perhaps new voter registrations should contain a step that confirms either the previous registration has been cancelled or the voter is registering for the first time.)

    1. Re:middlesex county ma by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Why is it that so many liberals don't want to require picture ID to vote? Don't take that the wrong way - I know plenty of liberal people who do want to require picture ID to vote, and I don't know any conservatives that don't...

      How can there exist anybody who doesn't think it's a good idea?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:middlesex county ma by scowling · · Score: 1

      Because some people don't have picture ID. The poor and homeless may not have enough money for a non-drivers picture ID, nor might they even have personally addressed mail.

      They should still be entitled to vote.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    3. Re:middlesex county ma by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      So come up with a better way to prevent voter fraud.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:middlesex county ma by scowling · · Score: 1

      I don't have to. If you want to interfere with the voting franchise, then you have to come up with a better way to prevent fraud, not me.

      Better that a hundred fraudulent ballots be cast than one valid ballot be prevented, I say.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    5. Re:middlesex county ma by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      That's just insane.... your one valid ballot becomes meaningless...

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    6. Re:middlesex county ma by scowling · · Score: 1

      It's not insane at all. It doesn't matter if the ballot becomes meaningless; the franchise is of paramount importance.

      I have never had to show ID to vote. I have never been concerned about voter fraud.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    7. Re:middlesex county ma by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'd rather go back to when the state governments selected their electoral votes before allowing rampant voter fraud.

      For the record, I've always showed ID and am glad they request it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  135. Election Code by losing+balance · · Score: 2, Funny

    castVote("Kerry");
    while (countingVotes()) {
    crossFingers();
    }
    if (getWinner().equals("Bush")) {
    bendOver();
    moveTo("Canada");
    }

    1. Re:Election Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good, i don't want anyone who writes in java in my country.

    2. Re:Election Code by KZigurs · · Score: 0

      What about wait() or sleep() (per jour choice)? This is rather dangerious code, you know ;D

    3. Re:Election Code by holzp · · Score: 1

      Election code, e-voting machine:

      if(vote == 'Kerry' && nobodyWillNotice(vote)) vote = 'Bush'

  136. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "SWVFT"

    Why do you think these guys are exclusively right-wing? You don't think that members of both parties from Vietnam hate John Kerry for painting them as baby-killing war criminals? Some of what SBVFT is true, a lot of it is lie or stretching the truth. But I think it stems from a hatred of John Kerry's characterization of them. I mean really, John Kerry's own "band of brothers" photo that he used early in his campaign is composed almost entirely of SBVFT members.

    "Diebold"

    What does this have to do with the right?

    "and this"

    You mean preventing people who might be double-voting from voting twice? The "get out the vote" rallies of ACORN and ACT have produced tens or hundreds of thousands of bad voter registrations.

  137. False Dilemma by Staplerh · · Score: 1

    Third party would be best, but clearly (heck, or unclearly) one of the big two is going to eventually win. Douglas Adams said it best IMHO: On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.' 'Odd,' said Arthur, 'I thought you said it was a democracy.' 'I did,' said Ford. 'It is.' 'So,' said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, 'why don't people get rid of the lizards?' 'It honestly doesn't occur to them,' said Ford. 'They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.' 'You mean they actually vote for the lizards?' 'Oh yes,' said Ford with a shrug, 'of course.' 'But,' said Arthur, going for the big one again, 'why?' 'Because if they didn't vote for a lizard,' said Ford, 'the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?'

    --
    "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
    - Bob Dylan
    1. Re:False Dilemma by TrueBuckeye · · Score: 1

      But a true dilemma. Unless you can make your single checkmark worth 57,000,000 votes, then you have to be aware that most likely your alternate-party candidate cannot win the election. So you are forced to either vote for that person (which is what a blue in a red state or a red in a blue state should do) and throw away your vote, or choose the lesser of the two evils.

      --
      Was that night on the marge of Lake LaBarge I cremated Sam McGee...
  138. Lines by nealfunkbass · · Score: 0

    I'm in a pretty small town outside of a metropolitan area on the east coast. We had early voting going on, and it was very crowded every time I went by there.

    Today, election day, the polls opened at 6:30am. I got there at 6:40, and the line was down the street. It took about an hour to get through and vote.

    This was the 4th presidential election I've been eligible to vote in, and this time it was far more crowded than any other time. I don't remember ever having to wait more than 20 minutes or so in the past.

    This was one of the only times in my life so far I was actually _very_happy_ to wait in line because it means lots of people were out there voting.

    I hope the guy I voted for wins, but no matter who it ends up being, I hope there won't a bunch of lawyers running around filing lawsuits and trampling and biting everyone in their path.

    --
    - Donny was a good bowler, and a good man.
  139. cue the "feel good" Rock-the-Vote bullshit by Gothmolly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is when normally virulent assholes on either side can make themselves feel better by saying such crap as "it doesn't matter as long as you vote" and similar bromides. It's the equivalent of the Southern-US "bless your heart", where if you tack it onto the worst insult, it cancels out. "Bush? He's an asshole, bless his heart." "Kerry? He's an unabashed socialist, bless his heart."
    I say to all of you rabid, two-party-endorsing, Statist votemongers: Fuck you. YOU'RE trying to perpetuate the myth that there's any kind of control over the system, to prolong the amount of time you can crow on your dungheap.
    I say to everyone still with some shred of independent thought: Shrug. Don't vote. Don't pay a dime more in taxes, voluntary welfare contributions or government sleeze than you have to without threat to your person. Don't let them pretend that we all agree that today is a wonderfully warm fuckfest.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:cue the "feel good" Rock-the-Vote bullshit by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      The parent poster is, of course, right on the money. History is littered with examples of the apathetic many crushing the dedicated few with relentless barrages of pithy quips and searing too-cool-for-schooledness.

      Not voting sends a powerful message to those at the top: that you're not about to play their stupid little game, so they don't really need to worry one whit about what you want.

      Oh, and regarding your sig: It's pathetically easy to make enemies. That said, I hope marking me as 'foe' helps complete your day. I like making people happy.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    2. Re:cue the "feel good" Rock-the-Vote bullshit by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      Just vote for any third party candidate. That will both scare the Republican and Democratic wings of the big government party.

      As long as you vote for either the Repub's or the Democ's, they're both happy, because they all get to keep playing the same old game, at your expense.

  140. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I like the reports about registered Democrats getting mailed reminders to vote on November 3rd ! Or the one about registered Democrats getting annonymous calls last night telling them that their voting precinct had been changed.

    Oh, wait, no, I don't like that.

    Inductive reasoning will lead you to a conclusion as to who these unAmerican scumbags trying to subvert the vote are.

  141. Don't forget by paranode · · Score: 2, Funny
    sandwich
    n

    1.
    a) Two or more slices of bread with a filling such as meat or cheese placed between them.
    b) A partly split long or round roll containing a filling.
    c) One slice of bread covered with a filling.

    2. Something resembling a sandwich.

  142. It's not turned down yet, but the polls showed it by NYTrojan · · Score: 1

    going down in flames... something on the order of 68% no. Any idea why?

  143. Go vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey YOU

    what are you doing here reading this???

    Go vote!!!

    It's today and it's Important!!!!

    thanks,
    AC

  144. so... by DeusExMalex · · Score: 1
    "if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election"

    so slashdot is reporting on itself now?

  145. I just voted in Ohio, and Ohio is smiling... by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

    Five or ten minute wait inside. Now I'm counting down the minutes until I can start singing NaNaHeyHey. Been waiting almost four years for this.

    By the way, Ohio is smiling:

    http://www.kellogg.nwu.edu/faculty/maher/temp/nort heast_sat_440x297.jpg

    Obviously Ohio goes for Kerry. If it were smirking I might predict a
    Bush victory.

    I'm not sure what to make of the fact that Florida is mooning us.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    1. Re:I just voted in Ohio, and Ohio is smiling... by Roadside+Couch · · Score: 0

      When have you ever seen the sourpuss from MA smile? Scowl is more like it.

    2. Re:I just voted in Ohio, and Ohio is smiling... by Roadside+Couch · · Score: 0

      Oh and how is it Kerry is smiling when his entire campaign is bitch, whine, and moan with 20/20 hindsight saying he would have done better. Yeah right, not according to his peacenick record.

  146. Strategic Voting by jd · · Score: 1

    The tactic is common in other countries, and is a sound one. Significant numbers of votes for "special interest" parties not only push them above the critical threshold, but they are going to attract media attention to those issues. This allows people who otherwise really don't have much of a voice to be heard.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  147. Examine bin Laden's words: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    Facts you should know before you vote:

    If you truly love your country, you will not just enjoy the advantages, you will be there for your country when there are problems.

    100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

    See The CIA trained Osama bin Laden and other Arabs in the techniques of terrorism.

    Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.

    Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another. Books are the major media that are not ad-supported. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books that discuss the corruption of the Bush administration: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

    Bush's education improvements were at least partly fraud.

    I recommend a new book, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. Don't expect any author to be perfect. However, this book is an excellent overview of the Bush family, and the best book by this author. Here is a quote which shows just one more fact about the chronic lying of George Herbert Walker Bush and his son George W. Bush: "The official family tree provided by the Bush archivists does not include the two mentally retarded daughters of John M. Walker, and lists only two of James Smith Bush's wives, not all four of them; one of Ray Walker's two wives is omitted, and George Herbert Walker III is listed with only two, instead of three, wives."

    Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?

    15 of the nineteen 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Many don't like the U.S. Gov. influence on their country.

    Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"? Since it was Saudis who attacked on 9/11, why did Bush invade Iraq? Was it a smokescreen to get attention away from the Saudis?

    Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

    George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values? Neil Bush is different from other relatives of presidents like Billy Carter; he is heavily involved with government corruption and he does his corruption with the help of his family.

    The U.S. government has fought 24 wars since World War II. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

  148. Hour-by-hour preview of election coverage by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has an excellent article today about how the election results are going to play out, hour by hour. He tells you what states are going to close their polls at what time, and discusses what are the key races and key factors in the election around the country. Great read.

    1. Re:Hour-by-hour preview of election coverage by RedX · · Score: 1

      USA Today has a pretty good viewer's guide for tonight's coverage as well, calling out specific counties in the key states to watch. Apparently the networks will be reporting on results at the county level where it actually matters.

  149. I voted for Kerry!! by ylikone · · Score: 1
    And I'm not even American!

    Yeah, just doing my part in posting to get the comments quantity to reach new record highs!

    --
    Meh.
  150. NE Wisconsin reporting in by twicefeuled · · Score: 1

    I have never seen such a large turnout at my polling place. During any other presidential election, there may have been 4-5 people waiting in line; today, it was over 25. Headed back to the polls now to vote now.

  151. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We understand your pain

    JIM COYLE

    To our American friends:

    The first thing you need to know, today more than any day, is that we love you. That's why we're here. And if some of us have said anything harsh to you recently, it's only because we care and it pains us to see you hurting yourself this way.

    We want to help you help yourself before it's too late. We know you like the movies, like them so much that you sometimes elect actors as presidents and governors. So maybe Hollywood will help you see what it is we see.

    Remember that scene in Liar, Liar? The one where Jim Carrey beats the hell out of himself in the courthouse bathroom?

    That's sort of what you look like to us these days. You seem to be at war with yourselves. You're doing yourselves so much damage it's painful to watch. Maybe it takes a Canadian like Carrey to help you see it.

    But, one day at a time, starting today, you can stop. We promise you. We've been there.

    No, no, no, no, no. Everybody doesn't hate you. We still think you're the greatest show on Earth. You are. Really.

    It's just that lately, well, for about four years now, you haven't been yourself. One minute there are these delusions of grandeur and the belief that you're agents of God. Then, five minutes later, there are the panic attacks and you're all out buying duct tape.

    No. Sit down and listen to us.

    It's not true that it's nobody else's business and you're only hurting yourself. Everyone and everything you touch is affected by you. All your friends see it. The U.N. The Europeans. Us. We can't all be wrong, can we?

    You've already driven away so many friends. You're getting more and more isolated, more reclusive, afraid even to come out of the house.

    It's time to face up to some harsh realities. You're the nicest folks in the world when you're in your right mind. But let you at the self-righteousness and superpower stuff, and it's Jekyll and Hyde.

    The truth is, you've been behaving lately like one of the world's larger, open-air lunatic asylums. It's God this, God that, God bless us, the Good Book says. But to everyone else you look like a theme park for the Seven Deadly Sins.

    All around you, Pride, Greed, Gluttony and Anger are going off the charts. And that's just the political talk shows on your cable-news channels. You want Lust, Envy, Sloth? Check out your prime-time programming.

    No, listen to us, you're not fine. You're not seeing things clearly. Your perceptions are all wonky.

    Sometimes your speech seems slurred. (You can never seem to get your tongue around the word nuclear.)

    Sometimes you make no sense at all. ("(Our enemies) never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.")

    Sometimes you seem paranoid. ("You're either with us or against us.")

    What's that?

    Well, if it's true that you're as sharp as you ever were, how come you were flying that "Mission Accomplished" sign before the tough sledding in Iraq had even begun?

    If you're so guided by God, how come you can't find what you're looking for (Osama) and spent all your energy hunting for something (weapons of mass destruction) that never existed?

    And how come you end up doing the last thing on Earth -- disgracing yourself at Abu Ghraib abroad, debasing your own civil liberties at home -- that you'd want to do?

    If that isn't a sign you're out of control, tell us what is.

    Yes, we know. You can't imagine life if you make the kind of changes we're talking about. But face facts. If you keep doing what you've done, you're going to keep getting what you've got.

    The good news is that there is another way. Yes, change will be difficult. Withdrawal can be painful. For awhile, you'll want to pick a fight with everyone you run into, quote Scripture every five minutes, take money from the poor and give it to the rich.

    But trust us, you'll get over it.

    Up here, we had a leader a lot like

  152. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

    look mate - any group headed by John O'Neill, is automatically a right-wing-hatchet job.

    This is a gentleman who appears in the Watergate tapes, with Nixon, and was created specifically to counter Kerry. What a sad life John O'Neill has.

    --
    ... hi bingo ...
  153. Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) by Pavan_Gupta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    One half trillion dollars will be spent in Iraq according to the Congressional Budget Office. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimate we have 100,000 dead Iraqis on our hands. 16.7% of our soldiers will bare this incredible burden in psych wards according to The New England Journal of Medicine, assuming theyre not dead. And today, 1,122 Americans will not vote because they couldnt escape the American torture chamber that is Iraq. Tomorrow a few more will die and several more will be added to the 7,532 people that were serious injured in Iraq, so do not forget this when you vote. Kerry's not my favorite, but today he represents everything the republican party would offer traditionally and more! (1) He's fiscally conservative (2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!) (3) He's environmentally friendly (4) His foreign policy acknowledges the other .. 5.7 billion people in the world. (5) He's actually aware of national security ... and on and on. Now, let the flame war begin!

  154. It is just so vitally important that everyone vote by Gannoc · · Score: 1


    But only if you're voting for Kerry. If you plan on voting for Bush, hey, don't bother waiting in line.

    Jesus will make sure that Bush wins, don't you worry.

  155. ThisLife.org's coverage of voter fraud by The+I+Shing · · Score: 1

    They do cover both sides but the coverage is heavily tilted against Republicans.

    ThisLife.org

    Click on the RealAudio icon in the bluish box entitled In this show, a This American Life Special Report: Vote Fraud.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  156. Re:Democrats are Better at Fraud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And we should all be thankful for that. What do you think the odds would be that any of us would still be here if the 1960 vote had been squeaky clean and Nixon had been president during the Cuban missile crisis?

  157. 503 Service Unavailable by wcrowe · · Score: 0, Troll

    I /. being /.'ed? Is it because of all the pointless political posting? It took me half a fucking hour to get any response.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  158. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by aacool · · Score: 2, Informative
    Blackboxvoting.org has breaking news that the Diebold machines were hacked 6 weeks ago and Election Officials are asking all servers to be unplugged from the telephone lines & Internet

    I'm blogging live today, as usual

    The faulty log with 3 missing hours (9:52pm to 1:31am) is here

    India conducted a full-scale electronic election earlier this year successfully - few of the EVMs were connected or hacked

  159. Website tells if Diebold is being used at your... by jangobongo · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...polling place.

    MyPollingPlace.com will tell you what voting equipment is being used at your polling place, as well as instructions on how to use it. It will also give you the location for where you vote based on your street address and zip code if you are unsure of where to go to vote.

    --

    Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
  160. "Douchebag" will be retired at the end of 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use it while you can, only 2 more months before "douchebag" will be retired (until its reinstatement in 2014).

    You should start practicing using its replacement: "gunthole".

  161. Vote out the smug puppet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on people, vote Bush out. Wouldn't you love to see the look on his smug little face when he loses?

    History will see him as the worst president yet, fitting as he was never really elected.

    His father couldn't get re-elected, and neither will he. A sad, pathetic, puppet of a man- nothing without his family's influence and his 'advisors', who are the ones with the real power, deeply evil men such as Cheney.

  162. Re:the poll workers don't even know where to vote. by mlh1996 · · Score: 1

    Interesting. I moved out of Omaha last year, and a couple of months ago I received a notice of where I was to vote, forwarded to my new address. So I know they sent 'em out.

    --
    Lack of creativity is no excuse for not having a .sig
  163. any intimidation at the poles by ivano · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Foreign media has talked about how (some) outsider election inspectors have been physically thrown-out of (some) polling booths. I won't say which side is doing this....But anyway any firsthand experience of a DMC or GOP groupie hassling anyone above and beyond the normal checks for voter registration checking.

    Ciao

  164. Voting Machines by krgallagher · · Score: 1
    I actually voted two weeks ago. My state allows early voting so I voted the first day it opened.

    This is the first time I used an electronic voting machine. The election official led me to a touch screen panel and entered an authorization number to allow me to vote. Then she gave me a quick explanation of how it worked. I immediately asked her where the printout came out. She explained that there was no printout. So I asked "How do you do a recount?" I got a puzzled look and an "I don't know."

    I really enjoyed voting electronically. I guess it is the geek factor. I just wish there had been a machine set up that I could play with. I really would have liked to see what would happen if I skipped a vote or tried to screw it up some other way. Still my vote is too important to me to play around on the live machine.

    I must say that the actual voting process itself was very easy. The ballot was 4 pages long and I had no trouble navigating it and even going back to review my choices in some local races that are particularly important to me. At the end of it the machine showed me a single page with all my choices in every race. When I pressed "vote" I was very confident that I had correctly entered my choices. My one complaint is that lack of paper printout. There should be a piece of paper that I can drop in the ballot box to ensure that my electronic vote matches.

    --

    Insert Generic Sig Here:

  165. Badnarik IS qualified to be President by clonebarkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (Before I get into it, I agree with what you say about the whole base of support. In this election, there are over 1,000 other LP candidates running for local, state, and national offices around the country.)

    The only elected position Badnarik has held was Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

    According to the Constitution, Badnarik meets all the qualifications necessary:

    • Must be a natural born citizen
    • Must have lived in the US for 14 years
    • Must be at least 35 years old
    • Must never have committed treason

    Not having held office before has nothing to do with being a good president. Perhaps the reason nothing changes is because we keep electing people who are already acclimated to "the system." While Badnarik might lack political experience, he far exceeds both baBush and Kerry in constitutional scholarship. (I think you would agree that Bush doesn't know crap about the Constitution, and Kerry isn't much better, having voted for the PATRIOT Act.)

    --

    "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    1. Re:Badnarik IS qualified to be President by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      doh! you mentioned treason. google for kerry treason.

      [sound of exploding can of worms]

    2. Re:Badnarik IS qualified to be President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      According to the Constitution, Badnarik meets all the qualifications necessary:

      Must be a natural born citizen
      Must have lived in the US for 14 years
      Must be at least 35 years old
      Must never have committed treason


      Very astute of you to point out the technical qualifications for president. This also qualifies this fine human being for the job. Perhaps you should write him in.

    3. Re:Badnarik IS qualified to be President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now google for bush treason. Whoa! Vat of worms!

    4. Re:Badnarik IS qualified to be President by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      doh! you mentioned treason. google for kerry treason.

      (looks around innocently) I did?

      (sly grin) Ah, yes, I did! -- teehee...

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

  166. Very interesting PBS documentary on Bush/Kerry by linuxguy · · Score: 1

    Just finished watching this and I thought it was very interesting. The filmmakers tried very hard to present just the facts without twisting them:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choi ce2004/view/

  167. To everyone choosing not to vote by Media+Girl · · Score: 1

    All of you cynics who are refusing to vote, congratulations! You're claiming all the rights of a citizen of Nazi Germany -- i.e., nothing! By staying home, you are doing exactly what many in power want. They want apathy. They want helplessness. Have you noticed that there are concerted efforts by certain parties to prevent people from voting?

    The purpose of voting is to provide ballast against special interests. If everyone who could vote actually did vote, imagine the earthshaking implications -- not so much in this election (which I personally still consider EXTREMELY important) but in all elections in the future. If only a few people vote, then the powers only have to pay attention to them ... and not to you. You bitch about government not responding to your interests and needs, and you guarantee it by not voting. You whine about your vote not making a difference, and you prove it by not voting at all.

    What can your vote do? Well, for one thing it can cancel out one vote of some dumb ninny who is out there voting against everything you're for (whatever that may be). Sometimes you just do your small part, take out one ninny vote, and you've made a difference.

    I imagine many of you will go back to your RPGs and 1st person shooters rather than vote. And you know what? In 4 years you'll pull your heads back out of your backsides and see that the government still isn't doing what you want. And it will be your own doing.

    Get your butt out there and vote. If you bothered to register, you must have some inkling of giving a shit. I don't care whom you vote for. (Well, I do, but it's not for me to say.) If everyone who can vote does vote, at least we start to get a government that responds to the people instead of the special interests.

    And you guys who really really really really just don't want to bother -- you're the ones who should really motivate and get out there. There are a lot of rabid knuckleheads trying to steal our country. Stand up and be counted. Or sneer your way right into a police state, a welfare state, a fundamentalist state, whatever (it doesn't matter, because you chose not to care).

  168. Forget fake electronic ballots... by Se7enLC · · Score: 1

    Why isn't anyone concentrating on looking for fake PAPER ballots? All I needed to provide when I showed up to vote was:

    My Street Name
    My House Number
    My Name

    THAT'S IT! NO ID! NOTHING!

    I'm glad I happened to be the first one to show up and give my name today, but who's to prevent anybody from showing up and pretending to be somebody they're not? You could have a whole army of people who file their absentee ballots, and then show up and give somebody else's name and address and file their vote for them (names and addresses from a rival political party supporting group, for example).

  169. Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatted) by Pavan_Gupta · · Score: 5, Informative

    Moderators: The Dupe is because I hit submit before I added my html tags. Sorry amigos.

    One half trillion dollars will be spent in Iraq according to the Congressional Budget Office. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimate we have 100,000 dead Iraqis on our hands. 16.7% of our soldiers will bare this incredible burden in psych wards according to The New England Journal of Medicine, assuming theyre not dead. And today, 1,122 Americans will not vote because they couldnt escape the American torture chamber that is Iraq. Tomorrow a few more will die and several more will be added to the 7,532 people that were serious injured in Iraq, so do not forget this when you vote.

    Kerry's not my favorite, but today he represents everything the republican party would offer traditionally and more!

    (1) He's fiscally conservative
    (2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!)
    (3) He's environmentally friendly
    (4) His foreign policy acknowledges the other .. 5.7 billion people in the world.
    (5) He's actually aware of national security ... and on and on.

    Now, let the flame war begin!

  170. SHENANIGANS by Ryan+Stortz · · Score: 0

    So, I just got back from voting in a very rural area; just outside of Lansing, Michigan. I was really excited to vote for the very first time (I'm 19). I was going to wear my sticker with pride! But when I got there, I noticed that they weren't handing out stickers to people who had voted. I asked why this was and the lady snapped "WE DON'T HAVE STICKERS!" I was shocked! They're trying to surpress the sticker-loving vote!

    I voted anyway. To spite the old lady, but I'm very destraught at this act of voter manipulation. I'm about to call that NBC hotline and report them.

    --
    Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
  171. I voted. here's for whom, and why: by valmont · · Score: 1
    I voted. here's for whom, and why:
    1. Opacity
    2. Perspectives
    3. Alliances we actually need
  172. Bush the chicken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He chickened out during VM - at least kerry had the balls to do a tour. The issue of invasion right .vs. wrong aside, he had poor intelligence (failed to make accuracy a priority), and then didn't do anything about it. Bush's claims of being better suited to lead the troops are pretty much completely baseless. He's not the man to protect this country from terrorists.

    He's pissed off most of the rest of the world, mostly by being just stupid.

    He's lost more jobs than any other president, and tried to cover it up by changing how jobless statistics are collected.

    He's also against the republican anti-gay marriage plank. How well will he be able to work with his own party?

    1. Re:Bush the chicken by stanmann · · Score: 1

      How do you figure that bush "chickened out" he served his complete tour and moved on, Kerry OTOH, used his 3 scratches to go home early.

      In the real world, war doesn't end when you get scratched, you have to stick it out.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  173. No, Taco, it doesn't by knobboy · · Score: 1

    Also, if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election.

    Not if you don't include the third-party candidates who have a mathematical chance of winning the electoral vote. How hard would that have been?

  174. Kerry in a Landslide? by aclarke · · Score: 1

    I'm not the biggest fan of John Kerry, but even I wouldn't wish a LANDSLIDE on him...

  175. Re:More clickbait by SilentChris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There should be a lot of traffic. This is perhaps the most important election of the current young digerati generation (hate that word, but it fits).

    As an aside, I saw something fairly poignant today. I came into the World Trade Center site via the PATH, which I do everyday. There's always visitors (never understood the morbid fascination of looking at the hole; you get a very good view from the PATH train). What was different this morning was where they were standing.

    There are photograph placards all along the fence, displaying the WTC at various stages of development, the tribute in light, etc. Typically people walk from placard to placard, take pictures, etc. One placard shows the destruction on 9-11-01 (dust clouds, the famous picture of the firemen at the cementary across the street, etc). For whatever reason, there were a ton of people just staring at that one placard. Noone demonstrating, saying anything, but just staring and thinking.

  176. Facts you need to know before you vote: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Slashdot is slashdotted, so I can't tell if this was posted correctly before:

    Facts you should know before you vote:

    If you truly love your country, you will not just enjoy the advantages, you will be there for your country when there are problems.

    100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

    See The CIA trained Osama bin Laden and other Arabs in the techniques of terrorism.

    Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.

    Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another. Books are the major media that are not ad-supported. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books that discuss the corruption of the Bush administration: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

    Bush's education improvements were at least partly fraud.

    I recommend a new book, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. Don't expect any author to be perfect. However, this book is an excellent overview of the Bush family, and the best book by this author. Here is a quote which shows just one more fact about the chronic lying of George Herbert Walker Bush and his son George W. Bush: "The official family tree provided by the Bush archivists does not include the two mentally retarded daughters of John M. Walker, and lists only two of James Smith Bush's wives, not all four of them; one of Ray Walker's two wives is omitted, and George Herbert Walker III is listed with only two, instead of three, wives."

    Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?

    15 of the nineteen 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Many don't like the U.S. Gov. influence on their country.

    Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"? Since it was Saudis who attacked on 9/11, why did Bush invade Iraq? Was it a smokescreen to get attention away from the Saudis?

    Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

    Is Bush drinking NOW?

    George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values? Neil Bush is different from other relatives of presidents like Billy Carter; he is heavily involved with government corruption and he does his corruption with the help of his family.

    The U.S. government has fought 24 wars since World War II. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

    1. Re:Facts you need to know before you vote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as long as you get to go on a Bush bashing, why not let people check out a 40-minute Kerry bashing video available Here. Now I don't agree with everything Bush has done but at least he comes across to me as well meaning and honest even if he's made some bad decisions. Kerry just seems deceptive. I was speechless when watching one of the so called "debates" he actually tried to tell us how important a role religion plays in his life. Shyah right! As if! If he were even somewhat devoutly Catholic, he would never have divorced his first wife!

    2. Re:Facts you need to know before you vote: by scot4875 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kerry just seems deceptive.

      As opposed to Bush, who has had his blatant lies exposed on several occasions?

      Maybe you're one of the people mentioned in one of the several studies like this one.

      I don't like Kerry either -- but I'd rather have someone that's *probably* worthless than someone who has already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is. (unfortunately, I live in a state that's going to go to Bush. So I'm voting for Nader.)

      P.S. log in you cowardly shit

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    3. Re:Facts you need to know before you vote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those are some terrible articles, especially the CIA-trained-Osama one (which itself is just a collection of references to other rumors). Frankly, it's all bunk, but I'll leave you with one little tidbit:

      If Bush invaded Iraq to diestract from the Saudis, why were the Saudis so deadset against it?

    4. Re:Facts you need to know before you vote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, he's exercising his right to privacy, with which Slashdot seems to have a singular love/hate relationship. As in, it's a wonderful thing until someone says something you don't like.

      So back off, you foulmouthed brownshirt.

  177. Re:More clickbait by tdemark · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that Slashdot is being "Yahoo-ed"? It is one of the first links in a "Top Story" on Yahoo's front page:

    Your Own Election Night Newsroom

    - Tony

  178. not so much by ajrs · · Score: 1

    The local news radio KYW1060 is running a story that says that people are confusing the votes counter with the maintenance counter.

  179. That's why Pataki is a Democrat by georgeha · · Score: 1

    Right, he's governor of New York, so he must be a Democrat if Republican votes don't count.

  180. I see your point but by NYTrojan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the way I see it, I'm not voting for a governor of New York. Why should I be lumped in together with the others voting here? I'm not voting with issues like Upstate vs NYC development or Thruway upkeep on my mind. I'm voting with things like Stem Cell research, Iraqi Policy, and national economy in mind.

    when you get to the votes that COUNT, mine is gone. My vote is thrown away in an unnecessary granularity switch.

  181. Bush's strong points? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What has president Bush done right?"

    The anti-Bush crowd has been quite vocal about what they don't like about the president but I haven't seen or heard too much about why Bush is a good president.
    I'm sure he's done a lot of good things or people wouldn't vote for him, but what are they?

    1. Re:Bush's strong points? by TheShadow · · Score: 1

      Only one thing matters:

      Tax Cuts.

      --

      --
      "What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
  182. Re:Democrats are Better at Fraud... by Pxtl · · Score: 1

    Really? Looks a little different here. I see an awful lot of reports of Republican shenanigans on that list.

  183. No matter what: VOTE! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
    I said this in another post in reply to someone who said they weren't going to vote because they weren't happy with the choices. That post was buried deeply in a story with 1800+ comments so I doubt that many people will see it. This is important, though, and I want to say it again (and again and again until it sinks in):

    Show up, get your ballot, and drop it - unmarked (except for your local issues which you have no right to ignore) - into the box. That says that you're a voter, but you're unhappy with your choices. On the other hand, refusing to vote just makes you sound like a bitter slacker who can't be bothered to get off his butt to make his voice heard.

    Politicians are acutely aware of voting results, and they'll do what they can to sway voters to their side (even if that means, shock and horror!, adopting some of the ideas popular among those people). How much do you think they'll change to pick up the "uninterested vote"? None at all.

    If you're happy with the choices, then vote. If you're not happy, then you especially need to vote. Don't let yourself be counted among those too ignorant to care!

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  184. Yes, pretty much. by Nopal · · Score: 2, Informative
    AFAIK, the repubilcan party is much younger than the democratic party (the republicans became a major party by stepping into the vaccuum left when the whig party collapsed).

    So, the democrats have had dibs on color for a long time.

  185. Mosh! by joeytsai · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think Eminem's new video, "Mosh" is one of the best constructed political anthem's I've heard for our time. Watch it here.

    Some disclaimers: It's Eminem, and it's uh, kind of anti-Bush. Whatever you think about either, I still think it's worth watching.

    --
    http://www.talknerdy.org
  186. Contradiction by milesbparty · · Score: 1

    Also, if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election.

    If that's the case, it appears to be a direct contradiction of the first poll yesterday where the majority of slashdot readers felt they were better off now than they were 4 years ago. If most slashdot readers feel they are better off, why do 42% of them want a change in the white house?

    It really makes me wonder if people are just voting for Kerry because it's the hip and cool thing to do. Hey, if P-Ditty, Bruce Spingsteen, Michael Moore, and probably the rest of Hollywood are endorsing Kerry, why shouldn't I...right?

    --
    eMelody Web Directory add your site today!
  187. precincts are designed to prevent this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not quite as possible as you think it is

  188. Experience in Boston by $criptah · · Score: 1

    This was my first time voting and I have only one suggestion so far: put normal people in charge of voter verification. This morning I spent quite some time waiting in line because the lady who was supposed to verify voters did not speak English and was half-dead. Apparently she was deaf and/or stupid as well because everybody had to shout their address at least three times in order for her to understand it.

    Fortunately, that was the only negative thing about my experience. Overall everything went smooth and without any problems.

    1. Re:Experience in Boston by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      The voter verification is done by volunteers. You should volunteer to help with voting, it is easy! Just fill out the form on the back of your voting pamphlet.

  189. Paper or Plastic? by Kent+Brewster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you intend to cast a paper ballot today, please be ready for an adventure. This morning in Santa Clara, Vickie and I signed in the way we always do and requested paper ballots. Hilarity ensued: attempting to vote on paper caused a flurry of activity: oh-no-you're-not, you-have-to-vote-with-the-machine, what's-your-major-malfunction-mister, and other clucking noises. (Cory Doctorow had something about this in BoingBoing on October 18th, which was dead on.)

    There was no "votamatic" machine for paper ballots any longer; we had to enter a plain brown cardboard voting station that looked exactly like a refrigerator carton and mark our ballots with a pen. (Pen not supplied; bring your own.) I was first in line; after marking my ballot I approached the desk and asked the Nice Lady on the end if I should put it into the box. She nodded and smiled at me, so in it went.

    Then I turned to look at Vickie and the rest of the line and noticed they all had big pink envelopes to put their ballots into when they were done. A tiny peanut-sized bulb flickered to life inside my brain. I went to the stack and checked, and sure enough: the big pink envelope said PROVISIONAL BALLOT on it. It had several choices to check: you had no ID, you had moved after the registration deadline, or were Otherwise Unclean. The Other Nice Lady--the one who had her act together--was making everybody who voted on paper seal it inside the provisional ballot envelope, even though there was no "I HAVE BEEN REGISTERED VOTER IN THIS PRECINCT SINCE 1987 AND I AM CHOOSING TO VOTE ON PAPER DAMMIT" box to check.

    Further hilarity ensued: Vickie is a lawyer with a long history of political activism, so there was much back-and-forth between her and the Other Nice Lady, who then got on the phone with Headquarters and came back with the following ruling: we were all to mark our paper ballots, seal them in pink envelopes, and don't worry about filling out our names and addresses on the envelopes. Somehow--the nebulous theory goes--the election workers will be able to magically detect the paper ballots filled out by properly identified voters and pull them out to be counted tonight.

    We left the station feeling VERY unsure that our votes would be counted.

    If I was a busy election worker tonight, I'd just grab all those pink envelopes and heave them into the Provisional stack. And if I was the guy at the Provisional Counting Station, I'd have to seriously consider trashing all those envelopes without names and addresses filled in on the form on the outside. That's the point of a provisional ballot envelope, after all: to make it possible for them to verify your right to vote.

    1. Re:Paper or Plastic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kent, what is the address of the polling place you went to today? This is a disturbing story of apparent mismanagement and I'd like to make sure it is accurately documented. You should not have left with your votes in a provisional ballot envelope, and you most certainly should have left your name/address if you were for some reason compelled to place them in a provisional envelope. You're right to be nervous about whether your vote will be counted...

      Thanks for providing further details!

    2. Re:Paper or Plastic? by Kent+Brewster · · Score: 1

      This would be the Bracher School polling place, at the intersection of Chromite and Bowers. My vote went into the box without an envelope ... my wife's vote, and four or five others I saw before I left, went into Provisional Ballot envelopes.

    3. Re:Paper or Plastic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You kinda got the 'short bus' treatment, it seems.

      hah

  190. Free Speech Zone by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

    ...this is the official on-topic place for all Slashdot readers to discuss the election itself.

    Kindof like a "free-speech zone". Damn that phrase cracks me up.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  191. I'll cry for the Mother of Democracy by Hafer · · Score: 1

    I wonder whether America finally is able to perform a simple vote -- something which is not that very complicated, as even european countries are able to do. Landing on the moon seems to be a walk in the park comparing to presidential elections in America. 2000's lesson learned? We'll see and probably laugh.
    Why on earth are the very same people, who are particularly pecky regarding their freedom of speech act, so very unconcerned facing institutional fraud?

    1. Re:I'll cry for the Mother of Democracy by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >even european countries are able to do.

      Name the European country that consists of fifty-one separate soverign governments operating under separate and diverse legal systems, that collectively elects a national government.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:I'll cry for the Mother of Democracy by flossie · · Score: 1
      Name the European country that consists of fifty-one separate soverign governments operating under separate and diverse legal systems, that collectively elects a national government.

      Well, its not a single country and only consists of 25 separate soverign states, but the European Union does have a population larger than that of the United States. The legal systems of the EU are far more diverse than those of the US (England and Wales have a Common Law system, most of the other countries have a system based on Civil Law). It manages to elect a parliament without any fuss.

    3. Re:I'll cry for the Mother of Democracy by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that the EU had stood the test of time. Okay, so I stand corrected. Europe is better than the US. Can you help me find a job in the Netherlands or Switzerland that pays well enough to live there?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:I'll cry for the Mother of Democracy by flossie · · Score: 1
      Can you help me find a job in the Netherlands or Switzerland that pays well enough to live there?

      Er, Switzerland isn't actually part of the EU. However, both Switzerland and the Netherlands do have plenty of excellent jobs with very good salaries -- as long as you have the necessary skills.

  192. Revelation by base_chakra · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wait a minute... something just occurred to me!

    If some insidious government officials were to approve the installation an easily-corruptible voting system in order to co-opt the election according to their agenda, and if the mass media then convinced the masses that the election is really close and could go either way, then it wouldn't be quite so transparent when the election was rigged in favor of one candidate!

    Holy crap!

    1. Re:Revelation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just now occured to you?

      That's question 6 on the Cynic Society's application form.

    2. Re:Revelation by ignavus · · Score: 1

      That's easy to fix.

      If it's easily corruptible, then you crack into it, register about a zillion votes (long integer overflow error would be good here), and then wait for them to declare that Nader won.

      There would be a recount and a serious audit so fast....

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  193. On the other hand by paranode · · Score: 1

    Perhaps exactly what we need is someone who hasn't made a career out of lying. All the complaints we hear about politicians are about how they lie and cheat and make claims that aren't true or promises that don't come to pass. Perhaps a normal citizen who has never been corrupted by politics would be exactly what we'd need to get this country going. Whether or not that's Badnarik specifically is another issue, but having someone who isn't a political veteran is not necessarily a bad thing.

