Electoral-Vote.com Returns for 2006 Elections

Klaus writes "In the 2004 Presidential race, the website electoral-vote.com tracked individual state polls, providing a map of the changing political scene. The map, updated daily, was a phenomenal success. The site is back for the 2006 Congressional elections. It is providing descriptions of the top 40 House races, and all 33 Senate races, as well as valuable information for prospective voters." Remember, your vote counts. Make it out there on November 7th.

Comments

Almost.

[A beautiful mind]

Remember, your vote counts.

Remember, the one who counts your vote counts.

Re:Almost.

[Somatic]

Remember, your vote counts.

Sure. Out of the entire country, I get to choose between TWO people, neither of whom represent me. Then this idiot will be in charge for the remainder of his term, and every time he does something I don't like (all the time), I'll be told it's my fault because "it's a democracy".

Then, I'll have to hope the election doesn't get hijacked.

A party system isn't democracy, it's crap. Washington was the only one who had it right: "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another..."

Re:Almost.

[daigu]

Remember, Count Von Count counts...One, Two, Three! Everyone else is not a Count counting, so their counting doesn't count like the Count's.

Re:Almost.

[Yst]

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin (Attributed: Memoirs of Boris Bazhanov)

Re:Almost.

[A beautiful mind]

Yes, I had this quote in mind when I wrote my OP. I've even used this quote to underline a point a few days ago here on /.

Re:Almost.

[lawpoop]

I don't see any way out of the party system. People naturally tend to form groups. The only improvements I see are either a direct democracy, where everyone could propose and vote on law over the internet, or a parliamentary system, where there are more parties, and thus a wider ranges of views.

Re:Almost.

[CastrTroy]

I live in Canada, and we have a parlimentary system. It works a lot better, because you don't vote for the guy on top. You vote for a guy who's supposed to be looking out for the people in his riding. Naturally, it doesn't always work out perfectly, but I think in this system the people we we voting for have a much closer connection to the people who voted for them.

Re:Almost.

[LordNimon]

Sure. Out of the entire country, I get to choose between TWO people, neither of whom represent me.

Well, no politician completely represents any of his consitituents. There will always be some disagreement. But why do say you only have a choice between two people? Even if only two names appear on the ballot, there are write-in candidates. You just need to educate yourself on the choices.

Re:Almost.

[fotbr]

There are write in candidates, sure. But they have less chance of winning than I have of jumping over the moon.

Sadly, at the moment, candidates not belonging to one of the two main parties don't have a chance of being elected. The only times that has changed in this country is when one party or the other falls apart. Its about time for one of the two parties to completely implode, the only real question is which party will go first. The far-left is already wreaking havoc in the Democratic party, and the fundamentalist-christian-right is causing problems in the Republican party.

One thing is for sure, if you can avoid being blinded by hatred of one side or the other, the next 2-4 years are going to be damned entertaining.

Re:Almost.

[sadler121]

When you said Remember I thought you were going to start quoting: "Remember, Remember, the fifth of November the gun powder treason and plot. I know of no reason that the gun powder treason should ever be forgot." Anyone want to dress in Guy Fawkes masks on November 5th and congregate outside Congress?

Re:Almost.

[cheezedawg]

I don't claim that the 2-party system is perfect, but it works remarkably well, and IMO it is one of the greatest strengths of our political system. Its a huge moderating force that assures that the largest number of the population will be represented. That is why we end up with moderate leaders like George W Bush and Bill Clinton instead of radical leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Adolf Hitler.

If you feel that neither party adequately represents you, then it is your duty to either work within the party closest to your views to address your opinions, or join another party that does represent your views (like many members of the Whig party did in the 1850's to create the Republican party). If you can't find representation by doing either of these, then maybe you should consider the possibility that you are the radical, and maybe its a good thing that you don't have any power...

Re:Almost.

[Jeremi]

The far-left is already wreaking havoc in the Democratic party

How so? As far as I can tell, the thing that's wreaking havoc on the Democratic Party is (a) being completely out of power, and thus almost completely ineffective at governing, and (b) until recently(?), not having figured out a way to respond to the Republican Party's relentless demonization of all things non-Republican.

The only saving grace for the Democrats is that the Republicans' skill at demagoguery is surpassed by their incompetence at running the nation.

Re:Almost.

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing is for sure, if you can avoid being blinded by hatred of one side or the other, the next 2-4 years are going to be damned entertaining.

You've also got to avoid being sent to die in a pointless foreign war, drowning in a gulf coast city, or dying of disease after the EPA lies about air quality, among other dangers.

Re:Almost.

[OakDragon]

Even if we had a solid tradition of several political parties running at once, people would still complain about the lack of candidates that reflected their views. I think a large handful of parties would be viable, maybe 7 or 8. What are the odds that one of those 8 would really represent you?

The trick is the political process does not end on November 8th. Whoever wins the election, whether it's "your guy" or not, the important thing is to write. Write your congressperson, senator, even the president. Make your views known. They do listen, especially to hand-written letters. (Well, your congresspeople do. It may take greater volume to move senators.)

I am not without hypocrisy in this matter. I have written very little to my representatives. I do recognize that my representative - who is of my party - will not agree with me on every issue.

Re:Almost.

[Anonymous Coward]

The far-left is already wreaking havoc in the Democratic party

Yeah - the Democratic party are so hard-core left that the last candidate they put up for President was an Ivy-League educated millionaire, who ran in complete contrast to the arisotcrat's candidate, the Republican Ivy-League educated millionaire.

Re:Almost.

[Anonymous Coward]

the 2-party system ... works remarkably well, and ... assures that ... we end up with moderate leaders like George W Bush ... instead of radical leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: elected in 2005 on a turnout of 60% in a two party runoff against an ex-President, with 62% of the vote.

George W Bush: elected in 2000 on a turnout of 9, with 56% of the vote.

Re:Almost.

[nursegirl]

I live in Canada too, and while I think our system is better than the U.S., I still think it has a long way to go. Combining a parliamentary system with proportional representation is what we need. It's ridiculous that Green got 4.5% of the vote without a single seat.

Re:Almost.

[Planesdragon]

I get to choose between TWO people, neither of whom represent me.

1: There are no national offices up for election this year. Your vote is for your representative in the house, which is limited to just your congressional district (avg less than 10,000 people), and maybe a Senator which is limited just to your state. You probably also have school board members, judges, state legislators, governor, mayor, and dog catcher up for election, too.

2: Join a party. If you can't find one that you prefer over the other, you're listening to too much press and too little policy. The only election I'm undecided on and care about is my Congresscritter, and I have my choice of two folks in the primary, and two again in the general.

3: Yep, Washington had it right. Parties suck. But parties are a necessary consruct of any sizable democracy--and when you get right down to it, it's better to have them out in the open than mysteriously in back corners.

Re:Almost.

[cheezedawg]

The results of the Iranian election on June 17, 2005, Ahmadinejad came in second (behind Rafsanjani) winning only 19.48% of the vote. The top 5 candidates were within 8% of each other in the final tally. The large number of candidates forced a run-off election between two candidates that combined received less than 40% of the vote.

I'm sorry, but this proves my point.

Re:Almost.

[Pollardito]

i dunno, some of our worst politicians are the Senators and Representatives that are raping the federal budget for local votes, not to mention some of the less-than-savory people that we've had serve as majority leaders in the recent past. the idea of being lorded over by "President DeLay" doesn't make me feel any better than the current administration, wouldn't one of the two majority leaders be president if we switched to a parliamentary government right now?

Re:Almost.

[CastrTroy]

You'd might, but with the slim margins your presidents have won with in recent years, you may end up with a minority government. You may also end up with decromats and republicans sitting together and discussing things, and having to come to an agreement before decisions are made, instead of only one side sitting around discussing their own interests.

Re:Almost.

[e40]

Consider the difference that electing Gore in 2004 could have made. Likely, there would have been no Iraq war. Just think of that. The many Billions of US$ that would be there for something else. The nearly 3000 Americans and 10's of thousands of Iraqis that would still be alive (yes, some of them would have died under Sadam, but not a significant number of them).

Yes, you have a choice between two people and it's not perfect. Get over it. Vote for the best person.

Re:Almost.

[friedo]

The average congressional district has roughly 650,000 people.

Re:Almost.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, your vote counts.

Offer void in some districts.

Re:Almost.

[AnyoneEB]

Interesting ideas. First, Gore was not running in 2004, and second, the Iraq War started in 2003. I assume you meant "electing Gore in 2000".

Anyway, presidential elections have the complication of the electoral college. For congressional seats, you are voting directly, so it at least feels like you have more power over who wins the race.

Re:Almost.

[Keebler71]

You seem to have a common misperception about the US government - that the President is the "man at the top". In American politics the president is simply the head of the executive branch of the government and has no more power than the legislative branch.

Re:Almost.

[e40]

Yeah, I meant 2000.

Re:Almost.

[gallwapa]

Funny, you seem to forget that our President and executive branch has said to hell with checks and balances, and _IS_ controlling the country.

Re:Almost.

[Firehed]

This got modded funny, but there's really nothing truer. I've counted votes before (at the first known drive-through election, no less), and if I were the type that wanted to change things in my favor a bit, it would have been only too easy.

Re:Almost.

[tubapro12]

I must agree. The current trend looks as if any chances of a third party forming would be a combination of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans; however in today's political world in the U.S. I still see this as highly unlikely.

Re:Almost.

[tverbeek]

our President and executive branch has said to hell with checks and balances, and _IS_ controlling the country.

Of course the reason he's able to do that is because the general public want him to. Deep down, the American people want a monarchy and an aristocracy. It's why we elect politicians' brothers, wives, and sons after they die, retire, or (in modern times) get term-limited, and it's why we attach so much pomp and power to the presidency. This isn't something new to George W. Bush; it dates back to the days of John Q. Adams (our first hereditary president).

Re:Almost.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be told it's my fault because "it's a democracy".

<pedantic>Well, no. It's a republic.</pedantic>

Re:Almost.

[Armadni General]

It is unconstitutional for a Representative to represent fewer than 30,000 citizens.

Re:Almost.

[dtfinch]

Vote in the primaries.

Re:Almost.

[RealGrouchy]

Sure. Out of the entire country, I get to choose between TWO people, neither of whom represent me.

Yeah, well at least you *get* to vote. The rest of the world has to sit and watch (and cry) as Americans choose who will constitute the next iteration of the most powerful government in the world.

- RG>

Re:Almost.

[LordNimon]

There are write in candidates, sure. But they have less chance of winning than I have of jumping over the moon.

So what? Do you get some kind of prize if the person you vote for wins?

Re:Almost.

[cheezedawg]

Here are some (admittedly biased) differences that I can think of. Of course, this is all speculation:

• The Iraq war: I agree that it is unlikely that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. As a result, Saddam Hussein would still be in power supporting over a dozen terrorist organizations and trying to direct terrorist attacks against the US. He would still be developing illegal WMD in contravention of his UN obligations, likely without any UN inspectors in the country (we found over a dozen illegal weapons programs that the UN did not now about, and the only reason he let the inspectors back into Iraq in late 2002 was because we parked 150,000 troops at his doorstep), he would have been able to finance these weapons through the continuing corruption of the Oil-for-Food program. The citizens of Iraq would have no say in their destiny, and instead they would still be living under a brutal dictatorship, and Saddam would probably have killed another 100,000-200,000 of them (based on his 20 year history of killing almost 2 million people). On the brighter side, we wouldn't have lost almost 3,000 of our own soldiers fighting over there, we would have saved some money, and the country would be more stable than it appears right now.
  
• Libya wouldn't have voluntarily given up its hidden WMD programs.
  
• The seed of democracy wouldn't have spread into Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt leading to the most democratic elections these nations have ever seen.
  
• North Korea would have still been pretending to abide by the NPT and accepting international aid and support while secretly working on nuclear weapons and long range missiles. I can't imagine Al Gore confronting North Korea about this, let alone successfully organizing 5-party talks with North Korea like President Bush did.
  
