Techies Must Educate Governments

Rub3X writes "Those in the know about technology must spend more time reaching out to governments and helping them understand the Internet's role in society, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said Tuesday. 'The average person in government is not of the age of people who are using all this stuff,' Schmidt said at a public symposium here hosted by the National Academies' Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. 'There is a generational gap, and it's very, very real.'"

Comments

Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

Techies Must Educate Governments

Techies spend thousands of hours educating government in the US. They do it in hearings, they do it as advisors, they do it as assistants. Even PACs try to teach these people how various elements of technology work, albeit often for the wrong reasons. Lack of teaching is not the problem. Nor is the problem lack of information these representatives can access on their own, so they can learn on their own, as any of American's best and brightest citizens — such as many of those here on slashdot — manage each and every day.

Nor is the problem the age of the representative. I'm closing on 60, and I know a great deal about technology. My mother knew more than any representative I am aware of when she died recently, and she was almost 90. I inherited her dual CPU Dell running Red Hat SMP when she died. She wrote some pretty tricky perl scripts; I wish I could have converted her to Python, but alas. I didn't say she was perfect.

In the US, the problem is that the parties keep putting incompetent (and worse) people up for election. Consequently the American people, having no effective way of dealing with the two-party monopoly upon government seats of power, keeps voting these incompetents into congress and the senate.

So the Internet is a series of tubes, you can't say words on television that are common in every schoolyard, and the human body is a matter for shame. And those are the small problems. Worse, we've invaded a country under false pretenses, with no valid reason beyond those already exposed as nonsense, the bill of rights has been forsaken, and the congress and the senate have seen fit to make the entire judicial process one that the executive can control from start to finish.

The tree of liberty is dead. It has been shat upon by millions and millions of sheep, trampled by elephants and donkeys, and finally the pulp was sold by that lady with the blindfold and one tit hanging out for King George to write out "signing statements" upon.

I'd tell you to vote libertarian, but most of you are just going to put another democrat or republican into office anyway. Literally, a crying shame. We have fallen so far.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Silver Sloth]

In the US, the problem is that the parties keep putting incompetent (and worse) people up for election. Consequently the American people, having no effective way of dealing with the two-party monopoly upon government seats of power, keeps voting these incompetents into congress and the senate.

So form your own party, see how well you can do it. Remember that democracy is the worst posible political system, except for all the others.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

So form your own party, see how well you can do it.

My party is already formed. It is the libertarian party. The American people have determined that they are not interested in liberty, nor even particularly in the constitution; they want a mommy government that controls everything they do without thoughtful guiding principle, underlying legitimate constitutional authority, or any semblance of honor. And that is exactly what they have received. Unfortunately, that means I have received it as well. Hence my extreme dismay.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Salvance]

So what you're basically saying is: let's just give up on trying to make our existing politicians understand us and the things that are important to us, and stop trying to voice our opinion. I (possibly naively) believe that if there are enough people demanding technically smarter politicians then the politicians will be forced to take us seriously, and to make smarter decisions in the process. The 'education process' is critical for ensuring that America's technical know-how and innovation remain relevant and accessible going forward.

'Net neutrality' is a great example. It looks like politicians may let the anti-net neutrality bill die a slow death because of a combination of popular upswelling of resistance and convincing from the type of technical superstars Eric Schmidt is referring to. Without this resistance, telecom companies would already hold a greater power over your access to the web and your freedom to information.

While it is commendable that both you and your mother are/were so technically competent, I don't think the answer is to teach all of our Senators Perl scripting. The key is to educate politicians on the big issues, and let the experts worry about the details.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Mateo_LeFou]

Parent rules. I've said it before: the most disturbing thing about Ted "Series of Tubes to Nowhere" Stevens is not that he spouted a bunch of dumb nonsense, but that he spouted it after having sat through hours of hearings during which Vincent Cerf, Larry Lessig, and others explained the tech in pretty good detail.

Video here: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cf m?id=1705

We do not need to educate our reps. They know pretty-much exactly what they're doing. We need to toss them out and get new ones.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[MobyDisk]

People have already done that, but the US uses a plurality system where only two parties can really compete. So the people just say "oh, well, unless you vote for one of the top two parties you are throwing away your vote." This is, of course, a feedback loop which means that the only viable parties are the ones that are perceived as viable parties. I suppose this means, in the end, it is the people's fault once again.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[betterunixthanunix]

Except that liberatrians are against net neutrality, see nothing wrong with Microsoft's conduct, and generally seem to think that if left alone, corporations will benefit everybody else by profiting off of them. What we really need to do is educate the general public more -- for instance, explaining to people what DRM actually is, rather than just waiting for them to come crying when they discover that they cannot play iTunes music on their MP3 player. Again and again, people give me a funny look when I say that software and medicine should not be patentable, or that the RIAA has not been hurt by file sharing (which can be backed up by real statistics). If the general public was actually educated in these matters, politicians would actually listen.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Techies spend thousands of hours educating government in the US.

Only to find that someone spending thousands of Dollars has the congresspersons' ear.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Daniel_Staal]

Why should he form his own party? He's already said he favors the Libertarian party, he can just join them.

The problem is that in the USA, anyone who is not a Democrat or a Rebulican is considered a joke candidate, regardless of the issues, or their qualifications, or anything else. It doesn't matter if he forms his own or joins another: If he's not a member of the 'approved' parties, he won't get more than a handful of votes.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[purpledinoz]

The problem is the average American doesn't care about what's going on in government, until it directly affects them. People don't attempt to understand the issues and how the party proposes to solve them. The government can only improve if the majority demands that they improve.

Unfortunately, both the democrats and republicans tend to shift their focus from the real issues (massive public deficit and the economy, the environment), to relatively trivial issues like violence in video games.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Silver Sloth]

But, if you want to live in a democracy you have to accept that your minority viewpoint will not win enough votes at the polls to count. I've heard democracy described as the opression of the minority by the majority, and, yes, it does have major failings. However it is better than all the other options. Live with it or move on.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[tbone1]

In the US, the problem is that the parties keep putting incompetent (and worse) people up for election.

Hm. I'd say instead that the competent and honest don't need to go into politics to make a decent living.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[From A Far Away Land]

I recently offered to help a federal Canadian party as their copyright/technology critic. I've yet to hear back by email a couple weeks later if they even got my application.

I've also offered to help my Yorkton-Melville Conservative MP understand the dangers of Bill C-60 [Canada's DMCA] tabled by the competeing Liberal party, last year. He never replied even when I asked for a response.

Politicians had better start listening to techies who know how laws are going to screw the masses.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[yuna49]

As someone pushing 60 myself, I generally agree with your remarks, but I don't think it's all about the politicians. (If anything, we need older people to work in these areas because they're likely to have more influence with the political elites.)

From where I sit, most "techies," especially the younger generation, have aligned themselves of late with political forces that are opposed to policies advocated by extremely powerful and wealthy organizations. Educating government officials about the virtues of open source, the application of fair-use principles to digital copyright issues, the value of open file formats, and the like, won't matter if their supporters can't wield any political muscle. As someone whose career has spanned academia, consulting and nonprofits, I'd love to spend the next decade working on moving these issues up the political agenda. That won't happen without organization, and while volunteerism can play a role here, money does matter.

If Schmidt thinks this is so important, maybe he should set up a foundation.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So form your own party, see how well you can do it.

I don't think you understand the issue. When he said it is a two-party system, he meant laws have been passed to insure only members of those two parties are likely to be elected. Two registered presidential candidates with thousands of backers were forcibly ejected from the last presidential debates and not allowed to participate. The last time I voted it said right at the top of the ballot that if I voted for candidates from multiple parties, my ballot would be invalid and discarded. That means I could vote for the the better of two candidates for congress (democrat), or I could vote for the libertarian candidate for mayor, but not both.

The laws have been written to prevent the people from electing anyone not republican or democrat and they have been written by the incumbent social groups to maintain their dominance. We will never have electoral reform because no one in favor of it can get elected.

Remember that democracy is the worst posible political system, except for all the others.

Ahh, but we don't quite have a democracy anymore, since the laws are written to make sure the will of the people is not enacted, but rather the will of those who are supposedly representative of the people.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Lord Pillage]

"Live with it or move on."

I thought America was the place where people believed "live free or die", not "live under oppression or move on". America today sure isn't what it used to be.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Volante3192]

Problem is, in my HS Government/Civics class, I was taught democracy was "Majority Rule, Minority Rights." I used to be so idealistic and naive...

Anyway, it falls apart where we don't live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. Very important distinction. The people do not make the laws in the US (outside of the rare ballot initiative), the people elect representatives to make the laws.

Maybe what we need is to get people to stop throwing around the word "democracy" like a placebo.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[RAMMS EIN]

``If the general public was actually educated in these matters, politicians would actually listen.''

"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

So what you're basically saying is: let's just give up on trying to make our existing politicians understand us and the things that are important to us, and stop trying to voice our opinion.

No. I didn't say, or imply, anything of the kind.