  194. Parties are for Colleges by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

    Parties and the Electoral College were intended to be mechanisms for the election of government officials. They were never intended to run the country. Most americans don't know that senators and congress(wo)men sit in two seperate groups according to who they party with. What they SHOULD be doing is sitting with the other REPRESENTATIVES of their own state. They are suppossed to represent the intrests of their constituency, not a group run by greed for power. Look at what a waste we've created. Despite the low opinion of politicians held by most people, those at the top actually have pretty good credentials and are well above average in intelligence. Yet they spend 90% of their considerable influence trying to tear down the other half of our government. This is idiocy. Political party affiliations should be banned from all government offices.

    --
    On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
  195. any voting machines on the InterNet? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    URLs or IP addresses?
    Could be fun to hack them :-)

    1. Re:any voting machines on the InterNet? by cmpalmer · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, please do so. The only thing that would make this screwed-up campaign even more fun would be to throw it back into the hands of the courts, just like that wonderful nail-biting excitement of 2000.

      --
      -- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
  196. American fascists by jeff13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's see...

    The President lied about Iraq.
    Massive invasion of Iraq, illegal.
    No WMDs. None since 1991.
    100000 Iraqies dead, women and children mostly.
    Over 1000 US Troops dead and toll is rising.
    US torturing civilians (for none existant WMDs?)
    Usama Bin Laden still around... laughing.

    And that's just the plain facts. It amazes we who live outside the USA Americans haven't impeached a president who's obviously insane.

    I thought this webpage was amusing.
    http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts. htm

    Since the Bush family had placed it's Chosen One in the White House, with his pro-fundementalist anti-humanist bible belt supporters and greedy corporate rapists, America has fallen into the worst state of economic depression, fear, war mongering, racism, and down right fascism since the Civil War.

    Once the Bush Junte had it's "Pearl Harbour" they immediately ignored any terrorist threat that might exist (gotta wonder why) in favour of a cartoon war against an "Axis of Evil".

    America is lead by a Marvel comicbook character. And Americans wonder why the rest of the world has been refering to GWB as a "moron" (and I'm quoting statesmen before Sept 11/2001).

    Instead of doing what would have been logical, having the CIA go get those terrorists (that's why the CIA exists after all), America attacked a nation it already controled! Iraq.

    Why?

    Well, if you ask certain Americans they tell you that Saddam was a threat to the USA. Well, he wasn't. Not even the White House thought he was a few months before 9/11. So why did America invade Iraq?

    And now, they tell me it doesn't matter that the President of the USA lied to Congress to get war powers.

    Yeaaaaaa... Americans are finding that it's now "legal" to be jailed without any representation, your home can be searched without a warrent, poverty groups have already been raided and any dissent is met with Gestapo like tactics - the Republican Convention in NY was a disgusting display of an arrogant disregard of peoples rights and freedoms.

    The media is now owned by only three large Corporations who whole heartily support the Bush WH. Bush gives them everything they want after all and Corporations don't give a rats ass about laws, rights, or people. Never did. Worse, media has created an ongoing propoganda campaign in favour of the Bush Junte by simply ignoring stories the Bush White House would find embarrassing and, far more telling, would put GWB in jail. Recently, the Bush election camp has declared war on the New York Times in a smear reminisant of the attacks Micheal Moore faces for his documentary. A documentary that is obviously true to eveyone BUT Americans because the rest of the world heard about these things years before. Micheal Moore didn't tell the world anything different, he was telling AMERICANS.

    You have to wonder about a nation that goes to war and doesn't care to even justify it. Sorta like Hitler attacking Poland because, as Hitler said, Poland was a threat to the Fatherland. Must have been the cream cakes?

    Yet, on the US TV transmitions there is still nothing about what is truely going on. The rest of the world is not living in the bubble of American media (including me) where the facts about America ignoring the source of the Terrorists (Saudi Arabia), where the money for 9/11 came from (Saudi Arabia), and who is responsible (Saudi Arabia again) simply isn't discussed! WTF! And who in the USA has the closest connections to Saudi resident Usama Bin Laden?

    The Bush Family.

    Now, if that is so why isn't Usama in a jail getting his testies fried right now? Hm? The first thing a cop would do when faced with a murder is talk to everyone involved. The Bush WH packed the entire Bin Laden family in the USA onto a plane the day after 9/11 and sent them home, without interrogation.

    Today, we hear the news about how the USA can't even count votes. Is America retarded? Well, one might think so if one wasn't

    1. Re:American fascists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember people - Hitler was "elected" too.
      You should have just put this in the beginning, then we could easily see that we don't have to read your drivel.

      There needs to be an amendment to Godwin's law, something involving single posts and politics.

    2. Re:American fascists by jeff13 · · Score: 1

      Godwin's Law is obsolete thanks to George W. Bush.

      Kinda ironic huh Ren? ;p

      Details on Godwin's Law, link. :)
      http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law .htm l

    3. Re:American fascists by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >> The President lied about Iraq.
      What did he lie about? WMD? If that is the case then you have made two points out of one just to make a longer list. I'll get to WMD when you refer to it.

      >> Massive invasion of Iraq, illegal.
      Such grandiose words. Would you have prefered a tiny invasion? At any rate, the UN approved serious consequences if Saddam didnt comply with us. The UN had thier opportunity to pursue inspectors, but that didnt work. Check Hans Blix's report. What do serious consequences mean if they dont mean war? Economic Sanctions? We already had done that for 12 years. Besides, we are a soverign nation. So was Iraq you say? Of course they were, thats why they had the right to say "screw you" to the UN and stonewall inspectors.

      >> No WMDs. None since 1991.
      So what was clinton bombing in 1998? Why did all the intelligence say there WERE WMD? How did bush convince Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kofi, et all to go along with his scheme?

      >> 100000 Iraqies dead, women and children mostly.
      Women and children mostly? Im sure they were all handicapped children who were busy making birthday cards for thier fathers who worked hard to put food on the table. Please, spare me the bleeding heart "for the children" crap. Try this, the sanctions that your precious UN put on iraq killed an estimated 600k. Hows that for a statistic?

      >> Over 1000 US Troops dead and toll is rising.
      We are losing troops. Its a war, it is sad, that is why they need our support. But lets remember this is a WAR. People die in a war. Thats what war is. If we have lost our stomach to wage war then we are in a very bad place. I know our enemies havent given up on fighting, neither can we, or they will kill us.

      >> US torturing civilians (for none existant WMDs?)
      Document this? Are you talking about Abu Grab? Please... How many of them did we torture? Half of the things they did , leashes, panties on the head, what have you, can scarcely be refered to as torture. You pay good money to do things like that in some parts of this country. I remember when this started going on, the insurgents said "We will repay the americans what they have done" and proceeded to decapitate an american hostage. It shows the real evil here does it not? And we corrected our "abuses". People are getting in trouble for it, unlike the islamic fascists who reward people for such subhuman behavior.

      >> Usama Bin Laden still around... laughing.
      He is not laughing he is hiding. We will find him. Dont be so ignorant its bad for your health.

      >> Americans are finding that it's now "legal" to be jailed without any representation, your home can be searched without a warrent, poverty groups have already been raided and any dissent is met with Gestapo like tactics - the Republican Convention in NY was a disgusting display of an arrogant disregard of peoples rights and freedoms.
      The patriot act lets you search someones house without telling them right away. I support that. Maybe you think we should tell Muhammed Atta we are investigating him so he speeds up the attack. More over, what is a poverty group? Gestapo like tactics??? You have got to be kidding me. In Boston, those who didnt agree with the tolerant left were put in a cage! dont believe me? google it. It was in Yahoo Images. We republicans are trying to defend rights and freedoms, even your right to have your stupid opinions.

      >> The Bush WH packed the entire Bin Laden family in the USA onto a plane the day after 9/11 and sent them home, without interrogation.
      It wasnt the day after, it was the day of, and it wasnt Bush, it was richard clark. And Bin Laden's family has disowned him. God knows we couldnt search them, that would be racial profiling!

      >> We've heard that the voting machines can be hacked by a 12 year old, anyone with brown skin will be picked up by the nearest police

    4. Re: American fascists by jeff13 · · Score: 1

      Everything I've stated can be backed up by even conservative sources... such as The Nation, Americas conservative source of news and commentary since 1865.

      100 Facts and 1 Opinion
      The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

      http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s= fa cts

      BTW, The Nation supports Kerry. Now, if conservatives are supporting Kerry what does that say about Bush?

    5. Re:American fascists by jeff13 · · Score: 1

      I'm Canadian genius.

      Hell, Canadians know more about the USA than most Americans! Truth!

    6. Re:American fascists by Log+from+Blammo · · Score: 1

      Remember people - Hitler was "elected" too.

      Hitler lost the elections--twice. He staged his very own version of 9/11, the Reichstag fire, in order to bully the winner, von Hindenburg, into appointing him chancellor and granting him emergency powers.

      --
      "This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
    7. Re: American fascists by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      No conservative would endorse Kerry. Granted, Bush isnt the best conservative. If I was to endorse the MORE conservative of the two it would be Bush. If they endorsed no one, that would be understandable, but by endorsing Kerry they couldnt possibly be conservative. Lets remember Kerry is numero uno liberal in the senate.

      Excellent response by the way. Dont bother posting responses to what ive said. Just a link...

    8. Re:American fascists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the study about the deaths in Iraq give a range from roughly 10,000 to 100,000. So, the spinners say there were 100,000 causulties in the report. I supose this includes insurgent casualties?

      Bush did not lie about the WMD. Bush was wrong about the WMD. Guess what? So was Kerry!

      Illegal invasion? There is UN resolution 1441 if I remember.

    9. Re: American fascists by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      I checked your crummy website. Its about as conservative as ted kennedy. Here is what i found in about 13 seconds. A cover of thier magazine with Reagan and Bush saying "Can we stop presidents from lying" Did you know that the only president who ever was charged with perjury didnt even make it to the cover? How can you call yourself conservative and bash bush and reagan. Dont be afraid of being called a liberal, just dont be one. Here is a link to that cover

    10. Re: American fascists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont be afraid of being called a liberal, just dont be one.

      What is your definition of "liberal," and how does it apply to Kerry but not to Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin?

    11. Re:American fascists by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      The American people voted your comments 'bullshit.'

      Suck it up, dude.

  197. Re:More clickbait by general_re · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There should be a lot of traffic. This is perhaps the most important election of the current young digerati generation

    Random 500 and 503 errors notwithstanding, I don't know about that, in a sense. Regardless of who's elected today, the country will continue to muddle through. We always have before, and I don't sense a sea change in that respect - there is a fairly sizeable contingent of folks in this country who aren't quaking in their boots at the thought of either man inhabiting the White House, something that partisans on both sides tend to forget in their relentless drive to demonize the other fellow.

    For whatever reason, there were a ton of people just staring at that one placard. Noone demonstrating, saying anything, but just staring and thinking.

    Wow. Wish I was there.

    Stay safe.

    --
    ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  198. Only vote I can make today is "I can't" in poll. by gus+goose · · Score: 1

    But I keep getting:

    503 Service Unavailable

    The service is not available. Please try again later.

    One of the "bush" tactics to keep "undesirables" from voting..... paaah.!

    gus

    --
    .. if only.
  199. what annoys ME... by Vanguard(DC) · · Score: 1, Troll

    what really annoys me is that you see a million people stating why they are voting AGAINST Bush, but hardly a soul among them can figure out why they are voting FOR Kerry...

    that says it all if you ask me. the morons of the world are being led around by wonderful shmucks like Michael Moore.

    yayy!

    --
    "I think, therefore I get paid."
    1. Re:what annoys ME... by xTMFWahoo · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm more scared about what Bush has done and is capable of doing than Kerry. It's all a matter of who sucks less. NO politician is perfect/all good/insert adjective.

      --
      "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain.
    2. Re:what annoys ME... by chitownIrish · · Score: 1
      Well, how do you think Bush got into office? If Monica sends the blue dress to the dry cleaners, Gore is President today.

      I voted for Kerry because contrary to the Bush camp's flip-flop charge, he's a guy that will not be shaken from a position he feels is right. Three examples:

      1. Iran-Contra: Kerry was instrumental in getting it (the investigation) started.
      2. BCCI: Kerry stuck with this one like a bulldog on a mailman's leg, even though it exposed wrongdoing by some influential Democrats.
      3. POW/MIA Investigation: Kerry took this issue up when all his advisors said it was a political no-win situation. He did exactly the opposite of what you would expect if you believe the Bush campaign's portrayal of him.

      Kerry's not perfect - despite the above points, his legislative record is kind of sparse, and IMHO he was wrong on BOTH votes regarding Gulf War I and II. But we need someone who is going to extricate us from Iraq, and Bush just can't see past the ideology enough to do it.

  200. I heard that the polls will still be open tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the lines are too long and you're a rich white republican they are going to have special hours tomorrow so your voice will be heard.

  201. Wait... What? by temojen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Party representatives are allowed to touch the Ballots???

    Here in Canada, the only people allowed to touch the Ballots are the Deputy Returning Officer (who is sworn to be non-partisan) and the Voter. The DRO isn't allowed to touch the voter list, that's the Poll Clerk's job.

    The scrutineers and the candidate's representative (who oversees the scrutineers for their party) aren't allowed to touch anything. They also aren't allowed to talk about politics or have any signs or material which might identify their party etc. asside from their scrutineer badge (which has their name and party).

    The election before last, I went up to the table to vote and the Poll Clerk, DRO, and scrutineer were telling me who to vote for. They turned absolutely white when right after putting my ballot in the box I walked over to the candidate's rep (for a different party) handed him my paperwork and got my scrutineer badge. They stopped telling people how to vote after that (I was assigned to their table).

    1. Re:Wait... What? by Krow10 · · Score: 1
      Party representatives are allowed to touch the Ballots???
      No, s/he meant sample ballots, which had descriptions on all the things for which you could vote (i.e. U.S. Rep, any bond issues, a proposed amendment to the commonwealth's constitution etc.) These were not actual ballots.

      Cheers,
      Craig

      --
      Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    2. Re:Wait... What? by slungsolow · · Score: 1

      the previous response to this is right. They weren't handing out official ballots. They were just samples ballots so you knew what you were going to be looking at on the computer screen.

      The whole voting process was computerized and was operated via a touch screen device that was shielded from everyones view (except for the voters, of course).

    3. Re:Wait... What? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Not only was my ballot *touched* by a poll worker, it had to be *signed* by two of them (and it even said so in the print by their signatures - if not notorized with signatures, it isn't official) before being handed over to me to make my picks and drop it in the scanner machine.

      I can see why. They don't want someone getting their hands on a box of printed ballots, filling them all out, and somehow sneaking them in to the count.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  202. Vote out the thier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His father couldn't get re-elected, and neither will he. A sad, pathetic, puppet of a man- nothing without his family's influence and his 'advisors', who are the ones with the real power, deeply evil men such as Cheney. Come on people, vote Bush out. Wouldn't you love to see the look on his smug little face when he loses? History will see him as the worst president yet, fitting as he was never really elected.

  203. Local Elections and Gerrymandering by raque · · Score: 1

    Okay -- we vote, someone wins and everyone is happy - right? NO. The biggest issue facing America in this election is that most of the power in the US is tied to the Congress and States and all the focus is on the President. The Congress and States are controlled via Gerrymandering and this allows a constant bait and swtich. All the focus is on the President and the nuts and bolts are controlled by low turnout local elections that are controlled more and more by the far edges of the political spectrum

  204. I like bitching. by raehl · · Score: 1

    That's why I'm voting for Nader again.

  205. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by netsharc · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the US should outsource the counting of its votes to India.

    Haha only serious, the US is supposed to be the world leader (and nowadays, "spreader") of democracy, but its election is as (in/un/non-) credible as ones which take place in evil dictatorships (like the former Iraq).

    --
    What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
  206. The PRESIDENTIAL election smart guy... by NYTrojan · · Score: 1

    When was the last time a GOP took NY for the presidential election? When was the last time they were even within 20%?

  207. Vote for Giant Douche! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote for Giant Douche and you will feel refreshed and invigorated. Vote for Turd Sandwich and you'll be left with a nasty taste in your mouth for four years.

  208. Perhaps or friends could provide a better choice by infinite9 · · Score: 1

    I would love for my country to return to these things, but we're being forced to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich.

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  209. Lowest Common Denominator Politics by aclarke · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There are so many things wrong here...

    1. Partisan politics aside, how can such an inane comment get modded +5? Once you're able to actually decipher the grammar and spelling (hella?! Don't they make lights?), you realize that absolutely nothing was said.

    2. Why is it that 90 percent of people who "support" Kerry cite their primary reason for their support as "I don't like Bush"? Whatever happened to a candidate running on their OWN record? What is it about KERRY that you DO support? Do you even know? Bush isn't above reproach here either, by any means. Thanks to Cheney, I'd be scared to vote for Kerry otherwise we could have terrorists overrunning our country. The whole thing just makes me sad and tired. If you're going to exercise your "right" to vote, please at least do so with some modicum of information beyond a vague yet undefined antipathy towards the current president. BTW Adian, this isn't all directed at you personally but more at the attitude in general so many people hold.

    3. This, as I see it, is one of the fundamental flaws of Democracy, or at least Democracy as Americans define it. We have a bunch of people who know very little about the issues or the candidates making decisions about who will become the next president. As long as you're an American, 18+ and not a felon, you get to vote. That's great, but as I alluded above, if you're going to make the effort to vote, perhaps it's worth making the effort to place an INFORMED vote.

    Disclaimer: As you may notice from my .sig, I'm a Canadian, yes. So I can't vote in this election. I've lived in the US now for 8+ years and I feel in many ways like this is "my" country. Which is why I feel so much frustration about what I see around me. Finally, for the record, between Bush & Kerry I'd vote for Bush every time. However, between all the options, I'm pretty sure if I could vote, I'd vote for neither. There has to be a better candidate on the ballot SOMEWHERE. However, since I can't vote anyway I haven't taken the time to look.

    1. Re:Lowest Common Denominator Politics by jagapen · · Score: 1

      aclarke says, "If you're going to exercise your "right" to vote, please at least do so with some modicum of information beyond a vague yet undefined antipathy towards the current president."

      I don't want to insult you, but I can only assume that you are not at all informed. I know that I speak for many people that I know when I say that our feeling toward the current President is well-honed, concrete, visceral, burning hate for the man and his cronies.

      Why? He gave up the search for Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy who attacked us on 9/11/2001?) and let him get away, to attack a nation which posed no threat to us based on bald-faced lies and distortions, thus creating fertile ground for recruiting more terrorists, meanwhile letting nuclear materials, explosives and weapons disappear from United Nations supervision and presumably into the hands of said terrorists. He has used the war as cover for an enormous give-away of our tax money to his corporate cronies, letting American soldiers die for lack of proper equipment. And what about the 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed?

      He hasn't done anything to tighten up security here in the United States, aside from some feel-good-but-mostly-useless airport security. He has shredded our proud political traditions by trashing due process, holding prisoners for years without charges, even if they are American citizens. Even if they aren't guilty of anything! He has destroyed our international credibility by authorizing torture, which was used in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq-- when 9 out of 10 prisoners were innocent but rounded up by mistake! For all that, and the awful PATRIOT Act, his administration still hasn't successfully caught or prosecuted any terrorists in this country!

      He's destroying Social Security by draining the trust fund of money. He's screwing up Medicare. He's destroying the environment with the ironically-named Clear Skies and Healthy Forests Initiatives. He's leaving millions of children behind. He's run up the biggest federal deficits and debt ever! He's giving tax incentives for corporations to send jobs overseas.

      Other nations are financing this federal debt and trade deficit. The US dollar is not on any fixed standard; it floats with the market and is backed only by the United States government. Once the dollar collapses, we are S-C-R-E-W-E-D. In the meantime, our investors can buy treasury notes with their currency, dumping it on the market keeping their currencies low against the dollar, and thus keeping American money flowing into their own manufacturing bases. Our national security is at risk as a result.

      To sum up, we face greater danger from terrorism, our economy grows weaker, we've lost our allies, and our long-term security is threatened. And to top it all off -- like a big red cherry -- George W. Bush says, "If you're not with us, you're against us." The man is fucking us over and calling us unpatriotic if we question it. I figure we ought to dole out some of that Texas justice he's so fond of: Give him a fair trial, then shoot him.

      Now, does that sound like vague yet undefined antipathy?

  210. Rick Boucher by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Did you go Rick Boucher's way? Great tech advocate, that guy....

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  211. Tell us how you really feel by bstadil · · Score: 1

    Using euphemisms and stuff are for wussies, tell us how you really feel

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  212. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now, we need to stop this 100,000 nonsense. The Hopkins survey was fundamentally flawed. Even though they surveyed lots of houses, they chose those houses by picking random points on the map and interviewing people at the 30 closest houses to that point.

    Imagine the skew introduced if they picked a point that happened to be where a bomb fell. The houses closest to that point would certainly have a higher number of casualties than the actual average.

    Because of the poor geographical distribution, their survey actually goes from around 1000 houses (IIRC) to about 33 localities.

  213. Vote out the thief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    - Come on people, vote Bush out. Wouldn't you love to see the look on his smug little face when he loses?

    - His father couldn't get re-elected, and neither will he. A sad, pathetic, puppet of a man- nothing without his family's influence and his 'advisors', who are the ones with the real power, deeply evil men such as Cheney.

    - History will see him as the worst president yet, fitting as he was never really elected.

  214. Sacramento Voting Experience by EggMan2000 · · Score: 1

    I was there at 7:30AM. There was a short ten minute line at my polling place in Sacramento. I had to show ID as I was a first time registrant in Sacramento County. (I wonder if my wife and I are considered first time voters, for reporting purposes?)

    Anyway, we spent an hour last night going through each balot measure and I created a "cheat-sheet" in Excel. (How geek is that?)

    I must say, I'm nervous on how it is all going to turn out. At least I don't wait as long as some others, many polls close at 4PM PST.

    --
    what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
  215. This has been debunked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems the machines have counters in the back of them that don't count the number of votes but how many times the voting machines have been used in an election. This has been reported on CNN.

    This story is getting its legs from the Drudge report. Take with a grain of salt.

  216. Vote Quimby!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://animatedtv.about.com/library/weekly/aa11060 0b.htm

    We need more entertainment in the White House.

  217. The great thing about Kerry is that... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    (1) He's also fiscally liberal!

    Something for everyone.

    Vote change, vote Libertarian

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  218. ties, arbitration by phyruxus · · Score: 1
    This election is not getting less tight. The final electoral count will probably go to arbitration in at least one state (florida for starters, pennsylvania had thousands of votes on the electronic voting machines before anyone started voting; voter challenges/intimidation in ohio).

    If it comes down to lawyers - and it looks likely - expect to see the cases appealed to the Supreme Court regardless of who wins in the lower courts. And when it gets there, it's going to be met by a court short a Justice - Rehnquist is going to be out indefinitely due to recent chemo and radiation for his thyroid cancer. So there's a good chance of a split court 4-4 on the decision.

    Anyone think the congress could choose Kerry?

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:ties, arbitration by scotch · · Score: 1
      pennsylvania had thousands of votes on the electronic voting machines before anyone started voting

      I just heard on NPR that this is false. The machines in question have an odometer on them that indicates total votes on the machine since construction. The would-be-whistler blowers saw these numbers, and without understanding what it meant, spread the word about voter fraud right to the top of the RNC. This explanation may or may not be correct; NPR screws up sometimes, too.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    2. Re:ties, arbitration by BlewScreen · · Score: 1
      expect to see the cases appealed to the Supreme Court

      This may be the case, but here'swhy they may simply refuse to hear an election appeal.

      I thought it was interesting...

      -bs

      --
      That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
  219. Re:It's not turned down yet, but the polls showed by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any idea why?

    I've seen some OP-ED stuff that talked about states deciding to go the winner-take-all route to increase their own "importance" or to get more "attention" from candidates. But I think history shows that election-year attention does not translate to legislative attention in any meaningful way. IMHO, proportional vote allocation more accurately represents the will of the people, which is what the Electoral College is supposed to do in the first place.

    --
    I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  220. I thought about doing this... by raehl · · Score: 1

    But I decided I didn't want to vote for a moron.

  221. Why you should vote even if you want to protest by arete · · Score: 1

    I posted this in response to someone else's Livejournal comment about being a "conscientious objector" to the voting process, but I thought it was appropriate here:

    --> 1) NOT voting only gives them the (CORRECT!) impression that they can get away with whatever they want. Because you ARE still paying their taxes and probably obeying whatever crazy laws they pass. Unless you change citizenship and move.

    If you want to protest GO vote and don't vote for those candidates. Or even ANY candidates. No ballot only tells them (CORRECTLY) that you don't care enough about this country or our lives or even your life to show up. I cannot respect that.

    --> 2) In the current presidential election, I think that voting out the sitting president - clearly the worst president in my lifetime, and the most boldfaced liar I've seen campaign for the presidency - is more important to me than protesting the process. (And I'm a registered Republican who liked his father) I CAN respect you disagreeing with me about that. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote!

    --> 3) Our voting system has flaws that should be fixed. Our electoral college system is silly. Our PRIMARY system is broken and evil.

    Not going to the polls is no kind of protest. A protest has to be something they give a damn about.

    If you want to protest, go fill out a ballot. Vote for any third party candidate on the ballot. Or write in the Green or Libertarian presidential candidates. Or write in Alan Greenspan or Jon Stewart. Or don't make any actual votes at all, but cast the ballot. At least you're successfully sending a message, and that DOES help. (these are in the order I recommend them, but any of them are MUCH better than none) (Do at least read the referendums and vote on them. A lot of times you get a direct chance to vote for education funding.)

    a) a ballot with no votes reduces their mandate - since what gets reporting is the percentage of the vote that they got. In some cases they actually can't get elected if they don't get a certain percentage of overall votes - so you'll be forcing runoffs, at least. (I believe it varies by jurisdiction and race whether this is percentage of ballots or percentage of votes cast in that race - an advantage of writing somebody, anybody, in)

    This doesn't just let THEM know, it lets EVERYBODY know, because it is reported.

    b) There is a lot of circular influence in American elections. I mean that people want to vote for the winner. This isn't the fault of the elections, it's the way the PEOPLE are. But that means that a vote cast against whoever wins reduces their chances of reelection, because the news does talk about how barely they won, and their opposition will too.

    Furthermore, a vote cast FOR a third party increases the chances of someone voting for them in the next election. This isn't going to matter for our national presidential elections for at least a few more years - but third parties have already gained a significant foothold in local elections precisely because of this. The Greens and Libertarians seem to have been the most successful, so far. This is totally independent of the national financial mechanism for the national election.

    This is the reason why I want to start a website that operates like a write-in primary for next time around... where people online vote from candidates who won't agree to run, and everybody going there agrees to write in the _same_ candidate for the races they want to protest. If half the people who wanted to protest ALL voted for Jon Stewart, THAT would be a message.

    c) Even if you are going to protest and not vote in the presidential election, if you look around you'll find there are some candidates who are worth voting for. In this election in IL, O'Bama is the best example. Clearly you don't need to go to the polls for him to win. But the more tremendous his landslide is the better chance he'll have of effecting policy locally and federally, and the better chance he'll have of being president someday.

    --> 4) For instance, a ballot with O'Bama and referendums marked, and the Green or Libertarian presidential candidate written in for everything else - that's a ballot I can respect, even if I disagree with you (strongly) about #2.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
  222. Re:Here in VA -- WINVote by bostonkarl · · Score: 1

    Yup, I voted in Arlington VA this morning. Got in line at 6:30AM and voted around 7:45. I was an A-K.

    The wait wasn't due to lack of staffing, there just were too few machines (only 5 as I recall). Perhaps if sample ballots were handed out, so that people could denote what they intended to vote rather than read/decide at the screen (for the initiatives and local stuff) it might have been speeded up slightly. But the true bottleneck was the lack of machines.

  223. New obscure voting reference by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Don't blame me, I voted for Yellow.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  224. Someone in Oklahoma: What machines do they use? by halo1982 · · Score: 1

    I voted absentee this year (still registered in Oklahoma)and I was wondering what kind of machines they use to take your ballots. Last time I was in the state and voted (two years ago or more) I didn't really care so I was just wondering what they're using.

  225. Finish Line by longklaw · · Score: 1

    I'm just glad that Election Day is finally here. I can't wait until this is all over.

  226. Never look abroad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that the american voting system work so bad? Most other countries have no problem at all. In Sweden all votes are counted within one day, and recounted within a second day, and counted a third time within a week (very thouroughly). All this without machines or computers, to make sure noone can cheat or tamper with the votes. If Russia used electronic voting - would you trust the result? Why can't America use proper voting systems like the rest of the world?

    If you forget to look around you might step in cowdung - old swedish proverb

    1. Re:Never look abroad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had that too, along with all the ballot-box-stuffing that goes with it. Then our population grew to roughly 34 times as much as that of Sweden. And the liberals decided it was more important for kids to learn about how all the problems in the world are caused by male humans of European descent than it was for them to be able to count.

    2. Re:Never look abroad? by nevets · · Score: 1

      According to World Atlas Sweden is about the size of California (land size) and the population of 8,875,053. We have more than that in New York city alone. We are the "United States" and voting is run by each state. So every state may do things a little differently. I live in New York State and like the old fashion machines that we use. But with the size of the US and the complexity of having different states so large, you can't compare Sweden to the US. Maybe Russia or China, but not Sweden.

      I'm not familiar with the way Russia votes so I can't comment about them. Do they have a better system? Atleast our system seemed better than India. If I remember, their system took weeks, but then again, India's has a lot more people than the US.

      --
      Steven Rostedt
      -- Nevermind
  227. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by Arcturax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In Ohio at least, when you get to the table to get your ballot, they check off your name and next to it is your signature. You must sign and they check to see that it is your signiture. Once that is done, you can't vote again. So there is already a "challenge" inside the building. There is no need for people outside to be challenging people, especially not people who are strongly tied to a party. The real reason the Republicans want to do this is voter intimidation.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  228. Diebold voting process by sjonke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I get a card, go up to the machine and insert the card and "vote". I get to see my vote before "casting" it, after pressing "Cast Vote" I'm instructed to pull the card back out of the machine and so do so. Now I take that card to some guy and he inserts the card into a small handheld device.

    At what point is my vote really cast - when I hit the "Cast Vote" button, or when the card is inserted into that handheld device? If the latter, they didn't show me what the device said. Was my vote really counted? I have no idea.

    --
    --- What?
    1. Re:Diebold voting process by bobdole369 · · Score: 1

      We have an "unknown" brand, as in there is no makers name on our voting machines, here in Broward County Florida. We are given a yellow slip of paper looking much like a raffle ticket - after clearing the registration people who check your name in a book, and you sign.

      The lady puts a device the size of a paperback into the side of my voting machine, which after about 30 seconds brings up a ballot. She explains that when I'm done, I should review, and press the blinking red VOTE button.

      When I'm done, I press vote, and after 10 seconds, it thanks me for voting, and goes back to a blank screen.

      Makes me think the voting is actually centralized.

      --
      Lousy facepalm.
    2. Re:Diebold voting process by dupup · · Score: 3, Informative
      I don't know about your state, but in California, the Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley, decertified then provisionally recertified our electronic voting machines. The recertification was provisional upon any voter being issued a paper ballot upon request at the polling site. This is called the paper or plastic option :-)

      The upshot is that, in California, one does not have to feel like one is at the mercy of the paperless election system. Go, Kevin!

  229. Electoral College and EC Vote tracking by Dadge · · Score: 1

    Being a numeraholic, it's been great following all the different tracking sites. And it was interesting to discover that electoral-vote.com is the work of a relatively well-known geek. Now all of America is asking "What's a flash crowd?" :-) But is the value of the polls and the tracking sites much more than their entertainment value? What real difference would it have made if all the numbers had just been made up? And is the Electoral College a serious, democratic way of electing the leader of the free world? Especially in a country where the real election is run so incompetently that it isn't much more reliable than the opinion polls... To show you what I mean, I've made a kind of parody of the whole thing at http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/ElecColl.htm. What do you think? Have a fun evening, Adrian

  230. What's wrong with undecided voters? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1
    So, what's wrong with undecided voters?
    Beats the hell out of me. Why anybody can't see that if Bush had two heads he'd be twice as stupid is beyond me. The man in the White House needs to be able to read about and understand the issues rather than just declaring that they're a lot more simple than they really are.
    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  231. Re:It's not turned down yet, but the polls showed by Skraut · · Score: 1
    The Answer is simple. As is stands now, the winner of CO gets 9 electoral votes. If this ammendment passes, the winner will probably get 5 electoral votes and the loosing candidate 4. Why would a candidate waste ANY money or time on Colorado. Suddenly winning Colorado means the state is worth 1 electoral vote.

    Yes for the votes to be distributed makes a ton of sense, but ONLY if it is done Nationwide. Otherwise a state just ends up reducing it's importance in the national race.

    Yet another reason why the electoral college sucks.

    --
    Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
  232. Watch videos at archive.org by not_hylas(+) · · Score: 1

    http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=TheCageBus hKerry

    http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=mediatyp e% 3Amovies%20AND%20collection%3Aelection_2004&sort=- %2Fmetadata%2Fpublicdate

    --
    ~hylas
  233. Voting at Stanford by Otik2 · · Score: 1

    I went to watch the poll opening procedures for a class at Stanford, and I wasn't very impressed. The DREs were left sitting out in an unlocked room overnight where someone could easily tamper with them. Even just removing the seals could seriously delay voting at that location. The poll workers also made some mistakes when they were setting up the machines, such as not resealing the button that can close the polls on a machine and not writing down the serial number of the seal on each machine. This of course doesn't prove that DREs are a bad form of technology, but it does show that it would not be at all hard to shut down a polling place temporarily. Not to mention that some requirements were not met.

  234. In 1984 NY went for Reagan by georgeha · · Score: 1

    ditto 1980.

    In 1988 Bush got 48% of the vote.

    In 1992 he got 28.8, still with 20% of Clinton's 47%.

    So, 20 and 12 years ago are the answers to your questions, you were probably too young to vote then.

    I didn't remember these, there are things called search engines that let you find this kind of cool information.

  235. You're so right by iceperson · · Score: 1

    We wouldn't want to make sure people casting ballots are eligible to vote!

  236. From the Simpsons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It does not matter which way you vote! Either way your planet is doomed! Doomed! Doomed!"
    - Kang, The Simpsons

  237. The impact of weather. by jonadab · · Score: 1

    It's raining in Ohio. All day. Statewide. So, the voter turnout among union
    workers will be pathetic, and Ohio is pretty much a lock for Bush, if past
    election turnouts in the rain are any indication.

    That leaves Pennsylvania and Florida: Kerry needs them both; Bush needs one
    or the other of them. That's my analysis.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  238. Crosses on Paper by Tom · · Score: 1

    I've just got one question to the USians on here:

    What's wrong with making crosses on a simple sheet of paper? I mean the way that 99% of the civilized world do their elections? Why is it that US insists on playing alpha-tester with all kinds of wacky new election methods, even after the last sheep farmer in south-east Wisconsin has learnt that they're more trouble than they're worth?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Crosses on Paper by $criptah · · Score: 1

      Let me help you out on this one:

      It is hard to count crosses on papers. With optical or electronic voting you can count votes almost instantly. Think how simple it is to create a program where you have a number of buttons. Each button is a assigned to a counter. You press a button, confirm the selection, and the counter for that button goes +1. Then you can count all votes almost instantly.

      Stupid people -- remember Florida? -- cannot make connections between names and check boxes.

      Easier data analysis.

      Please do not be mad at the United States for their experiments. Afterall, trying new things brought them to the status of a world leader.

    2. Re:Crosses on Paper by Tom · · Score: 1

      It is hard to count crosses on papers.

      Is it? How comes everyone else manages to?

      With optical or electronic voting you can count votes almost instantly. Think how simple it is to create a program

      It isn't. If anything, this election should have made that clear. Sure it's easy to code a counter. But once you figure in transaction safety, tamper- and hack-proofing, audit trails and a dozen other requirements that you can not do away with without doing away with democracy itself, it doesn't look that simple anymore, does it?

      The point being that paper ballots is a system that humans comprehend fully. Thus, humans can supervise it, humans can control and audit it.

      Stupid people -- remember Florida? -- cannot make connections between names and check boxes.

      Weird how all over the world no other country has ever had that problem. Maybe the US has more stupid people than everyone else, or maybe you should just shoot the people designing the ballots and go with what works for everyone else?

      Easier data analysis.

      Uh? If you're talking about data analysis of vote totals, then there's no difference at all. Well, at least over here we actually do use computers, you know? We just count the votes and then enter total numbers into them instead of having them do the counting.

      As for data analysis on the votes themselves - I dare to say that is one of the things you don't want to do. Elections are anonymous for a reason.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  239. Optical scanning by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1


    This morning, I voted with a pen-and-paper optical scan sheet. Unambiguous, easy, but not particularly fast. I'd rather have unambiguous than fast, however. No default values on the back of my form to worry about and my pen didn't crash, so I'd call my experience a success.

    One thing I would wish for, however, is better coverage of the canidates in our newspapers. I had to leave a few races blank, because I had absolutely no clue who the people were. In other places I've lived, I grew used to opening the paper to figure out the more obscure races...no such luck this time.

    --
    -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  240. Isn't anything that undermines our democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... considered treason? Why don't we ever hear about anyone going to prison over these kinds of voter fraud cases?

  241. Trouble voting in California. by MotherSuperior · · Score: 2, Informative
    Hopefully this will turn out to be a minor issue in the long run, but I've run into some issues voting here in California.

    On my registration form, I listed a mailing address that differed from that of my residence. I received my voter registration card in the mail, which gave me a polling place a few blocks from my listed residence. The card includes a note saying that since I'm a late registrant, I will not be receiving a sample ballot. No big deal. My mind is made up for the presidency, and I've done my homework regarding the local ballot measures. I'm also not a Florida resident, so I presumed I could figure out the ballot without seeing a sample. (Ok, cheap shot.)

    Lo and behold, though, yesterday I receive a sample ballot after all. Complete with a polling place listed on the back. Only trouble is, it differs from the one on my voter registration card. It's not even in the same county. The local measures were the wrong ones, and there was a spot for Mayor of a town I don't even live in. Confusion arises.

    So I go down to polling place #1. This is where I'm a resident, and as I understand it, that's the relevant issue at hand. I could theoretically have had them mail be a ballot overseas, if my legal residence was here in Northern California. I stood in line for quite a while, actually.. which was good to see. I finally get to the front of the line, and there's 3 poll workers doing their thing. I mention the ambiguity to them, and the 3 poll workers check their roll call sheets, or whatever the appropriate term is. Turns out I'm on only one of these 3, theoretically identical roll call sheets. Poll worker #3, who doesn't look like he's even old enough to vote, reasons, 'Well, you're on /my/ sheet, so you must be in the right place.' Unconvinced, I give them the ol' 'BBL' and drive down the road to polling place #2.

    Again, I wait in a rather long line, and when I arrive at the front, it turns out I'm on all of the roll call sheets there, thus calling our pimply-faced friend's judgement into question.