• Iran might not have felt as much motivation to pursue a nuclear program, but its hard to say.
  
• It is very unlikely that Al Gore would have pushed through tax cuts in the face of the economic slowdown that started Q3 2000 and was exasperated by the Sept 11th terrorist attacks. These tax cuts have been responsible for one of the longest periods of economic expansion in decades. Instead, I imagine Gore would have kept the stifling tax rates of Bill Clintons presidency, trying to funnel money into his Social Security "lock box" and compounding our economic problems.
  
• Based on his stance on the environment, I bet Al Gore would have tried to implement the greenhouse gas targets found in the Kyoto protocol even though the US Senate defeated Kyoto by a vote of 95-0 during Bill Clinton's presidency. This would have caused us to have even higher energy prices and would have further restricted our economy.
  
• Many Europeans would probably like us more now, for whatever that is worth.

Re:Almost.

[fotbr]

So what? Do you get some kind of prize if the person you vote for wins?

My point is they have 0 chance of winning. Sadly, voting for a write-in candidate IS wasting your vote. Not that it should be that way, but thats the way it is right now.

Re:Almost.

[fotbr]

The far-left chased Lieberman out of the party because he wasn't "liberal enough". They continue to alienate moderate democrats with their candidates and rhetoric. It goes without saying that the right is going to hate Hillary, but a sizeable percentage of democrats won't vote for her either.

Re:Almost.

[fotbr]

You've also got to avoid being sent to die in a pointless foreign war,
Drop the fear-mongering about a draft, we don't have one, and its not coming back anytime soon.

drowning in a gulf coast city,
If you choose to live there, then you deal with the consequences of living below sea level on a coast with a history of hurricanes.

or dying of disease after the EPA lies about air quality,
The EPA can only lie about what was told to them. If they told the truth as it was told them it'd still likely be full of lies that the EPA was told.

among other dangers.
Life has danger. You can't escape risk, so you might as well accept that its there, and continue living life instead of living in fear.

Re:Almost.

[LordNimon]

You're not addressing the issue I raised. What difference does it make to you personally if the person you vote for wins?

Frankly, I believe that voting for a Democrat or a Republican is a wasted vote. It's not like these parties need your vote. Percentage-wise, a vote for a third party makes a much bigger difference. I think your logic is backwards.

Re:Almost.

[fotbr]

There is no benefit. Vote third party, sure, but not for write-ins that did't even have the clout to make it on the ballot in the first place.

Re:Almost.

[Copid]

The far-left chased Lieberman out of the party because he wasn't "liberal enough". They continue to alienate moderate democrats with their candidates and rhetoric. It goes without saying that the right is going to hate Hillary, but a sizeable percentage of democrats won't vote for her either.

I can't say I agree with everything Tim Kreider writes, but I like this recent quote in one of his rants: I don't understand why the Far Right, which believes that dinosaurs are fake and that very shortly Jesus will return and Christians will be lifted bodily into Heaven, has to be taken seriously as a major political constituency whereas the Far Left, which believes that invading Iraq was a mistake and maybe we should have national health care, is dismissed as a bunch of crackpots.

Leiberman found himself on the wrong side of history on the war in Iraq and instead of acknowledging what more than half of the country now believes, he opted to continue to try to play the "anti-American" card and claim that he has some special insight into what a brilliant plan the war was. Just look at who unseated him. I can't see how anybody can paint Lamont as Marx reincarnated. The fact is, Leiberman has shown nothing but contempt for the rational people who opposed his hawkish foreign policy, and he's continuing to do so by pretending that his Senate seat is some sort of birth right rather than a short term of service at the pleasure of his constituents.

It doesn't help that most of the Democrats I know tend to be of the socially liberal / fiscally conservative bent rather than Leiberman's fiscally liberal / socially conserviative position. I don't know if that's the trend nationwide, but if it is, it's a wonder Leiberman held his seat for as long as he did.

My vote doesn't count

[Anonymous Coward]

My vote is counted by a system with no audit trail or verification, by design.

NOVEMBER?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about all the primaries, doesn't /. want us to vote in them?

Slashdotted

[OmegaBlac]

Well, that was quick.

The site is back for the 2006 Congressional elections.

Well, lets hope that it returns by Nov 7th as it's down right now.

Your vote counts...

[nebaz]

Not if Diebold, et. als has anything to say about it. Seriously though, several states are passing laws requiring that any electronic voting machines require a paper audit trail. Why this was not put into the original design of ALL of the machines is beyond me. ATM's have receipts.

Re:Your vote counts...

[wonkobeeblebrox]

In case you missed it, the PBS weekly newsmagazine, NOW, had a great story on electronic voting last night...

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/236/index.html
you can get the free podcast of the show as well...

Re:Your vote counts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why this was not put into the original design of ALL of the machines is beyond me.

Um, because George W. Bush was a Presidential candidate at the time, and every effort was made to ensure he was elected?

Just a wild stab in the dark, there...

Re:Your vote counts...

[ArtStone]

You are aware than no Diebold machines where used in Ohio in the 2004 election, right?

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/News/Read.aspx?ID=102

"COLUMBUS - Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell today halted deployment of Diebold Election Systems' electronic voting devices in Ohio for the 2004 General Election. The decision is based on preliminary findings from the secretary of state`s second round of security testing conducted by Compuware Corporation showing the existence of previously identified, but yet unresolved security issues. Hardin, Lorain and Trumbull counties had selected to use new Diebold equipment this November. Those counties will use their current voting devices in 2004."

In 2004

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

Didn't this site predict Kerry would win in 2004?

Re:In 2004

[Pink Tinkletini]

Didn't the author claim microkernels would prevail?

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

This site doesn't "predict" - it merely reports poll numbers. Obviously political polls have margins of error, so this site doesn't show the outcome of the elections - it just collects all the polls in an easy-to-see format.

Re:In 2004

[ScentCone]

It was impossible to predict the disaster that was Katherine Harris in Florida.

Yes, she's just a terrible person, forcing people to vote the way they did, not for Kerry. Or are you confusing 2004 with 2000, when she also didn't force anybody to vote in any particular way? I see.

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure which author you are talking about (parent post, summary, etc?) but seeing that microkernels are largely used in anything that needs a semblance of stability (ATMs, mission critical systems) it seems that they did indeed have success. Unlike an election, it's not an all or nothing situation.

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't he ?

Re:In 2004

[DrJimbo]

They reported the exit polls that showed Kerry would win.

If you Google("exit polls" ukraine) you will see that there was a similar disparity between the exit polls and the official results in a Ukrainian election held around that same time.

There was almost universal agreement in the West that in the Ukrainian election the exit polls were correct and the official results were rigged. AFAIK, the last two national elections that Bush purportedly won (and now the recent election in Mexico) are the only ones where the exit poll results differed from the official results by statistically significant amounts and yet the official result was still accepted by our media almost without question.

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

>anything that needs a semblance of stability

Let's see, is MVS a microkernel? No? How about HP/UX? Nope. VMS? Well, looks like your overbroad generalization is invalid too.

Re:In 2004

[God of Lemmings]

Yes, poll disparity does in fact indicate tampering. In fact, I know people personally who were prevented from voting by republican poll challengers. Considering that I live in a "blue state", I would have to say that it was very wide spread.

Google provides some good info on its first search page: http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls= org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=poll+disp arity+indicates+tampering&btnG=Google+Search

I seem to recall seeing something on some conservative websites, where they were spreading a belief that the democrats were going to try and steal the election in 2004. Thus I believe that many poll challengers believed that they were combating fraud, while in fact they were contributing to it.

Google doesn't do so good on this one:
http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe =off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aof ficial_s&q=democrats+will+try+to+steal+the+electio n&btnG=Search

The media was well aware that the election was being stolen. They had to be. There were in fact some stories posted on CNN's web site for a short period of time in regards to election problems... but does anyone ever remember seeing anything appear on any of their TV networks?

Also, despite electoral-vote.com's popularity and dozen or so mirror sites. They were ALL ddosed into oblivion on the night of the election. Or doesn't anyone recall that? What other reason would someone ddos a site containing nothing but collected poll information if not to suppress it.

Re:In 2004

[smithsfan]

"and yet the official result was still accepted by our media almost without question. uhhhh... the media weren't "accepting" the results, they were helping us to accept them. And it's all Bill Clinton's fault. You can thank the Telecommunications Deregulation Act, that WJC signed, for the state that we're in. Now there are six evil, profit driven (of course) corporations in control of 95% of the major media in this country. They are all run by men ruled by either god, power or money and those are the tenets of the Republican party and, therefore, the Republicans will always win any election within about 5% (which I'm just estimating as the threshold that they would have the nerve to... god, what's the word? Steal, hijack, rig... damn...

Re:In 2004

[MojoRilla]

You can speculate all you want, or you can read the 77 page report from the company who did the exit polls.

Re:In 2004

[ScentCone]

No, that's just the point, idiot. No matter how people voted, morons like Harris prevented their votes from being counted.

You should probably get your news from some source other than the alien broadcasts that you receive through your dental fillings.

No votes were "prevented" from being counted. The losing candidate wanted only a re-evaluation of the votes in the four counties where he knew he had the strongest representation, and the election review folks in each of those counties were applying continually varying, mind-reading-style standards to the process. His opponent said: this isn't a reasonable way to handle a recount. There need to be some standards that don't change in the middle of the count within the same counties. The state supreme court then handed out a ruling that essentially involved new election rule legislation during the election. The Supreme Court rightly said that wasn't fair to the other voters in the state, which Gore wanted to ignore because he knew that closer inspection of those other districts' votes wouldn't help him.

And of course, it made no difference, because in the wake of that every single ballot, state-wide, was re-evaluated by several third parties (representatives from newspapers, etc., including those who backed Gore), and by every standard, including the highly biased ones that Gore wanted use, he still lost.

So, how exactly did Katherine Harris prevent people's votes from getting counted?

Re: In 2004

[klenwell]

An interesting point and one I greatly sympathize with. Still, I doubt the Ukranian ancien regime had the same church-powered electoral machine that Rove & Co. had put together. The correlation is tantalizing, but I'd like to hear more about the causation.

One tangible difference Democrat control of the House would make: some sorely deserved government funded official investigations of the crap this Administration has been hiding -- or calling "old news" -- for the last 6 years. And we're not just talking blowjobs here. Not that they wouldn't be partisan and politically driven on the media-covered surface of them. But it would be nice to see some sunlight thrown on this Administration, its party, and its practices.

Re:In 2004

[AlexDV]

No, the post is refering to the maintainer of electoral-vote.com, Dr. Andrew Tanenbaum, who in 1992 instigated a heated debate with Linus Torvlads on the comp.os.minix newsgroup about the relative merits of microkernels vs. monolithic kernels. Tanenbaum maintained that "LINUX is obsolete" and suggested that "people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that." Of course, history tells us that millions of businesses and individuals disagree with his position.

O'Reilly has a transcript:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/ap pa.html

Re:In 2004

[DrJimbo]

Thanks for the info. But I think that report you linked to tends to fuel speculation rather than squash it.

They said they don't know why there was a statistically significant difference between their exit polls and the official results expect if for some unknown reason Kerry voters were more willing to partake in the exit poll than Bush voters. I can certainly think of at least one other possible reason.

But not to worry, they were able to still get their "exit poll results" closer to the official results and call all the races correctly by the simple stratagem of skewing their result toward the official results as the official results came in.

I applaud this new strategy of theirs because it is very effective at hiding the actual discrepancy between their exit polls and the official results and gives the incorrect impression that their result provide independent confirmation of the official results. Now we no longer have to worry our pretty little heads over these pesky exit poll discrepancies.

They do not give any explanation of why their raw exit poll results deviated so far from the official results nor are they willing to release their raw exit poll data. They are only willing to release exit poll data that was "adjusted" to match the official results.

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

God, what a freak. Do you think maybe those "ddos" were actually tons of people normal going to the website in large numbers because it WAS the night of the election? After all, when would you expect interest to be highest? This just demonstrates that all you tinfoil hat/conspiracy freaks reach ridiculous conclusions based on perfectly normal happenings.