I simply observed that we are trying to educate these people with regard to technology, contrary to the claim that we need to do so, and the not too subtle implication that we aren't even trying. This does not appear to me to be the root of the problem. My feeling is that the root of the problem is the rampant mediocrity of the individuals the two party system produces for election, and subsequently elects. These people are hard at work destroying what I, at least, consider to be the most important things the government was supposed to be based upon; the constitution and bill of rights (first ten amendments, plus amendment 14, IMHO), and a powerful sense that personal liberty was one of, perhaps the, most important principles a government could be constituted to guard.

The courts are out of control, the government has abandoned the constitution wholesale, and the executive is having a veritable party based on the resulting situation. I don't think this republic can fix itself; it appears to me that we are in a very similar position to that in which Rome found itself in its last decade or two. Corrupt, lost in terms of guiding principles, weighed down by a complacent, ignorant population that just wants to be left alone to pursue their daily tasks without regard for the bigger picture, and all hope lost due to a ruling elite that has the pursuit of ruling as its priority instead of the good of the republic.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd tell you to vote libertarian, but most of you are just going to put another democrat or republican into office anyway. Literally, a crying shame. We have fallen so far.

I'd rather have predictable crooks in office than unwitting fools. Crooks at least have some incentive to keep things running smoothly.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[hcob$]

People don't attempt to understand the issues and how the party proposes to solve them. This is doubly difficult since trying to get the party's/incumbent's ACTUAL position and ACTUAL plan are damn near impossible since they won't specify it and reporters try not to ask it.

This also leads to another reason no on KNOWS what goes on in government is becuase we don't have a truly effective reporting apparatus. I'm sure you can watch C-Span if you'd like, but all you ever see there is more people just going on and on about how someone else did it wrong; how they are better; and never a plan on what they are going to do. Reporters, especially the political ones, need to get some back bone and ditch their bias. By that I mean:

Backbone: When a politician dodges your question... hound him for the answer...

Ditch the Bias: This goes for both left and right. Reports now editorialize more than they report on what is going on. Basically, when a reporter disagrees with the politician, they say how they dodged questions, and we couldn't pin him down to an aswer. When a reporter agrees with the politician, they laud him as a visionary, a man of the people, someone you can trust, etc. etc. etc.... And you still wind up with no real answer to the Question that should be asked of all politicians:

"What, in detail, is your plan to solve/fix/create X?"

If the politician won't answer that question in a direct and truthful, (And yes, "I don't know, I need to think about that." or "I'm not sure, I'll need to conferr with some experts before forming a plan" are answers) they don't deserver to be in that seat.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[inviolet]

Anyway, it falls apart where we don't live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. Very important distinction. The people do not make the laws in the US (outside of the rare ballot initiative), the people elect representatives to make the laws.

How is that a bad thing? At least the elected representatives have at least a basic understanding of lawmaking and its repurcussions. As well, they act as a buffer between the lawbook and this week's media-fed clamor to "think of the children!".

Even more important, representatives serve as a point of accountability. Their name and reputation are associated with their votes and actions, and this must have at least a slight restraining effect. No such restraint would operate in a pure democracy, where every person can anonymously support any fool proposition.

This is all beside the point though. The real value of democracy is that it diffuses political power, making it difficult for any person or small group to acquire very much for very long if they misuse it. The mechanism of election (i.e. republic versus democracy or whatever) isn't important.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

I'm just going to let your reply, be my reply. Thanks.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[triskaidekaphile]

That's the state motto of New Hampshire. Perhaps you are just in the wrong state!

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[triskaidekaphile]

You seem to be under the impression that an elected representative could be swayed by knowledgeable authorities more than well-funded like-minded lobbyists and cronies.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Maximilio]

My party is already formed. It is the libertarian party. The American people have determined that they are not interested in liberty, nor even particularly in the constitution; they want a mommy government that controls everything they do without thoughtful guiding principle, underlying legitimate constitutional authority, or any semblance of honor

Unfortunately, most libertarians appear to have followed the Republican Party's lead over the last six years and they've gotten exactly what they deserved: a daddy government that tramples all over their rights and liberties under the guise of protecting them from terrists. I can't say I'm feeling particularly warm towards the libertarian movement for that.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[TheGreek]

The American people have determined that they are not interested in liberty, nor even particularly in the constitution; they want a mommy government that controls everything they do without thoughtful guiding principle, underlying legitimate constitutional authority, or any semblance of honor. And that is exactly what they have received. Unfortunately, that means I have received it as well.

What's your solution?

Plato's philosopher-kings?

Libertarians do an awful good job explicating the problem but an incredibly piss-poor job coming up with any viable solutions that don't involve stripping away anybody else's right to have a say in government.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[TheGreek]

The last time I voted it said right at the top of the ballot that if I voted for candidates from multiple parties, my ballot would be invalid and discarded. That means I could vote for the the better of two candidates for congress (democrat), or I could vote for the libertarian candidate for mayor, but not both.

Bullshit.

Prove it.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Reality Master 101]

My mother knew more than any representative I am aware of when she died recently, and she was almost 90.

Surely you're not arguing that, based on your single sample, all 90 year olds are writing Perl scripts and are totally up-to-date on technology. I mean, come on.

So the Internet is a series of tubes, you can't say words on television that are common in every schoolyard, and the human body is a matter for shame. And those are the small problems. Worse, we've invaded a country under false pretenses, with no valid reason beyond those already exposed as nonsense, the bill of rights has been forsaken, and the congress and the senate have seen fit to make the entire judicial process one that the executive can control from start to finish.

Most of those aren't problems. One senator was wrong. You can't say words on PUBLIC television where public standards apply. The human body is a matter for PRIVACY, where public standards apply. We invaded a country based on a poor (but totally believable) information. Yes, the bill of rights has been forsaken to a great extent, and the Judicial process is corrupt to an extent. You're right about those, but apparently for the wrong reasons.

In the US, the problem is that the parties keep putting incompetent (and worse) people up for election. Consequently the American people, having no effective way of dealing with the two-party monopoly upon government seats of power, keeps voting these incompetents into congress and the senate.

Again, you're right but for the wrong reasons. We keep putting incomptents into congress because the alternate parties are such extreme idiots that we have no alternative. Say what you like about the Democrats and Republicans, but at least they're not worse than the alternative parties.

I'd tell you to vote libertarian, but most of you are just going to put another democrat or republican into office anyway. Literally, a crying shame.

There's an extremely high probability that you know nothing about the Libertarian party, except that they're for "less government and more rights.". I'm sympathetic with certain Libertarian views, but they're ideas are extreme and simplistic. They will never achieve power -- and *shouldn't*. Sorry, but I don't support a party that wants to sell off all national parks and all local parks. I don't support private ownership of nuclear bombs. I don't support totally private fire departments. Those are just STUPID ideas, but the Libertarians have a crazy obsession with everything being private.

What we need is a combination party that takes the best elements of both parties (privacy, non-religiousness, small government, low taxes, low spending, pro-commerce, welfare at the local level, not federal level, etc). Like the Libertarians, except with common sense.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[nine-times]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Tackhead]

> "In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."

"...and they get it good and hard."

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[nine-times]

Yeah, so really it's worse than a two-party system, because the "two parties" are actually in collusion to keep the current power-structure. The "two" parties are actually one system, superficially divided in two in order to keep the American people fighting amongst themselves. If they can keep one each half of the country at the other half's throat relatively trivial issues like abortion and gay marriage, no one will notice that they're selling our country out for bribes from various special-interest groups.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that's entirely fair. The libertarian camp is divided by I"P" issues. Those who I consider the real libertarians are against copyright and patent monopolies. So, microsoft's conduct is simply a result of their being handed monopolies on a plate. If microsoft is a monopoly, the obvious solution is to stop handing them monopolies. So, as a libertarian, I don't mind DRM - so long as it's got no legal protection. I don't mind microsoft trying to sell software - so long as they've got no copyright or patent monopoly legal protection.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[HUADPE]

I too call bullshit. I am currently in posession of my absentee ballot. It does not say that. It says that if you vote for more than one party's candidate for one office your ballot for that office is invalidated. That's not against ticket splitting, its against voting for multiple people for one office.

This is a ballot for the third congressional district of New York. If a ballot said what GP described, it would be ludicrously unconstitutional, and would

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[profplump]

Hence the democratic republic -- specifically designed to help protect the minority from the majority.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

How is that a bad thing?

You make some excellent points with regard to a properly functioning democratic republic; accountability, the ability to focus upon the job(s) at hand. I would add that another item in favor is that when dealing with foreign countries, it gives them someone with a modicum of authority to talk to for each region, which is useful for trade.

However, as we have seen, this mechanism can fail to operate properly. Our politicians are not very accountable by virtue of the public's apathy; they vote in ways detrimental to the public and corrosive to the government at large, but said apathy fails to either deter or alter the system that put them there or in many cases, even cause the individual responsible to be replaced. As this article bemoans, the focus they should have has not resulted in representatives who are well informed as to the issues; rather, it has resulted in representatives who have learned very well indeed how to work the PACs and the public.