    So as I type, I'm trying to get through to the voter registrar's office, to see about clearing this up. Thus far, all I've received is the message, 'We're sorry, all of our representatives are helping other voters, please hold..' yada yada. Followed by 15 minutes of dead air. Followed by a dialtone. Hopefully, the registrar's office is just busy, and this isn't a ${Party} conspiracy to discount my vote. ;)

    What concerns me most about this though, is that I just IMed a friend telling them what was going on, and she mentioned that several people at her job are going through the same thing....

    Hopefully this will straighten itself out. Anyone have any other brilliant suggestions besides the registrar's office, and possibly that 866 number that keeps getting mentioned?

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine...
    1. Re:Trouble voting in California. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just voted in CA and I did not have problems. We had a fill in the bubble ballot. When you were done they ran it through a machine and they kept the ballot.

      There was a long wait of about half an hour. In the past, I have waited for at most 5 minutes.

      Voted Bush. I just hope we have a clear winner. I'll honer the result either way.

    2. Re:Trouble voting in California. by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      Why not vote at both polling places? It's a time-honored American tradition!

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:Trouble voting in California. by Hassman · · Score: 1

      Long wait...

      I waited for just over 2 hours to vote in Chicago. I woulda killed for a 30 min wait.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    4. Re:Trouble voting in California. by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 1

      Dude...Why didn't you go ahead and vote twice?

      Then go to the media. Then you can become a pawn in a flurry of partisan lawsuits.

      Sounds like great fun to me!

      --
      "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
      GeneralEmergency
    5. Re:Trouble voting in California. by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      He didn't say that he was a Democrat.

    6. Re:Trouble voting in California. by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      There were two people in front of me when I entered my polling place. I had voted and was out of there within five minutes. My vote was tabulated on a big sheet of paper that they read optically. I marked it with a plain black ballpoint pen.

      I live in an area where there are more animals (goats, sheep, chickens, horses, etc.) than people.

      It's nice out here.

  242. What about 4 years from now? by TequilaMonster · · Score: 1

    Hey

    I just want to know what /.'ers think will happen 4 years from now, in case either candidate wins?

    Bush wins.
    Agh. A stacked supreme court, war in Iran, Syria, and (remote) north korea, etc. etc., more bad karma, and a possible backlash at the polls.

    Kerry wins
    Agh. Failure to extract cleanly from Iraq, more casualties, intense scrutiny from republicans a la Clinton, economy going down simply because oil is running out, and a possible backlash at the polls.

    Ok, that's really very silly. My real point is, does it seem to anyone else that we are seeing a see-saw effect here - it's just getting worse and worse with both sides becoming more and more polarised and angry about the other. I have never seen such an acrimonious election campaign.

    It just seems to be whiplashing out of control.

    (glum)

    --
    Tequila - drink of the gods.
    1. Re:What about 4 years from now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It just seems to be whiplashing out of control.

      You must be new here.

  243. Would you want to be President? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm reminded by a Heinlein story where Presidential candidates were choosen by a non-partisan committee and potential candidates could not WANT to be president. Scientists had determined that anyone that wanted to be President was clinically insane (i.e. a egomaniac, megalomaniac).
    Candidates were choosen by there qualifications (just like any other job), not by who they know and how money they have, whatever.
    This always seemed like an good idea to me, certainly coudn't be any worse than what we have now.

    1. Re:Would you want to be President? by Glytch · · Score: 1

      Arthur C. Clarke described a similar system in "Fountains of Paradise". A president was randomly chosen from the general population, and everytime someone showed interest in the job, the system disqualified them. The better the job the president does, the quicker they're let go and are free to go back to their normal life.

      A character in the book said something along the lines of "We want a president who'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into office, and then do the best job they can so that they get time off for good behaviour."

  244. There are more tha two parties! by aclarke · · Score: 1
    I just looked at the list of presidential candidates, and there were too many to easily count. Why vote for the lesser of two evils? Vote for the least of 30 evils! ;-)

    Really, in the end that's what voters are doing, choosing the person who disagrees least with what we believe. If you haven't voted yet, I urge you to consider all the options before making your vote. Be informed. Discover that the two options you're considering start to only look like one when you see the spectrum of possibility before you. There ARE alternatives out there beyond the two you hear about on NPR and CNN. Some of them, to be sure, are crackpots, but nobody in power (read: Democrats and Republicans) have any real incentive to change as long as nobody is providing a serious threat to their authority.

    I belive our definitions of "left" and "right" have become very narrow and are more different shades of "centrist". IF this is truly where you stand, good for you, and please vote there. If you don't identify with either mainline party or their candidates, please find a party you can support, and get involved. If not for this election, then at least for the next one.

  245. You know, it's sad... by raehl · · Score: 1

    But maybe that's exactly what you should do - get a bunch of your buddies and vote 10 times each, but for Nader or someone who isn't going to win.

    At the end of the day, they'll know they have more votes than they have people who checked in to vote, won't know which votes are "extra", and will be forced to overhaul the system for next time.

    It just blows my mind that people designing systems like this can be so fundamentally stupid.

  246. Must.. know.. winner.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    With all this new eVoting crap they at least better get the final vote quickly! theres even less point in using these machines if they can't even satisfy my urge for instant data! therefore i think people should demand to know all results cast electronically within 1 minute of them closing or the state should get rid of the machines this week. Ah damnit!! i cant take this anymore! Im supposed to be revising! just give me the damn result ahHHH!!!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  247. Put an "I Voted" sticker on your website! by byrnereese · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to vote, and don't forget to wear your "I Voted" sticker on your website.

    For all of you out there who voted today, put this sticker on your personal homepage, your blog, your email, anything. Just be proud that we can all vote, and we can all change this country if we wanted to.

    http://www.majordojo.com/archives/000497.php

    --

    ^byrne :/

  248. /. effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's /. effect the voting booth and shutdown the system!

  249. Only "incumbents" can be... by Glove+d'OJ · · Score: 1

    So, wait... having "expertise" or past experience in being a politician is a good thing? If we want a change, then why [informally] require that people have been part of the system as it is now?

    Only an incumbent President has "experience" in being *the* president. Does it make sense to require that people have experience to get elected? (Is this not an inherent catch-22?) Does it not "breed" career politicians---the worst kind?

    Imagine this: what if all of the people who were deemed as successful (by some independent crieteria, such as income, no/little time on welfare, moderate level of education, etc.) were put into a lottery and then elected to a 2-year term as US President?

    It would, over time if not immediately, get us an african-american president, a female president, etc. It would give us a diversity of opinion and background, and would definitely provide new insight, much different than that of career politicians. This person would have a panel of assistants / advisors so that we did not nuke the rest of the world on day 1, and there would have to be some sort of psychiatric evaluation...

    Thoughts?

    1. Re:Only "incumbents" can be... by Tailstuxtophat · · Score: 1

      How about a Democratic Heirarchy? Cut it all up into precints of say, 5000 or 10,000 people and let them elect a representative. Then cut the representatives into groups of about 50 and let them elect a representative. Lather, rinse, repeat untill you reach the top. What's fun about that is that you'd have an easily modifyable makeup of representatives. Don't like what's going on in politics? Yank your local rep and plug in someone who represents your point of view.

      --
      Methinks thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee.
  250. He's just your basic Kerry supporter by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    Voting against, nor for. I remember a lot of Gore supporters saying that in 2000, also.

    You have to wonder, Why don't Democrats get more involved in the primary process and get candidates nominated whom they can really throw their support behind? They are always offering up these candidates that nobody really wants (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry). Clinton seems to have been the exception in the last 30 years.

    1. Re:He's just your basic Kerry supporter by pebs · · Score: 1

      They are always offering up these candidates that nobody really wants (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry).

      As opposed to the Republican party which also offers up candidates no one really wants?

      --
      #!/
  251. track records necessary, what for? US BANKRUPTCY by thinking4me · · Score: 1
    Pay no attention to what politicians say, but to what they have done and continue to do. Not voting for a Libertarian today is a serious mistake. What credentials and track records exactly have the pundits in Congress right now?

    Whoever Wins the White House in 2004, Loses ... Tomorrow, as everybody will rush to vote, the fate of America will be moving a step further toward the red-ink-abyss. Presidential speeches ignored impending U.S. debt disaster. No mention of fiscal gap estimated as high as $72 trillion. There Are A number Of Unexploded Bombs Hidden In The U.S. Economy says UPI economist Martin Hutchinson Washington Sep. 6... King Kong Debt Meets Middle Class Life warned Stacy A. Teicher | at the CS Monitor last August... Who Broke The US Economy? It Was The Democrats And The Republicans revealed J. Crudele from the NYPOST a while back...What If US Debts Are Unloaded Abruptly In A Deliberate Attempt To Destroy The American Economy? : see http://www,moneyfiles.org/usbust.html

    Those who want Bush/Kerry are going to be serious shocked. Ir just is a matter of time before the music stops. Fasten your seat belts!

    I read with a great interest the posting located at: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=120075 &cid=10123610

    Returning to the gold standard is ideologically appealing to a certain type of person, but it's totally impractical. There's just not enough gold, and new gold isn't being mined fast enough to keep up with the creation of other types of wealth. There are three possible outcomes I can think of if we tried to put the dollar back on a gold standard...

    Such a comment is ludicrous. Returning to the gold standard too costly? Really? One way or another, this option will be seen as the ONLY solution. And here is why... Obviously central banking is a complete failure. But this should come as no surprise in the end. It is what happens when one agrees with the Gov't managing blank checks and credit cards. Hence allowing the lawmakers print money out of thin air. Let's take a closer look at this con-game formula that is a Fiat Money.

    India and China look like Argentina before it crashed - both booms are heavy lending induced. The Euro is a disaster, most of the countries within the European union have serious deficits while lending has increased by more than 100% last year. Japan continues to battle deflation, interest rates are still near the benchmark "zero", despite all the monetary stimulus and desperately buying US dollars to keep the yen down, weaker than the dollar.

    ... and then we have the United States, the Enron Of all the Enrons!

    Do you really think foreign central banks are going to continue to finance such a black hole?

    Yes, black hole! Right now, the US credit bubble is so monstrous that very few American citizens know the truth. How much would you ask? $280,000 debt per citizen, kids included!!!

    So what does this mean? Are the world bankers and lawmakers stupid or do they have a plan? All I can say is thank you to Keynes, the architect of our current monetary system.

    But here is what Keynes said in a moment of humility: "In the long run, we are all dead..... "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.... The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." - Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920 "

    ROACH, in his latest article said today: this charade should come to an end after tomorrow. Well maybe not tomorrow but somewhere in 2005.

    Are you ready for a global crash? The dollar collapse will ripple through the entire financial system. And a global great deflati

    --
    Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises -- A. Rand
  252. The world is really watching by kantster · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I was speaking with my father in India yesterday and he had a lot of questions about the election system in the US. It is amazing how much disinformation there is about the US political system around the world. Not that it matters to US citizenry but as an interesting data point most world things that officially the US is a bi-party system, with direct election of the president.

    In addition, the Hindi news channel was carrying a very detailed analysis of the two candidates. Also, they had a pannel of people give their opinion about what the effects of either candidates foreign policies would be on India. I'd guess that most nation's media are carrying similar analysis and what-is-in-store for me analysis.

    1. Re:The world is really watching by will_die · · Score: 1

      Here in Germany the local TV stations are running 6 hours of US electon coverage stating at 0030 local time.

    2. Re:The world is really watching by perky · · Score: 1

      Really? You'd guess that there's global interest in this? Google news reckons that there's 2570 articles from around the world that it knows about. Who do you think those people are rooting for? (ducks...)

      --
      "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
  253. Large turnout in NJ by Flying+Purple+Wombat · · Score: 1

    I have never seen so many people at the polls. It's a good thing, everyone who is qualified should vote.

    If you haven't voted, please vote for the candidate you like best. Don't fall for the "throwing your vote away" and "lesser of two evils" bullshit. I do not like Bush, I do not like Kerry - why should I vote for someone I don't like? That is literally throwing my vote away.

    I voted this morning, for the candidate I like best (Badnarik), the one with whom I agreed on the most issues. My candidate won't win, but I gave him what support I could.

    And yes, I did vote Libertarian for House of Representatives (Austin Lett, NJ 11th district). Nothing really wrong with the incumbant Republican, but I like to stir the pot sometimes.

    In my local races (Freeholders, Sheriff, etc), there were only Republican incumbants on the ballot. There weren't even any Democrats, let alone alternate parties!

    Sorry, I don't have any scandals to report. We had the same touchscreen systems that have been in use for a few years now (don't know who makes them). I've never heard of any issues with them.

    --
    If God had meant for man to see the sunrise, He would have scheduled it later in the day.
  254. CowboyNeal for President by phildog · · Score: 1
    OK, the design and store creation took me 13 minutes. My markup is $2. I expect to sell exactly zero.

    Here you go:
    CowboyNeal for President

    And if you are too cheap to buy the shirt, you can just make your own with my PNG:
    http://dodgeit.com/temp/cn.png

    Feel free to do whatever you like with my "design"

    --
    slashsearch.org - slashdot search. powered by google.
  255. Yeah I noticed... by Rize · · Score: 1

    "Also, if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election." Anyone who didn't notice prior to this poll that Slashdot is a haven for liberals is blind. I'm still trying to figure out how so many ostensibly intelligent tech people went so wrong. I suppose ostensibly is the key word there.

    1. Re:Yeah I noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyone who didn't notice prior to this poll that Slashdot is a haven for liberals is blind. I'm still trying to figure out how so many ostensibly intelligent tech people went so wrong.

      Well, if we assume that *most* people on /. are intelligent, that still leaves plenty of room for nearly a fifth of them to be complete morons who can't tell when they are being lied to and who refuse to think for themselves.

  256. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by demachina · · Score: 1

    I agree with the sentiment of your post, I'll be real happy if Bush loses too but lets not kid ourselves about Kerry.

    Kerry voted for and to this day still endorses the idea of invading Iraq and taking down Saddam. Voting for invading Iraq was the politically correct thing to do when it came up for a vote and Kerry ALWAYS adopts the politicly popular position. He is compelled to stay the course on Iraq or risk looking "weak" or like he likes Saddam. If you watch Kerry's ads all he says on Iraq is it was "a war poorly planned". That means Kerry is staying in Iraq he is just planning it better.

    So, Kerry's only difference with Bush is he is quibbling about the details about how he actually did it. Most of it really is Monday morning quarterbacking and trying to find a position where he can look like he's different from Bush but doesn't look weak on national security. He was antiwar during the primaries because he needed to be to beat Dean. Now he is not really opposed to the war in Iraq again since he is trying to get the swing voter vote, many of whom support the Iraq war.

    Fact is he is unlikely to pull out troops anytime soon. So chances are they will keep dieing at the same rate under Kerry as Bush, no difference. Kerry wants to add 2 divisions to the army which is only necessary if he is planning to use them for something, presumably continued occupation of Iraq. Two divisions aren't going to help you track down Bin Laden if you don't know where he is.

    Kerry's big solution to Iraq is to work with our former allies and get them to shoulder the burden. Well none of them will shoulder that burden or send troops in to the quagmire whether Bush asks or Kerry asks. The U.S. broke it, the U.S. owns it. If Kerry were to unilaterally pull out it would quickly disintegrate in to a civil war and it would really have made everything sunk in it so far in treasure and blood a waste, and it really would make the Middle East more unstable than it was under Saddam. Saddam, if nothing else did maintain order.

    "(1) He's fiscally conservative"

    Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. All politicians say they are when they are trying to get elected and when they don't have power. Very few of them really are when they have blank checks to fill in.

    Kerry is inheriting a fiscal mess and he does have a ton of new spending he wants to do and I really doubt he is going to balance the budget anytime in his first term. He probably couldn't be worse than Bush and the New Republicans on fiscal policy but that isn't saying anything.

    At this point if someone tells you they are fiscally conservative don't believe it until they prove it.

    "(5) He's actually aware of national security ... and on and on."

    In what way? All I've heard is empty rhetoric about how is going to spend billions on homeland security, first responders, and screening cargo. Well I hate to break it to you but most money being given to first responders is being wasted so it runs counter to "fiscally conservative. Apparently how the homeland security money is spent is supposed to be secret. A fire department in Colorado used it to build a weight room, many are just using it to fill the holes in their budget and nuy new patrol cars and the like.

    Believe it or not we don't really need to give every podunk fire department in the country biochem warfare gear they will never use just so our politicans can say they are making use safe. It would be nice to screen all cargo entering the country but unless you have very fast technology to do it you are going to clog ports and hurt the economy. Long Beach can barely handle the container traffic now, without checking every container.

    IF you saw the full transcript of Bin Laden's tape he is taunting the U.S. that they are going to bankrupt them. They spent a half million dollars on an attack that has cost the U.S. a trillion or two now. Everytime a politician tells you they are going to win the War on Terror or make you safe by squandering billions of dollars, please don't buy in to it.

    --
    @de_machina
  257. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you find it interesting that John Kerry jumped first and claimed that those stories were false BEFORE he even knew who the votes were for? 2000+ votes for Kerry before the polls had opened!!! Now you know who is trying to STEAL the election.

  258. Re:It's not turned down yet, but the polls showed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The arguments against the amendment are pretty strong. For one thing, it's reactionary, a result of the 2000 election. But it's a sword that can cut both ways. For another thing, it is easily construed as a law after the fact, but this is a gray area. It could keep Colorado's electoral votes out of the race entirely. For another thing, if the state is divided, it tends to reduce that state's power in a federal election.

    Personally, I would reduce the influence of a federal system over the states to almost nothing, and give the states more sovreignty. I don't believe the states would institute a slave trade or wage war against each other. I think the USA is too big a country to be governed effectively from one central point.

  259. A better solution... by nickos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...would have had the poll listing the following options:

    () Bush
    () Kerry
    () Other
    () Would vote Bush if I could
    () Would vote Kerry if I could
    () Would vote Other if I could

    That way everyone could have voiced their opinions properly. The results would have been much more interesting too...

    1. Re:A better solution... by Eric+Savage · · Score: 0

      Silly, you forgot:

      () CowboyNeal
      () Would vote CowboyNeal if I could

      --

      This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
  260. Your brain on drugs. by WolfgangVonEstevez · · Score: 0

    You need to go beat the hell out of your dealer for selling you bad shit.

  261. Re:More clickbait by hacker · · Score: 1
    "For whatever reason, there were a ton of people just staring at that one placard. Noone demonstrating, saying anything, but just staring and thinking."

    And the even more amazing thing is... most people don't even realize that its the second time that the WTC has been attacked by the same foreign terrorists , under a Bush president. Both presidents also went directly for Saddam during their presidency.

    You don't hear THAT on the news though.

  262. electoral-vote update mentioning Linus by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

    There was an article on this a few days back...Andrew Tanenbaum said:

    On top of this, electoral-vote.com was mentioned on the main page of slashdot.com, a hugely popular tech news site. The last time I was slashdotted, I got 700,000 hits. That incident was caused by the publication of a book emitted by a Microsoft-funded think tank in D.C. claiming that Linus Torvalds stole Linux from my earlier MINIX system. I posted a vigorous and caustic rebuttal saying that the book was utter and complete nonsense. My role was that of Linus' teacher, not his coauthor.

    --
    Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
  263. In Columbus, Ohio by grassy_knoll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The girlfriend finally voted after a two and a half hour wait.

    While the recent appeals court decision does allow democratic and republican challangers, she didn't see any at our polling place.

    So turnout around here is HUGE; perhaps even higher than the 70% expected.

    I'm waiting to see if everyone votes early, thus reducing the crowding at the polls. Unless there is a crowd from the "vote often" set =p

    1. Re:In Columbus, Ohio by UglyTool · · Score: 1

      I waited 2-1/2 hours as well. I saw what might have been challengers, but I did not hear anything about people being challenged. The real fun will begin after 4PM, when people start showing up after work.

    2. Re:In Columbus, Ohio by PhilipMckrack · · Score: 1

      I waited about 2 hours at 6:40 am. Lots of people voting, no challengers that I saw.

    3. Re:In Columbus, Ohio by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Just got back from voting myself. Crowds died down a bit, about a 40 min wait. Saw no challengers.

      As another poster said, however, it does look like the after work crowd is getting ready to hit the polls.

  264. Diebold Machine goes AWOL on Georgia Stickers by srenker · · Score: 1

    Since the State of Georgia put in Diebold machines *everywhere* after the 2000 debacle, the stickers they handed out to voters had a smiling Diebold-machine-with-arms-and-legs-shaped cartoon captioned with "I Voted - Georgia Counts". Today, however, they reverted to the old "I'm a Georgia Voter"-on-top-of-a-peach stickers. Is this because they're embarrased they blew our money on insecure technology? I so wanted one of those "Georgia Counts" stickers too -- I was planning to Photoshop it into Mr. Diebold Machine throwing a ballot into the trash!

    --
    My new /. login is fabu10u$.
    1. Re:Diebold Machine goes AWOL on Georgia Stickers by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      I got the "I Voted - Georgia Counts!" sticker with the picture of the Diebold machine. Want me to get a friend to scan it and put it on my website?

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  265. Re: Vole Librarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The more votes third parties get, the more exposure they will get, and eventually meaningful change will happen.
    This is tower. Pig 37, you are clear for take off on runway 10. Over.
  266. Take This With a Grain of Salt by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1
    * Seventy percent don't know about the $500 billion new drug benefit added this year to Medicare, which Somin describes as "probably the most significant domestic legislation passed during the Bush administration."

    One thing to remember is that the Cato Institute is a conservative "thinktank," as noted here at the Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Site, and indicated by the referenced statement above.

    Typically, conservative voters always go vote, and vote replublican regardless of how informed they are; they are creatures of habit. Therefore, if the other "non-informed" voters do not vote, then the tendency will be toward the conservative candidates.

    Also interesting to note is the parent's comment, "Ignorance is rampant and I would rather have an intelligent informed nation choosing their leader based on facts, logic, and rationale rather than emotional responses, self-interest, and personality marketing/propoganda." Think about it.

    --
    "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    1. Re:Take This With a Grain of Salt by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Actually the Cato Institute isn't conservative - they are libertarian - says it right on their front page:

      Individual Liberty
      Limited Government
      Free Markets
      Peace

      Conservatives don't generally approve of 100% of individual liberties and they also think that the markets should be regulated slightly. Recently though conservatives seem to be wanting more BIG government which is why I am voting for Badnarik http://www.Badnarik.org the Libertarian canididate.

      If you are confused about what constitutes the 4 corners of the political spectrum visit this site:
      http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

      You have authortarian and libertarian at opposite ends (diagnoally), and then there are personal conservative and liberal ends on the same chart.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  267. Re: Drudge Story "Absolutely Ridiculous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deputy City Commissioner calls Drudge story "absolutely ridiculous."

    From AP Wire:

    An army of zealous, partisan political operatives descended on polling locations around the state Tuesday, looking for any signs of voting irregularities, and election officials planned to spend the day investigating fraud allegations.

    Republican observers in Philadelphia lodged some of the earliest complaints, claiming that voting machines in the city already had thousands of votes recorded on them when the polls opened at 7 a.m.

    City election officials and the district attorney rushed to some of the precincts in question, and quickly said the GOP poll watchers had gotten it wrong.

    Deputy City Commissioner Ed Schulgen and Cathie Abookire, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Lynne Abraham, said the observers had pulled the numbers from an odometer that records every vote ever cast on the machine in every election - and not the counter that records how many votes will be counted for this election.

    "It's absolutely ridiculous," Schulgen said.

    Ridiculous or not, rumors of widespread fraud quickly made their way on to the Internet and circulated nationally.

  268. Re:Here in VA -- WINVote - BAD UI by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    Sadly, the WINVote UI hase some horrible user interface design flaws:

    1. They use RED to mark choices. Red means "stop", green means "go".

    2. All the buttons are flat! You can't tell the difference between a button and a text box. No raised edges. Nothing that looks like a button, just big, colored squares on the screen.

    3. To make a choice, you touch an EMPTY AREA at the top-right corner of the person's name or the admendment language. There are NO BUTTONS in this area. There are NO INPUT BOXES. There is nothing at all to indicate that you are supposed to touch this square of white.

    4. What buttons there are, are are different sizes. The last button is a 640 x 480 square of color with the word, "VOTE" centered in the middle of the screen in 128pt type! I kid you not. What, is that supposed to be a Title? A Message? Oh, no, wait ... it's A GIGANTIC BUTTON.

    *Sigh* Sad, so sad.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  269. This is just plain sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and little suprise we have the choices we do. If the general U.S. populace wasn't so DAMNED ignorant about what's going on in the world maybe we'd have other choices than between trial lawyers and warmongers.

  270. counting blog votes by epeus · · Score: 1

    Over at Technorati we are counting blogged votes by vote links - explict rel="vote-for" or rel="vote-against" links.
    Blog your vote today.

  271. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by webnuts4u · · Score: 1

    Kerry is not:

    1. fiscally conservative? He's a Massachusets liberal, that's an oxymoron.
    2. Yes, he's socially liberal. In fact he's a socialist. You think that someone that is as rich as he is can understand the needs of the poor? Maybe, but he'll be willing to pay for that on the backs of the middle class not by eliminating the loopholes that the Kerry family use to amass their Billions. He wants to be part of the elite ruling class that governs over the equalized masses. Sounds kinda like the USSR doesn't it?
    3. He's environmentally friendly? Really, what hard decisions has he had to make with regard to the environment? Hmmm, drill for oil or preserve wetlands in Alaska.... If he doesn't want to be dependant on foreign oil, what does that mean? Nuclear plants every 100 miles? What's the alternative to oil, I mean really, be practical. Solar? Wind? Water? Get real.
    4. His foreign policy will turn the US into a member of the EU and we'll be at the beckon call of that crook Annan.
    5. He hasn't been briefed yet so I doubt if he's really aware of national security. Think he's going to close the borders? He's the guy that comes home from Vietnam after his 4 month tour and aides the enemy. Why wouldn't he do that now?

  272. huh? by aristus · · Score: 1

    Ok, let's give all possible benefit of the doubt. Half of the 100k deaths were not due to violence. Let's assume the other half, fifty thousand violent deaths, were NOT caused in any way by the US military.

    So... that's 50,000 accidents/murders the US military was powerless to do anything about in a country they supposedly control. On top of that there were 50,000 more deaths through starvation and disease. Sounds like the place is a lawless pit of human depravity. We've done a mighty fine job, eh?

    My point is you are throwing up vauge anecdotes without really analysing their content, source, or rigor. I happen not to agree with the methods of this study, if only because there was no "deduplication", but to dismiss it out of hand is foolish. Documented cases of civilians killed by the US is up around 15,000. [iraqbodycount.net, etc]

    As for the "_many_" good reasons in your article... you seem to think that a nation that supports terrorism/atrocities should be invaded. Ok... so what about US support of Iraq while Sadaam actually *was* gassing people? Cheney & Kerry both supported it. How about our illegal and massive support of Afghan "freedom fighters" (hint: the folks we now call "terrorists") around the same time? These are facts, public record, etc.... but remain unexamined because they get in the way of our national illusion.

    "The root of all evil is not religion, but certainty." -- Terrence McKenna

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
    1. Re:huh? by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Documented cases of civilians killed by the US is up around 15,000. [iraqbodycount.net, etc]"

      Exactly my point. This is nowhere near 100,000.

      "you seem to think that a nation that supports terrorism/atrocities should be invaded."

      You didn't read it carefully enough. Iraq has been _involved_ in nearly all of those attacks, including AT LEAST 1993 WTC, OKC, and the attempted assassination of GWHB, and likely involved in 9/11, anthrax, and Khobar Towers, and possibly involved in TWA Flight 800 (since we have no suspects, the only thing linking this one to Iraq is the date).

      "Ok... so what about US support of Iraq while Sadaam actually *was* gassing people? Cheney & Kerry both supported it. How about our illegal and massive support of Afghan "freedom fighters" (hint: the folks we now call "terrorists") around the same time? These are facts, public record, etc.... but remain unexamined because they get in the way of our national illusion."

      In other posts I have always pointed out that much of our terrorist problems today are tied back to our bad policies in the 80's. We made a mistake in thinking that supporting evil people we would win a victory over even eviler people. This is one of Reagan's most egregious errors. So, I agree wholeheartedly with you on that one!

    2. Re:huh? by timmy+the+large · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Warning: This is a bit of a rant.

      That's great, our troops only killed 15,000 CIVILIANS. What is it called again when you kill civilians to futher a cause, like bombing buildings, Oh thats right its called TERRORISM.

      Some of the things that you refrence even the Bush administration has said aren't true. OK city was a case of domestic terrorism, the 9/11 committee says Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not sure how you link the others with Iraq, but I highly doubt the actual facts back you up considering the other things you have asserted.

      As someone else has already pointed out we are there now and Saddam was a real shit, but saying that we are there for untrue reasons helps no one.

      Oh, I do agree with you that Reagan did a lot to put us in this situation. That is another thing that worries me about this administration, they seem to think Reagan was some kind of god. Reagan gave us American sponsered terrorists, Saddam gassing his people and Iran, and a huge recession in the late 80's with fiscal policies that Bush is trying to reinstate.

      Sorry about the rant.

    3. Re:huh? by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      Uh, check the number of murders and fatal car accidents in the United States. I think you'll find them to be frightenly high.

      US Murder rate: 5.7 per 100,000 = 17100 murders.

      Vehicular deaths = 41,000.

      So, in the United States, which is not undergoing major upheavals and bombings, had over 50,000 people die.

    4. Re:huh? by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Some of the things that you refrence even the Bush administration has said aren't true."

      That's because the Bush administration is very cautious of what info it releases, and is VERY cautious of anything that presents previous administrations in a bad light, and is also very cautious of anything that might divide the country. You see the Bush administration as being at the far edge of believability, but I think you are quite wrong, and they do a very good job of only presenting what they have fairly solid unclassified evidence for.

      If you instead look at the former head of the congressional task force of terrorism and unconventional warfare (Bodansky), and clinton's former head of the CIA (Woosley), they both agree w/ Jayna Davis's OKC story.

      OKC included domestic attackers, but it also included foreign attackers. Jayna Davis, an OKC reporter, actually found John Doe #2, wrote a book naming him as John Doe #2 (a former member of the republican guard). He sued her. She won. EVERY eyewitness who saw McVeigh in OKC saw him with a middle-eastern looking man. Clinton did not want a war in the middle east, and therefore suppressed the information. In fact, the administration did not call even a single one of the twenty eyewitnesses in the McVeigh trial, because all of them saw him with a middle-easter man. Look at the book "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis. She's not a conspiracy writer, she's just a local TV reporter in OKC who did her homework.

      "I'm not sure how you link the others with Iraq, but I highly doubt the actual facts back you up considering the other things you have asserted."

      I'd look into them, especially considering your lack of information on OKC.

      "but saying that we are there for untrue reasons helps no one."

      I agree entirely.

      "That's great, our troops only killed 15,000 CIVILIANS. What is it called again when you kill civilians to futher a cause, like bombing buildings, Oh thats right its called TERRORISM."

      It's sad that civilians died. That happens in every war. I like what Tommy Franks said about it - war is always a tragedy. However, there are some things in life that are worse than war, that can only be solved that way.

      The fact that civilians died was a result of war, not terrorism. I find it odd that you aren't cognizant of the distinction.

    5. Re:huh? by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Documented cases of civilians killed by the US is up around 15,000. [iraqbodycount.net, etc]"

      Exactly my point. This is nowhere near 100,000.


      Sorry, but that's not entirely true. The numbers on IraqBodyCount.net are fully-backed media documented numbers about specific incidents with specific casualties. That means that, out of the thousands of civillians killed during the war in Iraq, we have hard and fast proof about that many, right now, with zero additional time spent gathering information.

      The 100,000+ number is a reasonable guesss about the actual numbers of casualties, inclulding those who didn't specifically make the fscking international news.

      Sheesh.

      I don't know if a 6:1 ratio of casualties to media-reported specific casualties is correct, but it seems reasonable. It seems a whole lot more reasonable than a 1:1 ratio which is, I believe, what you're choosing to go with.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    6. Re:huh? by timmy+the+large · · Score: 1
      I understand the distinction and would like to point out that I warned you that it was a rant.

      What my point was, is that we are decrying the killing of civilians left and right and using it as a justification to kill civilians. We are not helping them by killing them. We are killing them.

      You are right sometimes war is the only solution, but do you really believe that was the case this time. Maybe we could have spent a bit more time seeing if there really were WMD's before we ran in waving the flag waiting for the flowers to litter the path of our soldiers.

      This was not a justified war. The White House chose to use faulty evidence that they knew much of the intelligence community disagreed with.

      I believe in an earlier post you said that this war was also stratigic. We went in to stabalize the region not now, but twenety years from now. If that is the case then does that mean you agree with the administrations idea of nation building. Do you really think it is the job of the USA to set up Democratic goverments by force throughout the world.

      Sorry I'm all over the place with this. I'm posting on breaks. I know I didn't hit on some of your points, I'll try to hit them when I get home this evening.

  273. They had my name mispelled. by bchernicoff · · Score: 1

    I noticed this morning when making sure I had my registration card that my name was mispelled. They had substitued an r for the second c.

    When I went to vote the procedure was for one lady to verify my name in the book, while the other took my registration card and added my name to the signature book. The first lady had trouble finding my name, but I was able to spot it in the book and point it out (there was no attempt on her part to keep people from looking in the book). No one checked a photo id, and there didn't appear to be any coordination between the two women to make sure the name verified in the book matched the one on my card. Since no one asked for any form of identification the spelling error was never even noticed.

    Voting was done with a scan-tron form which was then fed into a lock box.

    1. Re:They had my name mispelled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe you had your name misspelled.

      I'm just sayin'...

  274. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by starm_ · · Score: 1

    I must say I am just plain startled that W Bush has even a chance in this election. 80% of the rest of the world support Kerry to Bush. Why is that so? Are Americans not getting the same news that we do? Bush is not a conservative he is a raving maniac who will not use reason to make judgment. EVERYONE else sees it. _EVERY COUNTRY_! Bush's senior was a million times better president than W. and even he didn't get re-elected. I don't know if people have given W trust by association to his father but he should have lost it a long time ago. Countless experts like Dick Clark warned everyone of the current administration's incompetence at handling terrorism. Have you guys looked at Bush's Biography compared to Kerry's? Bush used to be a alcohol (and possibly cocaine) addict. While Kerry was educating himself and fighting for his country. I can't believe that Bush's arguments are taking seriously. It is very much obvious to everyone that the current US administration is using fear of terror to control everyone. Why has no one noticed that it isn't even going after terror but rather after Iraq. (I shouldn't have to mention that it is unrelated). Bush's very simplistic rhetoric is one of looking at terror like a sports game where the two competing teams are terrorists and the US. He seems to be looking at winning a game or something. Anyone with a bit of logic should see that terrorist don't have a country, they don't have a place we can invade, they don't have a central organisation we can beat. They just consist of a bunch of gangs dispersed around the world and new generations will always exist. If your country acts as a jerk or bully to the rest of the world you make a particular attracting target for terrorists. Right now even reasonable people don't like the US very much. It is easy to see how the sick mind of terrorists can _easily_ turn that sentiment into recruitment tactics and brainwashing material. The US economy has plummeted since W has been in power. W is the only president in 60 years that hasn't created any new jobs. The US Dept is increasing at a rate of 1.7 billions a day, (And there was a surplus with Clinton) and your dollar is getting weaker by the months. Domestic politics have been forgotten and replaced by disastrous world bullying.

    I am equally astounded toward the use of electronic voting machines. Maybe it is just because of my background in electrical engineer and computer science but to me basic common sense will tell you that they are obviously stupid without a printout. I usually mock people who have conspiracy theories, but here I am inclined to suspect some kind of conspiracy. What else could explain this lack of common sense???

    Some interesting links:
    http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
    http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/004535.php
    http://www.yellowhat.org/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.pl?boa rd=dem;action=display;num=1099270908

  275. We need "None of the Above" by deltwalrus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I seem to recall hearing about an election process somewhere whereby you could choose from the candidates given, or vote "none of the above." If "none of the above" got a majority/plurality/whatever-ity of the vote, then both/all parties had to find new candidates to nominate until they came up with one palatable enough for the voting populace to actually elect, rather than "settle for."

    Would this be such a bad idea for the U.S.?

    --
    --- "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all..."
    1. Re:We need "None of the Above" by matthewp · · Score: 1

      deltwalrus wrote: I seem to recall hearing about an election process somewhere whereby you could choose from the candidates given, or vote "none of the above."

      We had a 're-open nominations' option for student union elections. Always seemed like a good idea to me, but I've never heard of it used at a national level. If it is somewhere, it'd be interesting to see what effects it has.

      'R.O.N.' rarely scored highly. I can only remember one active campaign to get people to vote that way, and that was by a girl who'd missed the deadline to get on the ballot. She wanted a chance to run, so R.O.N. became a vote for her.

      I don't *think* previous candidates were disqualified from trying again. Parties might think twice about re-endorsing a failed candidate in any case.

    2. Re:We need "None of the Above" by pclminion · · Score: 1
      It wouldn't change anything at all. You'd have to get a majority of people to vote for the "none of the above option," but they won't. Why not? For exactly the same reason they don't vote third-party now: by doing so, they are essentially throwing away their vote for the least despicable candidate.

      No, the flaw in the American voting system is that it is a strict majority system. Simple fixes like a "none of the above" option won't do any good. We need an entirely different system, like IRV or Condorcet. Unfortunately, Condorcet is "scary" because it is hard to understand, and the voting public won't accept it.

  276. Qualified != Eligible by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
    According to the Constitution, Badnarik meets all the qualifications necessary:
    No, meets all of the ELEGIBLITY requirements imposed by the Constitution. Eligible != Qualified.

    Being ELIGIBLE for something does not automatically mean you are QUALIFIED to do it. I have a BS in Computer Engineering, therefore I'm ELIGIBLE for any job which requires that degree. However, there are a lot of jobs for which I'm ELIGIBLE that I'm not QUALIFIED to perform because my experience is in a different specialty.

    If the candidate's degree of Constitutional scholarship is the only quality that matters when chosing a President, then I submit that Lawrence Lessig is an infinately more qualified choice for President than Badnarik.

    There are probably over 100M US citizens who are eligible to hold the presidency, so by your argument ANY of them is qualified to do the job. I'm sure you could find a homeless illiterate paranoid schizophrenic with multiple felony convictions and substance abuse problems who still meets all the Constitutional eligiblity requirements for the Presidency. Would this person be qualified for the job? I think not.

    Hell, *I* am over 35, have lived in the US all my life, and have never been charged with any crime more serious than driving 20mph over the speed limit. I'll wager a week's pay that my knowledge of the Constitution is at least as good as Badnarik's. Therefore, by your standards, I'm as qualified to be President as he is. Vote for Me!

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:Qualified != Eligible by clonebarkins · · Score: 0, Troll

      Being ELIGIBLE for something does not automatically mean you are QUALIFIED to do it.

      You're splitting hairs. One definition of to qualify is, in fact, to be eligible to do something.

      If the candidate's degree of Constitutional scholarship is the only quality that matters when chosing a President, then I submit that Lawrence Lessig is an infinately more qualified choice for President than Badnarik.

      I think that constitutional scholarship is the most important trait to look for in a president. It certainly beats out experience in the corrupt and bloated system of politics we have today. (And, by the way, I might vote for Larry if he ran.)