Re:In 2004

[Bj�rn]

I would suggest reading Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s article in Rolling Stone: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

You and I must be using different internets. When I run that search the top result is a Rolling Stone article -- hardly iron-clad proof. What I did find was this debunking of that Rolling Stone article: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/is_rfk _jr_right.html

It goes point by point and debunks the article, but here's one of the kickers:

There is reason for a sense of embarrassment and it involves one of the most blatant omissions from the Kennedy article: U.S. exit polls have been wrong before. In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988. And while the 2004 discrepancy was the highest ever, they were almost as far off in 1992. More specifically, the "within precinct error" (WPE) reported by Edison-Mitofsky showed differences favoring the Democrat of 2.2 points on the margin in 1988, 5.0 in 1992, 2.2 in 1996, 1.8 in 2000 and 6.5 in 2004 (see p. 34).

(Emphasis mine).

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot of hay made over "raw" results vs. final results. However, I don't think people understand that for exit polls to be meaningful they have to be massaged. You're not asking everyone at every polling place -- you're selecting a small population at a small number of polling places for a given district. You then have to fit that data back into overall voting population. How do you get the voting population? Phone polls ahead of the election are the most accurate method. Unfortunately, in the "battleground" states the likely voting population experience poll burnout. Everybody and anybody was polling and as it got closer to election day polls got less and less accurate as the participating sample became less and less statistically significant. So if your inaccurate polls said that Leather Goddesses from Phobos made up 10% of the voting population, you'd have to make sure that your exit poll interviews included a statistically significant number of Leather Goddesses from Phobos. Here's another curve ball. Joe Bag O' Donuts who loaded the initial data doubled up one of the files. That meant that the initial samples were expecting 20% of the voter population to be Leather Goddesses. If Leather Goddesses happen to vote early, their votes will be overstated in the exit poll results vs. actual results. If Joe realizes his error and loads a correct set of sampling data then the candidate in favor of subjugating men and shipping them off to Mars will suddenly see his projected lead drop.

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we stole the election in 2000, we stole the election in 2004, and guess what, we will steal it again in 2008. If you liberals were half the intellectuals you like to think you are, you would be able to do something about it.

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good god stop your damn whining. Kerry is a wuss on defense and it cost him - that's about it. You freaking liberals are so full of crap - if you lose any election, it had to be stolen. If someone points our where your stance is wrong, it must be because of hatred. If you use a megaphone to prevent a conservative from talking, it's free speech - if it's done to you, they are violating your 1st amendment rights. I could go on and on.

Stop your damn whining - polls are wrong on a regular basis because of the way they are taken. And as far as the TV networks - are you out of your mind? The liberal machine controls them - take a look at the owners. Do you REALLY think those bleeding-heart liberal owners WANTED Bush to win? Are you kidding me? Whine , whine whine.

On the other hand, please continue with your silly-ass Bush hatred. I find it extemely amusing how much time and energy is wasted fighting a man in the last two years office that can't run again.

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

A relevant quote from the very detailed Rolling Stones article on the whole issue:

Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky's own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters' questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey -- compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) ''The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,'' observes Freeman, ''but actually contradicts it.''

What's more, Freeman found, the greatest disparities between exit polls and the official vote count came in Republican strongholds. In precincts where Bush received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to within three tenths of one percent -- a pattern that suggests Republican election officials stuffed the ballot box in Bush country.(39)

38) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 128.
39) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 130.

Re:In 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Paging Dr Paranoid, your evidence just arrived in the mail. Oh no wait, those wascally wittle wepublicans just can and stoled it. Darn. But gosh you should have seen it- it was totally all like here and visible and verifiable and everything. Oh well, better luck next time.

In fact, I know people personally who were prevented from voting by republican poll challengers.
No doubt. And my cousin's friend's former roommate saw bigfoot eat this woman's baby once. He would have shown up in court to testify to it but he forgot when the court date was. True story.

Remember, your vote counts.

[Anonymous Coward]

1998 called, they want their reality back.

How do poll results help (real) voters?

[ScentCone]

Are we talking about people who need to see what other people are saying they'll do so that they know what they should, themselves, do with their vote when the time comes?

*sheep sounds*

Re:How do poll results help (real) voters?

[Ruff_ilb]

They can be rather inspiring - if I see that my candidate is behind in the polls, I might be inspired to run down to the local campaign office and help with mailings, or canvassing, or something, or at least show up to vote on election day.

It works the other way, too. If my candidate is ahead in the polls, I might want to help out to assure victory.

Besides, they're simply INFORMING the voters. Surely you can't have a problem with that?

Re:How do poll results help (real) voters?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Just more some interesting (and sometimes scary) information. Not actually that site, but found it on a link from that site is interesting site about senators approval ratings. One of those scary things is the infamous Ted "bridge to nowhere" "internet is series of tubes" Stevens has the 28th highest approval rating of the 100 senators :-(

Re:How do poll results help (real) voters?

[Peyna]

How do poll results help (real) voters?

They let me know if my candidate needs more help, so I know whether to give him more money and start knocking on doors, or if I can focus on another candidate that needs my help instead.

Re:How do poll results help (real) voters?

[Brandybuck]

But of course! And it's not just the couch potatoes who vote this way. Most Green party members voted for Kerry, the man they themselves called a corporate stooge. Even in states where a Kerry win was guaranteed, Greens still didn't vote for their candidate.

Re:How do poll results help (real) voters?

[Ian Alexander]

"Are we talking about people who need to see what other people are saying they'll do so that they know what they should, themselves, do with their vote when the time comes? *sheep sounds*"

I don't know about you, but I'm interested in seeing how candidates are doing in the eyes of the public.

Re:How do poll results help (real) voters?

[kbielefe]

Polls are useful to a "real" voter in selecting a candidate, because of intrinsic weaknesses in first past the post electoral systems.

Say you have two challengers, "A" and "B". You vastly prefer both candidates to the incumbent, and slightly prefer candidate A over candidate B. However, polls indicate that candidate B has a good chance of beating the incumbent, but candidate A does not. The voter who consults the polls ends up with their close second choice, whereas the voter who doesn't follow the polls ends up with their dead last choice.

However, history is full of counterexamples, just look at the Lieberman-Lamont situation.

Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

Remember, your vote counts. Make it out there on November 7th.

Someone isn't very good at math...it's extremely improbable that your one vote is going to matter one way or the other.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

How about when they elected Nixon's head on Futurama?

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[smittyoneeach]

it's extremely improbable that your one vote is going to matter one way or the other.

No, but generalized apathy helps no one.

What we really need to do is:

• Encourage everyone to view voting as a civic duty
  
• Stigmatize treating Democracy as some kind of spectator sport
  

Hate W? Great, get out there and vote against his party!

Please, let's have sufficient turnout that, irrespective of the outcome, we don't have one side whining on, at great taxpayer expense, about how the other thugged the election.

Not that facts would dissuade anyone from exercising their First Ammendment right to complain, but facts make a great sound buffer.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[A beautiful mind]

Stigmatize treating Democracy as some kind of spectator sport

My favorite way to do that is to call those idiots and then explain what the original greek root of it, idiotes, meant for the greeks:

"Idiot" was originally used in ancient Greek city-states to refer to people who were overly concerned with their own self-interest and ignored the needs of the community. Declining to take part in public life, such as (semi-)democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[Erectile Dysfunction]

We are all sorry to hear that you are not good at math, but that is an entirely different matter than the one under discussion.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[smittyoneeach]

Splendid! Thank you for this. Truly, "stuff that matters".

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

The Founding Fathers stigmatized democracy quite well, I think, and for reasons that have been borne out.

The Party is not President Bush, and President Bush is not the Party. Vote for or against policies. Trying to indirectly slap Bush in the face by voting against someone simply because they are in the same Party is petulant and immature. By voting for advocates of fiscal conservatism and the free-market who are Republican, I can be "voting against" President Bush just as much as someone who votes for a candidate who believes in an even more gargantuan national government and a far greater socialized economy can be "voting against" President Bush.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[smittyoneeach]

By voting for advocates of fiscal conservatism and the free-market who are Republican, I can be "voting against" President Bush just as much as someone who votes for a candidate who believes in an even more gargantuan national government and a far greater socialized economy can be "voting against" President Bush.

"The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory"
Part of the compromise inherent in our representative democracy is that you're guaranteed some bathwater with your baby.
We end up voting not to maximize the baby, but minimzed the current and projected bathwater.
Perhaps the internet can eventually provide better feedback, as http://porkbusters.org/ would seem to indicate.
One hopes.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[Mr. Slippery]

Trying to indirectly slap Bush in the face by voting against someone simply because they are in the same Party is petulant and immature.

For good or for ill - mostly for ill - the rules of the Congress are set up so that the majority party has a great deal of power.

By voting for advocates of fiscal conservatism and the free-market who are Republican, I can be "voting against" President Bush...

Sadly, so long as the current leadership of Republican party remains in place, a vote for any Republican candidate for Congress is a vote for empowering neoconservatives and theocrats, even if the individual candidate is a reasonable human being.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

I don't know, to me, anything not Constitutionally mandated is a bigger problem than pork. I think returning the national government to Constitutional legitimacy would mostly take care of the pork issue.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

Well, neo-cons are essentially Wilsonian Democrats, and I don't see any theocrats. No one is agitating for placing religious leaders in charge of the government and turning the US into an Iran.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[An Onerous Coward]

Perhaps true, but do we really want all elections decided by people who are too stupid to recognize that? :)

And of course, thanks to the arbitrary lines we drew on a map over the last few hundred years, some people will have a great deal more say over who will control Congress than others. If you're living in an area with a close race, your individual decision to go to the polls matters a lot. If you're living in Utah like me, you get to watch a good candidate--one who really seems to understand what this country needs to do to preserve democracy--get thumped by a politician-for-life with a massive warchest and a desire to let the RIAA blow up my computer.

I'm going to the polls to help out in whatever races I can, and to cast my traditional "vote out all sitting judges" ballot. I'll also be voting for Pete Ashdown, if only to brand myself as one of those damned liberals. But my point is, if you live in a close race, you should be especially motivated to get out and vote.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

Well, I live in NH, so I suppose my vote is slightly magnified for the Presidential primaries.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[gilroy]

Someone isn't very good at political theory. Your vote can count even if it doesn't determine the outcome. (We'll leave aside all the obvious Diebold jokes about the vote not actually being counted.) Sure, most likely the contest will have a margin of more than one vote. That doesn't mean the individual votes didn't "count" (that's how we know the margin) or that they didn't "matter" (since they contributed to the aggregate outcome).

It's a really whiny, 2nd-grade kind of voter who demands his or her vote be the determining factor...

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[cliffski]

you missed out picking a winner based on the popular vote. I still don't see how an electoral college system can be described as a democracy. We have a similar travesty in the UK, where the government was elected with a pathetic fraction of the votes, just the right votes, in the right places.
I dont see how either the UK or the USA can call themselves a democracy, when they have such flawed systems.
Surely the guy with most votes should win right?

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[Mr. Slippery]

neo-cons are essentially Wilsonian Democrats

There may indeed be some similarities. So what? Wilson was an enemy of liberty who tangled the U.S. up into the war between colonial powers, imprisoned socialists who opposed him, pushed through the blatantly unconstitutional Sedition Act, sent American troops to back the Czarists in the Russian Revolution (setting the stage for decades of Cold War distrust), and interfered militarily in Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, Panama, and Nicaragua.

So what? Bush sucks now, Wilson sucked decades ago. Backing a Democratic candidate now opposes Bush now, it doesn't have any influence that travels back in time to support Wilson.

I don't see any theocrats.

Then you're closing your eyes.

Do you not recall Bush the First's statement that atheists should not be considered as citizens or patriots because "this is one nation under God"?

Have you not noticed the religous ritual that occurs in schools across the nation each morning, where children swear alliegiance to "one nation under God"?