There is also an underlying risk, which I believe we have seen come to fruition recently, in our particular democratic republic as compared to a "straight" democracy. It can be illuminated as follows:

We have about 300 million citizens. A maximum risk of a straight democracy for that population is that about 150 million of them may suffer the consequences of a decision made by the other 150 million plus one. This would be a very unfortunate result, and in fact, is the risk that most people refer to when they talk about the "tyranny of the majority." The underlying subtext, of course, being that tyranny is bad, and that the minority must be protected from this.

Yet, when we think carefully about the comparable risks of our democratic republic, we see that the worst case is when 100% of the population, all 300 million of them, may suffer the consequences of a bad decision made by a few hundred people (the majority of the groups of congress-critters and senators.) In this case, the risk isn't tyranny over the minority, it is tyranny over everyone.

One is immediately tempted to argue that a republic is safer because these people have time to focus on the job and so will make better decisions, so the odds of such massively bad decisions are unlikely in the extreme. But we have recently seen that this is not necessarily the case.

The bill of rights has been rendered irrelevant at the whim of the executive in some situations, and entirely in others. The constitutional authority that the government was legitimately operating under no longer exists by dint of the government having stepped far outside the bounds of the constitution. People are held without access to court or representation and are even forbidden to hear the charges against them. The government has turned our money into play money by backing it with an unconscionable degree of debt — and nothing else. Our means of exchange could fall apart on any given day. It is currently held up by nothing more than the ignorance of the body of the population and the conspiratorial silence of the financial community. We are at war in circumstances that are dishonorable in the extreme, with consequences I can only describe as utterly shameful.

So... perhaps it would not be out of line to risk some form of the tyranny of the majority. Certainly the tyranny of the republic has proved to be just as real, and the final effects are, as I have explained above, considerably worse.

Perhaps technology could come to our aid in qualifying those who wish to vote, as to how qualified they actually are to vote on an issue-by-issue basis. Votes could be weighted, if not actually gated. There are serious downsides to this — such as the potential disenfranchisement of the poorly educated and genetically poorly endowed, intellectually speaking — but I submit that the current system is deep into the process of melting down, and so it is perhaps already past time to try to come up with something better. I'm currently a proponent of qualifying voters and using straight democracy in conjunction with a more bulletproof — and specific — constitution than the one we have today.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Volante3192]

At least the elected representatives have at least a basic understanding of lawmaking and its repurcussions. As well, they act as a buffer between the lawbook and this week's media-fed clamor to "think of the children!".

Explain the umpteen state laws passed to curb the sales of 'violent video games'...and where they were summarily ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch.

Even more important, representatives serve as a point of accountability. Their name and reputation are associated with their votes and actions, and this must have at least a slight restraining effect.

Votes and actions are used both for and against. I won't go into details, mostly because it's a pain to go back, but check out http://www.factcheck.org/ (not .com, like Cheney said back in '04) and check out all the ways voting records are misused, misinterpreted and flat out lied about. And then wonder how people don't look this up and call them on it.

(My personal favorite is how Reps call out Dems for "voting to raise taxes" when the actual vote was a 'Nay' on a tax decrease)

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[nine-times]

Yes, throwing the word "democracy" around doesn't help things, but the problem isn't that the US is a republic. Republics certainly don't do a worse job at preserving minority rights, since they're in fact less bound to follow "the tyranny of the masses". Not that it provides a lot of extra protection from mob mentality, but it does a little.

The real problem is that we just don't preserve individual rights anymore. We don't behave like a democratic republic. It's more like we're run by two warring aristocracies, except that an "aristocracy" is supposedly run by the "best" people, whereas the heads of the two major political parties are generally just the greedy and well-connected.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[geekoid]

You and your mother are exceptions.
How many other 60 and 90 year olds know technology well?
Very, very, few.

"The tree of liberty is dead."

No it's not. It will go infront of the supreme court and fail.

"I'd tell you to vote libertarian, "
this would be a huge mistake at this time. Most people who vote 3rd party would otherwise vote democrat. Right now, to fix the immediate issues, there must be a sweep of the current administration and republicans must be removed. Based on what I have found out about the last two elections, it needs to be by a clear margin.

I am for a 3rd party(not libertarian, but thats a different discussion), but sometimes you MUST lokk at the practical solution, as ugly as it may be.
Hopefully, the next adminstration will take pains to undo the destruction to this country's checks and balances.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter how much education you try and shove down peoples throats, nobody cares, that's the real problem, most people only care if it has a direct negative impact on themselves. It's a mix of self centeredness, wanting the easiest route that provides the most instantaneous satisfaction of a desire for pleasure and "Educating People". I mean isn't that what corporations do? Isn't Microsoft just educating the masses about the evils of open source and educating them about how good Microsoft is. Everybodies answer is education!!! I see the problem as a whole lot of people wanting to do a whole lot of educating for their own personal gains.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[mrchaotica]

The last time I voted it said right at the top of the ballot that if I voted for candidates from multiple parties, my ballot would be invalid and discarded. That means I could vote for the the better of two candidates for congress (democrat), or I could vote for the libertarian candidate for mayor, but not both.

Was this a primary or the general election? If it's the former it's bad enough (I'm still pissed they wouldn't let me vote in both the Republican and Democrat primaries), but if it's the latter you need to get out the torches and pitchforks and burn that hellhole of a district to the ground!

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Prove it.

Follow this Google cache link and read FAQ reply number 8 for the Website for the city of Lansing, MI. It reads, "In primary elections you cannot split your vote for partisan races, that is voting for one party and then voting for another party in another race. Doing so will void your vote for all the partisan races."

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[koreth]

laws have been passed to insure only members of those two parties are likely to be elected

Please go read up on Duverger's Law before you assume the two-party system is a simple result of legal barriers. It's much more complicated than that. Of course there are legal barriers as well, not denying that, but they're actually much less significant than the underlying structure of the electoral system itself.

Two registered presidential candidates with thousands of backers were forcibly ejected from the last presidential debates and not allowed to participate.

Thousands of backers don't give you a realistic shot at winning a presidential election. Tens of millions of backers do. And the last time there was an alternative candidate with significant backing (Ross Perot, 1992), guess what, he was invited to the debates. Hell, Mickey Mouse gets thousands of votes every four years; should Michael Eisner have been invited to the debates too?

Look, I'm a registered Libertarian. I am frustrated by the Republicans and Democrats too. But there is an annoying tendency for third-party supporters to sit around whining about how their people would do so much better if only artificial barriers X, Y, and Z weren't holding them back. It is counterproductive because it wastes time that could be spent solving the actual problem, which is that most of the public is unaware of what their real choices are. I've lost count of the number of people I've talked to who have no real idea what the Libertarians are all about, for example. I'm sure supporters of other small parties (American Independent, Peace and Freedom, Natural Law, etc.) have had the same experience.

Raise funds. Focus on a few small elections in areas that have a general cultural affinity to your party's platform rather than trying to run for every possible office at once and winning none of them. Once you have people in local offices, they're incumbents and they have all the advantages of incumbency come the following election, which will free up funds to focus on the next set of local elections. Eventually, if your people are as good as you say, they will be in a good position to run for state office, then national office, and their rising influence along the way will open the door to getting more supporters and more donations to fund the campaigns.

This is a general strategy that has worked out pretty well for the Green Party in Europe: focus on the local stuff first and work your way up. But for some reason, U.S. third parties would rather blow their scant funds carting presidential candidates across the country hoping to get .1% of the vote instead of the .08% they got last time. (Wow, a 25% increase since the last election! We're growing like wildfire! Uh, yeah. Right.)

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Kevin_Peters]

I'm a Libertarian and I fully see the need for net neutrality, I think Microsoft should be shut down for their practices and not allowed to reopen until they are FULLY in compliance with all rulings, and I believe that corporations have become leeches on society as a whole. I fully understand what DRM is and see why the *AA wants it, but I also feel that if I pay x amount of dollars for something, I have the right to do whatever the fuck I want to do with it. I believe that the population of the USA over the last 30-40 years has gotten the government they deserve simply because no one wanted to understand politics, except for the politicians, of course. We now have a generation of kids who aren't able to think for themselves (or just don't want to) and are perfectly happy with letting the government do all the thinking for them. Our forefathers built this government with the intent that the citizens would play an active role in politics, not just let the reps do whatever they wanted to unchecked. But we have turned our heads and begun letting these people "protect us from ourselves", and now that we see the error, it's too late to do anything about it. I'm not pointing fingers, by no means, because I did the exact same thing. Up until the last few years, I couldn't give 2 shits about politics. Now that I have children of my own, and I'm paying attention to the world around me and around them, I see that I should have been more active when I was younger. I am teaching my children to pay attention to everything, and to voice their opinions about everything while they can. May not be much longer before "Freedom of Speech" is another byline in the history books.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[synonymous]

One thing I haven't heard anyone else catch, is one of the most obvious statements I have ever heard. It is one from no other than the Georgie Porgie Bush. "Creating Freedom and Democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq". So, here we have the most prominent Republican in the US and world telling everyone that the plan is for "Democracy". I would have figured it be more like, "Adjusting the circumstances so that we make the decisions for you in Afghanistan and Iraq".. no, wait..