      There are probably over 100M US citizens who are eligible to hold the presidency, so by your argument ANY of them is qualified to do the job.

      Yes. Mine, as well as the Constitution's.

      Hell, *I* am over 35, have lived in the US all my life, and have never been charged with any crime more serious than driving 20mph over the speed limit. I'll wager a week's pay that my knowledge of the Constitution is at least as good as Badnarik's. Therefore, by your standards, I'm as qualified to be President as he is. Vote for Me!

      Well, I've already cast my vote for this election, but if you tell me some more about what you believe, I might vote for you in four years.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    2. Re:Qualified != Eligible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can convince the American voting public to give you enough votes to get into the White House, then you are qualified.

      Period.

      If the voters decide that they want you or the "homeless illiterate paranoid schizophrenic with multiple felony convictions and substance abuse problems", then both of you are qualified because you would clearly have demonstrated that you have more political sense then those that you defeated.

    3. Re:Qualified != Eligible by Tassach · · Score: 1
      You're splitting hairs.
      No. Sorry, but you're just wrong and won't admit it.

      Qualification and Eligibility are entirely seperate things. One can be eligible for a job but not be qualified to perform it, or vice-versa. To get the job you must be BOTH eligible AND qualified.

      Eligibility is an objective, measurable set of binary exclusionary criteria -- you are either eligible for something or you are not; it is nonsensical to say that person A is more eligible for something than person B.

      Qualification is a subjective assessment of the degree to which a person possesses the skills, knowledge, experience, and natural abilities required to perform a job to a greater or lesser degree.

      Winston Churchill, were he alive today, would unquestionably be QUALIFIED (IE: having demonstrated the necessary skills and experience) to preform the job of President; however, he would not be ELIGIBLE to hold the office because he was not a native US Citizen. As I stated before, I am ELIGIBLE to hold the office of President. However, I don't play political games well, nor am I a statesman, nor am I an effective negotiator; since these are essential skills for the President to have, I therefore consider myself unqualified to effectively carry out the duties of the office.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    4. Re:Qualified != Eligible by stubob · · Score: 1
      I'm sure you could find a homeless illiterate paranoid schizophrenic with multiple felony convictions and substance abuse problems who still meets all the Constitutional eligiblity requirements for the Presidency.
      Sure you can. He's currently at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. (Ok, he's not homeless and probably hasn't had multiple felony convictions)
      --
      Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
    5. Re:Qualified != Eligible by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      You're splitting hairs.

      No. Sorry, but you're just wrong and won't admit it.

      You've totally ignored the points I made about Badnarik's eligibility and qualifications for a stupid argument on semantics.

      And for the record, here are several definitions of "qualify":

      To make competent or eligible [emph added] for an office, position, or task (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

      To make or consider eligible or fit
      to meet certain requirements or criteria (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law)

      And vice versa, eligible:

      Qualified or entitled to be chosen (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

      That may be selected; proper or qualified to be chosen; legally qualified to be elected and to hold office. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

      Each term uses the other in its definition.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    6. Re:Qualified != Eligible by jedinite · · Score: 1
      Tassach said:
      Hell, *I* am over 35, have lived in the US all my life, and have never been charged with any crime more serious than driving 20mph over the speed limit. I'll wager a week's pay that my knowledge of the Constitution is at least as good as Badnarik's. Therefore, by your standards, I'm as qualified to be President as he is. Vote for Me!

      Wager accepted.

      Mr. Badnarik has been running for election to a couple different offices since 2000, FYI.

      Mr. Badnarik is reported to have been studying the US constitution for 22+ years.

      Mr. Badnarik teaches an 8 hour class on the constitution, which just happens to be available online

      You may also be interested in some wiki.

      Please extend any sort of documentation re: relevant experience re: your knowledge of the constitution. I'm willing to bet a week's pay that you're talking out of your ass and probably haven't read the constituion outside of high school, let alone any sort of in depth study on the topic. :)

      Otherwise, drop me an email for my mailing address, i'd be happy to accept payment in the form of cashiers check. I'd readily accept paypal as well, a "pay me" link should be available from my website....

      /endPokeFun

      --

      ---------
      There is no try at jedinite.com
  277. America is DOOMED you naïve fool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether you vote or not and who you vote for will make no difference.

    1. The deficit is going to continue to skyrocket
    2. We will continue to be overrun with 3rd world illiterates
    3. Terrorists will continue to attack us
    4. Oil and inflation will continue to skyrocket
    5. Loss of industry and infrastructure will accelerate
    6. The rich get richer (Bush & Kerry) the poor get poorer (you & me)

    1. Re:America is DOOMED you naïve fool! by cpodurgiel · · Score: 0

      Since when did a pessimism ever accomplish anything?

  278. When in doubt, enforce a one-term limit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The polls are open now, and it's time for me to get down to the station and vote I really wish I had written this a week or two earlier.

    From what I can tell, the two major parties are driven by the following forces:

    1. Christian taliban/facists, who spend most of their efforts fostering their "mandate" from the "good Christians" to ensure that government and its legislation proceeds according to God's will (as set forth by the faith, of course). They depend on isolated, rural, religious constituency, and nurture that constituency via synchronized, sanitized communication channels. They fancy themselves an elite class, everyone else an expendable resource, and the economies of the world theirs to own. Their constituency fancies themselves as more virtuous than the rest of the world, and depends on designated powers for structure and morals. They disregard the separation of church and state, seek to punish anyone who does not disregard that separation, and are as unamerican as the Islamists who are currently attempting to take over the world.

    2. Socialists/communists, who spend most of their efforts obscuring their true agenda, which is most likely the conversion of the U.S. into feeder stock for the Socialist/Islamist block. As with most socialist and communist movements, they feed on the offal of whatever non-communist ruling party is in charge. As such, they foster anger and jealousy among those that feel slighted or maligned by another's excess, ability, or illegality, and maintain momentum with largely ad-hoc, member-based communications and efforts. They fancy themselves elite intellectuals, view the rest of the population with contempt, and consider the economies of the world as fountains of excess to be funneled into their grand plan. They disregard the notion of liberty, seek to punish anyone who claims ownership beyond what is prescribed, and are therefore as unamerican as the Socialists who are currently attempting to take over the world.

    Neither of the two parties can be considered representative of "American" values, as set forth by the Founding Fathers. The most reasonable course of action we can take in this situation is to enforce one-term limits, until such time that we are offered a legitimate party or unaffiliated candidate to vote for.

  279. We're through the looking glass here people. by canter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its interesting how people get things exactly backwards.

    We didn't turn our backs on the UN, the UN turned their backs on US. The "coalition of the bribed and coereced" exactly describes the United Nations, not the nations allied with us in this war. Russia, China and France are up to their ears in kickbacks and graft from our old buddy Saddam. With "friends" like this, we'd damned well better be ready to "go it alone" if the situation calls for it.

    And I LOVE that people forget how Ronald Reagan, the greatest champion of freedom in the last 50 years, was portrayed by the media during his tenure.

    He was a reckless cowboy loner, willing to push the Soviet Union military (and the US) into bankruptcy, risking Total Nuclear Annihilation for some idiotic notion that he could defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot.

    He was villified by "our international friends" and hounded by the Democrats mercilessly. He was regarded as an empty headed, overly simplistic buffoon.

    Those famous words "Tear Down This Wall" were almost universally decried as confrontational, dangerous and completely lacking any "nuance" in understanding our relationship with the Kremlin.

    But, of course, since the Democrats, the media and the "international community" got it EXACTLY WRONG, you don't hear much about how things actually WERE back in the day. I remember. I was there. I see the parallels with today's situation. I wish that people who's knowledge of history ends with "George Washington chopped down a cherry tree" would just sit the f*ck down and shut up.

    1. Re:We're through the looking glass here people. by deacon · · Score: 1
      I'll sacrifce 4 karma points to tell you that you are exactly correct.

      I renember when Regan was elected, and the hate and vitreol was even worse than it is today.

      Come on, neo-socialist mods, make my day.

      8^)

      Yah, I voted for Bush today.

      So sue me.

      If democrats want my vote, give me JFK or FDR.

      I am not going to vote for a self-absorbed Munster.

    2. Re:We're through the looking glass here people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's this 'We', Kemosabe?

      This comment is either some of the best satire I've ever seen, or so unintentionally funny that I don't even need to mock it.

    3. Re:We're through the looking glass here people. by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Since when was the world reduced to the Coalition, Russia, China, and France, eh?

      When you consider that the case the US made to the UN was loaded with false evidence (metal tubes being called nuclear weaponry, missile trucks being called mobile WMD manufacturing plants) that Saddam at that point was actually bending over backwards to meet every demand he could while still holding on to power, and that your president made it very clear from the get-go that he wasn't prepared to listen to any contrary opinion to his own (even such minor compromises as Canada proposed -- like giving the inspectors enough time to finish a full report before charging in with guns blazing), are you at all surprised the UN turned their back?

      Are the motives of all the other countries completely clean? Probably not. Does that mean you'll be invading them next? Who knows.. the Bush doctrine is now set, the US assumes the authority to invade any country it chooses on any reasoning it chooses to give.

      There's a reason America is being villified, it's because it's engaging in actions that would cause any nation undertaking them to be villified.

      Invading a country on false pretexts, stealing resources from said invaded country (note that new laws pushed through the Iraqi puppet..err.. political system give the rights of outside corporations to be 100% non-Iraqi owned, and operated for anything except oil, probably because that was given to Halliburton directly), imprisoning and torturing citizens of said country without trial, etc. America is currently acting as a rogue nation. The only difference is that you've got a democracy/republic back at home calling the shots rather than a dictator (today, anyway..)

      As for Reagan, he just happened to be in the Right Place at the Right Time. The Soviet Union had been collapsing on itself for a while. He was the lucky one who was in power when it finally fell in. And yes, he was playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union. Fortunately, for all of us, he won the bet. What the international community was villifying him for, however, was forcing them to be part of the stakes he was betting with.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    4. Re:We're through the looking glass here people. by nodrogluap · · Score: 1

      I work with (pro-democracy) Russians and Ukrainians, and they find it strange that Reagan is put on such a high pedestal for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russian people made the Soviet Bloc collapse, not a U.S. invasion. Of course Reagan had a role in it, but the government lying to them about Chernobyl, the widespread adoption of telecommunications such as fax as an alternative to gov't press, Hungary removing its border restrictions with Austria, just to name a few were internal catalysts for change. They didn't say "Oh crap! Reagan's gonna kill us more than the old presidents, lets overthrow the government before it's too late!" Not completely my opinion, but just sharing another point of view...

    5. Re:We're through the looking glass here people. by pensivepuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm tired of this Reagan revisionism fantasy that the GOP likes to propagate. Reagan was an enemy of communism, I'll agree, but people assume this means he was a champion of freedom. He wasn't. His single-mindedeness in opposing communism blinded him to the "bigger picture".

      He secretly sold arms to our enemy Iran.

      He supported terrorists in Nicaragua, people who attacked civilians in their own country. He continued to support them (with money from the Iranian arms) in violation of a US law explicitly forbidding this.

      His policies did not cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. I'm sure he welcomed the collapse, but any direct link between the collapse and his policies is just a GOP fantasy. The Soviet Union collapsed mainly due to Gorbachev's actions, not Reagan's, and Gorbachev was making his own decisions, not just reacting to Reagan's policies.

    6. Re:We're through the looking glass here people. by anadem · · Score: 1

      >> people forget how Ronald Reagan, the greatest champion of freedom in the last 50 years

      that's just hokum. You weren't the only person there buddy. Raygun Ronnie was a self-deceived actor who carried you and millions of other idiots like you along, convincing you that the USSR fell thanks to him (it imploded from it's own internal problems) whilst spreading terrorism from the US ("Contras" remember -- babykilling terrorists all; and arming the Talibs and the Husseins at the same time.)

      Try looking past Ronnie's glitter and see his actual idiocy. Sure he had a cozy bedside manner, but the guy was NOT good for the world, except from a blinkered US redneck view.

    7. Re:We're through the looking glass here people. by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 1

      You aren't the only one who was there, dingweed. Christ, what bunk. Like Rayguy had precisely *anything* to do with the Soviet collapse (or even helped it all; left Gorbie high and dry). Lord save us from mad cowboy disease..

  280. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by goldspider · · Score: 1
    "He's fiscally conservative"

    His $1.5 TRILLION health care plan disagrees.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  281. Eh, you wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No offense man, but that just isn't the case. You're being far too idealistic and romantic and undecided voters being the smart/intellectual ones who think about it. Well, I've got news from you: if you're undecided between Bush and Kerry, you're a moron. The two are so damned plainly different that if you can't make up your mind you have some serious personal problems. Now, if you're undecided between Bush and Badnarik or between Kerry and Cobb, that's a bit more understandable, though unlikely and still a tad dubious.

    But in any case, studies have shown (yes I'm going to be lazy and just say that and not find the cite at the moment) that undecided voters tend to be the dumbest, least informed, most apathetic part of the electorate. They haven't made up their mind because they don't know and don't care about what's going on.

    There may be a few of your "smart" UV's out there, but I assure you they are the minority. Smart people on either "side" have made up their mind about this election awhile ago.

  282. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by racer19 · · Score: 1
    (1) He's fiscally conservative

    How is favoring the repeal of current tax cuts and increasing other taxes "fiscally conservative"? Fiscal conservatives realize that the REAL way to spur the economy is to put the money into the hands of the people, NOT the government.

    (2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!)

    Not all social conservatives are bigots, and, as a social conservative, I resent the accusation. One of the primary tenets of social conservatives is to HELP people in ways that will benefit them for life, NOT just give them some handouts (read: life-long welfare).

    Your post is pure FUD in an effort to get semi-conservatives on the fence to vote for the most liberal senator (fiscally & socially) in congress. Nice try...

    --
    Could someone please point out to me where in the Constitution, exactly, is the "Right To Not Be Offended"?
  283. Re:Here in VA -- WINVote by sfsnedigar · · Score: 1

    It was A-K, L-Z here in Fairbanks. 30 minutes to get through L-Z, and nobody in line at A-K.

  284. No "abstain" option by gosand · · Score: 1
    No Diebold in Dupage County, IL, I'm glad to say. :) We have the "fill in the oval, let the Scantron machine scan it" setup. I guess when your county is 90% Republican you don't feel the need to rig the election with a bogus computer voting system. ;)

    Nor in McHenry County, IL (howdy neighbor!). We had the oval forms as well. What I found a bit odd was that there was no option to NOT vote for certain local candidates. I didn't have information about some of the candidates on my ballot, so I should have been given the option to not vote for either candidate (an abstain oval). But I had to either choose one, or do a write-in. You aren't supposed to leave them blank, because of the chance of voter fraud. So for some local candidates, I had to choose based on no information. If I am uninformed, or indifferent about some positions, I should be able to make that choice. For some local judges, I only had the option YES/NO as to whether they should keep their positions. I have only been in my county for just under 2 years, so I don't know much about the local politics. I suppose I should have brushed up on it before the election, but I still think there should be an "abstain" option for every candidate.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:No "abstain" option by FrostyWheaton · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. Once I'm off work I'll be heading to my DuPage Co. polling place and filling out those same scantronesque ballots and be forced to vote on everything.

      To provide another data point, when voting during the primaries using the same system I was able to vote for one candidate when told to pick two, go figure.

      --
      Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
    2. Re:No "abstain" option by festers · · Score: 1

      Hmm, what happens if you don't fill in every oval? Do they toss your entire ballot away? I only left blanks where there was only one candiate running. I felt like a chump filling in a vote for someone who had no competition. (Democrats had no candidates for some positions.)

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    3. Re:No "abstain" option by gosand · · Score: 1
      Hmm, what happens if you don't fill in every oval? Do they toss your entire ballot away? I only left blanks where there was only one candiate running. I felt like a chump filling in a vote for someone who had no competition. (Democrats had no candidates for some positions.)

      I don't know if they throw out the ballot or not. But to be sure, I filled out all options. They may throw them out, because if you left any blank it leaves the opportunity for someone to fill them out for you. I didn't want to take any chances.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    4. Re:No "abstain" option by festers · · Score: 1

      Lovely. I doubled check the sample ballot and didn't see anything saying you had to fill in every oval. I also did not see any instructions for that when I was voting, nor did any of the people working there mention it. I searched the dupageelections.org website and didn't see a thing. Maybe it's just something they encourage (to help prevent voter fraud), but don't do anything if you choose to do it? *shrugs*

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
  285. Snow in Texas today by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 1

    Guys, this does *NOT* bode well:

    weather.com map, snow in western Texas!

    It's SNOWING in Amarillo and Lubbock, and Roswell, NM! This is CRAZY! First the Red Sox, now THIS?! Are we doomed? Does this mean it's snowing in hell, for real? Holy crap this is insane...

    It's like Y2K-panic all over again...

    1. Re:Snow in Texas today by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "It's SNOWING in Amarillo and Lubbock, and Roswell, NM!"

      Well, it *is* November.

      If it snows in Houston or El Paso, wake me up.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Snow in Texas today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It's SNOWING

      It ALWAYS snows in the Texas Panhandle.
      In Dallas we used to WISH it would snow like it did up there. One snowflake in Dallas and school was OUT!!!

  286. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with the sentiment of your post, too.

    I tend to wonder about the view that 'X politician just follows the polls and does whatever is popular.' Now, I know that sometimes the right thing to do is not popular, but isn't the government basically supposed to follow the will of the people? I've watched them stay the course a few times, ignoring a large majority of the people because it was politically convenient to them (impeaching Clinton?), and I wondered why they weren't accountable for actually representing their constituents.

    I think it would be a bad idea to pull our troops home in the near future. We got ourselves into this mess, and we have to see it through to the end. What we can do is try to get others involved, so it's not just us rebuilding the world. I think Bush's rhetoric is hurting our chances of doing that, maybe Kerry would do a better job. We can also do a better job publicizing the positives that we are doing, instead of just the death toll. To withdraw in the next six months would mean that our deaths were a waste, and would leave a power vacuum worse than Saddam.

    I think our Homeland Security spending is way out of proportion to the threat. We've had TWO attacks by terrrorists in the US in the last 20 years. The billions we've spent on this war could save millions of lives through traffic enforcement, medical research, foreign aid, whatnot. Some of those would even reduce terrorism, by making people happier and healthier, so they wouldn't hate us for being rich and happy.

    But, the people wanted a reaction to 9/11. They got one. Now we need an exit strategy, to go back to normal (with the small risk of an occasional terrorist act.)

  287. Voter Turnout is MASSIVE. by leftie · · Score: 1

    All across the country, people are reporting turnout that won't just break records, it will leave the records shattered and smoldering

    A couple of official notes I've seen...
    Oregon now predicting 90% turnout.
    Nebraska opened the day predicting 55% turnout. By 9 am, they upgraded prediction to 75% turnout.

    Voter turnout most heavy in areas considered Democratic strongholds.

    1. Re:Voter Turnout is MASSIVE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oregon now predicting 90% turnout.

      I have not seen it mentioned anywhere here, but Oregon is 100% mail-in ballots -- there are no polls. I voted over two weeks ago...

    2. Re:Voter Turnout is MASSIVE. by leftie · · Score: 1

      I live here in Oregon, too. I also got mailed out my ballot the day after I recieved it.

      Oregon Sec. of State office still refers to total ballots recieved as 'turnout.'

    3. Re:Voter Turnout is MASSIVE. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      That's not because of false registration at all.

    4. Re:Voter Turnout is MASSIVE. by aacool · · Score: 1
      Looks like there is heavy turnout even here in Milwaukee. On the Net also - looks like sites are being hammered.

      If you feel even slashdot is being slashdotted today, you're probably right - I've got some graphs on Internet Load and response time http://selfaudit.blogspot.com/2004/11/internet-loa d-during-election-day.htmlat my blog - interestingly, although response times are through the roof and 5 routers have fallen off, overall load is not increased.

    5. Re:Voter Turnout is MASSIVE. by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      That's not because of false registration at all.

      No. It isn't.

      But you are repeating agitprop the GOP started very recently to build a case for challenging the results.

      And it is as likely for Republicans to "falsely" register as the Democrats.

      And why would the Democrats bother? THEY OUTNUMBER REPUBLICANS. They just never voted in these numbers before.

      Most people are not wealthy, not in good careers, don't have huge tax "cuts", don't have good schools, and are not happy at all with the GOP.

      And they outnumber the happy white people.

  288. i voted badnarik by dougnaka · · Score: 0, Troll
    wow i feel morally superior to all you sheep voting for bush or kerry.

    Say "Baaa" for mr. president

    --
    My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
  289. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > (1) He's fiscally conservative

    > How is favoring the repeal of current tax cuts and increasing other taxes "fiscally conservative"? Fiscal conservatives realize that the REAL way to spur the economy is to put the money into the hands of the people, NOT the government.

    You have some weird definition of fiscal conservative if you criticize Kerry for wanting to increase taxes.

    Fiscal conservativism means stop overspending; Bush is approaching a half a trillian dollars overspending every year. That is fiscal insanity--huge spending and lowered taxes.

    The only fix for this, and for the gray dawn approaching (quadrupling number of elderly old) is increased taxation and lowered spending and dramatic benefit cuts.

    But no politician has the balls to do it, because they'll lose office. So the US will go down the fiscal toilet, bankrupting itself and its future generations.

    (And I certainly do not claim that Bush's stupid healthcare proposals, or Kerry's insane ones, are any kind of solution.)

  290. John Kerry by uss_valiant · · Score: 0, Troll

    This post represents John Kerry, please mod it insightful or informative (because there's not a "lesser evil" mod).

  291. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Does this mean that in U.S. you have to show some official who you voted for? No such thing as vote confidentiality?

  292. Georg Bush by uss_valiant · · Score: 0, Troll

    This post represents Georg Bush, please mod it troll or overrated (because there's no "evil" or "malicious" mod).

  293. Michigan poll locations & more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you live in Michigan, like me (Taco does, don't he?), you can find your polling place at the following url - http://sos.publius.org/.

    This tells you their hours, what type of machines they have available for you to cast voting goodness, and maps! Enjoy. :)

  294. So, both candidates are winning? by zeitgeist_chaser · · Score: 1

    Since 270 EV are needed to win the election, I guess this means that we can look forward to a joint Bush/Kerry Whitehouse. The next 4 years are going to be craaaazzzy.

    --
    While thinking philosophically, we see problems in places where there are none. -Wittgenstein
  295. Kerry & Edwards by npfscayle · · Score: 1

    I had to vote for them, much less loserific (my new word for the day)than bush.

    Just my 2c

    cayle

  296. tech economy by dougnaka · · Score: 1
    i dont hold the president accountable or responsible for the state of the economy. In fact, if the president is accountable or responsible we have a corrupt system. I think most people here are technology workers, and i'm not sure how well you remember the tech economy 4 years ago, but it got pretty crappy and lots of people here lost their jobs, and now its doing better.

    --
    My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
    1. Re:tech economy by milesbparty · · Score: 1

      i dont hold the president accountable or responsible for the state of the economy...

      That's actually good to hear. I was fishing a little...wondering how many people realize that the president does not, and cannot affect all aspects of American life/policy, etc.

      --
      eMelody Web Directory add your site today!
  297. No, You are Not Disenfranchised by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    NO, you are NOT disenfranchised by voting for the losing ticket. Your "franchise" is the RIGHT TO VOTE, not the RIGHT TO WIN.

    Here in Virginia, the Democrats ran the state for 100 years until the 1990s. The Republicans won by getting stronger and stronger with each election. They worked from the ground up, and eventually took control.

    That's the way it's supposed to work. Things aren't supposed to swing widely back and forth from year to year.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  298. My precinct uses Diebold... by Pluvius · · Score: 1

    ...but these are the ancient mechanical machines that we've been using for decades. Little danger of those causing a big problem. Kind of goes to show how silly it is to compromise your electoral system in the name of progress.

    Rob

  299. c'mon now... by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1
    Kinda makes all these paranoid Republican types look quite silly.

    Like it would really have been any different if it had been Democrats. Well, maybe the DNC would have already filed a suit by now...

  300. Kerry ahead in early exit polls by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    According to Gallup's mega-final-ultra poll out Sunday evening, 30 percent of registered voters in Florida have already voted, either through early voting or by absentee. Of those who have already voted, Kerry leads President Bush 51 percent to 43 percent.

    According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.

    relevent links:

    Salon War Room Report [salon.com]
    Gallup Poll original data [gallup.com]
    USA Today story [usatoday.com]

    All news stories merely mention this in passing.....

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Kerry ahead in early exit polls by n6kuy · · Score: 0

      Early exit polls are misleading.

      Republicans vote in the evening because, unlike welfare sucking democrats, they have jobs....

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    2. Re:Kerry ahead in early exit polls by Meisda · · Score: 1

      Non-welfare sucking, currently at work, Democrat here that's voting at 5pm!

    3. Re:Kerry ahead in early exit polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why they get up early and vote in the morning.

  301. Re:fairfax county va - Yorktown by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

    A bit different here in Yorktown.

    1) Stand in line (short line where I voted)
    2) Get your ID checked at a table marked by name.
    3) You're handed what looks like a church raffle ticket.
    4) You walk to another counter, are handed a paper ballot with a seal on it (not the York County Seal). It says "York County Official Ballot."
    5) Wait in another short line, walk to a booth that looks something like a school desk with a divider around it and a desk lamp.
    6) Fill in the bubbles in pen.
    7) Walk to the entrance, drop your ballot in a machine named "accuvote" that sucks it in.

    No BSOD though.

  302. Political Spam by eventhorizon5 · · Score: 1

    All of the pro-Kerry spam emails that got through my 4-stage junk mail filter on my mail server have made me even more angry towards Kerry (and not only that, but also the immense amount of tricks played on senior citizens by Democrats to vote "accidentally" for Kerry, and also moving Bush's name out of the way on other ballots so that regular people "accidentally" vote for Kerry)You can probably guess who I'm voting for ;) If Kerry wins, this will be a hilarious 4 years haha.

    -eventhorizon

    --
    #Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
    1. Re:Political Spam by juuri · · Score: 1

      You are a pathetic excuse for a human.

      Hopefully your death will come quickly.

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    2. Re:Political Spam by eventhorizon5 · · Score: 1

      I'll just assume you're a spammer, due to your incredibly positive attitude. I guess all victims of spam are pathetic excuses for humans, according to you? ;)

      -eventhorizon

      --
      #Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
  303. Why vote for the Lesser of Two Evils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For for me, Cthulhu, the Greatest of All Evils!

  304. Optical in HR by HokieJP · · Score: 1

    In Hampton Roads (York County) we have optical machines. It takes me back to middle school and scan-tron tests. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would choose any other kind of machine (except for the disabled, of course).

    We have the same division (A-K, L-Z), but at my polling place the only line was for L-Z. If you were A-K you could walk right up. I assumed that each precinct had chosen an alphabetical division based on the last names in their rolls, but clearly I gave them too much credit. I can't complain though, I only had to wait 5 minutes. I guess y'all wait longer for everything up in NoVa.

  305. My moter voter hickup by KenSeymour · · Score: 2, Informative

    My experience wasn't quite as bad as yours but is related.

    When I updated my address with the Califonia DMV, I checked the box to have them update my voter registration. That was about 3 months ago.

    Last month, I called the county voter registration office and they said I wasn't registered.
    So I drove down in person and submitted a change of address there.
    I confirmed it last week over the phone and was on the updated list of registered voters for my polling place. They had the main list printed Oct 22 and another list with the folks who registered afterwards.

    There are election monitoring web sites. I would reccommend you go to http://www.commoncause.org and click on the voter experience link.
    They are collecting accounts of voting experiences (including irregularities).
    If this is a pattern, they can do something about it.

    --
    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
  306. Bush administration censored Bin Laden Tape by Jump · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Finally, we know what Mr. Bush didn't want to let us know about the Bin Laden tape:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen .tape/index.html

    It is interesting how much his arguments make sense. Did Bush ever say something THAT clear? Did he have such a clear strategy when he sent his troops to iraq? We will prevail... Yes, sure. Tell us hat we want to hear and we will not question it further.

    The censored version of the tape made everybody wonder, why Bin Laden is supporting Bush. The uncensored version speaks a different language.

    I hope Kerry wins, and I hope it will change something. I also hope Bush will pay for what he did to America and the world.

    1. Re:Bush administration censored Bin Laden Tape by marktaw.com · · Score: 5, Informative

      So why didn't CNN link to the Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech? Perhaps because CNN is still desperately trying to spin a story they didn't fully report on in the first place.

  307. Kerry leading in early exit polls by Alien54 · · Score: 4, Informative
    According to Gallup's mega-final-ultra poll out Sunday evening, 30 percent of registered voters in Florida have already voted, either through early voting or by absentee. Of those who have already voted, Kerry leads President Bush 51 percent to 43 percent.

    According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.

    relevent links:

    Salon War Room Report
    Gallup Poll original data (I think this is the correct data set)
    USA Today story

    All news stories merely mention this in passing.....

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by Squinky86 · · Score: 1

      Most of this is because the early voting was mainly pushed by the democratic parties. The absentee votes were quite closer. Most of those who voted early were hyped-up teenagers (aka /. readers) who hate Bush. Let's wait until the first round of exit polls before we look at any data- they'll have a better percentage to gauge from.

    2. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by Sinus0idal · · Score: 2, Informative

      BBC has a good vote site BBC

    3. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by ragnar · · Score: 5, Informative

      What you cite isn't technically an exit poll, as it was done before the polls opened. However, for the benefit of everyone who will encounter leaked exit polls today, please read the following:

      http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/exit_p olls_what.html

      The source is well-informed and brings up many good points to consider. Take any exit poll with a grain of salt and be patient for the official tally. You can burn a lot of energy reading the tea leaves.

      --
      -- Solaris Central - http://w
    4. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by scaaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      still, it's encouraging to see the U.S. returning to democracy from bushocracy (hipocracy, oilocracy, cheneyocracy, or whatever you prefer)

      --
      I know I'm going to be modded up on this
    5. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by EyesWideOpen · · Score: 1

      Salon War Room Report

      I don't suppose you'd have a username/password (for a premium subscription) that is required to view that report? :-)

      --

      As with the sun's light
      My mom was magnificent
      Unquestionable
    6. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by EyesWideOpen · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose you'd have a username/password (for a premium subscription) that is required to view that report?

      And for the Gallup story as well.

      --

      As with the sun's light
      My mom was magnificent
      Unquestionable
    7. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't suppose you'd have a username/password (for a premium subscription) that is required to view that report? :-)
      Click on the advertisement for a free one-day pass.

    8. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i even have a grandson, regrettably...

    9. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Showing your ignorance and vitriol in one statement, impressive.

      We are a republic. The word democracy does not appear a single time in any of our founding documents.

      "We hate Bush" is a pretty pathetic stance to make for an election.

    10. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by demachina · · Score: 1

      The flip side is exit polls have historically been pretty accurate which is why networks have relied on them for so long, until the Republicans started taking winning elections and especially as electronic voting came on the scene. As you recall in 2000 VNS exit polling predicted Gore won and he didn't. In 2002 the VNS exit polls mysteriously failed in a massive way and the Republicans had a big win.

      Today apparently the exit polls were massively swinging to Kerry and it now appears he lost the election. Curious that exit polls have gone completely south in just the last 4 years.

      It leads to two possibilities.

      1. The exit polls are really innacurate or maybe Democrat leaners were rigging them, of course rigging exit polls is kind of stupid since they don't count for anything other than maybe putting a little psychic pressure on late voters. Maybe they are just consistently bad but they are a pretty big sampling and its odd they would be as far off as they were apparently today. This is the message Fox and the Republicans were pounding on all night. The exit polls were all wrong and you need to fix them or get rid of them. Unfortunately at this point the exit poll are the only checks and balances we have on the truthfullness of the polls and especially electronic polling.

      2. The exit polls were accurate and someone was rigging the vote. Needless to say with widespread use of electronic voting machines, without paper trail, if someone rigged them to skew the vote to the Republicans you would see what we've seen today and it would be hard to prove thats what happened. The exit polls say Kerry wins and the voting machines say Bush wins. Unfortunately with no paper trail we may never know.

      If exit polls are wrong it should be setting off alarm bells that either they are wrong or the vote counts are wrong. You should not leap to the conclusion that it must be the exit polls as the media and Republican were tonight and probably will be from now on.

      One interesting thing to do would be to lock up a all the electronic voting machines in precincts in Ohio and Florida (Broward and Miami-Dade in particular where there is huge Democratic vote to suppress). Look in particular for precincts where exit polls said one thing and the machines said something else. Be sure to set the date back to the day of the election, set them exactly like they were on election day, and start entering votes on them in a semi random way at about the same rate voters would on all or most of the machines, and see if after a full day of voting they report an accurate vote.

      Another interesting exercise would be to correlate the map of precincts with electronic voting with precincts with bogus exit polls and see if there is a correlation.

      I think much of the data on them can be found on electionline.org.

      --
      @de_machina
    11. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      You are correct that it leads to the choice "Either the exit polls are wrong or the actual voting is being miscounted."

      However, saying things like "We may never know" is a bit dramatic. Although I am not an expert in exit polling methods, I did major in OR, of which statistics is a very large part (specifically, the statistics necessary to model complex processes accurately).

      In general, building an accurate model is the hard part, because it is is usually build on top of a small sample used to gauge the behavior of a real system (in this case, votes in a state). But the difficulty of actually going out and gathering a representative sample is really quite high.

      In the case of elections, two major factors alone make it hard: time and location. If you gather exit polls from just a handful of counties, it certainly won't be representative (look at the county chart of Ohio or Florida and you'll see what I mean). So unless you are taking 100 exit poll samples in each county, you're probably going to get burnt.

      Second: time. In past elections it has been shown that swing voters tend to be in higher concentration later on, and that they tend to vote against the incumbant. Of course, this doesn't hold in all counties equally, but it would lead you to believe that a sample of 100 taken in the morning and at night (say, 10 hours later) would have materially different compositions in "battleground" areas.

      If you combine the above variables, you can see that it would practically be quite difficult to gather a good, random sample on which to base the models. Combine that with a very close election, and the usual "few percent (~5) error" suddenly decides everything.

      Of course, this is the principle of Occam's Razor: I find it much more plausible that the modelling was done incorrectly (because it is so difficult and the race so close) than there is a vast Republican conspiracy to rig voting machines across the country to dump Democratic votes and replace them with Republican votes. Indeed, I think many of the problems remain from 2000: poorer counties that have a majority democratic vote use older punch-style machines, which have a failure rate approaching 1/3. This would of course sway the vote, minimizing the impact of such a demographic. However, I do not attribute this to malice; I think it is a problem to be fixed however.

      Even the federal government doesn't have enough coordination over the voting process in each state and county to to make all the voting methods consistent. I doubt there's a ubiquitous underground, well-coordinated, Republican subversion of all the voting machines in the battleground states so as to fudge the election. Too many people would know, and you'd certainly have some headlines on the cover of the National Enquirer or Star. Of course, I don't read those, so maybe there have been!

    12. Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I doubt there's a ubiquitous underground, well-coordinated, Republican subversion of all the voting machines in the battleground states so as to fudge the election.

      I also doubt that John Kerry or John Edwards personally signed off on the slashing of tires on cars used by the RNC to transport voters. Based on that same line of reasoning I wouldn't put it past the manufacturers of these voting machines to "help out" their man. Let's not forget that the party surrogates (on both sides) in this election were just as bad (if not worse) as the DNC/RNC or Karl Rove himself. Whether it was Michael Moore or Swift Boat Vets for the Truth... none of these groups did anything other then drag the debate down to the level of a playground fight.

      Unfortunately I don't think we can ever trust our election system again as long as we allow something as important as a paperless voting machine to be built and programmed by a private company with an interest in the outcome of the election. I'd be interested to know if the exit polls were wrong all over the place or only in the districts with e-voting. If the latter is the case then god help us....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  308. Re:track records necessary, what for? US BANKRUPTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $280k per person?

    I wonder if you messed up by an order of magnitude.

    7 trillian over 300,000 ppl (round numbers for both) do not come out to $280k per person at all -- far more like $25k per person.

    Still a sizeable amount, but an important rule for credibility is not to overstate your claim.

  309. Janet Reno by Flamesplash · · Score: 1

    I've heard tell that when Reno lost whatever race she was running in that after the deadline to request a recount a large number of ballots were found, such that she would have actually won, and was within the margin to request a recount. Instead of making something of it, she decided to just let the original decision stand.

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  310. Intimidation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand all the claims of "intimidation". Daschle got a restraining order preventing people from writing down the license plate of those bringing Indian voters to the polls because they might feel intimidated. None of the other things I've heard of as intimidation seem like it to me (police check points near the polling place, poll watchers, etc.) Don't these people have any guts? Are they so afraid that if someone looks at them funny (in their opinion) that they cower in fear? But they're perfectly happy to claim after "Ooh, I was intimidated!" Intimidation is a gun or knife in the face and someone saying "don't vote", all this other stuff I've heard is wussy. How did these people get through high school without having a nervous breakdown every day? Yeah, I understand they might belong to a group that has historically been oppressed but this is nothing compared to the backbone they showed in the 50s and 60s during the civil rights movement. I'm surprised minorities aren't embarassed at this so called intimidation.

  311. Level of error: effectively zero by John+Murdoch · · Score: 5, Informative

    (Deep breath. I'm about to do something totally insane--try to present a rational, factual explanation of a political subject on SlashDot. Maybe its because I've been eating nothing but red M&Ms all day....)

    IAMPAEO--BIHBO
    I Am Not Presently An Election Official--But I Have Been One. And I can promise you, with all sincerity, that the margin of error is effectively zero. We count every single ballot, whether on the voting machines or in absentee ballots, regardless of how late we have to stay up to do it. The people in your county registrar's office total up all of the ballots from the polling places, and keep checking and re-checking until they have it right. The math is done in front of representatives from all political parties, as well as any candidate-appointed watchers that are present as well. When the election results are certified, the results are correct--with an error rate of zero.

    Oh, c'mon. What about...
    I have been an election official for more than fifteen years--and I have been involved in counting votes on Election night in heavily Democratic wards, and in heavily Republican wards. It does not matter--we get the vote total correct, and we turn it in to the county. Then the county re-checks our work--and they carefully preserve the voting machines until they're convinced we have done the work correctly. (One year, back in the 1980s, the county had questions about one of our voting machines and called the officials back in later in the week to make sure they understood what we'd done.)

    Don't confuse the results announced on TV with the certified election
    I have also done consulting work with the Elections Unit of a major TV network. They have an entirely different agenda: their goal is to "call" the election for one candidate or the other before any other media outlet. They are basing their "calls" on exit-polling data ("pardon me, ma'am, but could you tell me who you voted for?") in a handful of selected precincts across a state. They will report preliminary totals ("And we now see Governor Bloviate leading with 1,424,325 votes with 21% of precincts reporting...") without explaining the context (are those Bloviate's strong precincts? Who says the numbers are correct?) They're out to report fast, accuracy be damned. (Sorry, Charlie, but that's the way it really is.)