Have you already forgotten about Roy Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, who holds that Biblical law must be the law of the land? Have you been stopping up your ears every time a story about Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, or their cronies in the Religious Right comes around?

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[smittyoneeach]

Pork is but an example of the "elastic clause" in the Constitution being stretched to the limits.
As nerds, we should be able to look at the way the US Government plays out (for twisted values of "plays") and say "Yep: got a poorly factored hierarchy here, with three layers of government, and then the layering completely shot by TLAs like the SSA and IRS".
Note that I'm specifically attacking the factoring here, not trying to start a flamewar over whether the SSA (Social Security Administration) is a Good Thing or not.
The good news about the SSA is that it's a known quantity, and you get economies of scale from handling it at the Federal level.
One could wish that one's individual vote might have more potential to affect the course of the SSA, however...

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

How can it have an economy of scale? It doesn't do anything, it just recycles money with no actual product or economic output.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[PhreakOfTime]

Someone isn't very good at math...it's extremely improbable that your one vote is going to matter one way or the other.

Someone isnt very good at not being a pompus ass.

What were you saying about 1 vote? You vote 'counts' in the fact that your choice is represented in the total results. When you cast it, it counts period. It should be no suprise in the US, that people only consider a vote to count only when it could be the deciding vote, as if to say that their vote is somehow more important than the rest. With that kind of education level in a society, is it any wonder that the US gets the leaders that it does?

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[smittyoneeach]

Well, if you duplicated the SSA across 50 states, it would likely need 50X the staff or so, no?

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

I don't think so, because you wouldn't need the full staff for each State. Say, a bit more than 1/50th for each in a worse case scenario. In any case, the scheme would be far more responsive to voters and you'd always have the option of getting out of the thing by moving to another State.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

Oh, it's you. Lower your prices for Democracy already. :-P

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[smittyoneeach]

Well, I wouldn't, true, but: we aren't talking about me now, are we?

This is management brought to you by the "If it ain't br0k3, fix it until it is" crowd.

Multiplying the staff by 50 represents a lower bound, you starry-eyed optimist! ;)

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[sheldon]

The Party is not President Bush, and President Bush is not the Party. Vote for or against policies. Trying to indirectly slap Bush in the face by voting against someone simply because they are in the same Party is petulant and immature.

This is rather idealistic and misses reality. In the United States, if a party has a President in office that President is regarded not just the leader of the country but also the political leader of the party. Given the President's power of the Bully pulpit, the influence on policy direction is extreme.

By voting for advocates of fiscal conservatism and the free-market who are Republican, I can be "voting against" President Bush just as much as someone who votes for a candidate who believes in an even more gargantuan national government and a far greater socialized economy can be "voting against" President Bush.

I'm not aware of any Republicans who believe in fiscal conservatism or free-market capitalism.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[daigu]

While you are going about doing this, I take it that you are also careful to explain the differences between the U.S.-style "republican democracy" (an oxymoron) and Athenian Democracy, the latter of which "remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right."

Personally, I think not voting is as legitimate as voting. It is essentially a vote of no-confidence. The non-vote is a vote that says that the choice being offered is no choice at all, and by not voting, I am choosing not to give the process legitimacy by participating. I support not voting when your vote doesn't mean anything - like it currently doesn't within the U.S.

You want to get people involved? They will get involved when they have a real choice and a real say. Work to make that happen and people will line up at the polls. I'd love to see some good Athenian democracy in the U.S. or any kind of democracy. I'll be the first at the polls when it actually means something. Call me when I have a real choice in representatives (example: where was the Peace candidate in 2004? You would have to vote Green or socialist to find a candidate and these candidates weren't even on my state's ballot), proportional representation, and on and on.

Vote now: Red hot poker in the eye or frontal lobotomy? You decide. Some choices aren't choices at all. So, I'll pass on the vote thanks. It's my way of giving the whole set-up the finger (the middle one).

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[Abcd1234]

Vote now: Red hot poker in the eye or frontal lobotomy?

Or perhaps vote for a third party candidate? If you're planning not to vote in the first place, clearly you're not worried about "throwing your vote away", and a vote for a third party candidate is as much, if not more of a statement than not voting at all. After all, the latter can be construed as simple apathy. The former is a clear statement that you're unhappy with the status quo.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

Senator Sununu, Representative Ron Paul. There are others, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. So you're right, the GOP has certainly not preserved the legacy of President Reagan, but they at least pay lip service to fiscal conservatism and free-market capitalism. The Dems are mostly outright against both, especially with the repudiation of the DLC and the New Democrats, which brought the Democrats a rare two-term President in President Clinton.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[cliffski]

one day maybe. hey it still sells. Go on, its only the price of a pizza :D

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[daigu]

Let's say I wanted to vote for Cobb of the Green Party and I live in some far off place like New York or Chicago. Cobb isn't on the ballot in those states - in addition to others. Most people that suggest third-party candidates aren't aware of how resticted ballot access is in many states. Further, our system is designed to make these kind of votes as effective as not voting at all.

So, I'm not particulaly concerned about how not voting is construed or not construed by my fellow citizens. What I am concerned about is more actual say in my government - which the current system does not provide. Until I get more say, I'm not voting. It legitimizes the process that is fundamentally broken, and I would rather not - even if I could vote for the candidate of my choice (which I can't).

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[sheldon]

Reagan didn't believe in fiscal conservatism or free-market capitalism either. He never did balance the budget, despite his 1980 campaign promise. His view of capitalism was to protect companies from competition, which has always been the core of Republican economic policies.

The Democrats are much closer to those beliefs than the Republicans. You can stuff your head in the sand if you want, but as you noted that is what Clinton brought us, and Bush just brought us a return of Reagan's failed policies(while totally ignoring Reagan's good policies).

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

His view of capitalism was to protect companies from competition, which has always been the core of Republican economic policies.

What do you mean by this? Certainly Democrats were closer to those beliefs in the past, but not since the late 19th century.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[sheldon]

Ronald Reagan: Protectionist

As for GW Bush, we can look back at the impact he's had with his steel duties(something that Clinton refused to implement). Such examples have resulted in raising costs to companies who use those resources, while at the same time protecting the existing producers from competition and taking the market pressure off of them to increase productivity and efficiency of operation.

Most people think that the first explanation they hear is the truth, and don't spend much time analyzing the facts and trying to understand the complexities. As such you've been told that Republicans are free-traders and free market capitalists and that's what you believe.

The truth is far more complicated that that.

Consider this take on Jimmy Carter for instance, who was responsible for deregulating the airline, trucking, railroad, oil and breaking up AT&T. It even notes that Reagan made a deal with the Teamsters to get their votes, promising to halt deregulation of trucking.

The only thing Republicans are good at is taking credit for stuff that goes well, and placing blame when it goes poorly.

Re:Think Happy Thoughts, Ignore Reality

[MSTCrow5429]

I know Bush enacted the steel duties, which was one of the first hints he was no conservative. As for Carter, I'm aware of his deregulation policies, which is the only thing I like about the man.

It's Wrong

[christopherfinke]

Why does it have Connecticut as "Strong Dem" if it shows Lieberman leading as an Independent, 49-41?

Re:It's Wrong

[Ironsides]

Lieberman was (last I heard) running as an independant democrat. Even without the democratic nomination, he's running as a democrat part member.

Re:It's Wrong

[Dragonslicer]

Well, Lieberman leading Lamont 49-41 means the Republican candidate (which almost nobody, including Republican leaders, is even acknowlegding exists) is getting at most 10% of the vote. I'd say that's a pretty strong Democrat state.

Re:It's Wrong

[Brandybuck]

He lost the primary because only Democrats vote in Democrat primaries. But the general election will consist of Democrats AND Republicans AND independents AND third parties. It's tempting to think that all Democrats will vote how their Democrat masters tell them to, but Connecticut voters are more mature than that. I suspect at least a third of them will vote for Leiberman.

Single issue candidates always do better in primaries than in general elections. Which is why Lamont will probably lose. Leiberman is more solidly liberal than Lamont, and Connecticut is a liberal state. Do the math.

Re:It's Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Lieberman is running as a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party. He can call it whatever he wants, but there is only one Democrat in the race and his name is not Joe Lieberman. That's why we have primaries in the first place.

Re:It's Wrong

[MarkusQ]

Well, Lieberman leading Lamont 49-41 means the Republican candidate (which almost nobody, including Republican leaders, is even acknowledging exists) is getting at most 10% of the vote. I'd say that's a pretty strong Democrat state.

The reason the Republicans aren't admitting that "their candidate" exists is that they're funding Lieberman; in effect, he is their candidate. After all, he was already voting with them when it mattered (and making a big showing of opposing them when it didn't).

--MarkusQ

Re:It's Wrong

[ArtStone]

Doesn't the attitude of the Democratic Party leadership to Lieberman pretty much prove that "Independent Democrat" is an oxymoron?

If you're a Republican in Connecticut (and Lieberman isn't convinced to withdraw), it is easy to make a case for supporting Ned Lamont (contrary to the generally accepted media expectations and push polls) - to move the Democrats even more into the extreme left fringe and alienate the moderates in other states.

Lieberman isn't going to join the Republican Caucus no matter what, so what exactly is the point of supporting him with money and votes when he says he will vote against Republicans 80% of the time? (the other 20%?)

Lieberman's seniority only has significant value to Connecticut if he is a member of the majority party in the Senate. So are Connecticut and National Republicans rooting for a change to Democratic control of the US Senate in 2006? If that happens, how will Lieberman being in the Senate help the Republicans? None of this makes sense. There must be an obvious explanation that I just can't spot.

The Republican candidate has zero chance of winning, so he isn't a factor either way.

Haha

[Mwongozi]

Best. Use of a non standard port. Ever.

Re:Haha

[IrishMASMS]

Disagree, when you are trying to access the site from a place that blocks all non standard ports.

Re:In 2004 QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

It was impossible to predict the disaster that was Katherine Harris in Florida.

You mean, that disaster that actually tried to follow the law?? What a bitch. She didn't break the law in order to make the Democrats happy.

Next time, I'm sure the Democrats have better strategies to force states to break the law in order to make them the winner.

Success?

[Keebler71]

The map, updated daily, was a phenomenal success.

What exactly does this quote from the summary mean? What does one mean when one says that a election polling site "was a pehnomenal success"? I think that this an excellent site and visiting it many times each day during the 2004 election. In the end, the final prediction turned out wrong (no fault of the site, as it is an aggregate of all the polls which themselves were wrong). But this does raise the following question... what is the point of tracking polls and why do we political junkies savor them so? I'd be curious to see a survey on the the historical accuracy of polling, as it seems to me that Republicans consistently outperform (or alternately Dems underperform) their polled-predicted performance. The reasons for this could range anywhere from Republicans "stealing the vote" or emocrats just not being as motivated as they say there are, or even a biased polling system.

Heck, I'd even suggest that this obsession with tracking polls hurts the country, in the sense that it conditions the population toward and expected outcome, and when that outcome does not come (e.g. 2004) the losing side's rage is amplified and it forments conspiracy theories where there may be none. None of this helps us as a society. So I ask again - what does "success" mean in terms of polling?

There is only one poll that matters - and it occurs at the ballot box.

Re:Success?

[sheldon]

It's interesting, when unaffiliated groups monitor elections in countries which are just finally getting around to voting, they use opinion polls to track whether or not there is fraud going on in the election. That is if the polls say X is going to win 60/40, and he loses 49/51... that flags that something's wrong.

That being said, polls have a margin of error and are pretty worthless when the results are close.

Re:Success?

[noidentity]

There is only one poll that matters - and it occurs at the ballot box.

Worry not; that last little nuisance is being taken care of.

Who, What, When, Where, Why.

[headkase]

The Internet really shakes things up. Millions of people are beginning to have access to high quality contextual information. A site like electoral-vote.com provides voters with the relevant information they need to decide where their vote goes. Getting all meta here, through peoples actions the Internet self-organizes information as needed or from reference (message boards and wikis respectively).

Actually your vote probably doesn't count

[Colin Smith]

If you live in a "safe" seat, your vote is probably irrelevant. There are relatively few seats which can flip back and forth.