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Stoertebeker]

Remember that democracy is the worst posible political system, except for all the others.

I wouldn't call a system a democracy that severely handicaps any candidates that don't happen to be from one of the two "preferred" parties.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[TheGreek]

In primary elections you cannot split your vote for partisan races, that is voting for one party and then voting for another party in another race. Doing so will void your vote for all the partisan races.

Primary elections are to choose a party's nominee for the general election, you dumb piece of shit. You shouldn't be allowed to select more than one party's nominees.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Thousands of backers don't give you a realistic shot at winning a presidential election.

That is a presupposition and not something that should be allowed by the legal system. Who is to say that a candidate who has a smaller following entering the debates will not expose those he debates as incompetent and thus win the support of the people?

Hell, Mickey Mouse gets thousands of votes every four years; should Michael Eisner have been invited to the debates too?

No, but Mickey mouse should be, were he a real person.

But there is an annoying tendency for third-party supporters to sit around whining about how their people would do so much better if only artificial barriers X, Y, and Z weren't holding them back.

That is entirely true, but it no way invalidates the point that there are real barriers. You can argue that the strategy of third parties is all wrong or that the supporters themselves are ineffective, but the thing is, whether what you say is true or not, it does not address the barriers which is what we were discussing.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[jZnat]

That's exactly why I'm not a Libertarian. They have good ideas, but they don't feel that corporate regulations are helpful.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Bob_Geldof]

Sounds like a primary ballot to me, so you would have to pick one party in most states.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[lynx_user_abroad]

...I'd love to spend the next decade working on moving these issues up the political agenda.

Hopefully, that would give you plenty to be proud-of when you turn 70(ish). As a 40-something, I'd love to join you for the next 30 years, so I'd have something similar to be proud-of.

But let's be serious. I plan to spend the next 30 years continuing to work my butt off to pay for ever-expanding Social Security entitlements (which I'll never see), covering my own skyrocketing healthcare costs, trying to educate my own kids without help from the "metal detectors and cops" public schools and my "No child left behind" personal entitlement of $37.22 per child, and paying off the massive debt Bush & Buddies have run up prosecuting his own personal war, and fixing all the other things you Boomers broke during your fun-loving sex, drugs, and rock&roll youth.

I'd love to help, but I'm just a little bit busy right now. You'll just have to handle this yourself.

But do tell me which of your retirement homes you'll be having your 70th birthday party at, and I'll try to make the party.

Yup, call me bitter.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

Surely you're not arguing that, based on your single sample, all 90 year olds are writing Perl scripts and are totally up-to-date on technology. I mean, come on.

Surely not. I was simply arguing that age is not a barrier to understanding technology. I will argue it another way if it makes it more clear: There are many aging engineers and scientists like my mother who are not suffering from degradation of brain function. They know how to, and are willing and able to, approach and comprehend technical issues. My point, perhaps poorly made (though I was quite explicit), was that age is not an excuse. If we must elect the exceptional individual, however, then best we get after that. Understand now?

Most of those aren't problems... The human body is a matter for PRIVACY, where public standards apply.

I respectfully, and with deep conviction, disagree. The legitimate constitutional authorization of government is not for it to be your mother. The constitution does not authorize the federal government (or the states, see amendment 14) to define what privacy means for the individual. That is, the constitution inherently supports a right to wear clothes if you so choose in that it says you have a right to privacy, but it does not support a right to tell me that I must also do so. There is not even the slightest basis for a "right not to be offended" anywhere in the constitution, and a great deal of the document goes out of its way to indicate the exact opposite, over and over, most famously, of course, in the first amendment.

There's an extremely high probability that you know nothing about the Libertarian party, except that they're for "less government and more rights.

You're quite wrong. I know a great deal about them. I suspect, however, that you do not, based upon your mischaracterizations. I also think you need to read the constitution with an eye for what it is, which is the authorization for the federal government with certain limits for state governments woven in. If it isn't laid out in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution, it is not a valid government function. There is no way around this. None whatsoever. There is a way to change the constitution, described within it, but until or unless such changes are made, many of these issues are not legitimate targets for legislators.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[TheGreek]

Yes. Maine doesn't have open primaries, so I didn't think of that.

That restriction on open primary ballots, however, is not at all a sinister contrivance meant to oppress "third" parties. It's meant to help prevent gaming the system even more than it can be gamed already.

You'll never ever ever see such wording on a general election ballot.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[novus ordo]

I believe that the congress doesn't really respect the techies, hackers, hobbyists. Instead of openly inviting such 'experts' to make technology a helpful tool, they instead listen blindly to their bribing lobby and make boneheaded decisions behind closed doors in dark secret corners. I'm sorry but that is not democracy, that is fascism. Instead of praising people that point out flaws in their systems, like one would praise a helpful neighbor that finds a broken fence and helps you mend it, they instead lock them in jails and let the thieves make them pay for it. I'm sorry but there is only so much we can do. If you go down the line of terrible legislation that *ASSociations have written such as DMCA, copyright extensions, monopoly appeasement, etc. it's clear where the ear is listening. It may also be our fault in that we are not as organized as these megamobsterations, but if these policy makers are really looking to do the right thing they would listen with both ears.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Ikalta]

And what, pray tell, would it matter if we lived in a pure democracy? Lets think about this for a minute, what says that the majority is wise, smart, or looking out for anyone but themselves?

In case studies does in California (I don't have my notes w/ me to give you the study) most laws voted on by the populace took away rights from people.

Ever heard of Tocqueville, he had some serious concerns with democracy. The idea of the "tyranny of the majority" is, I think, a very legitimate one. There is no evidence that people will vote to give other people equal rights when they can vote to give themselves more rights. Yes sometimes people do the right thing but I'm not going to hold my breath.

No a democratic republic isn't perfect, but it does give some checks and balances that can help to protect us from the worst that the majority can throw at the minority.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Slithe]

You might want to read Eric Raymond's essay Why I am an Anarchist. It explores the very same issues you have raised.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Primary elections are to choose a party's nominee for the general election, you dumb piece of shit. You shouldn't be allowed to select more than one party's nominees.

Primary elections for congress are combined with local elections. Thus, I'm voting for a party's representative for congress and electing a mayor at the same time. According to the instructions on the ballot, I can't vote for a republican or libertarian mayor while at the same time nominating a democratic candidate for congress. If you don't think that is wrong, you're the dumbass.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Reality Master 101]

There is not even the slightest basis for a "right not to be offended" anywhere in the constitution

Why can Libertarians quote every part of the constitution except the Ninth Amendment? It's people like you that was exactly the fear of the founders: that the constution would be used as a weapon to argue that the people have no rights except what's granted in the constitution.

The concept of "community standards" are well-founded in law, and the consitution's preamble specifically speaks of "insuring domesic tranquility" and "promoting the general welfare". Obviously those phrases are open to interpretation, but clearly the founders did NOT intend a country where the government does nothing to enhance the common society.

I suspect, however, that you do not, based upon your mischaracterizations.

The bit about national parks is right on their web site. The bits about private nukes and fire departments they hide, but it's been stated numerous times by Libertarians. And why not? Explain to me why I should be "forced" to give up my nukes based on the second amendment, and why I should be forced to pay for fire service for YOUR house.

If it isn't laid out in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution, it is not a valid government function. There is no way around this. None whatsoever.

Well, no way around it except for that pesky Ninth Amendment that specifically says that everything not enumerated in the constitution is open for debate.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[MrNougat]

First thing I thought just reading the title: "No, techies must become governments." It's clear at this point that the rank and file US politicians can't or won't get up to speed on how things actually work in the electronic age. Sure, they'll pass out of office and off this mortal coil, hopefully to be replaced by people who are at least a little more in the know.

Who am I kidding? For the most part, leaders of any stripe in the US - political, financial, military, other - come from the economic aristocracy. I have rubbed elbows with the upper crust enough to know that as one rises in socioeconomic status, one does less and less for one's self, instead choosing to flex the power that comes from being higher in the caste system to get other people to do the work for you. Yes, that means turning on and using the computer as well. Who needs knowledge, understanding and empathy when you've got power?

Based on that, it would seem futile to think that the existing system of government, in the US and worldwide, can adapt to an information age. Putting the knowledgeable in power would tend to making them neglect their knowledge. The closest we could hope would be to have semi-powerful, semi-knowledgeable advisors to the real leadership - but as you've described, even that has seemed to fail.