    The real story, the real vote total, comes when the election is certified. And the "chaos" that we all saw in Florida was the actual process of certifying an election. There were flaws (the biggest: they hadn't defined any rules for how to count votes)--but they eventually arrived at a standard, and used that standard to count votes. They ended up with a total. That's the final number.

    All that said....
    The total vote count will be determined with a level of error of zero. What will not be determined--and what I fear will be rampant in this election, on both sides--is how many votes were fraudulent, due to duplicate registrations, absentee ballot fraud, etc.

    1. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by ahrenritter · · Score: 1

      As a prior Election Official, do you have any views on voting system reform? Questions such as switching to an approval voting system or even eventually abolishing the Electoral College and implementing a ranked voting system over a plurality voting system?

      I was recently introduced to the site ElectionMethods.org which discusses election reform and I have been *extremely* interested in it.

      --

      All I wanted was a rock to wind a piece of string around, and I ended up with the biggest ball of twine in Minnesota
    2. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      What you're missing is that it's not the votes that are important. The votes are simply a reflection of the intention of the voter. In the process of making intention into a vote you have an error rate that is a function of the general IQ of the voters, the amount of time the voter has, the complexity of the ballot, the amount of loud music in the room, etc., etc., etc. This error is not effectively zero, so even thought the precision of counting votes can be effectively zero, there is still an error rate.

    3. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by John+Murdoch · · Score: 1
      What you're missing is that it's not the votes that are important. The votes are simply a reflection of the intention of the voter. In the process of making intention into a vote you have an error rate that is a function of the general IQ of the voters, the amount of time the voter has, the complexity of the ballot, the amount of loud music in the room, etc., etc., etc.

      At an academic level, I will concede that one might make a theoretical distinction between the voter's intent and the actual vote cast. At a practical level, that might be a concern in determining whether a given voting system is too complex for the typical voter to understand. (And I have had to use the little demo voting machine over and over and over again to help seemingly capable people figure out how to vote.)

      BUT... I absolutely disagree with the notion that we can, or even should consider, looking for an error rate in how votes are counted. There are rules. We play by them. We don't need to, and should not, make it any more complicated than that.

      IMHO

    4. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      At an academic level, I will concede that one might make a theoretical distinction between the voter's intent and the actual vote cast.

      Did you completely forget about what happened in Florida 4 years ago? This isn't just an academic exercize, it's quite real. Hanging chads, pregnant chads, all kinds of nonsense. Sure, you can devise some system to count a vote one way or another and be able to enforce your system with a high degree of accuracy. But the error rate emerges when someone thinks they voted for one candidate, but either weren't counted at all, or were counted for the wrong person.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      I don't think the distinction is theoretical, but highly practical. Even with the most dumbed down voting process you will still encounter measurement error, and a fair election process (especially winner takes all) needs to take measurement error into consideration in some form. Even with perfect counting and a flawless election process, significant error rates are to be expected. Trying to bring such error rates to zero is impossible, making a sound decision in the presence of such error rates is.

      The less than 1,000 vote difference in Florida, New Mexico and a few other states in the last election are more likely to be statistical flukes than an accurate measurement of the will of the people. The supreme court decided to go with the coin flip that was the vote count. That's the lazy way out.

    6. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      When the election results are certified, the results are correct--with an error rate of zero.

      That's not where the errors in the system come from. The errors occurred before you even got the pile of ballots to count. The count of how many people tried to vote does not match the count of how many ballots end up getting into that counting "pile". You have accurately counted the pile which was already inaccurate before you got your hands on it.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    7. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Did you completely forget about what happened in Florida 4 years ago? This isn't just an academic exercize, it's quite real. Hanging chads, pregnant chads, all kinds of nonsense."

      He didn't. His previous post stated that the problem in vote COUNTING occured because there were no rules in place. The process of putting those rules in place was messy, true. A similar event couldn't happen in Ohio, for instance, because the relevant rules are already in place (x number of corners punched = vote, otherwise = no vote, etc.)

      "But the error rate emerges when someone thinks they voted for one candidate, but either weren't counted at all, or were counted for the wrong person."

      Yes, but that is not a problem with COUNTING the votes. It is a problem with CASTING the votes. If I am not mistaken, he stated that ALL VALID votes are counted. If they are not valid, they are not counted, if they were cast incorrectly, that cannot be solved by the COUNTING process. It is too late.

      If you have a problem with what is considered a "valid" vote, then you need to change the laws. The counting process MUST follow the laws in place. Florida was a mess because those laws were ambiguous or lacking. They came to an accurate count when the law was clarified.

      Hmm, maybe precise would be a better term than accurate...

    8. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by winwar · · Score: 1

      "You have accurately counted the pile which was already inaccurate before you got your hands on it."

      "The errors occurred before you even got the pile of ballots to count."

      That may be true, but as long as the count of the ballots considered to be valid by LAW is correct, the election results ARE correct.

      Whether a ballot is valid and how many valid ballots you have are two different issues. The election results certify the number of valid ballots. Counting CANNOT be subjective. Either the ballot is valid or it isn't. For that, you have to follow the laws.

      It doesn't mean you have to LIKE those laws or that they are GOOD laws or that people weren't disenfranchised, etc.... But that is not/should not/must not be an issue for those who count the ballots.

    9. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      You've missed the point. As I said, you can obviously come up with some system where you can COUNT something. Counting is easy, but voting isn't just coming up with some system, then counting. It's SUPPOSED to be about finding out if more people want one candidate more than another.

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing "correct" and "legally correct". They are not always the same thing.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    11. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to say Sorry - hey - they DO call the elections on incomplete results - based upon their models.

      Of course - they data the systems I run feeds them is usually 100 percent accurate, unless someone miskeys the data (see Florida 2000 - first call) - MOST of the data the data they (we) get is - with XX of YYY precincts counted, the votes are ZZZ. THAT is correct - but what does it mean? Unless you know what is in, and what is outstanding.....

      There IS county level data - which you get to see - 14 of 17 precincts in in county 12, the votes are NNNN. You can watch the counties go to 100% - and trust me, everyone does their best to make sure those numbers are right (they usually come right from that states Secretary of State - but we can also look at the source - the reporter called it in, SoS etc) But until they are all at 100% it doesn't mean much - but the guys downstairs call it based on less than complete data

    12. Re:Level of error: effectively zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortuantely - NO ONE has come up with a way to measure the will of the voter within about 2% in any large election.

      I work for a company that is involved in reporting election results (NOT offical results but you get to see them...) We employ LOTS of folks who know a LOT about elections - a whole lot about elections.

      Well, in the week or 2 after the 2000 election, one of the uber election geeks (consulting professor) brought in a textbook for us to look at - that book listed all sorts of voting methods, and the expected error rates from the supposid "will of the voter" - the testing was done at the accidemic level - give a BUNCH of people a list of WHO they should vote for (imaginary candidates) and have them try voting. You watch to see if they make errors

      Guess what? 2% is about the best you can do, and with most methods you see in the US - the error rate is between 2 and 3%

      THAT is why you see laws that require a recount in that value range (3% in Florida) - because they KNOW they are close, or in the margin of error. The GOOD news that a LOT of the time (most) the majority of the errors cancel out. There MAY be a bias to the errors one way ot the other, but it's usually fairly small

      Folks, lets face it. The pros at this have been studying it for a LONG time. Both sides would LOVE to see an advantage, BUT the other side will call them out on it. On top of that, you'll notice that very similar voting systems are used in Democratic controlled areas as Republican controlled areas - that is the first hint that each system probably doesn't have that much "play" in the system

  312. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > (3) He's environmentally friendly

    You can recycle him at the end of his term?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  313. Don't Vote: Make mine count more. by arjay-tea · · Score: 1

    Don't vote: make mine count more.

  314. few web sites of intrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    You might find achives of things here to sway things

    infowars.com or anything video or alike from alex jones quite intresting. bittorrent suprnova.org has plenty of his stuff Intresting angles.

    Election Watch:

    >Drudge is reporting that "Before voting even began in Philadelphia poll watchers found nearly 2000 votes already planted on machines scattered throughout the city.."
    >Paid Bush Supporters Cause Uproar

    > Journalist Arrested After Photographing Voting Lines

    >Charges of Fraud and Voter Suppression Already Flying

    > Parties trade accusations of voter irregularities

    >Jury reaches partial verdict in election fraud case

    > The electronic vote

    I hear the bush and kerry both own the media are members of the same secret societies and both are for killing war and all that either way.

    whatreallyhappened.com has alot of the simular intresting infos..

    too many voting fraud titles to miss.. somethings going on.. and I guess the only thing we await for now is the big terror attacts lol

    if thats not enough
    http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
    Coast to coast is having a big show on tonight going over most of the events happening right now that just have too many unanswered questions and do not seem right at all..

    they are throwing proof

    its up to you to decided..

    As alex Jones Radio show goes to say ... Shoutcast.com (gnc) under talk gender)
    "Its a war on for your Mind"!!

  315. Chicago by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    Here in Chicago's 49th precinct I just got done standing in line for one hour and forty minutes. In the past I've voted in this precinct, and for both midterm and presidential elections I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes.

    Truly, the voter turnout is astounding, and the number of young people voting unprecidented. Eyeballing the couple of hundred people in line before and after me, I'd say between two thirds and three quarters of the people voting were under 30.

    This bodes well for Kerry, assuming the Diebold Tabulators don't change a chunk of our votes to Bush (Not sure if they're used to count Illinois votes, but they are used in a number of states that are not using the Diebold touch screens, and the tabulators can be used to change tens of thousands of votes in a few keystrokes, simply by entering a two digit back-door code. All without a papertrail, and no way to effectively retrieve the altered data. Welcome to American Democracy 21st century style).

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  316. Re:More clickbait by Thangodin · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering about that--I've been having a hard time connecting to Slashdot too, and to other sites. Anybody else there notice that the web seems to be getting really slow of late? People playing City of Heroes have been complaining of bad lag, even when the servers aren't heavily loaded--an indication of a wider general problem. And it seems to be getting worse we get to the election...

  317. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > Are Americans not getting the same news that we do?

    Do you get your news from FOX?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  318. State officials not doing their jobs? by deemaunik · · Score: 1

    Thus far, every single day for the last two weeks, just to check... I've input my address [Maui, Hawaii] into MyPollingPlace.com. When it's actually up. And every single time, I receive this response. You vote at: Sorry, we have not received any information from your precinct. It does list a few phone numbers, but any public service lines on Maui are nigh impossible to get through to. It took me roughly three months of calling constantly to schedule an appointment at the DMV. With the horrors happening in Florida and other states, it's a wonder Elections even function. Yeah, all this is common knowledge, but it's really disappointing to have public servants that are so lax in their duties.

  319. While we're at it with the Libertarian jokes... by Darmox · · Score: 1

    How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

    None, the free market will take care of it

    (disclaimer; voted Badnarik first thing this morning)

    --
    If I was that drunk, I would have remembered it -- H. Simpson
    1. Re:While we're at it with the Libertarian jokes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean you wasted your vote this morning. or you actually helped bush win today. fool

    2. Re:While we're at it with the Libertarian jokes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you wasted your vote today, since you probably don't live in a swing state? tool.

  320. Why can't geeks solve this? by .killedkenny · · Score: 1

    These elections have really underlined the vast amount of dirty tricks that occur, and how easy it is to beat the system.

    There needs to be a simple system for registering, casting ballots, and counting the results. Using encryption and the internet, it should be fairly easy.

    My idea is to have all the serious scrutiny (proof of identidy and residence) done during registration, then give each registered voter a USB device with an embedded encryption key tied to you and you alone. On election day, stick the key in any internet connected computer, anywhere in the world, and cast your vote. The votes are tabulated immediately.

    Or maybe you'd have to go to a polling place and provide a thumbprint, then you'd use your USB device to activate the voting machine and authenticate your vote. There needs to be some authentication on election day, or anyone who owned your USB key would own your vote.

    1. Re:Why can't geeks solve this? by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      Sure, if that USB key isn't destroyed when you forget to take it out of your shorts pocket when you go swimming...or when your house burns down....or when you drop it in the storm drain accidentally...and can be replaced when your car is stolen, etc. etc. etc.

      And of course, given one day's access to one of these things, my neighbor's 13 year old son will reverse-engineer it and mass-produce fake ones by the truckload, ensuring that the pink Power Ranger wins a seat on the school board.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  321. Let's get this over with. by adam31 · · Score: 1
    Let me sum up where slashdot falls on the election, and when I say 'I', I mean the /. collective.

    I'm all for free elections, however, I can't believe we still use the electoral college, whose purpose is antiquated and whose effect has proven downright fraudulent. I believe that our 'vote-for-one-candidate' system should be replaced by a more mathematically correct ranking system, or 'vote-for-as-many-as-you-like' allowing for 3rd and 4th parties to be elected by holding the most common cross-section of the population's beliefs.

    However, I'm skeptical that even such changes will do any good because the manner in which we gather votes is flawed and subject to fraud from all sides. I'm horrified that Diebold machines are actually being used in the election, however I secretly hope that CowboyNeal wins Ohio just to prove the point.

    All in all, I believe that all politicians are corrupted by illegal and immoral means via corporations and lobbyists. . . and, quite honestly, I would vote for any candidate just for saying 'linux good, DRM bad'.

  322. Rove Suffered a Massive Coronary!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter which side of the political fence you are on, this is not good news. Apparently, he was in the middle of an interview with a Fox News correspondent in the field and he complained about feeling a little faint. He has been shuttled to a hospital at an undisclosed location. This is going to be a tough row to hoe for the Bush administration irregardless of whether they win or not. Ralph Reed (formerly of the Christian Coalition) said that Karl Rove was in good spirits last night when they were talking just before a CNN interview. Although you may not agree with the man's politics and his masterful manipulation of the country, keep him in your prayers.

    (note: you may change the names above and replace with any politician you care to jinx. Pass it on. ;) )

  323. What CmdrTaco forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Rob said: "if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election," he neglected to point out the usual disclaimer, which applies to this poll more than most:

    This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

    (I wish all online polls were as honest!)

  324. I voted by corngrower · · Score: 1
    My polling place was moderately busy, even at a time where the polls are usually the least busy. That indicates a large voter turnout in my state.

    Have you voted yet? If not WTF are you reading /.?

  325. Dick Cheney, backseat driver par excellence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Full text of Economist article at http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id =3152936

    Dick Cheney, backseat driver par excellence

    IN MOST presidential re-election campaigns people don't spare a second thought for the vice-presidential candidate. Nobody voted to re-elect Ronald Reagan because he had George Bush senior on the ticket, or Bill Clinton because he had Al Gore. But this year Americans ought to spare more than a second thought for the man who stepped onto the stage in Madison Square Garden on Wednesday night.

    Dick Cheney growled out a speech that was reminiscent of General Secretary Andropov on a bad day. The audience loved him anyway. When he spoke of George Bush never seeking "a permission slip to defend the American people", they burst into chants of "Four more years!". Nobody expected lofty rhetoric from this particular vice-president. Mr Cheney's talent is not for the theatrics of power, but for the mechanics.

    He is not only the most powerful vice-president in American history. He is also the most controversial, a man whose decisions have repeatedly given even loyal Republicans pause. Four more years of George W. means four more years of Bush-Cheney: the closest thing to a co-presidency America has ever seen.

    For the past four years the two men have been inseparable. Most vice-presidents have to fight for time with their boss; Mr Cheney sees his several times a day. Most vice-presidents spend their days at state funerals; Mr Cheney, more than anyone else, picked the members of the current administration. Thereafter he helped to shape the administration's policies on everything from energy policy to the invasion of Iraq.

    The Republicans have repeatedly reminded Americans this week that September 11th 2001 defined this administration. But who was in charge on that terrible day? It was Mr Cheney who took most of the key decisions--from hiding the president to authorising the shooting-down of suspicious aircraft--while Mr Bush was holed up in Nebraska.

    September 11th was a break from Mr Cheney's normal low-key style. In general, he prefers to direct from behind rather than seize the wheel. From the first, he exploited his boss's penchant for focusing on the big picture in order to control the details. He packed the second tier of the administration with allies such as Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Luti and Stephen Hadley. And he created an axis of influence with Donald Rumsfeld, the man who had given him his first break in national politics, and who shares his no-nonsense view of the world.

    Mr Cheney's acceptance speech at last put paid to lively rumours that Mr Bush was planning to dump him from the ticket in favour of somebody who appeals more to swing voters: John McCain, for example. Mr Cheney is clearly a drag on the ticket in purely electoral terms: the latest CNN/Gallup poll finds as many Americans disliking him as liking him. But the rumours, in the end, were hot air. Mr Cheney is so integral to the administration that to dump him would be the equivalent of decapitating it.

    The vice-president's unique position raises a serious practical question: what happens if he has another serious heart attack? (He has already had four.) It also raises a serious political question: how well has Mr Cheney used the power he has amassed with such Machiavellian cunning?

    In 2000 he was widely seen as the conservative movement's answer to Washington's legendary wise men, such as Dean Acheson and George Kennan. Nobody who studied Mr Cheney's biography, from his hard-right voting record in Congress to his patronage of conservative intellectuals (the famous Laffer curve was first sketched on his napkin), could doubt his ideological bent. But he was one of the most experienced politicians in Washington: the youngest White House chief of staff ever, a congressman for Wyoming and defence secretary. He was careful to wrap his conservatism in the mantle of common sense. Who better to restrain Mr Bush's more gung-ho Texan instincts?

  326. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Actually, that figure does not say that Americans were the killers. That figure includes all "excess deaths" that occurred in Iraq. In fact, only half of those deaths were do to violence, and it does not say what party was the cause of the death.


    Let's see... it said the number one cause of death was airstrikes. I havn't heard about many insurgent airstrikes lately.

  327. Undecided Swing Voter Reads Slashdot for Answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was my hook, now that you're in...

    I'm an unfortunate resident of the great state of Wisconsin, unfortunate to be called 20 times a day to remind me to get out and vote for John Kerry, as if I'd forgotten what country I live in. I got so annoyed, I barked at some poor soul working hard to get out the vote, but honestly, where's the great organization in the Dems campaign when they can't check off whose been called from 1 of 60 call centers?

    Anyway, I've a history of voting Republican. I voted for Bush in 2000. Heck, I voted for Bob Dole in 1996. When The Governator spoke at the GOP convention and said, "If you want the government off your back, then you are a Republican!", I was cheering from my armchair, and my daughter looked at me like I was plain nuts.

    Now, I've only made up my mind this morning, and here's why I'm voting for John Kerry...

    (1) George Bush invaded Iraq without a mandate.

    Say what you will about congressional support or majority polling blah blah blah, it's a reality that invading Iraq was driven by Bush, not John Q Public. Now, that might have been OK by me; sometimes, a leader needs to make an executive decision. But, if you go to war on your call, it'd better be a triumph. Iraq started triumphantly enough, but this past year has been a downward spiral, and chaos reigns supreme in Iraq.

    (2) The justification for war proved to be inaccurate, and Bush did not hold his people accountable.

    Holding people accountable is critical for effective leadership. Bush seemingly wanted to back his people up, but when the facts came in, he should've made the American people know that heads would roll for crucial mistakes and misjudgements. I believe the American people will now hold Bush accountable for those misjudgements.

    (3) Taxes are a key issue for me and my family.

    This was a point for Bush. I'm not a rich 1%-er, but I am a father of three small children, and Bush's tax cuts helped my family immensely and kept us from the shadow of unassailable debt. Now, the GOP would tell you Kerry will roll these taxes back, and I believe he would do this given the chance. However, it looks like the Congress will remain GOP-controlled, and there is no mandate to tax people like myself, and so I don't believe Kerry will start taxing me to death. I think I'll take that risk.

    (4) I fear my employer more than I fear Usama Bin Laden.

    This is a tough one. Obviously, my employer doesn't want me dead, but I believe Usama's philosophy of hate cannot succeed against the promise of hope and freedom that people inherently want for themselves and their country. My employer's decisions are far more mechanical, they'll decide on what's the best for the bottom line, and increasingly, that means moving jobs offshore and putting the screws to the workers. All the engineers and scientists I've known consider themselves professionals, and all of them are feeling that the Board Of Directors could really care less about them. Whispers of a white-collar labor movement turn my ear. Sadly, class warfare is not a far away rant anymore. Now, I don't believe Kerry is going to fix it; he's pledged to help in some ways, but I'm not pinning my hopes there. I do think he edges Bush on this point, because Bush is die hard about deregulation and free market, and the average American worker is getting lambasted in that system.

    So, hopefully I'll stoke up some more flames in this forum. The discussion has been surprisingly docile for a political debate. I've seen more conviction in a "Which Distro?" topic than I've seen in this thread.

    Stand up and be heard, people.

  328. Parent's link to Kerry plan wrong? by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

    The parent's "published plan" link doesn't work for me.

    The official link with the plan appears to be:

    http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/p lan.html

    I don't see any mention of a draft here. It looks instead like a quite reasonable exchange of military/public service for college financial aid incentives.

    1. Re:Parent's link to Kerry plan wrong? by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was supposed to be johnkerry.com instead of just kerry.com Please read the rest of my earlier post. Of course you don't see a "draft" here. It's the first step in a previously outlined process. (By the way, previous revisions of this plan included mandatory high school service -- you can find it on the Wayback Machine as others have already linked to.)

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    2. Re:Parent's link to Kerry plan wrong? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Even if Selective Service is used, I don't see that as implying a "military draft." The Selective Service already has a job of keeping track of young men of the appropriate age group, and it's much more efficient to use them than to set up an entirely separate system for national service.

      The only problem I see is if service was mandatory, and there weren't enough civilian positions for young people to fill.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  329. American myths by Nyenyec · · Score: 1

    There was this thing called the Soviet Union in WW2 which fought the real war against the Third Reich on the Eastern Front.

    Then in the 80s it imploded, cause it was a rotten, economically stagnant system that no one believed in any more.

    God bless the American myths.

    Cheers,
    Nyenyec

    1. Re:American myths by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct. The western front was not a "real war".

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:American myths by Nyenyec · · Score: 1

      I often find it frustrating how Americans often forget about the huge difference in scale between the Western and Eastern Fronts.

      Here's a link that helps to put it into perspective, please scroll down:

      http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/casua lt ies_of_war.htm

      It would probably be too harsh not to call it "a real war" but when it came to defeating Nazi Germany, the Western Front didn't really count that much.

      Cheers,
      Nyenyec

    3. Re:American myths by Nyenyec · · Score: 1
      Sorry, here's a properly formatted link: Casualties of War - Putting American Casualties in Perspective

      and here's an article: The Real War was in the East - Eric Margolis

      Cheers,
      Nyenyec

    4. Re:American myths by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      No one is denying that hammered during the war. But the fact remains that the US and USSR met each other in BERLIN. Not Omaha Beach. That means the allied forces had to fight through France, Belgium and two thirds of Germany. It was most certainly a REAL WAR.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:American myths by Nyenyec · · Score: 1
      You're right, it was real -- although I would say not really significant for defeating Germany.

      The reason I had to remind the original poster of the Eastern Front was this sentence: "That same US that saved Europe from Hitler...". Ironically, it was mostly the Soviet Union that saved Europe from Hitler (albeit with the military and most significantly economic aid of the US and Britain).

      Quoting from the article I linked:
      "Even while the Allies were landing at Normandy, Germany kept moving divisions east to fight advancing Soviet forces. In spring, 1945, Germany still had 214 divisions on the Eastern Front and only 60 holding the Allies in France, the Low Countries and Italy. Germany's best units remained in the East."

      "...in an opportunistic campaign at the end of the war , the USSR killed, wounded or captured 450,000 Japanese soldiers, 32% of Japan's total military losses."

      I agree with you that the war on the Western Front was real (as it was in Africa). But saying that the US defeated Nazi Germany without mentioning the USSR would be like saying that the British defeated Saddam. Not exactly false, but very misleading.

      Cheers,
      Nyenyec

  330. No offense, but that might not be a good idea by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 1

    if you are living in an area where the vote is more or less decided (such as a very strong Bush locale, or a very strong Kerry locale)

    I get the impression that this election will hold a lot of surprises. Here in Texas I am seeing a good number of Kerry supporters even though my state (and city!) have been overwhelmingly conservative in the past. My city is big on business, and I know many businessmen who are traditional Republicans yet think electing Bush is a foolish idea at best. It is possible that my state may still go for Bush, but if there's ever a time when you can vote Democrat in Texas and maybe actually be in the majority, it is now in this election.

    In the history of the US, there have been instances where states which have traditionally voted one way have flipped overnight to vote heavily for the opposing party. Even though Texas has voted Republican in the past, I personally know many conservatives who will absoultely not vote for Bush in this election. The people here know business, and even they have their limits. You should not expect a state to go for one candidate just because it has gone for their party in the past. Things can change, and stranger things have happened.

    --

    Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
  331. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by demachina · · Score: 1

    "I tend to wonder about the view that 'X politician just follows the polls and does whatever is popular.'"

    The problem with the vote on Iraq was I don't think it would have been popular but for one thing. The Bush administration used propaganda, fabrication and deceit to sucker everyone in to thinking invading Iraq was the right thing to do. It was pretty obvious what they were doing at the time:

    - Paint images of mushroom clouds and UAV's spraying american cities with biological weapons though they had no proof Iraq had any weapons or intent to use them against the U.S.
    - Blame 9/11 on Iraq when it was obvious Iraq either had nothing to do with it or their role paled in comparison to that of Al Qaida.

    I was screaming in frustration at the time because everyone was buying it without questioning it, media, politicians, everone. As I recall they scheduled the vote right before the mid term election to further coerce everone to vote their way.

    You can't blame politicians for caving under the circumstances but you know everyone that did is devoid of backbone, principals, judgement and guts so you can't count on them doing the right thing under pressure. When you have politicians with the enormous power they have in the White House they need to do whats right first and explain it honestly to the people why it was right even if it wasn't popular. Most Americans dont have the knowledge or information to make foreign policy decisions so you really can't make most decisions based on polls.

    In Kerry's case you would figure he would at least say his vote was a mistake since its become obvious the war was a lie but he doesn't even have the backbone to do that. He isn't trying to follow the will of the people that are voting for him. Democrats are mostly antiwar. He is trying to win a tiny handful of voters in the middle who don't necessarily like the war but want a strong leader. Kerry true to form conforms to the group he is trying to win over.

    --
    @de_machina
  332. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by normal_guy · · Score: 1

    1. Republican talking point.
    2. Classic democrat/republican divide. Both parties' platforms are just to the left and right of center.
    3. His record speaks for itself with regards to the environment. Energy independence is not feasible, though there are ways to speed up the process. Drilling Alaska would give us oil for 4 years at current consumption - compared to a lifetime of untainted beauty.
    4. Listen to AM radio much?
    5. Kerry's the bronze and silver star winner - not a "champagne unit" veteran.

    --

    Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
  333. Diebold Woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from San Diego. The polling people failed to take their half of my receipt! Now I'm going to have to rush back!

  334. Re:Website tells if Diebold is being used at your. by Rich+Klein · · Score: 1
    --
    -Rich
  335. Exit poll for Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Did you register to vote?

    Did the Board of Elections "lose" your registration?

    Did the out-of-state guy who helped you fill out the registration form show up to vote while you were there?

    Did anyone challenge your registration?

    Were all of the candidates on the ballot?

    If you were using an electronic voting machine, did it work?

    Are you sure?

    Please note, your responses will not be counted if you are registered with the wrong party, not in a swing state or used an electronic voting machine.

  336. Word. by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 1

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

    Right on. Right on.

    --

    Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
  337. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by killproc · · Score: 0



    Democrats getting mailed reminders to vote on November 3rd !

    That was from an article on "The Onion". I bet you think Osama is really Saddam's gay lover as well.
    geesh

    --
    When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
  338. Bad policies... by aristus · · Score: 1

    You mean the policies carried out by exactly the same Recycled Reganites that are in power right now? I don't see how these policies have changed, or that they were new in 1980. We are, right this moment, supporting a dictator with territorial ambitions, proven ties to terrorists and working nuclear weapons: "President" Musharraf of Pakistan.

    The US gov supported Ceausceau (Romania), the Duvlaiers (Haiti), the Marcoses (Phillipenes), Noriega (Panama), Hussein (Guess), the Shah of Iran (he was toppled by Islamisists in 1979, which led directly to our funding the Iran-Iraq war), Suharto (Indonesia, famous for killing ~200,000 people), Pol Pot (Cambodia), South Africa, Batista (Cuba), plus sundry terrorists, thugs, drug dealers and penny-ante puppets all over the planet.

    And all that's just since 1950, and doesn't include *direct* attacks by the US. Fact remains: traditional US policy is to fund any manner of atrocities whatsoever, as long as it helps our short and medium-term goals. We're not the only ones, but fucking-A...

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
  339. Bush is screwing over my generation. by dteichman · · Score: 1

    Vote John Kerry! He may not be the brightest star in the night sky, but at least he doesn't just STOP talking altogether as he attempts to think.

    Bush disenfranchises me and my peers by making much education that could lead to the reduction of teen pregnancies and STDs among both adults and teens inacurate or unavailable.

    For example, the CDC (Center for Disease Control) had information about using condoms on their site before Bush happened. Now the same site simply has information on celibacy (AKA: abstinence) and only the faliures of condoms.

    He has also imposed the "Global Gag Rule" and has declared himself against abortion whatsoever, even if it is to protect the life of the mother or any other circumstance (like if some 13yo girl got raped).

    By votng for Bush today, you are helping to ensure that my generation (and possibly yours too) will be one riddled with teen pregnancies, STDs, and many other problems...

  340. Fat Chance! by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    I sit next to a Venezuelan, and I hear about how corrupt Chavez is at least twice a day without fail. And their recall election was over months ago (Chavez managed to stay).

    That Canuck will still be griping if the wrong person wins.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  341. Time for talk is over: move yer arse and vote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voting is not a right. It is an OBLIGATION. You have the right to vote for Mikey Mouse or whomever, but you have the OBLIGATION to cast that vote.

    That being said, I sincerely hope you guys & gals really outdo us Mexicans on this election. Ten years ago, when President Zedillo got elected, we had a 86% voter turnout. Four years ago, when President Fox got elected, we had 78% turnout. I really, really, really hope you beat those records.

    And once you're in front of whatever device is used at your location to collect your vote, please try to make an intelligent and informed decision. Rise above all the political noise and B.S. and consider that your action will have a profound repercussion long after the next administration has concluded. Vote with your head and not your guts.

    1. Re:Time for talk is over: move yer arse and vote. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      > Voting is not a right. It is an OBLIGATION.

      I know of no place in any state where voting is compulsory. I would certainly make it compulsory in my perfect world. But then, I would also make the
      slightest government corruption into a capital offense. And offices like the President or Senate seats wouldn't be something you sought, but rather,
      something you were conscripted to do, like a military draft.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Time for talk is over: move yer arse and vote. by Compact+Dick · · Score: 1
      I know of no place in any state where voting is compulsory.
      Obviously, you have overlooked this one :-)
    3. Re:Time for talk is over: move yer arse and vote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, thanks for the link. It says that here in Australia nobody is allowed to vote who doesn't understand the nature and significance of voting. I propose an exam!

  342. voter intimidation by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
    Okay, I just want to ask:

    Some /.er's claim that one party or the other was making plans to scare people away from the polls today. Has anybody personally seen first-hand this happening? I'm not trolling; I'm serious.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    1. Re:voter intimidation by Quebec · · Score: 1

      There are people trying hard to counter any of it...
      http://www.michaelmoore.com/electionwatch/i ndex.ph p

    2. Re:voter intimidation by cmpalmer · · Score: 1

      That's not what the parent poster asked. I can stand out in my backyard with a shotgun to defend my property from dragons with a 100% success rate in repelling dragons, but that doesn't mean there are any.

      So, again, has anyone witnessed any attempts at voter intimidation?

      --
      -- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
  343. TV news not holding GOP to account by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    Well, at this point the Right is really so much in control of the government and have the media so cowed (CBS, NBC, et al) or have the media on his side (Fox, CNN, MSNBC), that the only possible comeuppance for Bush et al., at this time is via the voting booth.

    If you want some good info on how biased the media is, try reading the forums at www.deomcraticunderground.com

    Those guys are on top of every instance of bias that the media perpetrates. Right now, the only news organization that has shown any inclination to fight Bush is CBS. I am not referring specfically to the Rathergate memos, but to the everyday presentation of campaign news.

    All the rest of the media is either slightly biased for Bush (NBC, ABC) or solidly biased for Bush (Fox, CNN, MSNBC), with some exceptions on MSNBC and CNN.

    You need to remember that almost all of these talking heads and reporters are making $100K, 200K, $500K, $1M, or even several million dollars a year. Yes! News anchor make MILLIONS! Even in large metro network affliate TV stations, the talking head salaries run over $1M or much more.

    So Bush's tax cuts for the rich may be saving these tv news people over $100K per year or even more. So, who do you think they favor?

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  344. This morning by BCW2 · · Score: 1

    Here in North Carolina (High Point) it seems to be a 1 1/2 hour line everywhere. In spite of what I thought yesterday(60 -65%) the poll workers think we will go over 70%. I hope it goes that well everwhere, then, no matter the outcome, the majority will have spoken.

    Our white box store was not open untill 10:30 instead of 9, the boss was ten people behind me in line.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  345. Here in Blacksburg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is like no election day I've ever seen before (I'm 34). The school parking lot was packed, and there were people walking and biking in.

    Thinking I was going to beat the line, I went over at 11am. And I stood in line for an hour.

    We are still using those mechanical voting machines with metal levers and a bell that rings when you are done. Never thought I'd be so happy to see an absence of computers.

  346. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    Fiscal conservatives realize that the REAL way to spur the economy is to put the money into the hands of the people, NOT the government.

    You have a different idea of fiscal conservatism than is usual. The idea I subscribe to not racking up trillions of dollars of debt if you don't have to. If you buy stuff on credit, you have to pay interest. If you let that get away from you, you end up paying a lot of interest.

    As for "trickle-down": It didn't work in Russia, it didn't work in Africa, and it didn't work in the USA. If you give the money to the idle rich, they just sit on it in swiss bank accounts. If you give it to the middle class, they might invest it locally or spend it.

  347. National Service != Draft (Re: Vote Libertarian) by marktaw.com · · Score: 3, Informative
    You shoud read the page that you link to. While Wikipedia defines National Service as "the name given to the system of military conscription employed in the UK between 1949 and 1960. The same term is still used to describe the compulsory military service that is still implemented in some countries, including Singapore and Malaysia."

    Our own Corporation for National and Commmunity Service "provides opportunities for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to serve their communities and country through three programs: Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America. Members and volunteers serve with national and community nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, schools, and local agencies to help meet community needs in education, the environment, public safety, homeland security, and other critical areas."

    And is not another name for the draft. Anyway, back to the page you linked to, if you read just a little further down you would have seen this:
    :: John Kerry for President - A New Era of National Service ::

    High School Service Requirement
    As President, John Kerry will ensure that every high school student in America performs community service as a requirement for graduation. This service will be a rite of passage for our nation's youth and will help foster a lifetime of service. States would design service programs that meet their community and educational needs. However, John Kerry does not believe in unfunded mandates. No state would be obligated to implement a service requirement if the federal government does not live up to its obligation to fund the program.

    Recruiting More Americans to the Military
    The highest form of service is military service. America's military is having trouble recruiting and is increasingly relying on the reserves for active duty. John Kerry believes we must change that. The complicated missions we face and technologies we use depend on it. In a Kerry Administration, no university that receives federal aid will be allowed to ban the ROTC from their campus, except for religious reasons. And the ROTC scholarship program will be adequately funded so that students can attend the college of their choice. John Kerry will also make modernizing our GI benefits a top priority, because no program has been more successful increasing educational opportunities for veterans while also providing an incentive for the best and brightest to make a career out of military
  348. Question about Libertarians by hyu · · Score: 0

    As a Canadian, I have been quite confused by one thing that no American has seemed to be able to explain. What exactly is so negative about being a Liberal? George W. Bush has consistantly retorted many points of Kerry's with the statement that John Kerry is the third most Liberal senator in the Senate.

    What is the big deal regarding this? What does it matter that Kerry is more Liberal? I could be sarcastic and say that it means he's actually exercising his rights of freedom, but I want a serious answer to this.

  349. most important election evah by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

    I'm holding my nose and casting my vote for emacs. Oh, wait. Which election were we discussing?

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  350. New Mexico screwed me by Cornflake917 · · Score: 2

    out of my vote.

    I am currently attending Texas Tech Universitiy which is located in Lubbock. It's about a 5 hour drive east of my hometown of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Some time in mid October I called in and requested an absentee ballot from the elections office in Santa Fe. I gave them my address info and they told me they would send the ballot right away. A week passed and nothing in the mail. I called my parents and they told me that other people had to wait a while for thiers too. I guess they had trouble keeping up with so many requests. So I decided to wait one more week. Still no ballot. I called them up saying basically "wtf, where's my ballot." The lady took said she would get some one to call me back on it. I gave her my phone number. Three days later it's too late to even mail in my ballot and they never called me. So all I can do now is sit around and hope Kerry gets elected. If not I'm gonna be pissed. My state has had a record of having problems with election counts. I wonder if it has anything to that New Mexico's public schools are the ranked at the most inadequate schools in the nation.

    1. Re:New Mexico screwed me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get in your fucking car and go file a provisional ballot.

      loser.

    2. Re:New Mexico screwed me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      New Mexico screwed me out of my vote. I am currently attending Texas Tech University

      Voter discrimination. You are at university. Ergo you are educated and likely to be informed about the issues. You are also probably of above average intelligence. Therefore you are probably not going to vote Republican. So they won't let you vote. Simple really.

    3. Re:New Mexico screwed me by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Did you not see that I was in TEXAS? My vote won't mean shit here, dumbass.

    4. Re:New Mexico screwed me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did you not see that I was in TEXAS?

      Drive to NM?

    5. Re:New Mexico screwed me by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Yes it would only take about 12 hours in this shitty weather (it's snowing) and cost 30$ in gas. Jeez I'm such a lazy asshole. What am I thinking! Let me just screw my poli sci test I have tomorrow and my soccer game and drive over there right now so that my one vote out out of hundreds of thousands can be counted.

  351. I live in Cherry Point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and just voted for Kerry

  352. message to P-Diddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    To P-Diddy: die!

    or vote, whichever you want to do.

  353. funny story by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 1

    So I went to vote this morning in Riverside County, CA where we've been using electronic voting since 2000. People were checking in and given a smart card really quickly, but there was a line out the door to just use one of the 10 voting machines they had.

    So instead of waiting 30 minutes I just ask for a paper ballot, which is required to be an option under California state law. Some guy in line says "YOU CAN USE A PAPER BALOT??" and then immediately like half the line comes over to get a paper balot. Kind of funny how most people don't even know state law, I was probably the first guy all day to ask for a paper balot...

  354. Happy to say im not voting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I brought this up in a previous story about a week ago... But im feeling it more than ever today (for obvious reasons). People tend to feel that voting is the end all of being a citizen. "I voted today, i did my duty" etc.... Just today i overheard a coworker exclaim "It makes me feel like an american, like I did something". This attitude is why most americans (and probably others in other countries, i only speak as an american though) are politically and socially apathetic. A lot of us tend to feel like voting is the pinnacle of a democracy... In my mind, voting is meerly a tool to make the general public feel like they are taking part in a "democracy".