There is a better way of course but you're unlikely to see it in your lifetime.

Re:Actually your vote probably doesn't count

[Jeremi]

There is a better way of course but you're unlikely to see it in your lifetime.

Well, there is some room for optimism... there's a movement afoot amongst various states to agree to allocate all their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote tally. The agreement would be legally binding and go into effect as soon as enough states are parties to it represent 270 votes (i.e. enough to be the sole determiners of the election winner). The bill has been passed in California and is awaiting the Governor's signature.

The beauty of this scheme is that it delivers the result we want (presidential election by popular vote) without having to change the electoral college system (and thus not having to modify the Constitution, which is a very difficult thing to do).

Andrew S Tanenbaum

[Psionicist]

In case you don't know, the guy behind this website is Andy Tanenbaum, the Minix guy, the Linus Torvalds flameware guy, the Modern Operating System guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tanenbaum

"In 2004 Tanenbaum created electoral-vote.com, a popular web site analyzing opinion polls for the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, using them to project the outcome in the Electoral College."

Re:Andrew S Tanenbaum

[TheoMurpse]

From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in electoral-vote.com?
Summary: small poll for my new poll-tracking system
Message-ID:
Date: 7 Sep 06 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

Hello everybody out there using electoral-vote.com -

I'm doing a (free) poll-tracking system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like Gallop) for the US. This has been brewing since april,
and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people
like/dislike in electoral-vote.com, as my website resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the map (due to practical reasons) among other
things).

I've currently ported the poll-grepping code, and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few days, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)

                              Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)

PS. Yes - it's free of any electoral-vote.com code, and it has a multi-
threaded fs. It is NOT protable (uses Firefox XUL etc), and it probably
never will support anything other than Firefox, as that's all I have :-(.

Re:Andrew S Tanenbaum

[beej]

The fact that this is being moderated "Informative" is a little disconcerting.

vote for you slashdot party candidate

[superwiz]

With readership around three quarters of a million and influence on the opinions much stronger than any party affiliation, it is hard to argue that slashdot has no voice in deciding elections. Remember that it is ran by less than a dozen editors who decide on all the story and all of a sudden you realize that if they can manage to get people to vote they are likely to vote their way. Could this be a beginning of a Technocrats party?

that's OK

[r00t]

For a vote to be meaningful, you have to believe that one candidate is less awful than the other. I guess you have a duty to vote if you feel this way. You would probably be deluding yourself.

It's not as if the other party doesn't take campaign contributions.

Lots of contributers automatically give money to the incumbant, no matter what party that may be. Other contributers just give money to both!

The DMCA wasn't a republican thing, but it could have been! The same for various wars; democrats like to start them too. In case anyone thinks Hillary would be tame, please remember Margaret Thatcher -- if anything, the women have more to prove. Vote one gang out, and all you get is the other. It's easy to look like you're not an evil bastard when you're not in office.

Probably the sanest thing is to vote for the guy who is least likely to sign laws that are difficult to undo. It's easy to undo a law that makes cocksucking a felony, but very hard to undo a law that makes a large segment of the population (individuals, car companies, whatever...) depend on some sort of handout. Truth is though... both sides gleefully pass laws that are damn hard to undo. Hardly ever is a law simply removed. Our law is a thick layer of cruft which mainly serves to support the legal profession. Hint: find out who the Trial Lawyer's Association is supporting.

Re:that's OK

[Mr. Slippery]

It's easy to undo a law that makes cocksucking a felony, but very hard to undo a law that makes a large segment of the population (individuals, car companies, whatever...) depend on some sort of handout.

Not at all. First, budgets (including "handouts") are renewed, revised, and renegotiated every year (or perhaps in some states every n years?); the criminal code is not. Second, if what you suggest were the case, laws against cocksucking would have been stricken long ago, while economic policies would endure; in fact, anti-cocksucking laws remain on the books in many states, while economic policies come and go.

Third, anti-cocksucking laws mean that people get locked into cages and that police pry into people's personal affairs; economic policies mean that money gets shifted around. If offered a choice between a 10% paycut due to some economic policy, and the possibility of the police staking out my bedroom to arrest my girlfriend and I for unsanctioned sexual activity, I'll take the pay cut, thanks.

Hardly ever is a law simply removed.

Simply removing a law is not a guarantee that liberty is increased. Were the Fifth Amendment to be repealed, for example, that would be "removing a law", and certainly removing that guff about "due process" would streamline the government.

Re:that's OK

[r00t]

When I say "handout", don't think "budget". Think "entitlement". People come to depend on such things. Changing the law would throw many people into bankrupcy. The property tax situation out in California will never be fixed. The problems with Social Security have not been fixed and will not be fixed.

The mere existance of a stupid law is not proof that it would be difficult to remove. A law against cocksucking is easy to repeal. Nobody goes bankrupt if we decide to allow cocksucking. If that hasn't been done, well, the people may just like the law being the way it is.

USA is not the world!

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone made a similar page for Zimbabwe, would it make front page on Slashdot? Would we be advised to make our vote on a certain day? No? Let me guess, because nobody from the Slashdot staff is from Zimbabwe?

Thank you very much, but I have no interest in the US Congressional Elections, as neither do probably over 90% of Slashdot visitors.

(Posting AC.)

Re:USA is not the world!

[Anonymous Coward]

so how's the weather in zimbabwe, anyway?

Horserace blog

[amightywind]

This guy had excellent and accurate analysis of the 2004 election. I hope he starts up again.

Remember, your vote counts...

[BgFOOT323]

unless you happen to be an urban minority voter in my state, Ohio. In which case Mr. Ken Blackwell will probably be doing all he can as head of the state elections board to supress your vote and ensure his own victory as governor. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/1058671 4/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Re:Remember, your vote counts...

[/dev/trash]

So all ethnic minortites are voting for Dems? I think....no.

Re:Remember, your vote counts...

[BgFOOT323]

No, but apparently enough have voted Dem. in the past to motivate Blackwell to go out of his way to disenfranchise as many as he could in the areas with a historical Dem. majority.

Re:Remember, your vote counts...

[crabbz]

It amazes me that the head of the elections board can be in an election they are running. Why is this allowed? Any truly ethical person would excuse themselves from one or the other, but then this is politics. BTW, I'm in Ohio too...

Re:Remember, your vote counts...

[BgFOOT323]

i know what you mean. i think we in this state can sympathize with the floridians in 2000 with having a state official hand the election to bush.

great, but flawed

[verloren]

I visited this site daily during the 2004 election, and was always impressed by the rigor it applied to the subject. But we shouldn't forget that while it was thorough, it was still wrong as wrong as the aggregate of all the polls it relied on. Doesn't mean it will be wrong this time, but don't assume it's right either.

If electoral-vote is down...

[bloodstar]

you can use the mirror sites www.electoral-vote2.com and www.electoral-vote3.com. He had problems in 2004 with people coordinating dos attacks against the site.

Wrong

[MarkusQ]

It's tempting to think that all Democrats will vote how their Democrat masters tell them to, but Connecticut voters are more mature than that. I suspect at least a third of them will vote for Leiberman.

I'll assume that you weren't following the campaign closely, and aren't just trolling, but that is pretty much exactly wrong. The party bosses opposed Lamont from the start, not wanting to spend resources on Lieberman's "safe" seat. It was the grass roots that kept pushing for a candidate that represented the views of the people. The party only got behind him (to the extent that they have) reluctantly and well after he won the supposedly unwinable primary.

Single issue candidates always do better in primaries than in general elections. Which is why Lamont will probably lose. Leiberman is more solidly liberal than Lamont, and Connecticut is a liberal state. Do the math.

Again, I'll assume that you aren't just trolling, but this is plain nuts. First, it isn't a single issue race (which issue were you thinking, anyway? Reproductive rights? The war? Big pharma vs. the consumer? Lobbyist reform? Immigration? Ethics?). But regardless of which issue you pick, if you look at Lieberman's actions (and ignore is posturing) he's hardly a liberal, and not at all in step with the bulk of the voters (of all flavors) that he supposedly represents. Finally, is big problem is really that he long ago stopped having anything to do with his district, and became a "national politician" who only wanted them as a backdrop for his leap to higher office (which he has repeatedly failed to grasp).

They are, to put it bluntly, fed up with being used.

--MarkusQ

Re:Wrong

[Brandybuck]

The party bosses opposed Lamont

I know that. But that doesn't stop the fact that the Democrat Party still wants the voters to vote for the Democrat Party candidate.

First, it isn't a single issue race

Yes it is. Leiberman is one of the most liberal Senators in office. But unlike most of the "netroots", he does not have a blinding hatred for Bush. That, and only that, was what caused the netroots to single him out for special treatment. There was some grumblings about his position on Iraq, but his position is hardly unique among Democrat senators. On all other issues he is solidly liberal.

If you hate Bush, you voted for Lamont. If you don't hate Bush, you voted for Leiberman.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Still wrong. According to the data on the website linked on the summary, Leiberman is the 37th (ish, it's hard to count accurately that high on the website, and they're not numbered) most liberal senator. There are only 8 democrats less liberal.

He's also the most conservative Senator from Connecticut.

And it's not personal. If you hate the way Bush is moving the country, you don't vote for his allies. Leiberman is one of those allies.

Re:Wrong

[MarkusQ]

Your biases are showing.

• When I point out that what you said was incorrect you reply "I know that" and then reassert the same false claim in different words.
• The different words include (twice, in under two dozen words) the phrase "the Democrat Party" which Rush Limbaugh endorses as a way of expressing his belief "that the party has nothing to do with democracy".
• You respond to my second point with a second lie (or, to be charitable a bald-faced unsupported claim which turns out to be factually inaccurate), that Leiberman is one of the most liberal Senators in office, even though this has nothing to do with the point you are rebutting or with the basis on which you are rebutting it. But it has been a canard or right-wing talk radio for years, so in it goes.
• You turn around and conflate any disagreement with Lieberman or his positions with "Hatred for Bush", another of Rush's talking points which, when you think about it, makes no sense.
• You conclude by bundling one state's Senate race into the Bush crew's "you're either with us or against us" thought-stopper, which gets dragged out to "explain" everything from global war to local school board elections...but only when looking at the facts and honestly thinking about them would lead you to a different conclusion.

--MarkusQ

Re:Wrong

[Brandybuck]

Your biases are showing

And yours aren't?

And what the fuck does Rush have to do with my post?

Re:Wrong

[MarkusQ]

Your biases are showing

And yours aren't?

Perhaps they are. For instance, I find it jarring when someone who is called on a factual error in their post says "I know that. But that doesn't stop the fact..." and repeats the same incorrect claim that they were just called on. And I suspect that my bias against this sort of thing shows. I have a bias against people who try to paint a picture that is fundamentally untrue with malicious intent. And I have a bias against people who spew talk radio talking points.

If that's what you're accusing me of, I plead guilty as charged.

And what the fuck does Rush have to do with my post?

Apart from stylistic similarities, perhaps nothing. But I note that you once again managed to avoid addressing the point that your earlier claims are demonstrably false, and started acting outraged instead.

--MarkusQ

Diggnabbit.

[Leontes]

Well, here I was posting this information to Digg a full three days ago, when I really should have just submitted the story to slashdot. Of course, it's lack of diggs could have been influenced by pisspoor description. This is not whining, by the way, I am just interested in the sociometric qualities of story-submission dynamics in the slashdot/digg age.

Insightful - Only on Faux News

[PoconoPCDoctor]

Don't mind beng modded down - must be a Right-Winger or an extermely uninformed Mod who modded up the parent as Insightful. So all the reports of widespread voting irregularites and voter suppression in a state governed by the GW's brother were all just a teensy-weeensy co-ink-a-dince?

The election was stolen - the Diebold machines are a plot to steal yet another election.

The 2004 Ohio election results have recently been ordered to be held and not destroyed, since they might record yet another reversal of GW's fortunes.

Wiki has a nice summary of what passed for Democracy in "Kent State Ohio".