No, I think eventually large governments with very powerful leaders will erode, being replaced by small local governments who organize into cooperatives maybe. Which then organize into states and nations. And we do it all over again.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[dctoastman]

Do you know what partisan means?
Look it up, it'll help.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[teh_chrizzle]

I thought America was the place where people believed "live free or die", not "live under oppression or move on".

i think you mean "give me convenience or give me death". liberty just isn't very convenient.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[TheGreek]

Primary elections for congress are combined with local elections. Thus, I'm voting for a party's representative for congress and electing a mayor at the same time.

A primary election and a general election should not be on the same ballot; there should be two ballots.

Call Michigan's Secretary of State's office.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[ZakuSage]

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of t

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[daveclearyinmd]

The solution is to enforce existing laws, particularly the constitution. The 10th ammendment was quietly abandonded many years ago, so that federal law now trumps local law in all areas. Congress has abandon is constitutional power to declare war, and ceded that to the executive branch. The judicial branch is supposed to have the power to declare laws unconstitional, but has never done so in my lifetime. Many of the 'checks and balances' that were so carefully designed and worded by Jefferson, Madison, etc, have been incrementally destroyed by the people in power who swore to uphold them. Power corrupts.

I've more or less given up on the libertarian PARTY, not because I don't believe in libertarian philosophy, but that our 2-party political system is firmly entrenched (with complete complacency by the FEC and the mass-media), so that running 3rd party candidates (other than celebrities) is a waste of time and money. I hate to say that, and I hope that all 3rd party candidates continue the fight for all our sake, but this tactic is simply not getting us anywhere.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

Why can Libertarians quote every part of the constitution except the Ninth Amendment?

Actually, I can quote the 9th (and all the others) from memory. Here it is: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Now: How exactly do you imagine this can be interpreted to give the federal government any authority to legislate a "right not to be offended", as embodied in the FCC's 7-word regulations and "decency"/"indecency" regulations? Eh? Do you understand that what it is saying that the states, and the people, retain the right to perform personal actions, while you are trying to justify comfortable thoughts?

the consitution's preamble specifically speaks of "insuring domesic tranquility" and "promoting the general welfare".

Yes. And then the rest of the constitution defines the limits that delineate precisely how that may be done. If it were just a matter of hand-waving, the constitution would have said "any way you see fit" and stopped right there. But it doesn't do that. It is a document of great specificity, and obviously was intended to be so.

The bit about national parks is right on their web site.

I agree about the parks. They constitute a huge land theft, except where they were gifts to the people of deeded land. For instance, the Tocks Island park in Pennsylvania is a poster child for how government steals land directly from landholders for the purpose of making "parks."

The bits about private nukes and fire departments they hide, but it's been stated numerous times by Libertarians. And why not? Explain to me why I should be "forced" to give up my nukes based on the second amendment, and why I should be forced to pay for fire service for YOUR house.

Taking the last question first, you'd be smart to share such an expense with me, because if my house is next to yours, and it burns with no control, yours (and you, and your kids, and your cat, and everything you own) may burn as well. And vice versa. But you should not be forced to, no. Me, in such a circumstance, I'd be at my neighbor's door trying to convince them to go in with me for the most sophisticated firefighting gear we could afford as a group. But I would not consider forcing them, and I would certainly use said gear to put out a neighbor's home even if they had not contributed, based on two ideas: One, that such action would protect my home, and two, that I will benefit from saving my neighbor's ass one way or another. If nothing else, I'd save their pets and children, who are wholly innocent of all this divisiveness, and that would make me feel good.

As for nukes (and other weapons of mass destruction), it is my belief that the largest weapon one can possibly justify personally owning is a weapon you can use from within your home, to defend against threats actually present on your own property. But that's just me. I disagree with people who say that the ownership of a tool of deadly force is entirely a matter of personal freedom. When it becomes impersonal — meaning that no matter how well you aim it, you can't control who it kills — I think we're well past the point where "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." As a libertarian, your rights are important to me as well, and I would not give someone the right to end your life as a side effect of an un-aimable weapon.

When you say "everything else is open for debate", you are entirely misconstruing the point of the 9th, which is that these rights are retained by the people and are not open for debate. I believe it is you, my misguided slashdotter, who is the one the founding fathers feared most. Not libertarians. We're closer to their outlook than you are, and by a huge margin. You don't legitimately get to restrain my right to go naked; because I retain that right. Get it now? Probably not, but that's not because it isn't obvious. :)

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[stewymcstewstew]

Ballot initiatives are a perfect example of how our representative government is falling apart. Why would we have to take a law to vote? Shouldn't our representatives already have passed any law that people want so bad they are willing to go to the polls over it?

What this country needs is a lot more direct democracy, the late 18th and early 19th centuries were very different times than now, esp. in terms of education and communication, two of the bigger reasons we are a republic and not a democracy.

And the only way this is going to happen is through large numbers of people (hey a lot of people are reading that internet thingy these days!) to commit themselves to an ideological revolution (that's the kind without guns).

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[mobby_6kl]

Except that liberatrians [...] seem to think that if left alone, corporations will benefit everybody else by profiting off of them.

Maybe you should read what Michael Badnarik (you know, the 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate) has to say about corporations:

A market in which single proprietorships and partnerships must compete against what are essentially mini-branches of government [the corporations], with all the attendant privileges and immunities, isn't a free market. It's a rigged game.

I support unrestricted trade across international borders, and I support companies developing themselves internationally. But the fact is that corporate growth today isn't natural market growth. It's growth encouraged and enhanced by government-dispensed privilege. It's artificial, and it distorts rather than serves the market.

We need to restore justice to the system. Stockholders are owners, and should be liable for the consequences of that ownership like any other owners.
[...]
Corporations don't have rights and don't face consequences. People do. Tinkering with that has been disastrous. It's time to get back to full responsibility for individuals instead of government privilege for corporations.

I don't think what he's trying to say is that corporations, as they are today, are good for the economy or the society.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[MLease]

Why should you be allowed to vote in more than one party's primary? The whole point of the primary election is to determine which candidate the members of each party wish to nominate for the general election. If you allow unlimited cross-over voting, that opens the door to efforts by one party to attempt to derail the nomination of the strongest candidate of the other; i.e., Democrats could go to the polls and vote for some fringe Republican whom nobody wants to elect, and vice-versa. I do agree that there are laws that favor the two major parties, such as higher signature requirements to get on the ballot; but if you're going to have a primary system in the first place, you have to make sure that partisans of one party can't play games with the nomination process of the other.

In some states (such as Massachusetts, where I live), unenrolled/independent voters may choose to vote in whichever party's primary they choose, but they may only choose one of them. I don't know about other states which allow this, but in MA, you select the party and get that party's ballot. This is what I do, and I generally pick the ballot on the basis of which races I consider more important; in 2000, I voted Republican so I could vote for John McCain, but in other elections, I've voted Democratic because I liked candidates on that side better. But I never expect to have the option of voting in both parties' primaries. Some have complained that the unenrolled voter rules here allow the above abuses by people who are actually Democrats at heart, but want to screw with the Republican primaries (or, again, vice-versa), but at least they can't influence the nomination process for more than one party.

-Mike

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

I just did. Very interesting, very clear-headed. I am a good bit more of an optimist than he is, though I agree with his conclusions about the current state of affairs. I am not ready to give up on the idea that it is possible for group to be constructed in such a manner as to prevent it from going bad as a consequence of its own design. All current evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thank you for the pointer.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

Well chosen; well said.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why should you be allowed to vote in more than one party's primary?

I'm not saying I should be able to vote for more than one party's primary candidates, although I'm not sure the US should support an official channel for determining primary candidates for some parties and not others. What I am saying, I should be able to vote for one party's primary candidates and any person I feel like for the real, local election candidates that are on the same ballot. For example, on one ballot I was asked to vote for the mayoral candidate in the local election (not nominate a party candidate vote for them) and nominate a party candidate in the statewide election. According to the info on the ballot, my votes would be discarded if I happen to vote for the libertarian running for mayor and nominate a particular democrat for congress.

That is wrong. Parties should exist outside the government as private organizations, not as part of an official election ballot and there should be no restriction on actually voting for people from different parties, which is what the info on the ballot claimed. (Who is to say if it is accurate or if they even count the votes at all with the electronic machines we had?)

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[TheGreek]

The judicial branch is supposed to have the power to declare laws unconstitional, but has never done so in my lifetime.

Really? You were born after June 26, 2003?

No wonder you're such a goddamned retard.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[nomadic]

America today sure isn't what it used to be.

It's generally better. For the first hundred years or so of this country's existence we had slavery, and for the next hundred institutionalized racism, and women didn't get the right to vote until the 20th century. Does anyone think that the period before the modern era was "more free"? If you're a white male with money, maybe, but on the whole it's a hell of a lot better now than it used to be for a majority of this country's population.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The last time I voted it said right at the top of the ballot that if I voted for candidates from multiple parties, my ballot would be invalid and discarded. That means I could vote for the the better of two candidates for congress (democrat), or I could vote for the libertarian candidate for mayor, but not both.