    Im not voting, I dont like any of the candidates, and more so I dont like how our system of "democracy" works. I refuse to legitimize what i view to be an illegitimate system of power. /end rant

    1. Re:Happy to say im not voting... by ylikone · · Score: 1

      LOSER! If you don't like any of the candidates, write one in!! You live in a country where you have the right to voice your opinion by casting a vote... yet, you blatantly give up that right! THEN DON"T FARKIN COMPLAIN FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS, ASSHOLE!!

      --
      Meh.
    2. Re:Happy to say im not voting... by pappy97 · · Score: 1

      " LOSER! If you don't like any of the candidates, write one in!! You live in a country where you have the right to voice your opinion by casting a vote... yet, you blatantly give up that right! THEN DON"T FARKIN COMPLAIN FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS, ASSHOLE!!"

      YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. IT IS A PRIVILEGE. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE SAY THIS?

      The Constitution allows state legislatures to choose any method they want to pick electors. All states allow people to vote for who they want to represent them in the Electoral College. Every state legislature can change the way they choose electors at any time, meaning yes, they could eliminate voting for President.

      In fact, South Carolina, until 1860, had its legislature directly choose electors without a general election of any sort.

      Thus you don't have the right to vote for President, you MERELY get a privilege to vote for your slate of electors for the Electoral College.

    3. Re:Happy to say im not voting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I guess I do have the right to vote for president if I was able to go and do it today. If I weren't able to, then I would stand up, demand, and fight for that right. I really don't give a hoot what happened more than 100 years ago concerning voting rights. What matters is the perception of that right today.

  355. Re:track records necessary, what for? US BANKRUPTC by Bombcar · · Score: 1

    Hmm. 7.4 trillion is a lot less than $280,000 per citizen. That'd be 84 trillion.

    To compare, Americans hold about 2 trillion in personal, non-mortgage debt. So our government is just like the people.

  356. Are South Park political eps supposed to be funny? by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    I just haven't found any of the political episodes to be funny, but I'm not sure if that's me or the show. All I see are a lot of ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies, and other bullshit arguements which are neither ethical nor helpful when it comes to deciding the issues. Mostly I see a couple of Hollywood insiders campaigning for certain policies and against other Hollywood Insiders campaigning for other policies. And a lot of idiotic-to-offensive shit and ethnic jokes.

    The other eps are alright. Taisetsu wa mono PROTECT MY BALLS.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  357. War, Peace, or Something Else? by reddogg · · Score: 1

    I keep hearing comments from people angry at Bush because we are in a false or fake war. I do not understand why people believe that if we are not in war in IRAQ that it means that we are at peace with the world.

    http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?PAGE=PROFR AME&PROD_ID=998048/

    I hate to break it to you, but war is inevitable. I am realistic and not idealistic. The question is that where is the war, in IRAQ or in the US? If we do not actively fight terror, evil, or any of our enemies, we will be on defense when they decide to invade our country, safety, and families.

    Honestly, if you have been paying attention at all, after Iraq, we will probably be going to war with Iran and also with North Korea. With these threats against my family, my culture, my life style, and my comfort, we need to stay on the offensive. My football coach always used to say "The best defense is a good offense."

    I say vote Bush for all of the above reasons.

    "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again."
    - Ronald Reagan

  358. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can recycle him at the end of his term?

    he's biodegradable

  359. have a poll of my own by cangeceiro · · Score: 1

    http://www.goesnowhere.com/vote.php i am encouraging people to vote on my personal election poll. god i love statistics

  360. His tax policy has stimulated the economy by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

    Sure has, I have paid less taxes then I ever before.

    I also have spent most of the these past four years out of work! So I have have had very Income and been broke most of the time...

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  361. Another problem with direct Senate elections by Paradevil · · Score: 1

    The other part of this that is important but left out is that the point of the Senate was to represent the states rights at the federal level. You can easily point to the direct election of Senators as the beginning of the massive pork and out of control spending that we have today. A lot of these projects are better left to the rights of the individual states rather than the federal governemnt, but right now noone represents the states in Washington. Everyone who is there is only trying to get as much cash back to their constituents as they possibly can, rather than doing what's best for the country.

  362. Education? by mattk69 · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's just me but doesn't this issue point out that there is a serious lack of education in the US? I mean, how many people don't even have the tools (literacy, critical thinking abilities) to make sense of modern political issues?

    Where's the outcry?

    1. Re:Education? by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      That's why libertarians think that government schools should be abolished. A large portion (but not the only reason) of why ignorance is so rampant is because the government likes to keep the populace uninformed. Couple this with the fact that government schools are largely incompetent and do a poor job at educating people anyway.

      Not everything above is absolute but I most would probably agree with the above statements.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  363. the problem is the lack of a paper audit trail... by JohnC · · Score: 1

    ...and rumored coding insecurities and backdoors, not the user interface.

  364. Re:National Service != Draft (Re: Vote Libertarian by Darmox · · Score: 1

    We can get into splitting hairs plenty, on both sides of this. I'd call forced national service a draft -- even if not everyone is being forced into combat or .mil. Granted, lots of people will disagree with that.

    I'd normally attack the forced service idea and such on moral grounds -- is it moral to force someone into service... but that's not what this is about -- this is about whether or not Kerry supports a draft.

    This comment(I'm sure you saw it, just pointing it out), in this same thread, does a better job of explaining it than I can at the moment.

    --
    If I was that drunk, I would have remembered it -- H. Simpson
  365. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

    Quite frankly, I don't *want* a president who seeks the approval of the rest of the world. The President of the United States doesn't work for the rest of the world. He works for *us*. Sure, a President should consider the stances of our allies when formulating foreign policy, but when it comes right down to it, that shouldn't be more than 10% of the equation. The question a President should ask himself when making a decision is, "Is this good for the people of the United States?" -- not "Is this good for the people of other nations?" or "Is the UN going to like this?"

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  366. Diebold - oddness. by John+Sokol · · Score: 4, Informative

    When I went to vote this morning we had the Diebold system. This is Montclair, CA.

    They handed me a smart card, and I put card in and made my selections.

    When came to the end I went to select the "cast ballot" button it returned a message "Are you sure you want to proceed, you haven't made all the selections you are entitled to."

    OK?? So I went back and double checked everything. I definatly had voted on everything there was to vote on. Spent about 10 Minutes in all checking and rechecking.

    I had to hit the "Cast Ballot" to finish and return my card.

    So when I finished I complain to the manager there, and they said it's seems to happen every so often, we don't know what's the reason.
    They really didn't know anything about these system, or what they could do about errors or problems.

    So I walked away wondering if some of my votes were just dropped or something.

    I mean as a programmer this system really made me feel incredably unconfortable as to it's reliablity, accuracy and security.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Diebold - oddness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some funny stuff here in Colorado Springs, CO too:

      The items not voted on are suppose to come up as red while the items voted on are suppose to be grey or something. Well, they tell us while we're in line that one of the items stays red even though you voted on it.

  367. Here in Huntsville, Alabama by cmpalmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Alabama, rightly so in many cases, gets a bad rap for being a backward state, but after reading all of the horrible stories about weird voting machines, [Democratic|Republican] "challenges", disorganized staff, etc. from around the country, I'd like to share my experience...

    I drove by my polling place (a suburban neighborhood church) at 7:30 and the line was around the building, so I went on to work. I returned at around 12:30 and the line was more reasonable.

    I waited in line for about twenty minutes before I got to the registration table. I showed them my driver's license and voter registration card. They looked up my registration on a form-fed printout of the registration lists and crossed my name out with a yellow highlighter and ruler and handed me a slip of paper. I walked to the next table, gave them the slip of paper and they wrote my ballot number on it, made me sign two side-by-side registers (one printed, one "signed") and gave me the corresponding numbered ballot and a Sharpie marker.

    I took it to a privacy cubicle and completed it by connecting the very clear and well-aligned arrows beside the candidates and options of my choice with a big, fat, black line (no possibility of ambiguity unless you are a total idiot). I checked over the ballot, then walked over to the voting machine and fed it in. A beep and a green light told me immediately that all of my votes were registered unambiguously and the paper record of the vote went into a locked tray inside the machine. They gave me a "I voted" sticker and I was on my way.

    My only gripe? There are two lines (clearly marked, BTW) for people whose last names start with A-L or M-Z. Everytime I've voted here, the A-L line has, at most, 5 people in in while the M-Z snakes out the door. Unless 'M' is the real clincher, it wouldn't be too hard to split the alphabet to more evenly distribute the lines. If 'M' *is* the culpret, they could even do A-Mi and Mo-Z, but that would probably confuse the moron element.

    Why can backward Alabama (or at least our precinct in Huntsville -- can't speak for the rest of the state) get it right while the rest of country is awash in touch screens, mechanical dinosaurs, butterfly ballots, hanging chads, charcoal on tree bark, or whatever else they are forced to use? What is so damned disenfranchising about requiring proof of ID? How hard can it possibly be to cross-check voter registration lists?

    --
    -- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
    1. Re:Here in Huntsville, Alabama by shanebush · · Score: 1

      This describes my experience today, except for the long line (ie: no line at all). I'm Calera about 30 miles south of Birmingham on I-65. I think the entire state votes that way now. Very simple and not much room for any error. No punch cards, no diebolds, no hanging chads. Just a simple ballot that you feed into a machine. Wonder how much those machines cost?

    2. Re:Here in Huntsville, Alabama by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could get some from Maryland, who went from those good machines to pure no-paper touchscreens. I almost cried when I saw them...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  368. There was a "can't vote" option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That I took. Personally I think you guys would be nuts to re-elect that madman(*) but USians have done much stranger things.

    (*) In fact I think you guys were nuts to let him serve out his term as soon as he showed his stripes.

  369. Don't be silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are a member of a democracy you should always make your opinion heard.

    An effective money-based duopoly with both parties supporting the same establishment is no logical person's idea of a true democracy.

    It can't be changed by the voters, and the last time that a president tried to change it from within, he was assasinated.

    Voting merely perpetuates the fraud that you live in a democaracy, it provides a feelgood factor for the unthinking masses.

    I don't have a solution, but voting certainly isn't one. It just buys into their game. If you want to use that route, then always vote for the party that's no in power. It won't help much, but at least provides a little internal friction.

  370. And? by aristus · · Score: 1

    1) The US has eleven times the number of people living in it.

    2) The US military is not killing 1M+ motorists and impoverishing the rest. The road deaths are frightening, but to equate them with civilian war dead is not only dumb, it's insulting.

    3) the 50/100K number in the study is for deaths over and above the death rate in previous years... years under Mr. Axis-Of-Evil himself.

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
  371. Philosophy in politics by BAM0027 · · Score: 1

    I've been listening to Alan Watts lately, and he's inspired much thinking within lately. I wish I had heard him a few weeks ago, though, so that I could pose some questions to the candidates in our moderated Q&A recently.

    I'm too busy to articulate any questions at the moment, but with the emphasis on issues and ideology, I feel terribly discouraged at the often thoughtless or carefree approaches to life by politicians. It seems like humanity is reduced to very impersonal demographics at times and I would like to have heard responses from the candidates from the perspective beyond the context of political issues.

  372. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    Sure we know Bush is an idiot. The problem is that we know that Kerry is an idiot also.

  373. Don't worry by jgardn · · Score: 1

    We'll free your country next.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  374. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not all social conservatives are bigots

    Yes they are.

  375. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (1) He's fiscally conservative
    twenty years of Massachusets tax-and-spend demonstrates otherwise...

    (2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!)
    Are you saying he'll put together a cabinet that is more diverse than Bush's - the most diverse cabinet ever?

    (3) He's environmentally friendly
    Eight mansions, a couple of jets, and a fleet of SUVs all burning fuel show a slightly different side.

    (4) His foreign policy acknowledges the other .. 5.7 billion people in the world.
    Yes, but at the expense of the 300+/- million that he is supposed to be serving.

    (5) He's actually aware of national security ... and on and on.
    He must be capable of osmosis since he attended almost no intelligence meetings. Or, on the other side of the coin, while he may be aware of it, he just isn't fond of doing anything about it other than scaling it back.

    (Score:-5, Conservative)

  376. Re:Voter Ignorance -- It's your responsibility by LittleStone · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the informed help informing the ignorants? Shouldn't the informed condemn the lies of politicians?

    Instead you suggest that ignorant voters shouldn't vote. Something is wrong here. You suggest that workers who work 14 hours a day and miss the biased news, who know not much on politics shouldn't vote. How about only professors in universities are allowed to vote?

    This is just another form of eliticism.

    If you are informed, at least you have the responsibility to inform others how the facts are twisted in the media. Not everyone is as lucky as you are who can spend time to read and be informed.

    --
    A sig is redundant.
  377. Fahrenheit 9/11, do you think it's propaganda? by Quebec · · Score: 1

    Dear americans

    I've seen that movie, as well as a less entertaining and more informative european made documentary called "Le monde selon Bush" (the world according to Bush) and it's scary.

    But even without those 2 productions, the whole planet beside the USA knew there was no link between Irak and the terrorists. The Hussein regime was a Laic totalitarian one and therefore it was absolutly and totally against any form of religious and fanatic movement. Hussein wasn't a good guy but the death toll on both sides of that war tell me that it is not a better world with him out of the way. As a canadian who have access to american, canadian and european tv, I did not see your journalists, your anchormen, your editorials questioning any single lie after another that was spread from that machievical government of yours. Being your neighbor is a scary thing when you see all this.

    Your mass medias are suffering from a tremendous lack of thruth, they are all participating in a strange gruesome dance with the people occupying your White House and the fact that Bush has a chance of being re-elected scares me.

    Take the word of someone who can see more sides of many stories, President Bush will be remembered as the worst ever of all who resided at the White House.

    The Republican party knows very well that all americans are still under the shock of the events of semptember 2001 and it keeps bringing back that gruesome memory while making you believe they only can handle it. With the july 2001 Security report President Bush had everything in hand to stop this attack but he didn't, he proved his incompetence right there and the fact that his party use this event as their main drive is both hilarious and scary. For this you have to see Fahrenheit 9/11 to have more details, it is at your reach and I tell you that you will make yourself a really big favor listening to it.

    But there is another way to put it too... let's go with some numbers...
    In the last 4 years in the USA
    2 000 000 people died of Cancer
    170 000 people died of car accidents
    44 000 people died of gun shots
    3 000 people died of terrorism

    (numbers for cancer and car accidents come from rapid searches made with Google)

    (car numbers are 2002 numbers multiplied by 4)
    http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20sectio n/st atistics/stats-usa_indiv-states_per-capita_2002.ht m

    (Cancer numbers come from this site:)
    http://www.u-turn.net/9-1/skeptical.shtml

    (Gun shot deaths comes from what I remember from the movie Bowling for Columbine)

    (Terrorism death toll come from an imprecise memory but close enough (mine) of one particular event in 2001).

    After looking at these numbers, can you sincerely tell me that you will still put security and terrorism at the very first of your priorities?

    And even if it was the most important thing, the Bush administration made such a mess of Iraq that it will take decades to clean up. With such a hard task in sight you better show the door to the ones who made this mess and let the others deal with it with more wisdom.

  378. Election monitors unable to do their job by flossie · · Score: 2, Informative
    According to the BBC, the row in Ohio about partisan election monitors is also preventing the independent international monitors from assessing the election:

    Jonathan Paterson :: Colombus, Ohio :: 1727 GMT

    The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, for the first time in their history, have accepted an invitation to monitor the US presidential election. After the debacle of Florida in 2000 they decided to send monitors across the US to gauge the fairness of polling.

    A representative in Colombus has complained that a legal dispute over who can be present in polling stations has prevented them from successfully monitoring the polling. "What kind of message does this send to countries like Azerbaijan if we can't even monitor an American polling booth", one monitor said.

    1. Re:Election monitors unable to do their job by Peyna · · Score: 1

      No one other than voters, poll works, and certain challengers are allowed in the polling places in Ohio. The law has been that way for some time in the state. It is meant to keep any campaigning away from the voting booths. (The challenger issue will likely be discussed in depth for the next four years, since they were mostly used in heavily black areas in Ohio in order to intimidate voters, whether or not any were actually challenged.)

      --
      What?
  379. Why smart, informed people can be undecided by Aguila · · Score: 0

    I've gotten fed up with people insulting undecided voters or voters who aren't clearly pro-Bush or pro-Kerry. I can understand how people can be undecided. What I cannot understand is why anyone would insult undecided voters or consider them idiots. This must be considered with the caveat that I am only referring to those voters who will actually vote, and are actually staying informed and comparing the candidates when I refer to undecided voters. I would have a great deal more difficulty defending those who do not participate in the electoral process.

    First, let's apply the hypocrisy check to a pro-X person calling undecided voters idiots. (This post is completely non-partisan with respect to Democratic versus Republican. For that matter, my use of X and Y is not intended to represent a partisan viewpoint between males and females.) Logically, the undecided voter can be counted as 50% voting for X, 50% vote for Y. On the other hand those voting for candidate Y are 100% for Y. If you are radically pro-X, then an undecided voter is only half as bad as a pro-Y voter. Therefore, before you revile the undecided voters, you must revile doubly all the pro-Y voters. Given that each candidate has greater than 40% of the popular vote right now, if you consider voters for candidate Y complete idiots, than undecided voters must be better than 40% of the population, putting them at average intelligence.

    But, "Wait," you say, "the candidates are clearly different, so anybody with any brains would be able to figure out whose positions align better with their own views. Therefore I'm justified in calling them idiots if they can't decide." The problem is that while the candidates views are well defined and different, the election is not based on just one issue. Let's assume that candidate X supports holds positions A, B, C, and D in a four issue election. Let's assume that party Y holds positions a, b, c, and d on those issues. Assuming that the nation is relatively divided on those issues (a reasonable assumption, as if the nation wasn't, the candidate would have been told by his pollsters to hold the strong majority position), and that the viewpoints on the issues are non-correlated (if they are correlated strongly, we should treat them as only one issue), then by statistics (permutations of voter beliefs left to the reader), the nation should be:

    6.25% agree 100 % with candidate X
    25% agree 75 % with candidate X
    37.5% agree 50 % with candidate X and equally with candidate Y
    25% agree 75 % with candidate Y
    6.25% agree 100 % with candidate Y

    So, assuming that we have four different non-correlated divisive issues about which every voter has strong viewpoints on all issues, and all four issues are equally important, 37.5% of the population should be undecided about who to vote for, as each candidate represents 50% of their views. Note, that the greatest number of voters who should be undecided occurs for a two issue election, with 50% undecided. The number undecided is lowest for a 1 issue election, (0 undecided), but assuming the number of issues is greater than 1, the number of undecided voters decreases with increasing number of issues. But, at the same time, the difference in how well candidate X represents their views compared to candidate Y correspondingly drops with increasing number of issues, such that while they should be able to decided, the decision is closer.

    How many real, uncorrelated issues do you think there really are in this country? Certainly, I think most people would agree that there is more than one issue on which people base their opinions, so we should have many people for whom candidates X and Y represent their viewpoints equally well, or almost as well. Therefore, assuming that people are considering all the issues, and are well aware of their own positions and the respective candidates' positions, much of this nation should be undecided or only weakly in favor of one candidate over the other.

    To sum it up, no matter which party you support, you cannot

  380. Re:Here in VA -- WINVote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was in Arlington as well. The two lines were pretty much the same length (at least when I started) and moved about the same pace (I was in one line and a buddy was in another, we finished almost the same time). Started at about 8:20/8:25, and finished about 11:00. Damn...

    We had 5 machines. However, it was somewhat disconcerting that by the time I got near voting, one of the election officials was walking around saying "we've finally got all the machines working." Not a strong vote of confidence...

  381. Dayton Experiences by Peyna · · Score: 2, Informative

    I worked as a legal volunteer for Election Protection / Ohio Voter Protection Coalition this morning in Dayton, OH; and voted later in south Dayton.

    We had many complaints of challegers intimidating voters, directly interacting with and interrogating voters, requesting voters to give their name to the challenger, among other things. Most of the problems voters had were locating the right place to vote, or they registered and weren't on the list, or hadn't registered at all.

    The challengers were intimidating even if they didn't say anything, and I fail to see the purpose they serve. First, they sit behind the poll workers with a list of names (which more than likely contained the names they tried to challenge before the election, in which case they are in direct violation of a federal order enjoining them from doing that.) Then, they just glare at voters and make them feel uncomfortable. This is especially true in areas were the population is overwhelming black. They serve no purpose, because if they do challenge someone, the poll judge asks a few questions of the voter and the voter is allowed to vote almost every time. The only reason they are there is to intimidate and discourage people from voting. (If you believe in your candidate, you should want everyone to vote, shouldn't you?)

    There were a few other minor things, but most centered around inappropriate actions of challengers. Hopefully a few will be tossed out before the end of the day.

    My voting experience had a few bumps as well. I was immediately asked for ID, which I respectfully refused, and had to find my own name in the roster, because the poll worker couldn't hear me apparently. Once that was done, I had to get in a second line, where they took my ballot, wrote down the number, then wrote my name and address as they were on a second roll. (I'm not sure what the point was in that). As I was waiting in line, a lady asked if her son who has frequent epileptic seizures could be allowed to vote instead of waiting in line, so as to not disrupt everyone, and make it easier for him. The lady refused, so I made it a point to inform the poll worker and the voter that if there is any kind of disability, they can request to have the worker bring the ballot out to them in their car or whatever, and vote there. There is no reason why having a disability should prevent you from voting.

    That said, I've heard some great news regarding early exit polls; the number of new voters I ran into was incredible; people genuinely seem to actually care about voting and making sure their vote is counted. It was somewhat reassuring to see so many people be so determined to vote.

    The more people that vote, especially among groups that tend to avoid the polls, the better it is for the candidate I support. From what I've seen, things are looking very good.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Dayton Experiences by tweek · · Score: 1

      I have a legitimate question. Are you trying to support voter fraud or what? I'm not sure about Ohio but in Georgia there is a list of about 16 or so credentials you can show to verify you are legally allowed to vote. What's the deal in Ohio? I can't understand why people say you shouldn't be forced to show ID to vote!

      Or maybe YOU want to commit voter fraud and say "Oh yeah. That's me. Bob Smith!" and then come back later and vote again?

      Must be a Republican! Or maybe a Democrat because honestly this bullshit goes both ways.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    2. Re:Dayton Experiences by Peyna · · Score: 1

      The pollworkers themselves live in the areas where the people voting are from; they know the people.

      Your ID is verified when you sign next to your name and the signatures match.

      I have a feeling that voter fraud is not as widespread many may believe it to be.

      --
      What?
  382. Not that I should respond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One could do worse than to watch the Frontline episode Choice 2004.

    When, I believe, it was his roomates uncle, who was a highly placed government offical came to Yale to speak about service, duty and honor, Bush was partying it up, didn't attend the talk. When this uncle spoke private with Kerry and his close circle of friends, he impressed upon them just how important it was to serve. Kerry, and his friend ended up volunteering because they were moved to. They were PERSONALLY called to serve. Later would end up dying. And after Kerry's first tour, he signed up for a SECOND. Where he served with some distinction.

    Bush and his crew were partying hard enough to make John Belushi blush. One of his friends pulled a stunt that got him kicked out of Yale, was forced to go to Vietnam and he died. That really put the fear of God into them. So they partied a lot, and after college Bush went into the air national guard with help from his father. A trick one of his own friends says he wished he could have duplicated.

    1. Re:Not that I should respond by kz45 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bush and his crew were partying hard enough to make John Belushi blush. One of his friends pulled a stunt that got him kicked out of Yale, was forced to go to Vietnam and he died. That really put the fear of God into them. So they partied a lot, and after college Bush went into the air national guard with help from his father. A trick one of his own friends says he wished he could have duplicated.

      Think about this: many of the liberals that are supporting Kerry from that era dodged the war altogether, so bush should fit right in.

      At least bush didn't go to war and then denounce it as well as the people he went to war with.

      He also never had secret meetings with known communist leaders..but that's a different story..

      If Kerry gets in, and the U.S goes to shit, im going to laugh..because it will serve the american public right..for believing people like Ashton Kucher and Puff Daddy.

      on another interesting note: I notice Michael Moore is sitting with a video camera at his local voting booth, taping the things that are going wrong. If kerry does in fact get in, is he going to show that tape as evidence that maybe Kerry got in through falsified votes? I think not. I predict that he will only show it to the public if Bush gets in...probably in another "documentary".

    2. Re:Not that I should respond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now using the influence of ones father to send another man to fight and risk in ones place so one might survive to trash the distinguished service of others is the new integrity then? Nice.

      That's right Bush didn't go to war. Even after he didn't serve for an extended period in the guard, and another person from his own Texas air uint who did the same found themselves on active duty in Vietnam. He hid, and partied, throwing what his friends described as *THE* parties in TEXAS in THE 70'S. Then after kicking around, on what amounts to government welfare for millionaires, trading on his daddies name, he decided to start trashing the service of people who were his betters. Who didn't hide. Who served with distinction.

      Kerry, simply repeated the stories he'd collected as the public face of a great many disenfranchised veterans. And he got O'Neal, head of the swift boat organization, to admit to committing war crimes, under the Geneva conventions, on national TV, at a time when Rumsfeld was risking his political future pussing the Whitehouse to either win Vietnam or get the hell out. Purposefuly fighting to a stalemate wasn't going to work. Kerry knew it, Rumsfeld knew it, EVERYONE but Nixon and O'Neal knew it.

      Kerry always said that the problem wasn't the people in the field, but the deficit of leadership, and that the excesses of people like Lt. Calley, and quite frankly his commanders who weren't even punished, expanded unchecked filling the void. The Powell doctrine, which evolved from the real leadership left in the aftermath of the public mercilessly punishing the politicians promoting your world view, is a direct result. The era of smart weapons and previously "bloodless war" was the inevitable result of activism like Kerry's. And it's not a new idea. They went back to Sun-Tzu, Ghengis Khan (fought every battle outnumbered never lost a single battle), and others drawing upon the accumulated widsom, and their own hard earned experience to craft a new culture. Which lasted until the Bush administration started reaching down into the pentagon doling out promotions based on political ideology.

      Did you know that the administration orgionally wanted to attack Iraq with just 50,000 troops? And the pentagons plans to secure Iraq called for more than 400,000? The pentagon eventually comprimised, they're not allowed to take their case to the people (Thank you Orin Hatch), even were that their habbit, and went with three times the administrations ideal. The result is Iraq isn't secure. There's no political objective besides cut and run after January 5th, and blame the new Iraqi administration for what happens on the 6th, having declared victory.

      Say what you want about Bill Clinton. I might not think much of what he did. But he had the conviction of his ideals. Something George Bush has never been troubled with.

  383. Re:Voter Ignorance - Read Starship Troopers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The book (certainly not the movie) was about how to choose who the voters were. Hint: it had nothing to do with voter knowledge/ignorance.

  384. http://tinyurl.com/56lax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thinkers Anonymous

    It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then -- to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it wasn't true.

    Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time. That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's.

    I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunch time so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"

    One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it \hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."

    This gave me a lot to think about.

    I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking ..." "I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"

    "But Honey, surely it's not that serious."

    "It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!"

    "That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently. She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional drama.

    "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors... They didn't open. The library was closed. To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night.

    As I sank to the ground, clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting.

    At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home.
    Life just seemed ... easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me. Today, I registered to vote Republican.

    --
    Anonymous Thinker

  385. Re:National Service != Draft (Re: Vote Libertarian by marktaw.com · · Score: 1

    You're right, I did see it, and you're also right it does a better job of explaining it than either you or I did.

    Given that the educational system in this country isn't likely to change much over within my lifetime, and given that it's an even newer experiment than our form of government, and given that real world experience is almost universally preferrable to a purely academic background, I think "public service for high school credits" sits with me just fine.

    The only problem I could see is where this system gets abused and the government treats these kids as basically free labor, and they're doing things like paving highways instead of feeding old ladies or giving nature tours or something.

    Though I think there should be alternatives to public service. Ambitious high schoolers should be able to do internships, which will help them choose a vocation, and help them choose a path through the world of higher education that's more balanced than the paths chosen by 18 year olds freshout of high school. I.e. how do you choose a major with no real world experience, and how do you choose a college without knowing your major?

    I guess what I'm saying is, it could be a step in the right direction but it could (and most likely) is a path towards evil. Just please don't paint it as a military draft.

  386. It's the facts.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    they're biased against you.

  387. It is microeconomically inefficient to vote by guacamolefoo · · Score: 1

    Another de-voted anarchist refusing to vote.

    Ahhh...heck. I just think people whouldn't vote because, from a microeconomic standpoint, it is inefficient. As we all learned from the last election, the likelihood that your vote would be the deciding vote is next to infinitesimal. In addition, even if it is the deciding vote, the lawyers will muck everything up anyway. Why waste the time voting?

    That being said, I did vote (to keep my grandmother happy). I also note that I am very interested in the outcome of the election. A ton of handy election-night tools can be found here, including electoral college vote trackers, poll-closing time charts, pre-election polls, etc. Should be a fun night for all.

    GF

  388. Re:New Mexico screwed me --- rant line article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    read this link. talks about some voter complaint lines. if it was really the system and not your laziness, then perhaps you ranting about it will help identify a trend.

    http://www.theregister.com/2004/11/02/nbc_electi on _rant-line/

  389. The first two are what sold me! by FatSean · · Score: 0

    Got any others?

    --
    Blar.
  390. suprise results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i loaded my USB key with 10 million votes for Pat Paulsen. watch the news tonight....

  391. Annoyed and surprised by kefoo · · Score: 1

    I was a little annoyed to find Michael Badnarik listed as an "other party candidate" here in Butler County, Ohio. I guess we have to deal with that sort of thing until the government recognizes the Libertarian party. I'm not holding my breath.

    Last election cycle we had electronic voting machines here. They're gone now, replaced by punch card machines with detailed instructions on how to use them and how to avoid hanging chads. I don't know who the computers were made by. A poll worker I asked about it seemed glad they were gone.

    1. Re:Annoyed and surprised by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "I guess we have to deal with that sort of thing until the government recognizes the Libertarian party. I'm not holding my breath."

      You want "the government" to recognize the party? Elect some members of that party to office. Don't just look at presidential and maybe senate races.

      How to do that? Get some candidates that have a broad appeal to a large base of support.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  392. News from the Votemaster by ankhank · · Score: 1

    from www.electoral-vote.com:
    "... So why am I a happy camper? We survived an unprecedented triple flash crowd and logged it all. As it turns out, two of the faculty members in my Dept., Maarten van Steen and Guillaume Pierre, are doing research on coping with flash crowds. The research issues include how many replicas to set up, where to place them, how fast to deploy them, and how to do it automatically, in real time, and at minimum cost. To simulate proposed algorithms, you need data about real flash crowds and real attacks, preferably at the same time. And boy oh boy do we have data now. Students interested in this and other areas of computer systems might want to check out the English-language Masters program I am running at the Vrije Universiteit."

  393. Maybe they saw Frontline's "the choice" online. by ninejaguar · · Score: 2
    I saw "the choice" last night. It was fantastic, and should earn an Emmy. It's still available online.

    = 9J =

  394. Don't encourage them! by jthayden · · Score: 1

    You know what, I hate this BS. If you don't care enough to vote don't. If you don't have a strong opinion, DON"T VOTE! Why should someone who walks into the voting booth and picks someone at random cancel out my well researched and thought out vote? Don't encourage people who don't give a dman to vote, they just weaken the process. I'd rather have an election where only 20% of the population voted, but actually thought about it and did research then an election where 100% voted but never bothered to think about it. I've done my homework, I'm going to vote. If you haven't done your homework, don't vote. You are the reason we have such negative elections with no real debates, because you are to susceptible to suggestions. I'd argue we need less voting in this country not more.

  395. -1 Conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad there's no "+1 Correct" to counteract it.

  396. Voting is economically inefficient by guacamolefoo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Folks:

    It is inefficient (from a micro standpoint) to vote. Your vote is not likely to be the "difference maker" in an election, and even if it is, a tight election will result in lawsuits in which the consequences of your vote may be overturned anyway. In short, don't vote -- you're wasting your time.

    GF.

    1. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by JAgostoni · · Score: 1

      What your vote does count for is telling the electoral college their chances of getting re-appointed to their position. If the votes represent a statistical winner then they better vote that way or they may not be voting much longer themselves.

    2. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by guacamolefoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      What your vote does count for is telling the electoral college their chances of getting re-appointed to their position. If the votes represent a statistical winner then they better vote that way or they may not be voting much longer themselves.

      Your vote doesn't even count for that much. In an election where millions vote, you are more unlikely to affect the outcome than you are likely to win the daily number drawing in any given state. And, again, even if your vote is the one that tips the balance, it probably won't count anyway since the ballot challenging process will start immediately following the election. Voting, other than in very low-turnout local elections, is the equivalent of pissing in the wind.

      You're better off spending the time on an alternative activity such as reading a book or picking lint from your navel. On the other hand, if you derive some sort of alternative benefit (such as a psychological benefit) from the act of voting, it may have a significant enough economic payoff to be worthwhile. Thinking that your vote will affect the outcome, however, is simply delusional.

      GF

    3. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by ranton · · Score: 2

      I know you must be joking, but that is a very stupid way to look at voting. It is like saying that since one person's taxes wouldnt make even a miniscule dent on the goverment's budget, that the government should stop collecting taxes.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by JAgostoni · · Score: 1

      I do enjoy a good piss into the wind while picking my belly button lint.

    5. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      you are more unlikely to affect the outcome than you are likely to win the daily number drawing in any given state.

      And yet somebody still ends up winning the lottery anyway, for exactly the same reason candidates still get millions of votes. when F = X * Y, as X approaches zero, F does not necessarily approach zero if Y is simultaneously approaching infinity while X is approaching zero. (X = worth of your individual vote, Y = population of voters, F = the worthiness of the voting process).

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    6. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      And yet somebody still ends up winning the lottery anyway

      And millions of other people waste their time and money hoping to win it.

    7. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by severoon · · Score: 1

      No, these people are right. It's a waste of time to vote. Don't bother.

      (That way, my vote counts more!)

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    8. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      If you don't participate in the lottery, the ones who did can't use their participation to screw you over. The consequences of not participating are nothing. If non enough people particpate in the election, then a minorty ends up telling the majority how to run their lives.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    9. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      You're just not a team player. My vote and the votes of my 80 million bestest friends in the world will make a difference. If we all had your attitude we'd lose for sure.

    10. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      If enough people didn't participate in the election, a 'wait a minute' realization would take place, and likely, fundamental and deep political change would occur.

      Not saying it would necessarily be a good thing, of course.

    11. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your posting here is a waste of time. what's your point?

    12. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      Oh god damnit! I should have known hippies are unreliable when it comes to anything that can be construed as work.

    13. Re:Voting is economically inefficient by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I disagree, and am already proven right by the fact that it is *already* the case that such elections have occurred (where the turnout was pathetic enough it should have triggered a "wait a minute" realization).

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  397. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a long-term sense, good foreign policy is good for the United States. Right now we are paying to secure and rebuild Iraq almost all by ourselves, because we alienated everyone who might have helped. We also try to play the 'good guys', so we shouldn't do things that hurt other countries but help us, or we will be facing a world united against us.

    With those sorts of considerations accounted for, though, I agree that we eventually have to do what is best for us.

  398. Energy! by tooba · · Score: 1

    Although I realize that neither candidate is ideal, there is one overwhelming reason to vote for Kerry in this election.

    The real issue, as far as our national security is concerned, is a crippling dependence on foreign oil. Being a finite and economically extremely important resource, competition over oil is a point of conflict on a world scale. With China finally entering the scene, this competition will inevidably get worse.

    Of the two candidates, only one supports putting money into a national project toward becoming independent of forgein (especially middle eastern) oil. Given an effort reminiscent of the drive to the moon, or the manhattan project, this goal is not as impossible as it may seem. The groundwork has already been laid with great advances in nuclear power plants (a 60 year old technology that we have allowed to go by the wayside due to early failures) as well as hydrogen fuel. If our best and brightest were faced with the task of developing these and new technologies, the return would be immense.

    Imagine, we would no longer have such a vested interest in meddling in the affairs of the middle east. Today, it is necessary because without their oil our economy would be crushed under its own weight. Not needing their oil, we would need nothing else from the region. As unfortunate of an analogy as it may be, the Middle East could be treated in much the same way as we treat Africa, that is, given little to no attention. Not only that, but the returns as far as technology and job creation would be just what our country needs. We would produce new fields and job opportunities that will never exist otherwise. We would have a head start into the next phase of economic evolution.

    Now, Im not foolish enough to think that Kerry will deliver a Kennedyesque speech starting this grand project, but he will at least get us moving in the right direction. Check out the Energy Independence section of his campaign site to see the Talking-Point versions of his ideas.

    The alternative is an Oil Man who has shown no interest in changing the losing path our country is following. Instead, he started a war that may leave one of the worlds richest oil reserves up for grabs. Leave Iraq? Impossible. That would be like handing our energy needs directly to Iran, who, incidentally, already once tried to take it by force.

    When you go to the polls today, please try to see past the partisan veils that have been strategically hung by attack ads and political pundits on FOX, CNN, etal. Hopefully you've done your own research, and can come to a rational decision based on facts gleaned from a wide array of sources with a whole spectrum of biases (unbiased sources simply don't exist).


    Tryba

  399. Re:More clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >And the even more amazing thing is... most people don't even realize that its the second time that the WTC has been attacked by the same foreign terrorists , under a Bush president.

    The first attack on the WTC was in February of 1993, during Clinton's first term.

    I guess that explains why you don't hear about it on the news.

  400. Pathetic Ballot by OldSchoolNapster · · Score: 1

    Worst Ballot Ever

    This is my first time voting and I have to say that I am seriously Dissapointed with my choices. I don't just mean Bush v. Kerry. As I was reading a sample ballot and in the voting booth (electronic w/o paper trail, not that my vote matters anyway) I kept remembering the words, "Iraq is not a democracy because you can only vote for Saddam or not vote for Saddam." By those standards Collin County, Texas is not a democracy. On the door to the polling center there was a sign saying that we wouldn't even be voting in the hotly contested Pete Sessions v. Jack Frost race where redistricting put a Democratic incumbent in the same conservative district as a Republican incumbent. I would have cast a proud Democratic vote in that race but I am 200 feet across the county line. sigh... No wonder turnout was so low.

    For President:
    [ ] Bush(R)
    [x] Kerry(D)
    [ ] Badnerik(L)

    For U.S. Representative:
    [ ] Johnson(R)
    [ ] Vessels(L)
    [ ] Jenkins(I)

    WTF?!?! I can't even vote for a Democratic congressman. Fuck this "democracy". My choice for Congressman was between 3 types of conservatives. The rest of the ballot was a choice between checking the box next to a Republican or not checking a box next to a Republican. I chose not to check the box. I "voted" but I didn't vote for more than half the "races" on the ballot. I have a feeling that recent Republican redistricting made my ballot extra lousy but I don't know for sure this being my first vote.