Re:Insightful - Only on Faux News

[ScentCone]

So all the reports of widespread voting irregularites and voter suppression in a state governed by the GW's brother were all just a teensy-weeensy co-ink-a-dince?

"All" of the reports? Nice sweeping, and fact-less generality, there. Show the way in which the governor of that state controls the local county election boards, and we'll have more to talk about. Show the way in which the governor of that state caused the news networks to "call" that election in Gore's favor before the western-most (and least likely to vote for Gore) part of the state had even closed their polls, and we'll have more to talk about. Ooops - that worked against, Bush, not for him. The "suppression" of votes is the cry of the loser. The people who were screaming about it have a real hard time, when asked for details, what they're actually talking about. "Can't be a felon" isn't suppressing the vote, any more than dead family members voting Democratic in Ohio are legitimate votes. If you think only one side in these issues can claim "irregularities" (real or not), you're completely wrong.

The 2004 Ohio election results have recently been ordered to be held and not destroyed, since they might record yet another reversal of GW's fortunes.

"Another?"

Re:Insightful - Only on Faux News

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops...you seem to be the one screaming here, right winger...and we're not hearing a lot of details from you, just sweeping and fact-less generalities. That must be embarassing for you to project so much, or is it just that so many Americans understand Bush and his supporters as untruthful unintellects?

I think you wanted LittleGreenIdiotBalls...it's the blog down the hall on the right. Your echo will please you more there. This is Slashdot. We're interested in facts, here.

Re:Insightful - Only on Faux News

[PoconoPCDoctor]

Struck a nerve, have we? By your sig, I can tell you're a gun-totin' NRA dude that only wishes he could stand a post in Iraq - that place where Saddam was hidin' all them terrorists -

NOT!

This country has been hijacked by right-wing neo-cons, who care nothing about the Constitution, or anything else that makes you want to be proud to be an American.

I'm doing my best to get it back, in November 2006 and November 2008.

This dog can hunt.

Re:Insightful - Only on Faux News

[ScentCone]

I think you wanted LittleGreenIdiotBalls...it's the blog down the hall on the right. Your echo will please you more there. This is Slashdot. We're interested in facts, here.

Exactly why I mentioned the lack of any facts in the comment I responded to. It's just fine to refer to "all the irregularities" that someone says "stole" the election... but the multi-year-marathon of not actually showing what they are does indeed have me annoyed and indignant. So, I trot out a couple reminders of how things actually happened, and you (again!) rather than dealing with the facts you say you want, simply go ad hominem. Not that I'm surprised, of course - since that's all there is when you don't have facts.

Re:Insightful - Only on Faux News

[Anonymous Coward]

"all the irregularities" ... showing what they are

http://www.gregpalast.com/

Read.

Learn.

Next time, use your vote on someone who wouldn't rather see you dead in a desert ditch than give up one precious dollar.

Why is this on slashdot?

[krod4]

Why are we seeing this? I can't find any mention of slashdot as a "news for american politic nerds"? There's an election in Guatemala in a few days, why is there no mention of that?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Toby_Tyke]

This should answer that question for you.

Byt he way, I not an American myslef, nor do I live in the US. But I do accept that Slashdot is a US site, and has a US-centric focus.

how strongly to one side or not?

[wonkobeeblebrox]

He has an interesting page at: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/senator -ratings.html discussing that there really aren't any senators in the middle anymore.

From my analysis of his table "mean" column...
What I found interesting from the table is that the 55 Republicans are more beholden to their side (on avg, 10.47 away from 100% on all issues) than the 44 Democrats are to their side (on avg, 13.56 away from 100% on all issues).

Since that data is taken from all the same bills/amendments/etc, it is a meaningful difference.

Of course, as a registered Green, I knew this already: the Democratic party became "Republicans lite" and left me a long time ago...

Re:how strongly to one side or not?

[Jeremi]

What I found interesting from the table is that the 55 Republicans are more beholden to their side (on avg, 10.47 away from 100% on all issues) than the 44 Democrats are to their side (on avg, 13.56 away from 100% on all issues).

Are they "beholden to their side", or just "strongly committed to their beliefs on the core issues"? I don't think it's possible to tell based on the cited data.

Re:how strongly to one side or not?

[wonkobeeblebrox]

I guess I am just an optimist in thinking that folks want to be moderate and actually solve problems (like Energy Dependency, for one) rather than be partisan gunslingers who cannot for the life of them see any merit in the opposing argument...

Re:how strongly to one side or not?

[wonkobeeblebrox]

of course...

the other response is that you were joking, and I failed to initially catch it (no smiley and all).

Remember all the Republicans who think that deficits are bad (unless they are the ones making them?) In fact, Bush with a Republican Congress has added more to the debt in 5 years than all 43 prior Presidents _combined_.

Remember the Republicans who thought that a war [Kosovo] was bad, but that the Iraq war is good?

Or how about the Arizona Republicans who a couple of years ago tried to blast our Democratic governor for using tricks (selling off and releasing a gov't building, etc) to balance the state budget, on the grounds that it wasn't really "balanced" without these tricks --- but who have no issue at all with the national budget being _hugely_ in the red?

So yes, "strongly committed to their beliefs on the core issues" -- yes-- you are funny. ;-)

Re:how strongly to one side or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, Bush with a Republican Congress has added more to the debt in 5 years than all 43 prior Presidents _combined_.

Not really.

At the beginning of 2001, we see that previous presidents ran up a debt of about $5.7 trillion. The present value of the debt is about $8.5 trillion.

So Bush has run up $2.8 trillion, or about half as much as all previous presidents.

And for what it's worth, which isn't much, the Democrats actually had control of the Senate from Jun 2001 - Jan 2003. But other than that, it's been Republicans.

It looks like Bush's dad contributed about $1.5 trillion, and Clinton did about $1.3 trillion. So we'll have to give them the silver and the bronze medals, I guess.

Mistake! REMEMBER Dems vote Nov 8th!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Republicans vote on the 7th
If you are a Democrat voting on the 7th
YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT!
Vote November 8th

O Tanenbaum, thou art slashdotted!

[Plutonite]

or something.

What happened to all that microkernel superiority now? A bunch of geeks have just DOSed your wonderful servers while eating lunch. I'm not trolling you, O masterful Tanenbaum, but surely thou must be monolithically embarassed?

Re:O Tanenbaum, thou art slashdotted!

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to all that microkernel superiority now? A bunch of geeks have just DOSed your wonderful servers while eating lunch. I'm not trolling you, O masterful Tanenbaum, but surely thou must be monolithically embarassed?

The servers run Linux.

The electoral system would have to be reformed

[Colin Smith]

The first past the post, winner take all, either/or system it's inevitable that it will fall to a two party election. There's no way to increase the numbers of parties (and therefore the representation) without first reforming the electoral system to a more proportional model.

Election Projection was more accurate

[TruRed]

http://www.electionprojection.com/ Election Projection used a formula that included lots of national and state polls. They actually came within 3 electoral votes of predicting the outcome exactly. This year, they're tracking all the Senate, Governor and a bunch of House races, too.

Re:Election Projection was more accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you have to pay to see the same details offered at electoral-vote.com for free. Although, it is nice to see them tracking the House and Governor races.

An election mechanism that makes sense

[Turadg]

You do get to choose between more than two people. The current problem is that if you choose anyone other than the top two candidates, you effectively remove a vote from the candidate you prefer of the top two.

The solution is a mechanism in which you can express your preference for the candidates you believe in and still express your preference for the guy who has a chance but isn't your favorite over the one other guy who has a chance who you really can't stand.

This mechanism is called Preferential Voting, Ranked Voting, or Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV). Where we to have had it in the 2000 presidential election, Nader supporters wouldn't have put Bush in office. If your politics are on the other pole, consider that if this were in place in 1992, Perot supporters wouldn't have put Clinton in office.

It's a no-brainer. Get involved.

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[superflyguy]

The problem with those is that they're either riggable, or fail the condorcet winner criterion. So either voters can rig the election by putting in things that aren't their real preferences, or the person who would beat every single other candidate one-on-one can loose.

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[Jeremi]

The problem with those is that they're either riggable, or fail the condorcet winner criterion. So either voters can rig the election by putting in things that aren't their real preferences, or the person who would beat every single other candidate one-on-one can loose.

It's true no system is going to be perfect. However, even a system with all of the problems you describe above (which are mainly theoretical and unlikely to be a factor in real life scenarios) would still be preferable to the deeply flawed system we have now.

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

While I appreciate your response, you must realize the likelyhood of ever getting any of those form of voting in America is slimmer than getting a shiny new copy of Duke Nuke 'em Forever in you mailbox tomorrow. It ain't gonna happen, which is why I suggest a new form of voting you can start using with the current system: Blank Ballot voting. Boycott the vote. Remove the elected official's legitimacy by refusing to vote for either. It's really simple. Show up, get a ballot, don't fill it out, and drop it in the box. That says "fuck you two party system" loud and clear. Why do you think our leadership was soooo keen on getting Iraqis to vote in the election. So they could turn around and blame the citizenry when things weren't going so smoothly. Welcome to democracy. If you don't give either of the bastards a majority win, they all loose.

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[redcane]

It is fine if the candidate you would beat every other one-on-one can lose. This is how the system works in Australia (and while it's not perfect I like it better). Basically you vote in order of preference for all of the candidates (1-John, 2-James, 3-Jim, 4-Jake). As the votes are counted, the candidate with the lowest votes is eliminated from the running. Any votes for him are redistributed according to the voters preference. In this case if john was running last, my vote would be allocated to James after the first round. Now, lets assume that 30% of the population voted for Jake as their number one preference, ~20% for all the others (With john getting the least, then James, and finally jim getting slightly more). Also in this example the 60% of the population who didn't vote jake as number 1, voted him as their last preference. John has the least votes, and so gets eliminated. The voters preferences go to James and Jim (since all these people had Jake as their last preference.) Eventually James is eliminated, leaving just Jim and Jake, and Jim now has 60% of the votes. So in this case, while Jake was preferred on first preferences, he won't be elected. Now here is the important part, 60% of the population *HATE* jake. Even though they don't agree on who the best guy for the job is, they know who is worst. Jake has some good PR though, and has a lot of voters fooled, to the point that in a two-party system, he would have won. The saying is something like "you don't vote for who you want to get in, you vote against who you want to keep out". Even so in the current political climate there are still only two parties worth a damn, the Liberal/National Coaliation, and the Labor party. (Please note "liberal" is not in the same sense as in the US, it's our more conservative party). Basically they get such a large portion of the primary vote that it becomes a two-party system anyway. It is my belief that people should vote for parties who are organised around a more specific issue first, and the large parties should be lower in the preferences. This would give a chance for a particular issue to actually be resolved, and failing enough support for that more people can agree on the larger parties policies (or disagree, they both seem just as bad).

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[Millenniumman]

I hope everyone does that. Then I'll write in my dog.

If people contest his victory because he is under 35 and not human, I'll sue for discrimination.

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[gd2shoe]

I would far rather have IRV than our current system. A condorcet system would be prefered, but IRV would be a huge leap in the right dirrection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

I wish I had mod points just now.

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a no-brainer to support an electoral method which is strictly LESS strategy-free than the current plurality method? Instant run-off voting means that if you vote for who you want to win, you will very plausibly CAUSE them to lose. Ranking them lower down could give them a greater chance of winning.

IRV failing the monotonicity criterion in startlingly plausible ways suggests to me that it flat-out should not be used. Ever. If you want an election with a preferential ballot, by all means use a Condorcet method. If you want a ballot which is MORE strategy-free (read "better") than what we have now, while still being very easy to count, by all means use an approval ballot. Going through the trouble of introducing a preferential ballot and then using a method of counting the ballots which is WORSE than what we have now (instant run-off voting) makes absolutely no sense, though.