Actually what that means is that you can't vote for candidates from multiple parties for the exact same office in a general election. Rules are different for primaries and you can be restricted to voting for only one party. What you read means that, for example, you can't vote for 2 candidates for mayor. You certainly can vote for a Democratic congresscritter and a Libertarian mayor if you want in a general election. Feel free not to vote in the future because if you don't understand how it works, and it's obvious you don't, you're not really doing anybody any good by voting anyway.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

The judicial branch is supposed to have the power to declare laws unconstitional, but has never done so in my lifetime.

As "TheGreek" has pointed out, this is not the case. Did you mean to write something else and typo or otherwise mis-write it? Or were you truly under the mistaken assumption that the courts have never turned anything around?

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

But, if you want to live in a democracy you have to accept that your minority viewpoint will not win enough votes at the polls to count.

Do I have to accept that my candidate will be barred from presidential debates?

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[MLease]

So you're saying that in your state/city, the primary races are merged with the local general election, and you're constrained to vote a straight party line in the general election if you want to vote in the primary? That is wrong. Where exactly is this?

-Mike

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why would we have to take a law to vote?

Because our reps are too chickenshit to take a position on anything controversial.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That is wrong. Where exactly is this?

I try not to narrow down my location too much for reasons of preserving my pseudo-anonymity here and because listing the township would make it obvious to most people what company I work for. It is in a medium sized city in Michigan. Note, it is unclear if they actually disregard your vote if you don't vote a straight party line, but the instructions on the ballot claim they do, which amounts to pretty much the same result.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

To arms!

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Reality Master 101]

How exactly do you imagine this can be interpreted to give the federal government any authority to legislate a "right not to be offended"

Because of exactly what the ninth amendment says. The amendment specifically says that it does not decide what is or is not a right, including, say, a theoretical right of "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities". Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of the latter right, I'm only saying that you have zero basis for claiming the constitution grants or takes away rights that it doesn't explicitly name. Again, that's why the constitution creates a legislature. All laws are fair game that don't directly contradict the constitution. That's the way system works, whether you like it or not.

I agree about the parks [...] But you should not be forced to [pay for fire service], no. [...] But that's just me [beliefs about nukes].

So, exactly what part of my statement about Libertarian beliefs was a "mischaracterization"? I mean, I can go on... heck, I even had one Libertarian nut try and convince me that shooting at people should be entirely legal... right up until you hit someone. If you don't hit someone, then you are not interfering with their rights. I won't say the party is that nutty, but it illustrates the danger of Libertarian thinking.

The problem is the whole concept of, "I should be able to do anything I want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do anything they want." What Libertarian never understand is that "interfere" is a lot broader than they understand. If nudity on television affects a large majority of lives in a negative way, who are you to tell then that it shouldn't? People's rights are always in conflict; I'd say most of the laws on the books are about balancing people's rights.

The fundamental problem with Libertarianism is that the only rights they care about are what THEY think are rights, and anyone else's ideas of what are rights are automatically wrong using their simplistic formula. And what's worse, they argue their simplistic formula is in the constitution somehow.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[koreth]

That is a presupposition and not something that should be allowed by the legal system.

Absolutely! I agree completely. And in fact we're there already: the legal system does not currently determine who can participate in presidential debates. The debates are not organized by a government body -- they are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which despite its official-sounding name, is a privately run nonprofit organization. That private organization determines which candidates are invited to participate in the debates it sponsors.

Claiming that its refusal to invite your candidate of choice to a particular debate represents a failure of the legal system doesn't really make sense, short of saying that a government body should have the power to dictate a list of required debate participants to private organizations. And if that is what you're proposing, then there are a whole lot of rather disturbing free-speech implications: What constitutes a debate? Does everyone who claims to be running for president get to participate, or if not, what's the cutoff below which you don't make it onto the official must-be-invited list? If the Greens and Libertarians have a debate on a college campus, are they required to invite the local Democrats as well? And so on.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

Because of exactly what the ninth amendment says.

No. The ninth says those rights go to the people, which means, not to the federal government. That in turn means they can't legitimately make any such laws. States? No. Why? Because the 14th prevents the states from infringing on the bill of rights. Even the supreme court agrees (Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947])) with that interpretation. Where does that leave said rights? Squarely in the hands of the people, that's where. Not the government. your problem here is you're taking the 9th out of context; that's not going to work.

So, exactly what part of my statement about Libertarian beliefs was a "mischaracterization"?

These:

• they're(sic) ideas are extreme and simplistic -- extreme yes, simplistic, no.
• support private ownership of nuclear bombs -- neither do we.
• Those are just STUPID ideas -- no, they're not.
• Libertarians have a crazy obsession with everything being private -- No, we don't.
• Like the Libertarians, except with common sense. -- implying libertarians lack it, which they don't.

The above mischaracterizations make it quite clear that you are not familiar with the libertarian party. They range from outright error to pointless (and inaccurate) ad hominem, They do your argument no good at all, no more than arguing with a fisherman about how he murders cows for a living would do.

If nudity on television affects a large majority of lives in a negative way, who are you to tell then that it shouldn't?

Socially speaking the answer is, a well balanced, healthy individual with no fear of, or revulsion with regard to, nudity whatsoever. Constitutionally speaking, I'm not in the least inclined to tell them how to feel. I'm just inclined to tell them they are wrong when they attempt to circumscribe other people's actions based upon how they feel. That way lies all manner of opinion driven abuses. Like homophobia: "I'm uncomfortable around gays." "Oh, OK, then we can legislate away their freedom to exist and/or pursue happieness." Like other forms of free expression: "uncomfortable" around nude statues" "OK, let's forbid public nudity in art. And hey, let's forbid it in private, too, because that makes people uncomfortable as well."

How you feel is not protected by anything the constitution implies, and as I said earlier, quite the contrary. Freedom trumps your feelings each and every time, starting right with the first amendment.

Now, it is important to say at this point that I recognize perfectly well that this is not what current law reflects; I am simply pointing out why these laws are illegitimate as currently implemented. The only legitimacy the federal government has is embodied wholly in the actions they take, and legislation they formulate, that have solid, uncompromised roots in the constitution. Whenever they step outside those limits, they are operating illegally and no longer have any right to act; only coercive, corrosive, power. And that's the kind of thing that gets governments brought down.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

Unfortunately, most libertarians appear to have followed the Republican Party's lead

You're completely out of your mind. Funny, too.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Reality Master 101]

your problem here is you're taking the 9th out of context; that's not going to work.

Unfortunately, this is where I generally end up when I debate with Libertarians... "It doesn't say that. Yes it does! No it doesn't. Yes it does!" -sigh- Which is why I try to avoid doing it.

In any case, the original point is why the Libertarians will never get power. People *like* parks. People *like* Fire Departments. People *like* public streets. And people, once they learn about them, *don't* like the Libertarians.

As I said, I have sympathy for some Libertarian beliefs, but the world they want is simply the world that no one else wants. Hence the need for a reasonable party that balances the good points of the other parties.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate you taking the time.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[tcc3]

The problem is the Libertarians are just as much extremists as the Democrats and Republicans. They are just the extreme of a third axis.

Like any party their platform has some good planks, but is ruined by extremist philisophy. An example: I'm all for small, hands off government. But all government regulation is not bad. I like that the FDA makes sure snake oil salesmen cant swindle at best and kill at worst. Its good that the FCC makes sure that the spectrum is organized and licenced, facilitating communication.

Democrats, rebublicans, Libertarians, you name it, arent bad. Its when blind ideology flies in the face of good sense is when we have a problem.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[siriuskase]

GP appears to be talking about primary elections, not general elections. In Georgia, it sort of does work that way in that everyone you vote for much be in the same party. Ideally, for each office, there will be a few Democrats, a few Republicans, and maybe even someone else. If you absolutely must vote for one of the Democrats, then everyone else you vote for must be a Democrat, so for primaries, people choose according to which race they care about, if the Mayorial Race is more important or competitive than the Congressional Race, then you vote for your favorite mayorial candidate and that's it. (I assume, because I don't live in a city and have never had to vote for a mayor....anyone else here from JC or Milton?) But, that's the way it works for other offices, if I really care about my Congress Rep, I might not get to vote for my favorite Senate Candidate. As a practical manor, incumbants are never opposed by anyone in their own party, and most the other races are unapposed at the primary level or I don't know any of the guys running for dogcather, so I don't care about that race.

It is important to remember that your primary vote does not obligate you to vote for the same candidate in the general election. So, if your favorite candidates all survive the primary, you get a chance to vote for all of them, assuming that they aren't running against each other. And now that we have these wonderful machines from Diebold, no one can accidentally screw up and vote for candidates in different parties.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[professionalfurryele]

You have merely demonstrated that democracy is not an effective means of maintaining a liberal republic. Democracy is exactly the problem, because it leads to mob rule. We need a system which does what the founding fathers intended, uses a pseudo elected federal government to preserve liberty, not impose mob rule. People are on the whole too stupid to select their own leaders, and liberty is more important than putting x's in boxes.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[siriuskase]

Not everyone in the polling place understands what is happening in a primary, that you in some way are "joining" a party and therefore limiting your options. In George, we don't register for a party when we register to vote, you just walk in and start voting. Some people know the names of who they want to vote for and don't think much about the party until they realize that the silly machine won't let them vote for who they intended. And even then, they might just think there is something wrong with the machine (and that might be a good thing if more people are confused by the Diebold machines than the butterfly ballots that we used to have).

