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.

258 of 1,718 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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!"
    4. Re:SouthPark by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    5. 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!
    6. 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!
    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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

    12. 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.

    13. 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

    14. 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
    15. 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

  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 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.
    5. 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

    6. 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.

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

      Kerry supports a draft? Trustworthy link, please?

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    8. 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

    9. 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.

    10. 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?

    11. 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

    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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."
    15. 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

    16. 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

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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! ;)

    20. 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.

  4. 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!
  5. 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!!!

  6. 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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  7. 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 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
    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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...

    8. 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...
    9. 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

    10. 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."
    11. 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

  8. 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.
  9. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  10. 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."
  11. 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 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.
    2. 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.)

    3. 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.

  12. 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 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!
    3. 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
  13. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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!
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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?
  18. 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 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?
  19. 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.

  20. 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 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

    2. 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
    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. Re:accuracy and precision by arnoroefs2000 · · Score: 2, Informative
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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?
  23. 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 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
  24. 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."
  25. 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.

  26. 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 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.
  27. 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!!!

  28. 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 KontinMonet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Call the toll free voter alert line: 1-866-MYVOTE1

      --
      Did he inhale?
    4. 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.
  29. 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?

  30. 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!
  31. 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
  32. 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...

  33. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.]
    6. 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.

  34. 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 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.
  35. 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
  36. 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."
  37. 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

  38. 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 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. Re:I was disenfranchised. by dmuth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Call The Election Protection Coalition at 866-OUR-VOTE. They can help.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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 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.

  41. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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
  42. 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.

  43. 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 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
  44. 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!

  45. 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 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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 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.

  49. 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?
  50. 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.
  51. 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.

  52. 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...

  53. 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 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.

    4. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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!

  56. Vote Badnarik! by JohnnyX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get your country back.

    Yours truly,
    Mr. X

    ...Badnairk is badass...

  57. 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 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"?
    5. 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!
  58. Election Code by losing+balance · · Score: 2, Funny

    castVote("Kerry");
    while (countingVotes()) {
    crossFingers();
    }
    if (getWinner().equals("Bush")) {
    bendOver();
    moveTo("Canada");
    }

  59. 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.

  60. 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.
  61. 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.

  62. 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

  63. 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.

  64. 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

  65. 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
  66. 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

  67. 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

  68. 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!

  69. 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
  70. 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.

  71. 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.

  72. 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 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
  73. 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?

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

  76. 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
  77. 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.

  78. 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!

  79. 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 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

  80. 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.
  81. 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).

  82. 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.
  83. 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.

  84. 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
  85. 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.
  86. 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
  87. 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 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!

  88. 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...
  89. 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
  90. 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.

  91. 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.

  92. 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

  93. 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...

  94. 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

  95. 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"?
  96. 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 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.

  97. 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
  98. 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'...

  99. 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.

  100. 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 Sinus0idal · · Score: 2, Informative

      BBC has a good vote site BBC

    2. 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
    3. 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
    4. 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.

  101. 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.

  102. 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.

  103. 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
  104. 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.

  105. 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!
  106. 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
  107. 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
  108. 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.

  109. 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
  110. 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?
  111. 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".

  112. 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 =

  113. 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.
  114. 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.

  115. 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.

  116. Re:All Hail President Kang by flahavin · · Score: 2, Funny

    I voted for kodos.

  117. 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
  118. 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.
  119. 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

  120. http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Mirrors by marktaw.com · · Score: 2, Informative
  121. 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!
  122. 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?!