    1. Re:Pathetic Ballot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had three unopposed Democrats on my ballot. In minor races it's a function of the Republican/Democrat balance of power in your area. Congressional races tend to be more competitive, so you can safely blame the redistricting for that.

    2. Re:Pathetic Ballot by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      Dude, Move to massachusetts. on my ballot, the only contested race was the presidency. We had three offices which were uncontested in my district going for the democrats. You're not the only one who feels that way. You at least had choices. I had offices where only one person was on the ballot. I did my write-ins and sadly walked away.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
  401. Democracy? by vwp · · Score: 1

    As a non-American reading and watching the coverage of the US election, I can't help but think that Americans should be ashamed. In what is considered (at least by Americans themselves) to be the world's shining example of democracy in action (I know, the US is a republic ...) we have seen reports of:

    1. Republican Party van's tires being slashed, delaying the ability of the party to help drive people to vote.
    2. Phone calls being made suggesting the election is actually on November 3.
    3. Accusations of fraud by both sides.
    4. Attempts to have the right to challenge the eligibility of voters by the Republican Party (presumably voters who would be more likely to vote for the Democrats).

    This is just a small sample of the attempts to influence the outcome of the election through dubious/immoral/illegal means that I have seen. I can understand the parties wanting to win the election, and putting up a good fight, and even looking at recounts for close results, but so many of the things I've heard or read have been way over the line of what any sane individual would consider right or fair.

    1. Re:Democracy? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on all points except 4. Both sides should have the ability to challenge a vote if the vote was cast in violation of the laws. These laws are put in place to help avoid fraud such as double voting, illegal registrations, stolen ballots. Ignoring them only makes the problems worse.

  402. Electoral-vote.com DDoS by aacool · · Score: 1
    Electoral-vote.com, a leading source of data on the American presidential race, reports having been hit by distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks yesterday and today, which is election day in the U.S.

    The site, which tracks state-by-state polling data to project the outcome of the presidential race, is operated by academic Andrew Tanenbaum, based in the Netherlands, the author of the Minix microkernel. It was referenced on slashdot.org yesterday (11/1) as well, revealing that Andrew Tanenbaum was the site master

    ----

    Live internet load on my blog

    1. Re:Electoral-vote.com DDoS by rep_mouth · · Score: 0

      What? Are you kidding us ? Where exactly ? In (ehm) "Netherlands" ? U.S. will/should not depend on some otherland low-end server that casts otherland opinion over our election and certainly not on some ingenuine geekish named individual who is running it.

      --

      -- i am being constantly offended by liberal moderators here as a notorious republican flamer --
  403. Re:Undecided Swing Voter Reads Slashdot for Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I am also from Wisconsin (1st Congressional District), I can confirm that my phone has also been ringing off the hook in response to political dialing robots playing recorded statements at me.

    This year, I will be voting a straight anti-incumbent ballot. Libertarians if they are running, the bipartite party when they aren't, and writing-in my very much out-of-state friends in uncontested races.

    This voting strategy has served me well over the years, resulting in exactly zero instances of a candidate that I voted for winning his election. But at least I voted! Yeah! I am completely unrepresented by the elected government!

  404. Whatever party to which you belong, just vote! by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    If you are not in a swing state, you still need to vote. Whoever wins the electoral college wins the presidency, but the popular vote determines the authority the President can wield.

    1. Re:Whatever party to which you belong, just vote! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "The popular vote determines the authority the President can wield."

      As the last president has demonstrated, the authority is just about absolute: He can call for, and expect to receive, the head of anyone he chooses to name. He can order the armed forces to invade a sovreign nation, without provocation, and occupy and replace its government, all without ever encountering ONE IOTA of meaningful opposition from any military force on Earth.

      President Bush has shown us that the President's office is quite powerful indeed. And he is about to hand all that authority to his political opponent. (It's that little problem that has historically stopped presidents from grabbing total authoritarian power in the past. You have to hand it over to someone whose political alignment is generally counter to your own, and soon!)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  405. Lame ass is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's funny you should say that, because the original showed up in my email box this morning as this:

    To all Americans - It Is Your Duty To Vote

    I hope all of you have registered and are planning to VOTE.

    I, in no way, want to influence anyone's decision or try to impose my views concerning
    the election.

    However, I do want to remind you of the change made in the voting schedule due to the
    expected LARGE TURN OUT THIS YEAR.

    DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2nd.

    REPUBLICANS WILL VOTE ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3rd.

  406. Re:Why bother? It's stolen already by stinerman · · Score: 1

    I've always said that someone needs to hack a machine in a trivial state that won't affect the outcome of an election and change the votes to 100% for a minor candidate.

    The downside is that the hacker will spend some time in a federal prison, but the voting machine craze may end there.

  407. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by flahavin · · Score: 1

    "Bush used to be a alcohol (and possibly cocaine) addict."

    What is so bad about liking Beer? Im sure just about everyone has had their fair share of beer. I woudn't be to surprised if Kery had a bit to much to drink in his younger years too, if he has not then he ain't down to earth with the rest of america.

  408. Re:Are South Park political eps supposed to be fun by Randolpho · · Score: 1

    I suggest you look into the concept of satire. Yes, they're meant to be funny. Not informative or helpful, or ethical. Funny.

    And they are. The Giant Douche / Turd Sandwich episode was downright hi-friggin-larious, ripped on both sides of the aisle and PETA in the process. If you didn't think it was funny.... I dunno. Maybe you should flick your funny bone or something.

    --
    "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
    -Marilyn Manson
  409. my small glitch report by zogger · · Score: 1

    My voting today (Georgia/diebold machine) had one apparent mechanical and/or software glitch. Inserting my card into the diebold machine, I got a click.... no start screen. I had to shove it in again, then got another click, then the machine went to the start screen for voting. I don't know what the significance of that is. I double checked my vote before recording it, and it looked OK. I did a write in, so I'll be checking later on when the stats are available to see if it was counted. In 2002, it *wasn't*.

    Who did I vote for? More like WHAT I voted for, why the best form of government there is, and that is gridlock!

    1. Re:my small glitch report by bgspence · · Score: 1

      Here in Alameda County, Ca I voted on a Diebold machine. I put in the card and it just didn't do anything. Tried again, nothing.

      A poll worker came over and swapped cards saying it must not be working. He acted like it was a normal occurance.

  410. Re:More clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    warning : "hey everybody, I'm looking at gay porno!"

    nuff said.

  411. Write-In Trouble in NY by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm a first time voter and I asked how to do a write-in on the machines here. The first poll worker asked me if I was voting for Mickey Mouse, told me it messes everything up, and that I didn't want to do it. The next told me she didn't know and would have to get the book out and start reading. Fortunately there happened to be an election official from the county present, who showed me how to do it, and even comforted me by saying that there are a lot of write ins today. He also gave me his number so he could personally replace my voter registration card, which the poll workers had "lost."

    Dear poll workers, sorry about "messing everything up," and fuck you.

    I am confident that my write in vote will not be counted unless that election official is hanging over their heads.

    Horray for the republic?

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  412. Voting System Reform by John+Murdoch · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As a prior Election Official, do you have any views on voting system reform? Questions such as switching to an approval voting system or even eventually abolishing the Electoral College....

    Electoral system reform
    The most pressing need, today, is a radical re-examination of voter registration procedures and voting procedures to eliminate vote fraud. I cannot stress this enough--the election today will be stolen; the only question is which side will steal more votes. I deeply regret that statement--but I mean every word of it. The electoral system today is simply a wide-open invitation to several different sorts of vote fraud, and you can be absolutely certain they're happening.

    • Bogus registration #1: A young man who works down the hall from me is registered to vote here in Pennsylvania. He's also registered to vote in New Jersey. He can (although he won't) vote twice today--and there is no way to tell that he didn't.
    • Bogus registration #2: Register your dog--and request an absentee ballot for him. Unless your state requires absentee ballots be posted publicly, and one of your neighbors notices that "Froo-froo Jones" got an absentee ballot, you've stolen a vote.
    • Bogus registration #3: Register every alien (foreigner, not LGM) you can find. Nobody, at least in Pennsylvania, asks for proof of citizenship, even for first-time voters. Do you have a driver's license? You get to vote.
    • Vote theft #1: Get volunteers into nursing homes, registering voters. Offer to help with absentee ballots. Take ballots to courthouse--dropping ballots you don't like into the trash.

    In short--the system is wide open for vote theft. It must be fixed; and there must be a careful scouring of this election to identify where votes have been stolen. And--without fail--those responsible for vote them (duplicate registration, vote theft, etc.) must go to jail. No probation, no community service--bona fide Big House jail time.

    The Electoral College
    The Electoral College is the most misunderstood feature of American polity. It should not be abolished--to the complete contrary, it should be strengthened; which is to say, it should be restored to how it was originally intended. The problem with the EC in most states is that each state is a "winner takes all" race: win the heavily-populated parts of California, and you can ignore the rest of the state. Win Houston and Dallas, and you can ignore the rest of Texas. Win New York City, and don't waste your time on upstate.

    If EC votes were counted for each congressional district, with the winner of the EC votes in the state getting the bonus two "Senate" votes, it would have the immediate effect of taking major media buys out of the campaign. You couldn't run a last-minute attack ad campaign--you wouldn't have flash-in-the-pan candidates like Howard Dean or Jimmy Carter appearing out of the woodwork. You'd have to communicate--and convince--voters in every part of the country, rather than focus on a limited number of media markets in "swing" states. You'd have a lot less noise, and a lot more signal.

    There is such a thing as the Law of Unintended Consequences. And one likely consequence of such a thing would be that fewer people would be likely to vote: because there would be less television noise, and because the campaigns would have to persuade, not sloganeer. Most consumers in America respond to ads--not to Op Ed page articles. Political campaigns would tend toward Op Ed types--hopefully that would mean more thoughtful voters.

    1. Re:Voting System Reform by ahrenritter · · Score: 1

      All of your points on preventing vote theft are very reasonable to me and I would certainly agree that every effort should be made to close these holes in the voting system ASAP.

      In regards to your Electoral College comments, I'd like to follow up:

      I concur that the winner-takes-all aspect of the EC is horrible and at the very least should be removed immediately.

      The reason I feel that the EC should be abolished altogether is that it completely prevents the effective implementation of any alternative election method such as Approval Voting or Condorcet Voting. I want to see one of these methods replace the current Plurality Voting because I feel that the duopoly of our current system is a "bad thing". The Electoral College upholds the duopoly, and if (and it is way too big of an if. :/ ) a minority party actually did ever become large enough to be significant in the current system, it would likely cause political instability due to vote splitting.

      I feel that Condorcet is a much better system, but I would be happy with even Approval Voting as an interim solution. I want people to be able to express their preferences for a third-party, but still be able to endorse the major party candidate that they feel is an acceptable substitute.

      --

      All I wanted was a rock to wind a piece of string around, and I ended up with the biggest ball of twine in Minnesota
    2. Re:Voting System Reform by dwbryson · · Score: 1

      The Electoral College is the most misunderstood feature of American polity. It should not be abolished--to the complete contrary, it should be strengthened; which is to say, it should be restored to how it was originally intended. The problem with the EC in most states is that each state is a "winner takes all" race: win the heavily-populated parts of California, and you can ignore the rest of the state. Win Houston and Dallas, and you can ignore the rest of Texas. Win New York City, and don't waste your time on upstate.

      The framers of our country had a name for that behavior, specifically this one:

      win the heavily-populated parts of California, and you can ignore the rest of the state.

      It's called tyranny of the majority, and it is exactly why the electoral college is in place. The population in the cities would then rule the electoral vote and the rural areas would have no say in the election.

      Currently Colorado has a bill to do just this on the ballot today. Unfortunatly if it passes Colorado will become irrelevant to the election and receive no attention from any major party.

      If the proposal passes, as polls currently predict it will, the Centennial State will decrease in value and be worth exactly one electoral vote, making it the most unimportant electoral state in the union below even Wyoming and Washington D.C. It will be worth only one vote because in almost every election the Republican and Democrat will finish in a fairly tight race with one getting five electoral votes and the other party receiving four. Never again will Colorado be a battleground for presidential candidates.

      For a more in depth explanation, see Gary Greggs article

      --
      - "Never let a computer tell me shit." - DelTron Zero
  413. Judges should not be elected by ephraim · · Score: 1
    You wrote:

    IMHO the most effective place for the LP to start is getting some Libertarian Judges elected. Judgeships are usually not as highly disputed as Legislative or Executive offices, but they hold a LOT of power.

    The election of judges is one of the worst possible ways to "make things better" in this country.

    Our government has a system of "checks and balances" between the executive (The President), legislative (Congress), and judiciary (Supreme Court) branches. The best way is for "The People" to elect the the executive and legislative branches of government, and have judges appointed as some type of compromise between those branches. This is what currently happens with the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Unfortunately, many states have been moving towards a system that makes judges an elected office, just like governors and state representatives. This is a horrible, horrible idea.

    For our system of checks and balances to work, judges must be impartial regarding issues that come before them. Sure, judges are human beings too, with political beliefs, preferences, and different methods for interpreting the law. Obviously, these preferences will affect the way judges look at cases. However, by nature of an appointment, a judge is not required to pander to rule of the mob and can work independently without fear of losing their jobs because of an unpopular decision. This is the purpose of having them as a check to unbridled power in the executive and legislative branches.

    Unfortunately, if you make judges elected, then you throw away the whole purpose of having them as checks and balances to mob rule by the legislative and executive branches. Rulings become less based on law (which, btw, is frequently written by those other branches) and more based on what it takes to get re-elected.

    Having judges pander to the mob that will re-elect them is an incredibly dumb idea simply because they no longer have the freedom they need to operate as a check and balance. Also, how can you work as an impartial arbitrator, as a judge, you take campaign contributions and know that a "wrong" vote might bury your career, even if that vote is just following the law as written by the legislature or enshrined in the Constitution? If a judge accepts $100,000 from Microsoft for his campaign, do you want that judge deciding a case where you sue Microsoft over breach of warranty?

    Other politicians besides judges accept campaign contributions. But those other politicians have no obligation to be fair and impartial to all who come before them. Judges, however, must frequently decide questions of law in ways that might not be popular, but are "right" because of the way that the law has been written. If this happens, blame your legislator or the framers of the Constitution. Or, better yet, blame the voters who put those people in power. Don't blame the judges for simply doing their job and following the law.

    /ephraim

  414. My Experience with Shouptronic Machines in NM by spun · · Score: 1

    I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and just voted using the Shouptronic electromechanical voting machines. The candidate slate is printed over a backlit grid of illuminated buttons. A green VOTE button locks in and records the choices. Votes are recorded to a hard-drive memory. There is no verifiable paper trail.

    When I pressed the 'Kerry/Edwards' button, the 'Libertarian ticket' button lit up, selecting all libertarian candidates for me. Two tries later, I had a light next to Kerry/Edwards. Many other choices were similarly difficult to press correctly. The candidate slate is printed on stiff plastic, so a press often jams down several of the buttons behind it at once.

    A google search on Shouptronic revealed that they may have been used in New Hampshire in the 2000 primary to get Bush the votes in that state, and that the founder of the company was fined and sentenced for illegal activities in regard to another election in a different state.

    All in all, I prefer the way I did it in California, with a paper ballot, completing clear arrows next to my choices, then feeding it in to a tabulator. I knew that in the event of a recount, there was a paper trail, and it was easy to mark the correct choice.

    As the owners of the companies that make voting machines are all wealthy, and the wealthy stand to benefit inordinately from a Bush win, it's no stretch to imagine the massive fraud that may be perpetrated today.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  415. This election is a red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whoever wins tomorrow, you will return to your scheduled lives of greed, selfishness and exploitation.

    That is who you are, and that is how you think. The danger to the world is not the Republicans, the Democrats or even the Project For The New American Century. It's the mindset of the common American.

  416. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Rayonic · · Score: 1

    (1) He's fiscally conservative -- if you ignore his record, or his plans for healthcare
    (2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!) -- he's also said that life begins at conception, and doesn't accept gay marriage
    (3) He's environmentally friendly -- he voted down the Kyoto protocols
    (4) His foreign policy acknowledges the other .. 5.7 billion people in the world. -- so Bush is an isolationist?
    (5) He's actually aware of national security ... and on and on. -- which is why he wants to go back to pre-9/11 security standards

    Also, that "100,000 Iraqis killed" study has long since debunked. Even in the study report itself, it says it estimates there were somewhere between 8,000 and 250,000 civilian deaths.

    That's like a poll coming out that says Bush will get between 4% and 90% of the vote.

  417. Write in candidate by flossie · · Score: 1

    A plea from across the pond ... Write in Tony Blair. He is better than either Bush or Kerry. And we don't want him. Perfect solution all round.

  418. Re:Are South Park political eps supposed to be fun by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    The Douche/Turd Sandwich episode was as predictable as it was unenlightening as it was unfunny. As far as I can tell, the whole purpose of the ep was to justify the brouhaha over Trey and Stone telling people to not vote.

    The only good political satire came right at the very end, when Stan finally voted.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  419. Chimp Taught To Delete Audit Records by spun · · Score: 1

    In order to show how easy it was to delete audit log records off of Diebold central tabultor computers, Blackboxvoting.org taught a chimpanzee how to do it.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  420. Disenfranchised voters! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lorain+na der Alreadty there are disenfranchised voters. I pushed out hte chad next to the "removed candidate" option...wonder what they're going to do about it?

  421. 1730 by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    Noun 1. douche bag - a small syringe with detachable nozzles; used for vaginal lavage and enemas

    And a noteworthy 18th century aristocrat.

  422. My Dilema... by BTWR · · Score: 1
    Today, on Election Day, so many Americans today are talking about our Nation Divided. But, this isn't a matter of me being torn apart between Bush or Kerry. No, this is a matter of me being torn between 2 things: I like kerry, but, like Eric Cartman, i hate hippes. So a possible scenario goes like this:

    Scenario 1: Bush wins.
    Result: I am a little sad. Hippies VERY sad.
    Conslusion: Hippies being SO sad is a like a consolation prize: it makes me a little happy.

    Scenario 2: Kerry wins.
    Result: I am happy. Hippies VERY happy.
    Conclusion: I am happy, but at the same time the hippies thinking their protests and die-ins and vegan-eating actually might have worked will only provoke more of this in 2008.

    1. Re:My Dilema... by $criptah · · Score: 1

      I guess eating vegitables and standing up for peace is worse when you compare it to injust wars, thousands of innocent deaths and religious beliefs being flushed onto general public.

  423. setting up a democracy by Zilfondel2 · · Score: 1

    Name one instance in the history of the world in which one nation invaded another nation (the nation invaded was NOT the aggressor), setup a puppet government, and everything went on happy and peacefully for the next 30 years.

    I want to see some proof that this idea works - without the use of a despotic regime threatening to kill people if they don't support it.

    True democracy comes FROM the people, it isn't forced onto them by an outside power!

    1. Re:setting up a democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're being unfair in throwing out cases where the occupied country was the aggressor. The reconstruction of Japan after World War II was a remarkable success. But then again, that was in part because we let them keep their figurehead.

      The point you should be making is that we haven't been able to reproduce that success since then. Every time we've tried to establish a pro-US goverment it has come back to haunt us. Saddam is probably by far the least popular of all of the leaders that the US has removed from power, but it still seems he wasn't unpopular enough to keep the Iraqis from resenting our meddling in their affairs, especially after we screwed it up beyond the point of no return.

  424. voting is not sufficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is inefficient (from a micro standpoint) to vote. Your vote is not likely to be the "difference maker" in an election [...]

    I know this is a troll, but I totally agree. I'm voting anyway, not because I think it will make a difference in this presidential election (it really won't--I live in California) but because it gives me leverage later on when I talk about politics with my friends.

    If I'm clear and insightful enough in explaining my political opinions to ten friends that they vote the way I want them to, I've multiplied the power of my voice by 11. If I can get them so excited about an issue that they tell all their friends what I told them (and so on, and so on) I can have as big an influence on the outcome as I want.

    But not if I can't get started because my friends think I'm a hypocrite because I didn't vote. A lot of people believe that people who don't vote don't have a right (in the moral sense, not the constitutional sense) to complain.

    Like a lot of things political, I think Jefferson said it very well. I don't have the exact quote handy (go go gadget slashdotter), but it's something to the effect of, "It is the right of the people to overthrow a government if it needs overthrowing."

    I'm not even coming close to suggesting that the U.S. government needs to be removed from power, but I take it as a reminder that casting a ballot is _not_ the most fundamental duty of a citizen to his or her country. Masses of people voting is an awesome, peaceful way to initiate change, but I consider an informed person who is satisfied merely to vote in every election to be living in a fantasy world.

    Voting is not sufficient; you've got to talk too.

  425. Exit polls on slate.com by jogoodma · · Score: 0

    Slate.com has promised to release raw exit polls regardless of what the rest of the US media giants are doing.

  426. Things I support about Kerry. by raehl · · Score: 1

    1. He's not Bush.

  427. A better slogan... by talaphid · · Score: 1

    You know, everyone has stated it that way, rather than "Vote or Die"... but I seriously think he should be wearing a shirt (so he's talking about himself in the third person) with "Vote, or P. Diddy will kill you."

  428. No one doubts this who saw the hundreds of reports by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    You must be young, because there were hundreds of reports about U.S. training of terrorists in the newpapers and magazines in the 1980's.

    You are the only person I've encountered who says it didn't happen. Numerous CIA agents, and mere visitors to Afghanistan at the time say it did.

  429. Many people believe the political rhetoric. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    It's sad. Many people believe the political rhetoric, and think my post can't be true.

    Read books! You cannot be well-informed unless you do.

  430. Ladbrokes and EURUSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Ladbrokes betting site now has Kerry at 1.33 and Bush at 3.25. This has swapped since this morning where Bush was at 1.5 and Kerry at 2.37.

    Also confirmed by EURUSD which has climbed up in the past hour.

    Looks like Kerry will win.

  431. Why geeks won't win by Y2 · · Score: 1
    Wonder if we'll have Diebolds in my district.

    You wonder???

    Shame on you for not finding out months ago and fighting tooth and nail.

    --
    "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
  432. Here, there, and everywhere by Rocky+Mudbutt · · Score: 1
    At the polling place...
    I see stupid people...
    In your dreams?

    shakes his head
    While you're awake?

    nods
    Stupid people like in slashdot?

    ...They don't know they're stupid
    How often do you see them?

    all the time, (pause) they're everywhere...

    apologies to M. Night Shyamalan. ~

    --
    Ethics II Axiom 2. "Man thinks." B. Spinoza
  433. Don't blame me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't blame me, I voted for goatse!

  434. Just to get this straight... by wurp · · Score: 1

    I don't disagree with the viewpoint you're listing here. It's new to me, and I really appreciate seeing it. I will be researching it to see if I agree after reflection.

    But are you asserting that Bush falls in this category too? Bush whose administration pushed agencies into giving false and misleading intelligence, the same administration that knowingly used false intelligence (documents about Iraq attempting to purchase plutonium), to support a war with Iraq? The same administration that continues to attempt to tie Iraq to 9/11, and is pushing to define US policy wholesale based on a one time tragic event in which 3000 people died? (>40,000 died the same year in traffic accidents.) The same administration that passed the so-called Patriot Act, and carefully established that no US or international law applies to the people in Guantanmo, so we can treat them however we like? The same administation that gave billions of taxpayer money to Halliburton in a no-bid contract? The same administration that is perpetuating the expanding divide between rich and poor with one-sided tax cuts, and at the same time reduces funding to educational and environmental programs, and still manages to run up the national debt by almost a half trillion dollars a year? The same administration that asked Enron to help define national energy policy?

    Is this administration going to give us something to make up for what they've taken away, or are my children going to be paying 50% taxes to pay the interest on the national debt and to pay the salary of all of the snitches employed to listen in on their phone calls and watch them on infrared camera, while we kill tens of thousands of civilians in some oil field somewhere and ignore racial cleansing in Africa?

  435. Stalinists and free speech by Grendol · · Score: 1
    I agree with div 2n. Voter ignorance is no reason for disenfranchisement.

    I find it interesting that many people still hold to the idea that the Stalinist method of telling the populous to accept what they are given because those in power know what it best for them. And, strangely enough, we even find that here on slashdot. People who ignore the fact that the Kimer Rouge killed the intellectuals, and anybody who they suspected to be one (ie, wearing glasses), because the Kimer Rouge was in power and did not want to tolerate dissenting opinions. I am not saying people cannot have that sort of opinion here, but it seems to me that opinion is somewhat like suicide for an intellectual.

    Telling people they are too ignorant to vote and taking their vote away is a crime. Ignorance can be corrected with wisdom. Disenfranchisement historically is corrected by war.

    I grow concerned when I see members of any party who violate the principles of our representative government. These villains, who interfere with voter registration, steal signs, block phone banks, intimidate voters, and what other crimes they think of, these criminals are no better than the third world corrupt political thugs we read about in the international news.

    Many immigrants who I have met from socialist and communist states often do not complain as much about a 'poor economy' but instead a government who did not let them choose their own destinies and who to vote for.

    If you feel that people are ignorant, then make it a moral imperative to tell the truth, and get the facts out.

    Taking the franchise away from the ignorant is like treating your populous like serfs in a feudal state, slave to the decisions of a government that owns them.

    Political debate is a useful tool only when the debaters acknowledge the right of the other debaters to have the opinion they have, and to be willing to think about the situation with data that supports or does not support their political hypothesis. You dont have that kind of feed back when you take away the franchise of the ignorant. Many people here hate it when a Pointy Haired Boss refuses to look at the data and take corrective action, and detest the PHB when the boss tells them to shut up. Think about that analogy.

    Who decides who is 'too ignorant to vote'? The winners of the war you start with disenfranchising actions based upon that opinion. The end result is a war where the living tell the dead that they are too ignorant to vote, and those in power tell the slaves they are too ignorant to vote.

    You cannot have my vote, and I will fight to defend the votes of others, regardless of their opinions. Just like many of them have served in our military and fought to defend me and my franchise, you and yours. This is what makes the United States of America an admired country, not some know-it-all lawyer in office who has all the answers.

  436. Re:Democrats are Better at Fraud... by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

    I know it's offtopic, but I just thought you should know. I randomly mod you down whenever I have the points. :D

    --


    This space intentionally left blank
  437. The Globe has Voted by trickie · · Score: 1

    http://217.160.163.211/globalvote2004/

    And its a landslide. We the people (of the world) don't want no cowboy!

    A pity Australia was one of the continents with the most support for bush.

    1. Re:The Globe has Voted by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      That's why the world has no vote here.

      I came to the conclusion that with all bullshit removed(any campaign retoric you've heard), I would vote may wallet. Every time a Democrat has held the White House in the last thirty years, my taxes go up a noticeable amount. I have never filed a tax return for over $38,000 gross(and that was joint with wife). That makes the wife and I lower middle class at best. I can't take another hit in the tax bracket. No matter what anyone says, when it comes to taxes, those that make less than Congress get screwed.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  438. Well now... by Zilfondel2 · · Score: 1

    Considering that many of these assinine programs/budget cuts have affected myself as a college student DIRECTLY, then I sure as fucking hell am going to vote for the candidate who best represents MY interests, while reducing my chances of getting killed (boy, I bet the Army would LOVE for me to be serving in Iraq right now!).

    The entire pro-environmental/build friendly alliances throughout the world thing is just a benefit to boot. After all, when I finally make enough money to travel,

    1) I would like there to BE a world to see!

    2) I don't want everyone in other countries ready to kill me!

  439. I don't trust Indymedia by horza · · Score: 1

    Read more about it in this Indimedia article

    Sorry I stopped reading at this point. I tried using them as an alternative news source ages ago but they talk so much drivel. Anything interesting they may have to say is totally drowned out by extremists that call themselves 'activists' spouting either lies or flagrant misrepresentation. It's the news equivalent of Usenet. I'd rather wait for a real activist such as Mark Thomas or equivalent to dig out the gems from sites like Indymedia and actually back it up with research and evidence. Otherwise I'm just wasting my time.

    Phillip.

  440. The insane little dwarf, Bush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The leader of the international criminal gang of bastards. - Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on George W. Bush The insane little dwarf, Bush. - Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on George W. Bush The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere. - Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on George W. Bush Bush is a very stupid man. The American people are not stupid, they are very clever. I can't understand how such clever people came to elect such a stupid president. - Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on George W. Bush I speak better English than this villain, Bush. - Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on George W. Bush We're going to drag the drunken, junkie nose of Bush through Iraq's desert. - Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on George W. Bush This criminal in the White House is a stupid criminal. - Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on George W. Bush Bush doesn't even know if Spain is a republic or a kingdom, how can they follow this man? - Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on Spain's support for the U.S. Mr. Rogers went to the White House, and it was very nice. He stopped by the White House and took four new, big words to the president. - David Letterman Logically unsound, confused and unprincipled, unwise to the extreme. - Jiang Zemin, Chinese President, on George W. Bush The White House keeps saying they went with the best intelligence available - too bad the voters didn't. - Jay Leno The only option is the departure of the warmonger No. 1 in the world - the failing President Bush who has made his country a joke in the world. - Iraqi Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, when asked about Bush's ultimatum for Saddam to leave Iraq. There's Adam Clymer, major league asshole, from the New York Times. - President Bush to Dick Cheney (overheard at a press conference) According to the latest poll in the Washington Post, 63 percent of Americans said that so far they approve of President Bush. Not surprisingly, the other 37 percent are English teachers. - Conan O'Brien Yesterday, at the White House, in the middle of an interview, President Bush jumped up out of his chair and started swatting at a housefly. When asked about it, the White House spokesperson said, 'Hey, that's nothing. You should see him chase a tennis ball - Conan O'Brien President Bush left for Canada today to attend a trade summit. Reportedly, the trade summit got off to an awkward start when the president pulled out his baseball cards. - Conan O'Brien As President Bush so eloquently put it in his address to Congress: 'Mathematics are one of the fundamentaries of educationalizing our youths.' I could not have said it better with a 10-foot pole. - Dave Barry I think that if you are the leader of planet Earth, you should be smarter than me. You just get the feeling, don't you, in the Oval Office that Dick Cheney is working behind the big desk. And then off to the right there is a little collapsible card table where George has like airplanes and stuff. Then every once in a while he looks up and says, 'I've discovered that if I shut my eyes, I can disappear. - Darrel Hammond On Monday, President Bush wrote a letter offering his condolences to the wife of the missing Chinese fighter pilot. After Bush wrote the letter, it was quickly given to experts and then translated. Then it was translated into Chinese. - Jimmy Fallon The president has a lot of troubles these days. Everyone's getting mad at him left and right. Atheist groups are getting more mad at him because he's been using more and more references to Christianity in his speeches. In fact it happened this morning, he said, 'Jesus, look at all those big words.' - Conan O'Brien Next Monday, it's a special holiday devoted to the Bushes - One-Term Presidents' Day. - David Letterman I read today that the president was interrupted 73 times by applause and 75 times by really

  441. It's not a side, it's states. by raehl · · Score: 1

    Ohio law, for example, does not permit anyone other than voters, election officials, election "challengers", and police in polling places. Outside observers are thus not allowed to be there.

  442. CBS Site Problems? by euphline · · Score: 1

    http://election.cbsnews.com/election2004/ is asserting _thousands_ of electoral votes already cast. Looks like they've got problems.

    Wonder if they're reporting these numbers on TV... :-)

    -jbn

  443. The only thing you need to know about GW by caitsith01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is that when he visited Australia, the Secret Service insisted on wearing weapons inside our Parliament... and for the first time in Australian history weapons were allowed in.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:The only thing you need to know about GW by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Oh, that's rich. Even got an "interesting" mod!

      So Arafat required a handgun in the UN General Assembly because...? For self-protection I gather? The fastest draw on the Middle East, eh?

      On the other hand, why do you figure the Secret Service would rather fly the Friggin' President of the United States out of Australia before leaving him unprotected for even fifteen seconds? Because they have nothing better to do? Oh, but I'm sure what passes as the Secret Service in Australia is superior to the USSS. I'm sure they are.

  444. Voting is important in a representative democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody should vote in a democracy. There are many reasons, for instance how can a country have faith in somebody elected by 10-20% of the population? Voter turnout is tantamount to the democratic process.

    It's also a great way to make people aware of, and care for their country. Everybody should be allowed to vote. It is especially important for minorities to be both politically active and vote. It's a great way to make people interested in the community and widen their horizon to what's going on beyond their own little lives.

    You know, people can be intellectual and be 200% wrong on some issues. Just because somebody wins a Nobel prize in chemistry, or is a chess-champion, doesn't mean they are a godhead when it comes to knowing people and international affairs. While others can be very right just based on their gut-feeling. Besides, who are going to decide who gets to vote? Any test would be biased.

    We should aim for 100% voter turnout. The numbers have been declining over the years, and that is a real threat to democracy. The only way to ensure democracy and freedom, is to be active and take part in forming your country. Everybody can and should participate, and the process should be as transparent as possible to prevent fraud, corruption and hidden agendas.

    This applies to all democratic countries. We should never rest on our laurels and take all we have for granted. That's a sure way to lose it.

  445. Young Voters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of you have voted already, have you seen many young voters at the polls? They registered to vote in mass quantities, now it's time to see if they follow through and voted..

    1. Re:Young Voters? by meabolex · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I don't think this helped as much as was touted. The "young" vote requires at least the level of responsibility to show up at the polls and vote -- or at least fill out a form to vote. While the many 'rock the vote' campaigns were noble in their purpose (and I respect the idea), it's ultimately flawed in that the younger you are, the more irresponsible you most likely are. Irresponsible people have a habit of not doing things they say they're going to do -- like vote. There are plenty of exceptions. . . and plenty of responsible young people. But the total majority counts in voting.

      --
      FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
  446. I was the first voter in my precinct today :) by COBOLgrrl · · Score: 1

    I live in a community small enough that there are 7 precincts voting in the same building (the local Veterans Memorial Hall), but I was still first. The poll workers made me watch while they locked the empty ballot box, then asked me to drop my ballot inside. Apparently there has to be a voter-witness to the fact that the ballot box started the day empty. Who knew?

  447. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, and who are you, some asshole liberal from Europe?

    The United States was attacked by evil terrorists, in an attack more brutal than any ever done in the world. You Europeans and other people throughout the world cannot come close to understanding what kind of grief and terror we have been put through. I have many family members who know friends who have heard of people that were killed on September 11.

    Here we have Europe, quite possibly the most corrupt continent in the world, full of liberals who don't know the value of hard work and business. I swear, at this point I'd be willing to support an invasion or bombing of Europe, Japan, Mexico or whatever if there were terrorists there, also. Since the United States is the best country in the world, _BAR NONE_, you people have no room to stand. So shit down, and as they say in the good 'ol US, "SHUT UP!"

  448. Repliy to "Don't vote if you don't care" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Many posts tonight state that people should not vote if they're not intellectual enough, or not caring about who wins or about the issues involved. I'd like to inform everybody of this rebuttal. I'm posting this post anonymous so there's no Karma hoarding:

    Everybody should vote in a democracy. There are many reasons, for instance how can a country have faith in somebody elected by 10-20% of the population? Voter turnout is tantamount to the democratic process.

    It's also a great way to make people aware of, and care for their country. Everybody should be allowed to vote. It is especially important for minorities to be both politically active and vote. It's a great way to make people interested in the community and widen their horizon to what's going on beyond their own little lives.

    You know, people can be intellectual and be 200% wrong on some issues. Just because somebody wins a Nobel prize in chemistry, or is a chess-champion, doesn't mean they are a godhead when it comes to knowing people and international affairs. While others can be very right just based on their gut-feeling. Besides, who are going to decide who gets to vote? Any test and filter would be biased.

    We should aim for 100% voter turnout. The numbers have been declining over the years, and that is a real threat to democracy. The only way to ensure democracy and freedom, is to be active and take part in forming your country. Everybody can and should participate, and the process should be as transparent as possible to prevent fraud, corruption and hidden agendas.

    This applies to all democratic countries. We should never rest on our laurels and take all we have for granted. That's a sure way to lose it.

    1. Re:Repliy to "Don't vote if you don't care" by severoon · · Score: 1

      Interesting. However, if we can guarantee somehow that the 10-20% is a representative sample, then statistically, they would reliably (to some degree of statistical certainty) predict what everyone would think anyway, right?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  449. Decimal odds?! Yuk! by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

    There has been a big swing in the odds on offer in the last 12 hours, presumably on the basis of what looks set to be a large turnout, although the prices have fluctuated a little, presumably due to bets coming back onto Republicans as the price improved.

    Yesterday : Bush 5/6 Kerry 11/8

    Right now : Bush 2/1 Kerry 4/11 (and I have seen it at Bush 3/1 Kerry 1/3 at times in the last couple of hours)

    Since I took out my bet when Kerry was 6/4, I am now in the happy position of being able to choose to lay off my bet. But I won't, because I feel even more strongly now than I did last week that Kerry is actually going to win. My prediction then was that Kerry would win, and by a bigger margin than you might expect, thanks to large numbers of new voters who have no previous voting record (upon which most analyses are heavily dependent). If Bush does win, please feel free to come back to this post and give me a good taunting.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
  450. You saw it first here. by BushWon · · Score: 1

    See the nick.

  451. Democratic responsibility-Legislative Microscope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is as good a place as any.

    Why isn't all the legislation in electronic form, preferably marked up? I should be able to go to my representatives site and see the legislation they're working on. Download and work it over as I see fit. Maybe a legislative RSS feed. Have my computer monitor anything of interest to me. With the proliferation of broadband, one can almost make this real-time. What did so and so vote on, and which way? How much money went were, and to whom? Member of what organizations? All this technology and we're still thinking the old-fashion way.

  452. said it then and saying it now, not rocket science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voting is not rocket science. I'm sure many 1st time voters will notice that when they go to the polls.

    So what gets me is, why won't the mainstream admit that any problems ARE CAUSED ON PURPOSE?!?!?!?

    If we Americans could just get beyond that, we could have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

    I mean mass media wise, not slashdot trolling wise.

  453. AP to count the votes on election day by bgspence · · Score: 1

    Here's an explanation of how the AP will "provide results in 2004 with the speed and accuracy on which its members and subscribers have learned to rely."

    http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_102 204b.html

  454. back to i am dissapointed by tofupup · · Score: 1

    there should be space to write in your choice ... here are a few recommendations: Rosa Parks, Fr. Roy Bourgeois, Judy Wright and the list goes on. maybe there should be a humanitarian party - making the presidency of the u.s. equivalent to the nobel peace price ... given out every 4 years.

  455. Re: Vote Illogically by Y2 · · Score: 1
    If Kerry didn't want the president to go to war, then he shouldn't have voted to give the president unilateral power to make war.

    That's nonsense. If you want the president to resolve an international problem without war, should you send him to do it with, or without a credible threat of force in his hands?

    --
    "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
  456. Electoral Vote Simulator by awhoward · · Score: 1
    I thought that I'd pass along a link to a computer simulation of the Electoral College for this year's Presidential election that I've been working on.