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, the problem is that the parties keep putting incompetent (and worse) people up for election. Consequently the American people, having no effective way of dealing with the two-party monopoly upon government seats of power, keeps voting these incompetents into congress and the senate.

So form your own party, see how well you can do it. Remember that democracy is the worst posible political system, except for all the others.

Much easier said than done. The encombent parties have done a supurb job of making darn near impossible to form additional parties. Most states have laws on the
books to hinder such actions. For example, Texas requires signatures totalling more than 20% of the votes cast in the last similar election, from registered voters who did not vote in any primary or the main election. So if 4 years ago you voted for the governor in any of the primaries or the final election you are
ineligible to sign a petition to get another party or independant candidate on the ballot. Then add all the little picky rules (if you moved and changed your
driver's license but forgot to reregister to vote .. signature doesn't count)

Then even if you get your new party/candidate on the ballot if you party doesn't pull atleast 10% of the cast ballots . your are automatically removed from further elections until you go through the petition process again. So in Texas, you very rearly see anything more than Rep,Dem and occaisionally Liberterian on the ballot.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I read your statements, and I laughed out loud, not because I was amused by your shocking, ripping prose (although that may have been a piece of it), but rather because your points are clear, bare and to the point. You paint the truth bare naked for all to see. Some might be shocked by the presentation, but they will grumble and mutter when asked to refute, because they cannot (not without boldfaced lies and yelps about political correctness, or possibly attacks on you personally). Its when responding to something like this, that thier true colors show. Sadly, your rant rung loudly with the truth. Pity, that.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[rtb61]

Mob rule is never democratic, a few ring leaders make use of temporarily high emotions to gain control and then use violence to sustain control. The majority if given the opportunity to learn and when provided with the truth can quite readily make the most effective decisions.

All that is really needed is to implement a set of rules to make politicians for more accountable for their actions. Surely, when a politicians does something that is counter to a countries constitution they should suffer the defined punishment for their treason.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

And what, pray tell, would it matter if we lived in a pure democracy?

For one thing, it closes the channel between the PACs and the decision making body. It becomes impossible to offer life-changing bribes to 300 million (or even 150 million) people. Similarly, no act that uselessly benefits one area at everyone else's expense (AKA "pork") is going to pass, because there are no political favors to hand out. All that can be offered under these circumstances are the presumptive consequences of the law itself. Therefore, issues would have to stand, or fall, on apparent merit; and in that 300 million, you can be sure that there will be some subset of people delving deeply into the issue because it affects them a great deal. So poor reasoning is exposed, and this gives the people a chance to think over both the falsehoods and the reasons for them. States? An obsolete idea. Communications have made us one people, we just haven't figured that out yet. Texas doesn't need different law than New Hampshire, for instance.

Now, in an actual democracy, no one is trying to get elected; so no one is making any promises about voting for this, or voting for that. Instead, people will vote for what they think will benefit them, and this indeed is a risk; and that is why a strong underlying constitution and a judiciary with absolute veto is required. Let the people make law all they want; yet make sure that the laws must squeeze through an authority that will not pass any law unless it meets all constitutional tests, no matter how poplar it is, unless it can meet some massively overriding standard for altering the constitution itself (like being passed 100 years in a row by a 95% majority.) No judicial oversight or delay is involved in knocking out a law.

The constitution should be written in such a way as to ensure that human and civil rights are nailed down without the need for recourse to more law. In this way, the ability to quickly knock out laws will not be able to significantly alter someone's rights. This requires that the constitution be written with possibilities in mind that we can imagine and that may, though it may not be certain, come to pass. Animals may become intelligent. Aliens may land. Machines may become people. People may become machines. Other planets may become habitable and/or accessible. Disasters on scales great and small may occur. Likewise windfalls. And so on. You don't want to be caught short, unable to respond to something critical, because laws take 5 years to make. Luckily, we have a decent starting model, the US constitution. It could be made into a much better, and simpler, document were it to be re-written to enable actual democracy and with the idea in mind that no intelligence whose race is able to communicate in any fashion or otherwise demonstrate that they can reason, or have demonstrated for them that they can reason, without regard for sexuality, lack thereof, or any other electronic, chemical, biological, emotional, or intellectual variation in kind, is lesser than any other such intelligence in terms of rights.

Require new law to go through a similar, but shorter, period of validation; say, 5 years with 75% majority, before it can be made into law. On the other hand, one vote of 51% is enough to knock a law out. The reason for such a disparity is that often, what appears to be a good idea turns out not to be when actually implemented, and such laws need to be overturned ASAP.

Couple that with voter qualification — tests with random questions that ensure that you are actually familiar with the facts of the matter at hand — and you would probably, it seems to me, end up with a vastly superior government than the one we have now.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

But all government regulation is not bad. I like that the FDA makes sure snake oil salesmen cant swindle at best and kill at worst. Its good that the FCC makes sure that the spectrum is organized and licenced, facilitating communication

Yet...

It is bad when the FCC censors content. It is bad when the FCC denies small players any chance at spectrum through the mechanism of pricing such access out of reach except to corporate and independently wealthy entities. It is bad when the FCC specifies communications standards by brand and model, instead of measured performance. It is bad when the FCC sells communications spectrum to the highest bidder, without any regard whatsoever for public need. It is bad when the FCC makes it illegal to call for help on a radio for which you have not been issued the operator's license.

So maybe the spectrum should be organized under another principle; perhaps even allowed to find its own level. Chaos? Not likely. If you can't be heard, you won't bother. Plus, modern technology (spread spectrum, digital multiplexing) make the airwaves a lot less "scarce" a resource than they used to be, not to mention the migration of services from broadcast to in-wire and in-beam and in-fiber. For example, if I am sending my comms from point A to point B with a laser, you'll not be interfering with them just because your laser crosses my laser. Likewise, if my comms are in fiber, they're invulnerable to interference. The FCC is largely obsolete, and what part of it isn't obsolete is so badly mis-managed they deserve to be demoted to McDonald's food preparers. Though given how bad they were at managing the spectrum, I'd never eat at McDonald's again...

It is bad when the FDA denies access by consenting adults and guardians to drugs in the experimental stage for those who will, for instance, most likely be dying in the short term, when there is no hope that the drug be approved except in the long term. It is bad when the FDA (and any other TLA you care to bring up) tells a free individual that recreational drug use is not a valid option. It is bad when the FDA makes drug development and licensing so expensive that even drugs that were on the market and research done, get pulled because the drug companies can no longer make a profit (certain types of insulin have been pulled for exactly this reason, for instance. We have to get ours from Canada now.) It is bad when the FDA costs us 1.7 billion dollars yearly (its 2004 budget.) It is bad when the FDA drives up the cost of drugs. It is bad when the FDA causes major delays in the availability of drugs used to treat cancer, blood pressure, heart attacks, cholesterol, and strokes and delays in the availability such high-tech items as cardiac pacemakers and in the use of such techniques as balloon angioplasty for blocked coronary arteries. It is bad that the FDA has had the most effect on drug development time, and that said time has doubled since the 1960's. It is bad that the FDA enables a false sense of security -- no drug is always safe, any more than any food is always safe -- and causes downstream litigation under the false assumption that drugs can be qualified as "safe." It is bad that the FDA contributes mightily to the tidal wave of litigation that is destroying our country.

So maybe we need to man up, admit that taking drugs is a risk, and let the free market and modern communications pass along how good - or not - a particular drug is. We can talk to each other. Did it work? Were you cured? Did you get sicker? Drug companies want to sell; in order to sell, they'll need trust. Doctors want to cure you; that's how they survive. They'll have an interest in tracking what works, and what doesn't. They're not going to poison us on purpose. On the other hand, the FDA is screwing with us on purpose and by design, and you know why? Because government agencies (a) don't have to make a profit, (b) don't have to worry about staying in business, (c) don't give a hoot about rep

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

No it's not. It will go infront of the supreme court and fail.

Are you so certain? Ex post facto punishment went before the supreme court and came out banners flying. More than once, in fact. The SC happily allowed the "commerce clause" to be misused to control what a state exclusively grew, prepared, and marketed inside its own borders. The SC allowed property to be taken for any purpose whatsoever by the states. The SC has allowed (on many fronts) laws to be made respecting an establishment of religion by the government, not to mention actual participation in religion by the government. The SC has allowed explosive entry into your home without so much as a knock.

Aside from this, the SC routinely refuses to hear cases with enormous merit and great social import based upon the feeblest and most flimsy excuses.