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[Turadg]

You make an important point, though it seems that the example you give assumes that each voter must rank all of the candidates. IRV supports the option that you don't vote at all for the candidates you don't want. Also there are two kinds of monoticity:

"Monotonicity" may sound intimidating, but it is not a big deal. The term actually has several definitions. Pairwise voting methods are monotonic with respect to swapped pairs. This means that, on a ballot marked "Anderson,Reagan,Carter", if you swap Reagan and Carter so the ballot reads "Anderson,Carter,Reagan", the voting method ensures that Carter will not lose if he were already the winner, and Reagan will not win if he were a loser. IRV does not satisfy this, because this may cause Reagan to be eliminated, and the next choices of Reagan's voters could cause someone other than Carter to win. IRV is monotonic with respect to added rankings. If you add a ranking to the end of the list on your ballot, or you add a ballot with a single ranking, it will always help that candidate win, and never hurt any higher-ranked candidates. Pairwise methods do not satisfy this, as demonstrated in a previous answer. The fact that each of these voting methods satisfies one type of monotonicity and not the other is just another reflection of the tradeoff between compromising and gambling on a higher payoff that is inherent to all voting methods.

IRV does have problems. The truth is that all voting systems are open to some manipulation. All democracy is open to manipulation. I did some more research and I take back the "no brainer" comment with regards to IRV. It's not a no-brainer; it's controversial and highly debatable. I think when I wrote "no brainer" I had in mind that our current plurality system is broken and there is obviously something better that will help our democracy. Which system to choose, I'm not so sure anymore. We don't want to get it wrong.

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[An ominous Cow art]

But is he under 35 in dog years? That's what counts. And is there really anything in the rules about having to be human?

Re:An election mechanism that makes sense

[doom]

"Instant Run-off Voting" has the great advantage that average people don't have any trouble understanding it... and it doesn't hurt that "Instant Runoff" sounds like some new kind of lottery ticket.

Pairwise voting schemes seem really peculiar to me -- I have the strong impression that they're the sort of thing that only an election geek can love.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have six people running for one office, wouldn't you need to vote on 36 pairs in order to settle it? If it was a dozen people running, then it would be 144 times, right? And the whole point of these voting schemes is to encourage more "third parties", right?

Compare that to IRV, where the voter just needs to rank all the candidates once. It seems like it scales a lot more easily.

(Though on the other hand, pairwise voting might lend itself to paper-punch ballots a little better.)

ScentCone: Moronic Right Wingers Still Defensive

[Anonymous Coward]

*You* should probably quit getting *your* news from the vicinity of your ass, moron, since your head is taking up a lot of space in there.

Several third parties....like The New York Times....which concluded that under *every* scenario for a state wide recount, the election would have gone to Gore.

Third parties....like USA Today...which found that under the strictest standards, Gore barely won Florida.

Full Review Favors Gore": The Washington Post....Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

Now, moron, what were you saying about third parties? Any more news to pull out of your ass?

Or did you want to really talk about the Republican led Supreme Court, and a decision that overwhelmingly has been decried by legal scholars as partisan bullshit ever since.

Little Makeup Queen Kathy Harris was at the center of making sure counting that favored AWOL was the only counting that was done.

And America has paid for it ever since. What a fucking disaster.

But don't let all this stop you from your mindless support of the worst president since Hoover.

and if we didn't have...

[zogger]

.... the FCC public licensed broadcasters carrying the two party only debates, they would be forced to include several candidates each time, instead of the top two skull and bones globalist party candidates. The league of women voters *stopped* sponsoring the debates over this issue, saying it was unfair and counter democratic, yet the "licensed" broadcasters are going along with the debate hijacking, effectively locking in this two criminal gang power sharing conspiracy. And yes, that is what it is, RICO action. They refuse to cover anyone but the two parties, they won't say no to the demands of the two parties, they just go along with it. That's not journalism, that's controlled propoganda. They are a major part of the problem here, yet they seem to get a free skate and rubber stamped public airwave license renewals for decades and now generations. Now when we had third parties in the debates, the numbers were growing fast for third alternative parties, we had some news coverage and then the debates. That scared the crap out of the billionaire establishment. Then the R and D co-conspirators decided that wouldn't do at all so they insisted on just their allegedly different candidates only.

All this is is prima facie evidence of the continual erosion into a "one party with two barely different wings" dictatorship. The only difference between the two wings is which born-with rights they want to screw you out of. Between the two of them they have them all covered and have effectively hijacked government and the political process and turned it into a big jobs program for their cronies. There's your wasted vote right there, no matter which of those two wings "wins" you'll still be screwed and get your pocket picked and be forced to smile and say "thankyou massa!".

    Right now the R wing controls both houses and the executive branch-see any problems? I sure do. I can also distinctly remember when the big D party controlled both houses and the executive branch. Guess what? Illegal huge war based on lies,(the tonkin gulf attack lies) free speech rights trampled on daily, the feds infilitrating the peace and anti slavery movement and using agent provocatuers, some mighty strange political assassinations with a lot of peculiarities to them indicating connected governmental hijinks, the government using the spy agencies and federal police to spy on "opponents", news people co-opted, fake news, illegal kickback scandals and bribery stuff all the time, propping up tinpot dictators overseas, kow-towing to globalist corporate interests, etc, etc, basically the same shit you see now. *Nothing* has changed, it's the same.

    It doesn't matter D or R "in control" because they are into power sharing with each other. Two cooperating gangs. They keep up the illusion of differences to maintain command and control, to keep the grass roots activists doing useless busy work so they think they are doing something important, and that's it. It's a *farce*.

There's no practical difference. Those wings are both corrupt beyond any hope of repair. There is no choice unless you vote anything but those two wings of the same globalist party, and now it won't matter with blackbox voting, something *both* wings pushed as hard as they could.

Make your vote count for sute and save the

[Anonymous Coward]

constitution at the same time. Do this by voting Libertarian.

Not Valid in All States...

[sethstorm]

Remember, your vote counts
Not valid in (the greater part of) Ohio, or anywhere else with Diebold voting machines.

Re:Not Valid in All States...

[BgFOOT323]

I second this! http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/1058671 4/was_the_2004_election_stolen

New York Times Map

[klenwell]

I love www.electoral-vote.com, but I think the New York Times deserves a lot of credit for their Flash-based election guide:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2006ELECTION GUIDE.html

The by-population version is insightful in a very Edward Tufte-esque sort of way.

Re:ScentCone: Moronic Right Wingers Still Def QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

Several third parties....like The New York Times....which concluded that under *every* scenario for a state wide recount, the election would have gone to Gore.

Nice lack of references. What complete bullshit. I specifically remember articles about the recount which contradict your statements.

Anyway, who cares? Of course, the New York Times can find some obscure scenerio that favors Gore. They're not exactly a neutral party. But what matters is the LAW. Why do Democrats insist that the LAW doesn't matter? When the LAW is applied, then Bush wins -- and did win.

Stop blaming Greens!

[gettingbraver]

Where we to have had it in the 2000 presidential election, Nader supporters wouldn't have put Bush in office

I am so sick and tired of hearing that bull when it was a Supreme Court decision that determined the outcome of the election in 2000!

The decision stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State (and Bush's Florida campaign co-chair) Katherine Harris to certify George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush a majority of the electoral college with 271 votes and enabled him to win the Presidency.

Re:Stop blaming Greens!

[Keebler71]

Right..it was those evil conservative supreme court judges...all seven of them.

Actually your vote never counts

[orzetto]

As far as I know, no election has ever been won by one vote. So your vote does not count anything. If you want to actually make a difference, you had better participate in the campaign somehow. It's a good thing actually, don't feel like you are wasting your vote because you vote for the independent candidate with no chance to win.

Re:Need help here.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have bad karma after a mere six or seven posts, you are a troll.

On the other hand, like some other notable posters to the discussion, if you make a serious and sound contribution to the discussion, you'll get modded up for it, which rapidly turns into good karma.

Unless...

[DirePickle]

Remember, your vote counts.

...unless you live in a state with Diebold voting machines.

StinkCone and Herdlike Behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. Once upon a time, you were one of the wingnut buffoons who was telling us how we should "see the course" in Iraq and support Bush, because "it was what the American people wanted."

What do you say now, little lamb?

Different problem

[RobertinXinyang]

The problem I am going to have in this next election is that I am in a place that I can not send sealed letters and evrything I send must be on the approved paper. I found this out after getting here. So, that only thing I can think of doing is to write to the county clerk and see what king of an exception I can get to the standard form.

History

[/dev/trash]

Is no predictor of the future.

Polls are evil

[dbcad7]

First of all, there are some people who will vote to be a "winner", so they vote for whoever the polls say is going to win.

Then there are those who see their candidate as hopelessly behind.. and they don't go to the trouble to vote

On the flip side, your candidate is supposidly comfortably ahead.. you got things to do.. so you don't vote.

I think there should be a media blackout on polls for at least two weeks prior to an election.. and further that no results should be given for at least 2 days after.. What's the hurry ? the elceted person doesn't start immediately or anything.

BTW, did you catch this re: 2004 (Ohio)?

[gettingbraver]

Written by RFK Jr.

''Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake,'' Conyers told me. ''He saw his role as limiting the participation of Democratic voters. We had hearings in Columbus for two days. We could have stayed two weeks, the level of fury was so high. Thousands of people wanted to testify. Nothing like this had ever happened to them before.''

''The secretary of state is supposed to administer elections -- not throw them,'' says Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Cleveland who has dealt with Blackwell for years. ''The election in Ohio in 2004 stands out as an example of how, under color of law, a state election official can frustrate the exercise of the right to vote.''

For congress and governor in my state, my choices are between do-nothing incumbents and their challengers who out for themselves. What kind of a choice is that? I'm so disgusted, I swear, I am giving serious thought to writing in my own name and getting a few friends to do the same. Just curious as to how the tabulating software really counts a write in vote. Know what I mean?

Electoral-Vote.com blows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Electoral-Vote.com blows...I'm really surprised Slashdot would recommend it. It's highly partisan and its predictions during the last elections were completely off...up until the last day they predicted Kerry would win in a landslide. After he lost the site just closed down for a while in a tiff and wouldn't update to show the final results of Bush winning. If you want scientific, non political analysis and predictions you are going to absolutely the wrong place.

Voting on the Weekend

[zxking]

Why don't Americans vote on a weekend? Wouldn't that increase voter turnout?

I have always wondered what advantage is gained in voting on a Tuesday. I see
two major disadvantages;low voter turnout (as mentioned earlier)and lost productivity
in the workforce. Why is there no movement to have this changed?

Re:Voting on the Weekend

[rbarreira]

So they not only allowed voting outside the weekend, they also chose a specific week day? Great.

Two candidates who don't agree with you

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>I get to choose between TWO people, neither of whom represent me.

And you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils?

A lot of people around the world would kill to be able to pick the lesser of two evils to govern them. That's not a figure of speech either.

Imagine if a large, educated nation blessed with a wealth of oil and a superb trading location had been able to pick the *lesser* of two evils every four years from 1979 onwards instead of getting 24 years of Saddam Hussein.

Voting against bad candidates is a civic obligation like jury duty or donating blood.

If you're involved in the process,

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

You can use polling data to allocate your limited resources strategically.

Sometimes this works too well and the winner will have spent just enough effort and money to get fifty percent of the vote plus epsilon, which since epsilon is within the margin of error will create bitter fights over the results.

Humor about idiots in politics

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Washington State originally excluded idiots from voting. The exact language was

"All idiots, insane persons, and persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights are excluded from the elective franchise."

This was amended in 1988 to refer to people declared legally incompetent instead of "idiots and insane persons".

Some people opposed the amendment because they like having a constitution that said idiots weren't allowed to vote.