    This program takes current state polling data, calculates the probabilities of the candidates winning each state, and runs through a large number of simulated elections randomly awarding each state to Kerry or Bush in proportion to their state probabilities. What's cool is that I've made it so that you can put in your own polling data and see how it effects the results. If you think there's a national polling bias one way or the other, you can model that, too. At any rate, check it out and pass it along if you like.

    1. Re:Electoral Vote Simulator by aacool · · Score: 1

      Good stuff, Howard - I've blogged it on my site - let's see how far off you'll be

  457. What we? by nuggz · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but there are readers from more then one country here.
    I'm not in the US, and I purposely included MEP (Member European Parliment) to emphasize that this was a general comment.

    I have RTFC, I've also read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    I also get pissed off when columnists consider the Charter/Constitution/Human rights laws "technicalities" that let off criminals.
    Yes maybe they get off because of that, but I'd rather the government be in a struggle to control, then to just let them run the whole country.

  458. CNN Predicts Bush winning IN, GA, KT Kerry: VT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the votes roll in

  459. Look again by dbCooper0 · · Score: 1
    They are showing popular votes, which they gather from the states having absentee and early votes as well as pre-projections from exit polls.

    This explanation is available at the bottom of the page you referenced.

    FWIW, there's a good analysis coming from the Brits...

    --
    db
    Cig:
    ôô
    /`
  460. Invading Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I may be mistaken [if so, please find a way to correcct me without calling me an idiot], but I was under the impression that bin Laden vehemently disagrees with the government of Saudi Arabia and that US support for the Saudi government was one of the motivations (given or inferred, I am not certain) for 9/11, etc.

    That said, I have heard alternately the argument that we should invade Saudi Arabia (from neo-cons) or invading Saudi Arabia is a better idea than x. From what I understand of the Qur'an, it forbids foreigners from setting foot on the Hijaz [Again, non-ad hominem corrections welcome]. In any event, I imagine that any non-muslim invasion of Saudi Arabia would lead to declaration of war against the invading force by every country with a muslim majority country in the world.

    However, I suspect that I have a piss poor understanding of both islam and middle eastern politics in particular and world politics in general. Having spent some time trying to make sense of these issues, I can only imagine how poorly understood these issues are by those, who eat only sound bites.

    I think next election, given the opportunity to write-in, I will vote for George William Frederick

  461. Some thoughts by petrus4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been asking myself why I've been so preoccupied with reading about this election over the last two weeks or so. The reason why I couldn't initially understand it was because I'm not actually American.

    Although I normally have a fairly high degree of interest in international politics, the more I think about it, the more I'm able to figure out why this election in particular holds so much importance for me. My country's current prime minister, John Howard, has tried to collaborate with the Bush administration as closely as possible over the last few years...Not only with Iraq, but also with a number of economic agreements, about which the unnoficial word is that they have generally benefitted the Americans far more than they have us.

    It's not just about Iraq to me, though. I read somewhere that in the case of some countries, at least, whatever sociological/criminal trends America experiences, other countries tend to experience 5-10 years later. If that's true in this case, then I fear for Australia...and for the stability of the area in which I live.

    What I mean by this is that as much as I've tried to read about the election lately, I've been reading other material as well. Material which really does not cast an appealing light on either Bush or Kerry. In Bush's case, there have been a *lot* of reports about how domestically in the US he is apparently trying to convert the country into a full-blown dictatorship, as well as an equal amount of dark speculation about the idea that this election could be portrayed publically as a stalemate even when it isn't, so that the results can then be manipulated in the courts.

    The stuff I've been reading about Kerry though make me think that whoever would try and do that, won't need to in this case. The picture I've developed of Kerry tells me that he isn't really any opposition to Bush at all, in any sense, and that he most likely wouldn't do a thing differently if he got into power. I know most people here would probably wipe off the stuff about Kerry and Bush both having been members of Skull and Bones as just more deranged conspiracy theories...but to me, it honestly is scary.

    Here's my overall conspiracy theory about this election though...laugh at it and call me a nutcase if you like, but I think it fits:-

    Neither Kerry nor Bush either are or will end up being the genuine rulers of the country. There is a third entity (who, I don't know) who is able to choose the candidates in such a way that no matter who gets elected, the third (ruling) entity are able to continue persuing their interests unhindered. (I'm reminded of Palpatine's maneuvers in Attack of the Clones when I think about this, actually)

    I think the reason why the 2000 election happened the way it did was because the Democratic candidate in that race was not one of the ruling entity's people, so they had to use whatever means necessary to make sure he didn't get into power.

    But I think in this scenario there genuinely *is* a Palpatine wannabe around somewhere, or possibly a group of them. I think people in the US are going to need to find this individual/group, whoever they are, and get rid of them before they're going to be able to have genuinely free elections.
    To me, only being able to choose between a couple of people who've been approved by the proverbial man behind the curtain is not the definition of a genuine democracy...it also isn't likely to guarantee a change in policy with a new administration...because even if the old puppet (Bush) gets voted out, the new one still has the same master at the strings.

    Remember also...Just because I might be paranoid, doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. There was a lot of weird stuff about 9/11...things that just didn't fit together and add up if you looked closely at the official story...and I'm not alone in thinking that, either.

    I'm possibly going to get replied to by Americans here who will say that I have no business caring about what happens with their election...to which I say th

    1. Re:Some thoughts by Ammishdave · · Score: 1

      I know what I am going to say is going to be controversial, but I feel it needs to be said. Karma be damned.

      I think the "third party" that has their interests advanced are corporations, and largely the media helps enforce their rule by essentially removing their voice. I think this is why Intellectual Property rights (yeah, I know I should differentiate between them) are shifting in favor of corporations, why both parties subsidize all kinds of industries, why white collar crime goes unpunished when compared to robbery, why so many laws are passed in the name of "american business" etc. This is one issue that both parties ACT the same in terms of, but every major third party (Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Naderites) think needs to be fixed. I don't know about you, but it sure makes me wonder...

    2. Re:Some thoughts by marktaw.com · · Score: 1
      I know most people here would probably wipe off the stuff about Kerry and Bush both having been members of Skull and Bones as just more deranged conspiracy theories...but to me, it honestly is scary.

      Skull & Bones exists, and Kerry is a member. He said as much on national TV. John Kerry admits to Skull and Bones Membership on 'Meet The Press' - Video

      I think the reason why the 2000 election happened the way it did was because the Democratic candidate in that race was not one of the ruling entity's people, so they had to use whatever means necessary to make sure he didn't get into power.
      "In addition, Bush (Senior) sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise (From the Middle Eastern Dictators) in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty." - Osama bin Ladin
      This race isn't about Bush vs Kerry. It's about Saruman "vs" Grima Wormtounge, to use another analogy which I know everyone here will be familiar with. We don't know who's playing Sauron in this scenario yet...and from what I've been reading so far, I'm guessing we *really* don't want to.
      "If the people have elected those governments in the latest elections, it is because they have fallen prey to the Western media which portray things contrary to what they really are. And while the slogans raised by those regimes call for humanity, justice, and peace, the behavior of their governments is completely the opposite. It is not enough for their people to show pain when they see our children being killed in Israeli raids launched by American planes, nor does this serve the purpose. What they ought to do is change their governments which attack our countries. - Osama, Again"
      Now where did I put my tin foil hat... Seriously though, someone needs to hire this Osama guy as a commentator. If you remove the name from the things he says, I bet he'd get some pretty good ratings.
    3. Re:Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "shadow government" is Corporations. And you're right, they intend to take it all, in every country. They don't do it (most of them) intentionally. They do it simply because it is their nature. The "greed is good" mentality of capitalism has given rise to entities with far more money and power than most governments, and no accountability whatsoever. We finally see the looming failure of capitalism, much as we've seen the failures of socialism. They both fail because fallible humans betray the systems. Capitalism, being more tolerant of human failings and using some of them as its strength, has survived longer, and has changed the world for the better... but even it is not immune to corruption. Its children are multinational corporations, compelled by greed to behave as little better than the most base sociopath.

      Again, there's no real conspiracy. All corporations simply do what is good for business. This means they all behave the same way, despite never actually planning or talking it out. Essentially it's like a flock of birds all turning in the same direction... it's just what they do. Their best interests are in what is essentially conquering the world, by owning it all. It's like an entirely new era of colonialism, only without governments, borders, or real people. The dollar is the footsoldier of this new empire. The McDonalds and Wal-Marts are its flags, staked into the hearts of conquered nations as their own smaller businesses are ground to dust under the heel of the multinational, against whom competition is impossible, to the very essence of the word.

      Only those kinds of corporate interests could have rebuilt Iraq in such a way as to give none of its own people any ownership of their own new economy, making them slaves to the multinationals like the people working in sweatshops or manning call centers in India. I for one am glad Iraq is spitting in the face of the deal it was offered. This is the new slavery... you will willingly sell yourself because it is profitable, but in the end if you walk away you're little better off than the serf who walks off of his Lord's land, forsaking his food and shelter (money) and his protection and security (insurance). In the end, it doesn't matter if corporations do it intentionally with a shadowy agenda or unintentionally because they all turn the same way. The effects on the world are the exact same either way. The countless parallels to feudalism are as horrible in their implications as they are accurate in the comparison.

      Granted, we're all a hell of a lot better off than we were in a feudal society... it's an apples and oranges thing. The problem isn't that you are better off today than you were tomorrow... it's that you can clearly see how much better off you would be tomorrow of these things holding you back today were removed. We can, now, see the benefits of the information age bringing us to the threshold of a new form of society, one based on unprecedented unintentional cooperation... ironically the same kind of unintentional cooperation that makes the multinational corporations the powerhouse that they have become.

      The corpoations own the media, so it reports in their best interests. The corpoations can afford to spend the most money on the government, so it acts in their best interests, regardless of what party is in power. They don't have complete control of everything, but they have enough control over some things that they can exert their influence on all things. Look at all of the laws and agreements forming between nations, and the USA pushing its system of intellectual property into all other nations despite it being clearly not in the best interests of those nations to do so. There's a reason for that... it is the system that gave rise to corporate colonialism and supports it the best.

      We're still human. There will be war. It's only a question of how the current system will finally fail to the point where the people, the only real power, will pick up their arms and burn the system down and replace it with somet

  462. Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "* why yes, I have nothing better to do today having already voted for the doosh bag ;-)"

    ... which one? (not to pry or infringe on your rights or anything, of course).

    -AC

  463. Live Coverage by Eeknay · · Score: 1

    This may be redundant and pointless, but the BBC has a live stream of the election coverage on their website. They report the results as they break.

  464. Re:Voter Ignorance -- It's your responsibility by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    I am not suggesting anything about anybody being elite.

    The ignorants should inform themselves and make their own decisions. With personal freedoms come individual responsibility. No one said it would be easy - life isn't fair.

    It is also not the responsibility of anyone to do anything for anyone else. I happen to have a high IQ (as do many others on /.) but that doesn't mean I should be forced to go teach school or write opinions and publish them. The burden is on each and every individual.

    About people that work 14 hours a day - if the government was smaller and took less tax from the people then Americans wouldn't have to spend nearly 1/4 of their day working to pay Uncle Sam instead of keeping the money they have earned for themselves.

    We live in a democratic republic - not a socialistic charity state.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  465. C-Span.org Map by hudsong · · Score: 0

    http://network.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/elect ion_night_2004/us_map_govsenhouse/index.html?SITE= CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS

  466. Senate Elections by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Yes I completely agree with you! It is ashame that balance was removed.

    Also I think this measure was passed around the same era as the income tax wasn't it? :-(

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  467. Columbus Ohio voter by winwar · · Score: 1

    A note about "challengers". The people working at my ward (01044G and H combined) said the challenger stated that they could merely watch the voting process, not actually challenge the right of anyone to vote. Interesting.

    They also wondered why there were so many people with ID/voting card (didn't realize there was an advertising blitz going on-must have ID, can't be prevented from voting, blah, blah, etc.-heck I barely watch TV and only listen to radio and have been bombarded with that spiel....)

    I had to wait an hour and a half, which was pretty good (pathetic) apparently. The other ward at the same location was worse. This was starting at 4:30pm. It wasn't any better the rest of the day according to poll workers-they hadn't had time for lunch/break since getting there in the morning. The main problem was that they had four machines (the other ward had more, I think) and one machine was out of service for a while (either hardware error or someone voted on it that had to do a provisional ballot, I don't really know). Electronic. Brand unknown-they have been this way for years.

    Polls aren't going to close at 7:30pm...(closer to (9:30pm probably, at least for those in line at 7:30pm).

    Location was poor-unused storefront in a mall. Imagine two long lines of people (down center of mall) trying to snake into narrow entrance. Oh, and people had to get out by the same entrance. Insufficient room/organization to process people. The poll workers almost begged us to complain to the county board of elections....

    So, went smoothly, except for the incompetent moron in charge of the process(Hey, we are expecting a record turn out, so lets only provide a few voting machines to each ward so we will have massive lines). Can't wait to hear the excuses-voting shouldn't take this long in a developed country. Of course, if your goal is to get new voters never to vote again....

    THIS is the reason I think electronic voting is a BAD IDEA. If you have X machines, you can't deal with record turn outs (because they will never buy enough machines.....) It would have been better with paper, pencil/pen, and some optical scanners. Cheaper and would scale better.

  468. /. got /.ed by Ticklemonster · · Score: 1

    Jesus!!! Tried to get in here earlier today, and the darn thing was /.ed!!!! how funny.

    --
    Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
  469. KY - Senate Race Bright Spot by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    As expected Kentucky went to Bush and passed the friggen' no civil union amendment, but incumbant Republican Senator Jim Bunning is getting trounced by Democratic challenger Daniel Mongiardo 53% to 47%.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:KY - Senate Race Bright Spot by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Following up my own post. I should've known better, the western counties may have pulled it out for Bunning.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:KY - Senate Race Bright Spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a fellow Kentuckian and as a Republican, I was hacked off with Bunning and did not vote for him. His campaign was a disgrace. It put an ugly face on my political party. I didn't vote for Mongiardo even though I liked him. Voting for a U.S. Senator is dangerous; it's like voting for a fellow Senator from another state with a diametrically aligned platform from my own. Any other race, say U.S. House, and I would have voted for Mongiardo.

  470. /. is 44% loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election.

    Looks like so far the slashdot crowd is a bunch of losers

  471. Wrong by Compact+Dick · · Score: 1

    A pity Australia was one of the continents with the most support for bush.
    You're mistaken. Read the Globalvote 2004 stats again. Australia had the second lowest support for Bush at 8.5% (681 votes). And judging by the general sentiment here, it will be a sad day for most of us if Bush were to be re-elected.
  472. No Judgement, just an experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went in, there was a long line of registering people. I registered in the primary, thank god.

    Took me 5 minutes between time entering the building and voting time. In Milwaukee, WI (Bay View, southeast suburb on Lake Michigan) I was sitting with my #2 pencil and voting sheet in hand.

    I look at Kerry, look at Badnarik. Kerry. Badnarik. FUCK! Oh fuck it. I scribble in the Badnarik line. I think Kerry has it already. If WI goes to Bush by 1 vote, so sorry, but there ya go.

    Then I move on to senator. Duh! WHY would I not vote for Russ Feingold? Of course I did!

    It was a great experience. As cheesy as it sounds (remember, WI: cheese state) I felt empowered. No problems. I went in, voted, and left. The number on the scanner incremeneted by one, and I'm confident it went to the right guy.

    So, to end, I had a good experience voting. I thank those intelligent men far in my past that made a system to where I could do such a thing. Tomorrow could be a crazy day. ^_^ Good Things are coming though, I feel it.

  473. The Diebold Limits by ChrisCox · · Score: 1

    I figure there are enough sci-fi geeks here to appreciate this (original by me):

    "There is nothing wrong with your election. Do not attempt to adjust your vote. We are controlling everything. If we wish to support a candidate, we will increase the votes. If we wish to defeat a candidate, we will tune them out. We will control the House. We will control the Senate. We can roll the Courts, making them useless. We can reduce the issues to a soft blur or sharpen them to crystal clarity. For the next four years sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your election. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from your life to... The Diebold Limits."

    Chris
    (who knows too much about computers and opted to vote on paper)

    --
    Improving performance from app architecture to microcode.
    1. Re:The Diebold Limits by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Bastards wouldn't LET me vote on paper. I asked. Scumbags.

  474. You're absolutely right...you should stay home by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    And for your efforts, dubya salutes you!

    = 9J =

  475. Re:Happy to say im not voting... too by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    On Fox and other news programs, the talking heads are using the politically correct phrase "Corporate Democracy" and "Corporate Republic" .... The domestic enemies of the USA Constitution have defeated US. What you gonna do ... become a cash-ass-kisser or professional butt-licker ... exploit the citizen or ....

    A pluralist democracy of the citizens no longer exist in the USA, and I did not here much about fighting corporate tyranny or rebuilding the USA Citizen Democracy for US and our children, by any politician.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  476. I just found out something else.. by zogger · · Score: 1

    ..and this is more severe. I was checking up on the counts so far, and realised that my machine skipped a whole page of ballot initiatives. I had forgotten how many there were, I saw two and I think there were 8 or so total. Either it skipped a page or I REALLY spaced out. I admit it's my fault,I should have rememberd, and had a checklist with me (I try to remember, obviously I blew it) but still...seems weird to me. And those data lines connected, going away to who knows where...and no backup paper trail either... I just don't like them. Up to one election ago I voted with a piece of paper that got dropped into a wooden box. Seemed to work OK. I like computers, but not for voting, not this system anyway. And the cost? I voted in a tiny rural firehouse, just barely enough room to garage two small near antique firetrucks, which is what they own. Just the cost of those ballot machines in there (5 total diebold machines) would pay for say a significant part of their yearly fuel bill or something.

  477. Re:Just remember the Democratic creed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still trolling with your .sig line... You truly are pathetic.

  478. Correction... by dbCooper0 · · Score: 1
    ...just like that wonderful nail-biting excitement of 2000

    Pardon me, but I think you meant to say:"just like that wonderful nail-biting excrement of 2000"

    --
    db
    Cig:
    ôô
    /`
  479. Something fishy... by McBane · · Score: 1

    Why have the search results changed at google to include georgewbush.com as the second ranked result when you click on the google banner, earlier this morning I could have sworn neither candidate had a page in the first page of results.

  480. No diff by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Two imperialist war mongers - tough choice indeed...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  481. http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Mirrors by marktaw.com · · Score: 2, Informative
  482. enbarrasing! tv reports just count votes! by perler · · Score: 1

    come on guys. watching cnn from europe it looks like a report from tv afganistan. they just report the votes count so far (9 ET)! how long do they want to do this? sind decades, scientists created models to count early polls, exit polls and polls before the election together to get projections with error margins of around 5-10% at least.

    why do the tv stations stop using them, just because they made false projections four years ago - in an election so close, nobody has to be shameful to have beeing wrong sometime during the night?!

    PAT

    1. Re:enbarrasing! tv reports just count votes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you europeans can watch, but do shut up. why stop? becuase it sucked the last time!

  483. why doesnt cnn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why doesnt cnn show the total popular vote?

    1. Re:why doesnt cnn by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      Because it doesn't matter -- and shouldn't. See also: States Rights.

  484. Denver, CO by GenmaKun · · Score: 1

    Similar procedure where I voted, except they checked our IDs and had us sign a voter card which they placed in a big pile of voter cards and then had us line up in a different line while we waited for them to verify our district. Then 30-40 minutes later a different person than the one that checked my ID called my name and had me leave the line to come up and get my "voting slip". The slips were given out in no apparent order, so it would not seem unusual to be delivering slips to people later in the line than someone who already had a slip. Our voting slip was a 2x2 piece of standard white copy paper with my district number ("11") written on it in sloppy black Sharpie Marker. The slip of paper clearly had been used several times before hand, and the line ranged all over with people getting in and out of line. (It was in a grocery store and they had an ad for the Deli in the middle of the winding line.) The lady four or so people ahead of me in line I never saw until just before we were to the front of the line. She had been sitting someplace else with her baby and her husband was holding her place in line.

  485. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Kerry is rich and a socialist"? Having the rich rule is like the USSR?

    Oh contraire, my deluded friend... Kerry is rich, but the opposite of a socialist. He's a capitalist, in the hip pocket of big business. No doubt about that whatsoever.

    And the rich rule you already. There's one of them in the White House right now.

    Silly, ignorant redneck... back to the trailer park with you!

  486. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Fiscal conservatives realize that the REAL way to spur the economy is to put the money into the hands of the people, NOT the government."

    Erm... no they don't. Republicans think that this is how it should work, but they don't realise that Republican governments usually increase spending, reduce taxes, and run up large deficits. In the long run, this hampers the economy far more than you realise.

    For example: currently, the people that make your consumer goods - predominately China and other Asian nations - would very much like the US dollar to stay strong, relative to their own currency. This makes their own currency weaker, meaning that their products stay cheap in the US market.

    They keep their currency low by buying lots and lots of US bonds. In other words, you buy their goods, an you end up owing them trillions of dollars - money that, frankly, you don't have. Your government spent it in Iraq.

    This is a fairly normal Republican approach. It's a pity so few Americans understood just how much risk it exposes them to.

  487. Re:Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatt by starm_ · · Score: 1

    New York is the state that has been hit yet THEY are voting Democrats.

  488. Bush is pulling ahead. by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 1

    It looks now as though exactly what I told my friends would happen, is happening. I told them, "I'm going to vote for Kerry, and then be extremely sad to see Bush win anyway." Bush is pulling ahead. I expect he will be declared the winner in the next 2 hours.

    All I can say is how disappointed I am with my fellow voters. I'm sure the Bush fans will find that nonsensical, and I'm sure the Bush voters are quite happy to cast a ballot based upon their moral compass. But IMHO, their vote means more allies will abandon the USA; the dollar will become even weaker as people, banks, and governments consider us less meaningful to their world; more Americans will find themselves pretending to be Canadians as they vacation around the world; we will be less successful exporting our laws, our entertainment/media, and our policies to other countries (hmm, possibly the only good to come of this); our rights as citizens and human beings will continue to erode; and Iraq will become our new Vietnam.

    But beyond any of that, what makes me saddest is that none of the people who vote for Bush this time around will look back 4 years from now and connect the dots. Every bad thing that happens will be explained away or ignored. None of the consequences we are about to experience as a nation will be associated with our actions today.

  489. Democrat sells campaign vehicle, signs on eBay by marktaw.com · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Democrat sells campaign vehicle, signs on eBay
    Small, the Democrat running an uphill battle to unseat the popular Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has stuffed all the remnants of his campaign into a used RV emblazoned with the motto, "Think Big -- Vote Small" and is selling the entire package on eBay.

    CAMPAIGN IN A VAN!! ALL YOU NEED TO RUN FOR US SENATE!!
    Some politicians sell their votes.

    Some sell their souls.

    Art Small is selling...

    Everything you need to run a grass-roots campaign for U.S. Senate!
  490. Close race? by Spaceman40 · · Score: 1

    I've read a lot of non-US people talk about how if we re-elect Bush, that'll say a lot about what this country thinks: basically ratifying all that he's done these past 4 years.

    Well, even if we vote him out, with such a small margin (as it's looking to be...), why should non-Americans think that the country as a whole disagrees with him? That 45% to 55% (if it's even that much) means that half the country thought that what the President did was the "Right Thing" (tm).

    Something to think about...

    --
    I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    1. Re:Close race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't matter. people of the US implicitly agree to elect president this way, and are responsible for the leader chosen - even the ones who voted against him. democracy means you can't blame others.

    2. Re:Close race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi to everyone (even to Republicans ;) ), i'm italian.

      I'm so sorry to see that more than half US Citizens actively agreed with Bush politics; i know that it's not the same for /. readers so it's a pity to say sorrowful things here but....

      I don't know the reasons that caused this vote so I think it's better if I don't judge it, and I've been careful not to post my "perceptions" even before the vote to respect voters, but I can say quite safely that this will affect how U.S. is perceived around the world in a very noticeable way.

      I've heard a lot of right-wing italian friends that had only harsh words for the current (and future) administration... noone told a single positive thing.

      This will mean another handful of difficult years to live our daily lives as non-US citizens.

      Finally, I would like to thank all the people that voted for the Kerry, because this has been (quite explicitly) even a "vote of respect" for "aliens" like us.

  491. Electoral College Map (keep track for yourself) by marktaw.com · · Score: 1

    For those of us too lazy to keep track of which states are going what way, but tired of waiting for the major news sources to make predictions...

    Interactive Electoral College Map for 2004 Presidential Election
    The board starts with the stuff we expected. Clicking on the states changes them from undecided/unreported to republican/democrat.

    Combine with your favorite news source for state-by-state poll information, and you can predict the outcome for yourself.

  492. Bush Wins Florida and Ohio! It's a clear Bush win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad, fuckers! Another 4 years of eating shit for the anti-Bush crowd. You all deserve it for your bad behavior.

  493. Re:Bush Wins Florida and Ohio! It's a clear Bush w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the whole of US eats shit for this, you dumb ass.

  494. Reconciliation by Erwos · · Score: 1

    So, curiously, if Bush were to win, what's stopping Europeans from trying to make up with us, or vica versa?

    I mean, I understand how Europeans all think Bush is the anti-Christ, despite the fact that he's really done nothing against them (except Kyoto and steel tariffs, the former of which was of rather dubious value, the latter of which is now lifted) besides invade a country without their explicit approval. But, you know, saying you want to be friends anyways would probably go a lot farther than just making vague threats and FUD accusations.

    Whoever wins this election isn't going to have done it by bashing European countries for their lack of support on Iraq. It is widely perceived that quite a few European politicians came into power by being anti-US. You can't play this game of "we expect the US to do as we say while we bash them in our own elections". It won't work, and if you think Americans didn't notice, think again.

    You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Lighten up the rhetoric, and maybe Americans will pay more attention to you. Maybe if you took a little time from feeling sympathetic to people who blow up your trains and citizens and started trying to understand your closest ally, you'd make more progress, too.

    The citizens of the US don't _want_ wars, especially not with their allies. This bizarre paranoia of "will the US invade Europe and everyone else and take over the world?" is so divorced from reality that you've got to wonder about who the hell is running the media over there. You heard it here first, kids: the US isn't attacking Europe.

    In any event, the election is a close one. And even people who voted for Bush don't want to get into a pointless and senseless ideological fight with Europe. Even those people on the evil religious right don't want everyone to hate them - but it takes two people to have a real friendship. Thus, _give Bush another chance_. If he acts the same way he did before, hey, you were right. If he doesn't (and, frankly, he doesn't have the manpower to do anything else you're going to hate), maybe it's time to bury the hatchet and extend a friendly hand. Forgiving people is a virtue for everyone, atheist or religious.

    Food for thought, anyways.

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  495. So much for that theory by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

    Take the layoff. Take the layoff. Take the layoff.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
  496. Re:Bush Wins Florida and Ohio! It's a clear Bush w by randyest · · Score: 0, Troll

    On the contrary, sir. Terrorists will.

    It's over, and with the right result. Uncontestably. Too wide of a margin or absentees and provisionals and disputeds combined to matter. It's called and over.

    And thankfully I might now be able to tolerate this liberal cespool. I can't bear this place during the three months before an election.

    Thanks for all looking like funny clowns in this thread. It's almost as fun as reading the weeping on SA.

    Tata lovey.

    --
    everything in moderation
  497. Republican Voting Machines by Alien54 · · Score: 1

    They have obviously been put to good use. Or so some would think.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  498. Re:Bush Wins Florida and Ohio! It's a clear Bush w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unbelievable. It looks like Bush will win.
    Americans - I don't advise travelling to other countries for a while. Not Mexico, not Canada, not Europe.
    Things are going to get hectic. The world cannot believe that this dumbass is going to be the leader of the US for 4 more years.

  499. Bush's First Election! by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 1

    This is fucking hopeless. The country is full of nothing but mad cowboys, fag-bashers and knuckle-draggers. And I mean that in the nicest possible way....

    1. Re:Bush's First Election! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Let's be fair. As of 6:46EST on Nov 3, there's still no winner (though the texan scumbag does lead 51% to 48%) so nearly (if not more than) half of us know he's a douchebag.

  500. We, the geek community, need to examine Diebold by depsypul · · Score: 1

    We, as the geek community, need to acquire a Diebold voting machine and inspect it closely. We need to put it in a lab, set it up as an election machine, reproduce the environment, and see exactly what it does. We need to report the results in a way that are reproducible and understandable to the world.

    Consider that in Florida, where Diebold was used in several counties, the exit polls showed a 8-percent spread in favor of Kerry. The official results are much different. Consider also that Diebold is a contributor to the Republican Party.

    Also consider, that the Republican Party fought legal battles to ensure the touch screen voting systems in Florida are NOT REQUIRED to have a paper trail. That in itself is disturbing. (Here's a South Florida newspaper story about this: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/s fl-pcpaper26oct26,0,5649106.story?coll=sfla-news-p alm )

    This is not a conspiracy theory (yet), but simply a loose end that needs to be tracked down, carefully.

    We are the ones to do it.

  501. DIRECT: Ohio election board results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See this site:

    http://election.sos.state.oh.us/results/SingleRa ce Summary.aspx?race=PP#

  502. The 12 Days of Elections by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

    Just in time for Recount 2004: The 12 Days of Elections: (Sung to 12 days of christmas)

    On # day of elections my voters gave to me:

    A state where winning was key
    2 hanging chads
    3 third parties
    4 challengers
    5 votes that count
    6 thousand lawyers
    7 dead men voting
    8 spinners spinning
    9 judges judging
    10 speakers speaking
    11 folks still watching
    12 founders weeping

    Copyright 2004 Justin Wick and Thomas Womack

    Enjoy!*

    *NOTE: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SING AS A ROUND

  503. Is this all the USA can do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Bush wins, I'll be very dissapointed about the American people... How can you vote for a president who invades Iraq based on the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and then makes jokes about it (video of him searching the white house for wmd's) when they admit they found none??

  504. Re:Bush Wins Florida and Ohio! It's a clear Bush w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still, after trying several times, can't see the logic in that terrorism will go down by doing more of what the terrorists oppose. Why are there terrorists hating the US? BECAUSE YOU KEEP FUCKING KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THEIR COUNTRIES! How hard can it be to understand? Don't mess with them and they won't mess with you, it's what you keep telling the rest of the world all the time, how about taking your own advice!? Of course, you've probably fucked the middle east up too much already, so they'll probably not stop for a long time even if you leave them alone, but if you keep "going after them" (which you don't anyway since you're too busy with iraq) they'll never stop. Ever. And it's not only affecting america, the rest of the western world lives in fear too. Not so much fear of terrorists as fear of who the US will decide is a terrorist next and attack...

  505. 58 million bush voters make me... by a_hofmann · · Score: 1

    ...sick. How ignorant do you have to be to ignore this , or that ?

    Innocent people die everyday and it is the US government that kills them. For nothing.

    Osama and other threats are still for real while your country is fucking with Iraqi, people that never attacked you in the first place.

    Shame on you...

  506. Last gasp, or valid concern? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    According to an interesting thread over at democraticunderground.com, some pecular findings have come up from comparing exit polls and election results. According to the thread, several swing states and every state using e-voting without a paper trail (which has previously been shown to be vulnerable to tampering) showed a ~5 point disparity towards Bush. In every state which used e-voting with a paper trail, the election results matched the exit polls.

    Considering the source, though, I'm taking this with a very large grain of salt, particularly because some peculiarities were hinted at in the exit polls themselves.

  507. exit polls by qtothemax · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice that CNN's exit polls changed dramatically after the polls closed? Both Ohio and Florida showed Kerry winning the exit polls around 9 pm, but now both states show Bush ahead in the exit polls. Is there an explanation for this? I had assumed the numbers were from polling people leaving the actual polling places, so they shoulden't change after the polls close.

    I already posted this to another story, but it probably fits better here.

    1. Re:exit polls by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      If the polls close at, say, 9pm, and there's still a long line outside, those already in line are allowed to stay and vote. If the line is long enough, there will be people who vote at 11pm or later. Also, there's almost certainly a delay between getting the data at the polls in Ohio and getting it to the newsroom in Atlanta, another delay before it's shown on the TV/website, etc. etc. etc.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:exit polls by qtothemax · · Score: 1

      11:34 pm in ohio the CNN exit polls showed males going 51-49 for Kerry, females 53-47 for Kerry. Everyone was done voting, I live in Cleveland and was following closely. The current CNN polls show males going 52-47 for Bush, women split 50-50. I seriously doubt it takes that long to get it ot the newsroom, and anyway they were declining all night, I was refreshing every 5 minutes or so at work.

  508. A view from the UK by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Like many outside the US, I recognise the significance of these elections for the world as a whole, and I've been watching with interest.

    I have a strong view on who I would prefer to be your next president, but I'll gloss over it since I don't think it's relevant to this post. What's scaring me the most is all these reports of queueing for hours to vote, not being able to vote for a valid candidate, thousands of votes being registered before the polls even opened, etc.

    For reference, for a general election here in the UK (where we choose our MPs, and thus the party that will form the government) I go round the corner to a local church hall, vote by putting a cross in the correct box, and I'm home five minutes later. Even without all the dodgy voting machine antics, the very fact that you guys need to queue for hours just to cast your vote is incredible!

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  509. Slashdot's favourite political personalities? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that everyone is watching the presidential election, but very few comments here concern the congress/senate seats that are up for grabs. It's surprising, for Slashdot, that no-one's noticed people like Fritz Hollings stepping down, for example. Given the strong views of a few specific congresscritters/senators on various geek-related matters, does anyone have a breakdown of how the usual suspects are doing?

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  510. Don't Vote until you're DONE by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In 1996, I was an "election worker trainee" as part of a school program to get students interested in civics. My job was to be one of the people who helped out if people had trouble with the machine and reset the machine for the next voter after they were done.

    My state had some very old mechanical voting booths with levers for each candidate or party lines and one big lever for closing and opening the curtain. When you were done voting you were supposed to pull the lever to open the curtain and your votes would be recorded. Anyway sometimes people would have problems and despite being told no fewer than THREE times not to pull the big lever until voting was complete they would use it to open the cutain and ask me a question, at which point the only thing I could say was that they had voted and i'm sorry but you can't vote again.

    This is a problem with all current anonymous systems since you can't match the voter to the vote. The scary part about your post was that you pushed "cast ballot" while you were still uncertain about your vote BEFORE consulting the election worker, thereby ensuring that any mistakes will be uncorrectable. It seems to have worked out for you this time, but I can't stress enough that everyone must be sure of their ballot BEFORE casting. The election workers are there to help you.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  511. Can we get a new article? by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    As the Daily Show so aptly put it, "Election DAY" is an antiquated term. And it looks like we may have to wait 10 days before we know how Ohio goes. How about a new article to take the load off this one?

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    1. Re:Can we get a new article? by randyest · · Score: 0, Troll

      how about this one?

      turn on the news -- Kerry conceded.

      it's over with a fat 4-million-voter mandate

      no more crying

      four more years!

      no tax increase for me, and I don't have to pay your healthcare bill!!!!!

      --
      everything in moderation
    2. Re:Can we get a new article? by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      Timing is everything.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  512. Exit polls wrong by JInterest · · Score: 1

    According to Gallup's mega-final-ultra poll out Sunday evening, 30 percent of registered voters in Florida have already voted, either through early voting or by absentee. Of those who have already voted, Kerry leads President Bush 51 percent to 43 percent.

    According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.

    The exit polls were clearly wrong, and were perhaps wishful thinking by Democratic pols. The final results show, as they have sometimes shown in the past, the unreliability of exit polls, particularly when turnout is heavy.

  513. Alternative System by Marty_Krapturd · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it make much more sense to just switch to a jury-duty service style system for selecting public servants and public offices. A purely random lottery would be held every four years for pres, two for reps and six for oligar...er...aristoc...um..senators. And have the pay level commeserate with the level paid for jury duty. Simple solution. I mean, yeah, so some downs syndrom patient might end up in control of the "big red button", but it can't be any worse than what we've lived with for the last four years, and MUCH cheaper, too.

    And while we're at it, let's switch to a purely sales-tax based taxation system. A flat 30% ought to do it. Makes everything nice and squared away. All you so-called "conservatives" can go and yell "woo-freakin-hoo" about having a cheap government, and all you "liberals" can continue to rely upon the government to be yo' daddy. I mean, it's not like the founding fathers were trying to get RID of a priveliged and un-questioned ruling class or anything. No reason to think of having some "un-qualified" (read as commoner) person in office. You know, like some common actor (Regan?) or some common thief (Nixon?) or some common Playa (Clinton?) or some common warmonger (FDR?) or some common socialist (Carter?) or some common religious fanatic (Bush I, Bush II?).

    A bunch of screwed up people with no concept of the price of living or what it's like to try and find a job.

    I've seen the word "qualified" thrown around in this discussion, however, what, exactly does that mean? How is Bush II "qualified" to select appointments for senior positions, judges, and vetos? He probably has little concept of what the taste of generic peanut butter is. Capiche? And as for Kerry....AT LEAST HE WENT TO A WAR! Then came home and remained wealthy, privilaged, etc. What a pair to choose from. Good thing I voted high, otherwise I might remember what mistake I made.

    Leaving this decision up to a group of people who "must see TV." The mind boggles, and rings with echoes of "but Saddam..." this and "but Saddam..." that. Question....WHAT has Saddam F. Hussein EVER done to you? Did he piss in your rice crispies?

    But don't get me wrong. I'm all for war. Depopulation at anytime is a good thing.

    Pro-war != Anti-abortion.

    Either you want to send them to "jezuz" or NOT. And, frankly, since EVERYONE loves babies, why not send them, too? I mean, you don't get to see jezuz until you're dead, and jezuz MUST love babies, so get to killin those babies. Puppies and kittens, too! Don't worry, we can paint them brown, first, so you don't feel so bad about it.

    More government involvement != Better families

    Hey there, democrat! Yeah, you with the t-shirt! Don't you realize that social services LOSES children on a daily basis? Wouldn't those children be better off at home with a parent? Less chance of losing them.

    Just my $0.39 worth (adjusted for inflation)

  514. How much of a "friend" are you now? by JInterest · · Score: 1

    And please, don't let the world's most successful democracy be reduced to a joke with a repeat of last election's Floridan antics.

    There hasn't been a repeat of Florida. President Bush has won a clear victory. John Kerry has apparently conceded, which would demonstrate he has more character than Al Gore had.

    The American people have made their choice, with more people voting than have voted in years. Do you have the grace to accept it? Consider it a test of your love for America.

  515. Re:Just remember the Democratic creed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is my sincere hope that when Dubya reinstitutes the draft that he sends your sorry ass over to the front lines in Iraq.

  516. Vote by Comrade_X · · Score: 1

    VOTE COMMUNIST! VIVA MARX!

    --
    Hello world :)
    1. Re:Vote by josmum · · Score: 1

      VIVA SECRET PHALLUS!

    2. Re:Vote by Comrade_X · · Score: 0

      Hey what's up dude! (CrApFlOoD)

      --
      Hello world :)
  517. My opinion on lotteries by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1
    I am a strong believer that lotteries are a tax on people with poor math skills.

    Ignore the fact that I've bought lottery tickets in the past... {sneaks away quietly}

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.