Re:Humor about idiots in politics

[A beautiful mind]

Idiot was used in a medical sense, it was the old name for severe mental retardation.

ted stevens

[Anonymous Coward]

two points here from a liberal alaskan. ted stevens has a high approval rating... no shit. he's a living white guy with an international airport named after him. (little known fact: ANC is third in the world when ranked by freight volume.) and senators are elected by their constituents. ted stevens brings a shitload of money to alaska. a lot of that money is in the form of permanent improvement projects like bridges, harbors, etc. the so-called "bridge to nowhere" was a bridge intended to foster development. when you think about the fact that alaska is incredibly rural, the closest thing the united states has to a frontier, that makes sense. and when you realize that a huge portion of alaskans depend on jobs that depend on grants - federal and state - you begin to see why the pork barrel king is going to be in office as long as he wants to be. fuck, the guy is the chair of what, appropriations? perfect!

as much as i love to hate ted stevens, living here (in a bush community) makes the decision of whether or not to vote for him something that needs serious thought. my answer is to vote against him, if only to keep him on his toes... because there's no way he's not winning unless he really screws up.

Now, if someone could implement this idea...

[rbarreira]

Now, if someone with access to the voting machines actually implemented this idea.... The media reaction to that would be absolutely great, and it's not an infeasible idea exactly... All it takes is a voting official with enough balls and computer knowledge. OK, it might be asking for too much after all...

How so?

[internic]

I can't see how this, in itself, proves your point.

Re:How so?

[cheezedawg]

Simple. A 2-party system makes it impossible for a candidate with less than 20% of the vote to win, like what happened in Iran in 2005. Candidates must moderate themselves to appeal to the largest number of voters.

Re:How so?

[internic]

But the comment you were replying to stated that he won the runoff election against one other candidate with 62% of the vote (on a 60% turnout). So the majority of people who voted DID vote for him. This would appear to invalidate your point, since it seems he was much more extreme than his opponant.

Now, you could try to, of course, claim that the vote was fixed or something (though this is probably not necessesary, as the supreme leader simply blocks anyone he doesn't like from running and can essentially just overrule the president on everything anyway), but either way your claim that the events of the election prove your point is clearly erronious.

Re:How so?

[cheezedawg]

What I am saying is that in a 2-party election, you would never have a run-off vote where the population is forced to chose between two candidates that each only had the support of ~20% of the country. That is what happened in Iran, and that would never happen in the United States because of our 2-party system.

Re:How so?

[internic]

You said

[The two party system is] a huge moderating force that assures that the largest number of the population will be represented. That is why we end up with moderate leaders like George W Bush and Bill Clinton instead of radical leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Adolf Hitler.

But in the case of the election of Ahmedinejad, an election consisting of two choices, (one more moderate and one more extreme) resulted in the election of the far more extreme candidate. In fact, he was voted for by a much larger proportion of the population than were most recent US presidents. These is directly counter to the claim that a choice between two candidates will ensure moderation. The 20% vote was only in the primary, but I emphasize again that in the final election a larger proportion of of the population of Iran voted for Ahmedinejad than most recent US presidents got of the American population. So, if your claim was that parties effectively narrow the field and this causes the election of moderate leaders, the election of Ahmedinejad is a stark counterexample. In this case the field was narrowed, and one candidate was clearly much more radical than the other, and yet the more radical one was elected. You are perhaps claiming that neither candidate was acceptable to the populus, but that does not seem consistent with the high voter turnout, nor have you offered any evidence to that effect, so it hardly proves your point.

As far as the issue of the run-off, while we do not have official run-off voting, we do have primaries in the two party system. If approximately half (or less) of the voting public votes in each primary, and each one has at least two serious contenders, it's not at all improbable that the two major party candidates will have only garnered 20-25% of the total votes (of both parties) in the primaries. So, we do have a de facto run-off that can easily be one with the same level of support.

Basically, the example of the Iranian elections seems to either be inconclusive as far as your arguement is concerned or directly contradict it.

Re:How so?

[Copid]

What I am saying is that in a 2-party election, you would never have a run-off vote where the population is forced to chose between two candidates that each only had the support of ~20% of the country. That is what happened in Iran, and that would never happen in the United States because of our 2-party system.

That's an interesting way of saying it. Likewise, we'd have an even more popular leader if we had only a 1 party system and our leaders ran unopposed. Personally, I find choice to be useful, so I don't see the fact that we're only 1 party ahead of China as a particularly good thing.

Re:How so?

[cheezedawg]

Okay- I see what you are saying now, and there is some validity to your point. I will revise my statement then to say that a 2 party system favors moderate candidates, but does not guarantee that moderates will win. The 2005 Iranian election certainly isn't an example of a 2-party system, but it is an example of a majority of voters chosing a more extreme candidate, and obviously that could happen in a true 2-party election also. I still believe that a 2 party system does a better job than most others to moderate the results, and I see this as a strength of our political system in the US.

Re:How so?

[cheezedawg]

Thats a ridiculous assertion. A 2-party system exerts a moderating force on the outcome of elections. A 1 party system does not. A 2-party system gives the electorate a choice between candidates. A 1 party system does not. In a 2-party system, the candidate with the most support in the electorate wins. The will of the "electorate" is irrelevant in a 1 party system.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Re:How so?

[Copid]

Thats a ridiculous assertion. A 2-party system exerts a moderating force on the outcome of elections. A 1 party system does not. A 2-party system gives the electorate a choice between candidates. A 1 party system does not. In a 2-party system, the candidate with the most support in the electorate wins. The will of the "electorate" is irrelevant in a 1 party system.

You're missing the point. You're trying to paint the "popularity" of the winning candidate in a 2 party system versus a multi-party system as a good thing, when in fact, it's just an artifact of the limited set of choices available to the electorate. That is a ridiculous assertion. Of course somebody gets the popular vote in a two party election. It doesn't happen because that person magically has more broad appeal. It happens because it's a mathematical certainty. As I said before, if all you care about is artifically inflated "popularity", just head to a 1-party system and the winner gets 100% of the vote.

In a multi-party system with instant runoffs, you still have to appeal to a broad range of voters, as your base, no matter how nutty they may be, won't get you the win in the runoff. You need to have a reasonable number of people who love you, and you still need the majority of the electorate to hate you less than the other guy. The major difference is that people actually have more choices with a legitimate chance at winning.

Re:How so?

[cheezedawg]

You're missing the point. You're trying to paint the "popularity" of the winning candidate in a 2 party system versus a multi-party system as a good thing, when in fact, it's just an artifact of the limited set of choices available to the electorate.

No. By it's nature, this limited set of choices will elevate the candidates and ideas that have the broadest support and are the most "mainstream". We are not chosing between two random people- we are chosing between the people that the political parties have advanced because they think have the best chance of winning.

Re:How so?

[Copid]

No. By it's nature, this limited set of choices will elevate the candidates and ideas that have the broadest support and are the most "mainstream". We are not chosing between two random people- we are chosing between the people that the political parties have advanced because they think have the best chance of winning.

The same could be said of a system with more than two parties. Even in a multi-party system, you're not going to win the runoff if you don't appeal to a broad range of voters. Sure, you'll get your 10 or 20% who really loves you, and that may get you through the first round of cuts, but you'll quickly be run over by candidates who are more palatable to others as a second choice. There's nothing special about a 2 party system other than the fact that the winner is mathematically guaranteed to get a majority.

You might have a point if they primary system actually did elevate candidates with the broadest appeal, but it really doesn't. It elevates the candidates who most closely conform to what their most extreme party constituents like. You end up with an election where your first choice may or may not be all that great (depending on whether you're an extremist primary voter or the average mainstream voter), but the other reasonable option is generally repellant to you either way.

Classic exmple: The Governorship of California. A few years ago, Phil Simon beat Richard Riordan in the Republican primary. He did so by painting Riordan as a flaming liberal when he was a relatively conservative guy with broad appeal on both sides. Riordan had a good chance at taking out Gray Davis. Swing voters in CA tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Result: Davis made mincemeat of Simon. Fast forward to the crazy free-for-all that was the California recall election. Even with two Republicans on the ticket, The Terminator, with his fiscally conservative and relatively socially liberal (for a Republican) positions wins out. He never would have made it through a primary against McClintock.

Re:How so?

[cheezedawg]

The same could be said of a system with more than two parties.

Not really, and the reason is quite simple. With 2 main candidates, each party must try to field a candidate that will receive at least 50% of the vote if they want the best chance of winning. This eliminates candidates that advocate ideas that only 33% (or 25% or 20% or less) of the voters will support.

Take an issue like illegal immigration, for example, and think of the difference in the opinions of the most extreme 20% on all sides of the issue. If you had 4 or 5 main candidates, you would be about as likely to elect a candidate that wants to build a wall and lockdown the border as you are to elect a candidate that wants to open the borders and let everybody in, when in reality the majority wants something in the middle. The more parties that you have, the higher the chance that each candidate will be more extreme in their positions. It doesn't matter if you have a runoff election between the top candidates because these candidates are more extreme to begin with!

You mentioned the California Republican party. This is a great example of why the Republicans have done so poorly in California lately. They haven't been putting out candidates that the majority of Californians want to support, and as a result the Democrats dominate (with the exception of Governor Schwarzenegger, of course). But the weakness of the California Republican party has not caused the Democrats to move farther to the left. On the contrary, the Democrats have moved more to the center to pick up the centrist voters that the Republicans have alienated. This would not have happened if there were other strong parties because the parties become more entrenched in their positions to protect their core "base".

Like I said before, I don't claim that the 2-party system is perfect, but it does to a very good job at what it was designed to do.

not okay

[whig]

A law against cocksucking is easy to repeal, you say? As a pot smoker, I think I can sympathize and say that is utter bullshit. A law that makes what you do a felony means you can't speak against the law without admitting yourself to be a felon, or at least bringing suspicion upon yourself even if you are careful.

If the only people who can speak up for cocksuckers are non-cocksuckers, it's not going to be the highest of their priorities to change the law.

But prove I'm wrong, seriously. It's legal to suck cock if that's your bag. But how about getting the laws changed on pot?

pot

[r00t]

That's a complex topic.

If you smoke enough pot, your mind goes. You get rather paranoid and feeble-minded.

I'd like to say: Fine. Your problem. Smoke all you want.

But...

This has a cost to society. Which is better for our economy, a bum or a normal worker? We do not live in isolation. We pay taxes, get roads built, etc. It is in the interest of the general public that you not be a flakey paranoid bum. Sorry.

Re:pot

[whig]

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for what you say.

The fact is that people who smoke cannabis regularly do think differently, but not less effectively. Some people become far more creatively gifted under the influence of cannabis. Listen to any good music lately? Some people become better writers. Some become better scientists.

At least if you go by a record of achievement, there is nothing to your contention that cannabis causes negative social costs. Cannabis prohibition, however, has tremendous social costs.

You shouldn't have to

[bill_mcgonigle]

. There's no way to increase the numbers of parties (and therefore the representation) without first reforming the electoral system to a more proportional model.

The electoral college system is fine. The problem is the 12th Amendment. Before it took effect, the Constitution declares:

"In every case, after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice-president."

So, in 2004, George Bush would have stayed President and John Kerry would be Vice President. That pretty much scuttles party politics, doesn't it?

Re:You shouldn't have to

[TheGreek]

That pretty much scuttles party politics, doesn't it?

No.

Party politics + how POTUS/VPOTUS were elected prior to the 12th Amendment = misery. Read up on the election of 1800. There's a reason the 12th Amendment passed.

Party politics are going to exist regardless of anybody's attempt to stop them.

Re:You shouldn't have to

[bill_mcgonigle]

Read up on the election of 1800. There's a reason the 12th Amendment passed.

The 'trouble' in 1800 is that the Republican party screwed up their party politics in the electoral college (the Federalists got theirs right). And Burr tried to leverage that for his advantage. So the 12th Amendment was passed to make it easier to vote on party lines.

Party politics are going to exist regardless of anybody's attempt to stop them.

Yes, but why enable them? Repealing the 12th amendment and using Maine-style electoral voting would throw a real wrench into voting parties into office. Unless one feels that the current system is good for a well-functioning Republic.

Easy Answer: NO!

[NEOtaku17]

No because there is a wide range of political idealogies on Slashdot. And besides Technocracy is just a repackaged version of an oligarchy, which is in no way democratic(which means 90% of people will not agree with it regardless of the political party they are in). Yes most people here on Slashdot are liberal but there is also a sizable amount of libertarians and conservatives.