I do not share your optimism in this matter. I hope they're overturn it, but frankly — I doubt it.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[tcc3]

I never said those agencies were perfect. Dont put words in my mouth. Like much of our government they have grown into unmanageable beuracracies, collapsing under thier own largesse.

That doesnt mean that the basic functions they are inteded to serve arent needed or are unimportant.

Does there need to be reform? Of course there does. Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater and hope it all works out ok? No, that would be foolhardy.

What you describe is either Anarchy, or government by corporations and the wealthy. We damn near have the latter now, but that doesnt mean the former is the right path.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[fyngyrz]

I never said those agencies were perfect. Dont put words in my mouth.

I didn't. I started with "yet...", which indicates acceptance of your point, but brings on contra-indications. I then made some observations and suggestions of mine, in no way saying they were yours. I think you are just a little too tender. Believe me, it was not my intention to misinterpret what you said, only to counter with the downsides against these agencies, which I feel are significant enough to warrant dismembering them. I didn't try to say if you felt that way, or not, or attempt to characterize your portrayal of them as "perfect." So chill, dude. :)

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Weedlekin]

"At least the elected representatives have at least a basic understanding of lawmaking and its repurcussions."

So by dint of being elected, people magically gain an understanding of lawmaking and its repercussions, hereby ensuring that stupid laws never get proposed, let alone passed. I personally am glad you told me this, otherwise I may have been deluded by lots of apparently stupid laws into thinking that anybody with even a tiny grasp of either lawmaking or repercussions could not have contemplated voting for anything so daft, but now I know that these laws only look stupid to people like me, who aren't elected, and therefore don't have the necessary understanding of lawmaking and repercussions to appreciate the brilliant subtlety of such pieces of legislative genius.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[professionalfurryele]

You sentiments, while noble, are nieve. Mob rule is exactly what democracy used to mean. It used to be a highly undesirable form of government, primarily because it lead to mob rule. Now in modern times Democracy came to be the catch all word for systems of government in which elected representatives of the people had significant control of government, but often with safeguards to prevent mob rule.

Now democracy is slowly becoming the tyranny of the majority again. We can argue semantics if you want, but I would prefer to look at this statement by you:

"The majority if given the opportunity to learn and when provided with the truth can quite readily make the most effective decisions."

This is simply ridiculous. I'm studying for a PhD, making me highly educated. I do not know anywhere near enough to make decisions on how to run an economy, on what an apropriate policy in the middle east would be, on what the best way to run a health care system is. Yet every few years, I'm asked to select the people who will run these things.

Greater accountability would certainly solve a problem. Every president and congress since Eisenhower should have been removed from office and tried for treason because of the expansion of the federal government and the contravention of states rights (heck maybe every one since, but not including Lincoln). But this is not the problem. The problem is that people select leaders not because they are suitable for the job, but because they will look after their own selfish interests.

I propose a system in which we devise a fair system of testing to determine elidgebility to vote. I should not be voting on who decides how to run our military. I should be voting on who manages science (as a professional scientist I believe I'm qualified to comment on this).

Finally we come to the issue of political parties. These should be banned. There should not be political parties, and being a member of one should cause you to be inelidgeble to stand for election. They are dangerous, they are divisive, they are a barrier to liberty, and they lead to a more ignorant electorate.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Maximilio]

Why don't you look up the endorsements of, say, Cato over the last three or four election cycles? Heavily Republican. And most of the Libertarian positions that have actually been made into legislation in the last ten or so years have been the Libertarian ones -- cutting taxes and strangling government services.

If they are anything like my parents...

[PreacherTom]

If the politicians are anything like my parents, then they are afraid to use the fax machine. Still, you know younger candidates (like Obama) have an edge on this issue...but does it make a difference?

hold on...

[revery]

Techies Must Educate Governments

Sorry, we don't have time. We're too busy destroying our lives playing WOW.

Re:hold on...

[Jason482]

Dude, it's WoW...your card has been revoked.

Leagal system too...

[Zarniwoop_Editor]

This is also very true for the leagal system. We need to educate the Judges and the Politicians I think.

Re:Leagal system too...

[Zarniwoop_Editor]

And before anyone says it.. I need to learn to spell. :-P
Legal... Legal ... Legal

Re:Leagal system too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's a two-way road, judges and politicians need to help educate techies. It's astounding the level of ignorance I've seen on Slashdot regarding legal issues especially.

How much tech could a top tech take

[Snarfangel]

...if a top tech could take tech?

yeah right

[pianowow]

Like I want to spend any free time explaining how some technology works to yet another stupid user. Who would go for this?

Educate the government by...

[__aaclcg7560]

Voting! Or, as V put it, "People should not be afraid of the government. The government should be afraid of the people."

Re:Educate the government by...

[asuffield]

Or, as V put it, "People should not be afraid of the government. The government should be afraid of the people."

A sentiment that I have always endorsed. To this end, I attempt to be as scary as possible, and practice on anybody I can.

It's a series of tubes!

[bl00d6789]

Obviously, this does not apply to Senator Ted Stevens. He clearly has a grasp on modern technology.

The internet is not a big truck!

Re:It's a series of tubes!

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the talk about "fat pipes" and "bus speed," it's an easy enough mistake to make.

For a moron.

Obligatory "Tubes" joke omitted

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Look. It's not like we're not trying. The thing is, politicians are obviously too dense to educate themselves about the core functions of their jobs today - economics, international relations, comparative religions, and ethics. I personally couldn't care less about whether a politician can even push the little button to the right of the green light, as long as he knows what he's doing when it comes to making an economic decision.

The problem is that a large percentage of them don't. I want smarter politicians, but anyone with half a brain knows it's just a mudfest, and doesn't really want to be dragged into it. The problem is more deep seated and insidious than just a lack of tech knowledge; if other industries and communities were more aware of their situations they would be (and often are) just as pissed about the lack of competence on the side of their elected officials.

The only exception, of course, is probably the stock market. I'm pretty sure your average politician could tell you quite a bit about how a 401(k) works, even if they can't tell you the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

Re:Obligatory "Tubes" joke omitted

[Daniel_Staal]

They are not dense. They are very intelegent, and work hard at doing their jobs.

Which is getting elected. That is what they are paid for, that is what counts.

The important part of a politician's job is gathering votes. Not ruling a country. We are supposed to only give votes to those who we think will do a good job of ruling, but the measured quantity in a politician's life is the number of votes they get.

It is not that they are not smart. It is that they have learned that applying smarts to ruling a country does not get them as many votes as applying smarts to getting votes does. I'm not sure how to change that, but that is the root problem.

Re:Obligatory "Tubes" joke omitted

[Volante3192]

A wise sage once quipped, and I'm sure I'll mangle the quote horribly, "Anyone capable of getting themselves elected president should on no account be allowed to do the job."

I'd expand that to 'elected to public office' myself...

Re:Obligatory "Tubes" joke omitted

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how to change that

I have a novel suggestion: vote that behavior out of office.

Re:Obligatory "Tubes" joke omitted

[Daniel_Staal]

It needs more than one vote. It needs more than everyone I know's vote. The question is how to get that number of votes applied to the problem.

Mine is. But that is not enough.

Was Educating, but the PHB fired me!

[Spinlock_1977]

Those who have worked in government and industry for 20+ years like me will probably agree that the influx of greedy PHB's into the upper ranks of IT/Engineering has laid waste to the talent that was once there.

Back in the day, senior management was listening to deep techies who knew their stuff - they relied on our training and experience to lay down systems that did the job well.

Times are different now. Most management I've seen is populated by greedy, power-hungy know-nothings who think outsourcing a core competency is a good idea. Mortagaging the future of the company they work for is, in fact, *their* core competency. And in the process, they rid the company of those who hold the institutional knowledge and have the technical depth to create great products/services for the company.

These management types will not (as opposed to "can not") be educated - it interferes with their world-domination plan. Nothing short of a sustained "flight to integrity" will turn this tide.

Re:Was Educating, but the PHB fired me!

[planetmn]

I agree with you 100%. In fact, it's my feeling that Engineers just aren't respected anymore. Politicians don't respect engineers, management doesn't respect engineers, consumers don't respect engineers. No wonder nobody wants to go into engineering anymore.

-dave

Re:Was Educating, but the PHB fired me!

[RAMMS EIN]

``Back in the day, senior management was listening to deep techies who knew their stuff''

Back in what day?

Re:Was Educating, but the PHB fired me!

[jellomizer]

You may also want to consider that your skillsets are in less of a demmand (with a higher level of people with technical companicy) and many people in managment are less likely to deal with many common Techies Quarks, where they can find others who look just as good on paper, to charge less, and are less well... Excentric.

Mistakes a lot of Techs make is after they advise their boss on what they think they should do and the boss decides against it, the techies make sure it doesn't work, except for trying to make it work well. Hence Poor perfomance on their part and getting fired.

Re:Was Educating, but the PHB fired me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Exactly. At one time, knowledge of things mattered. Now it doesn't. Superficially it is claimed to be important. But knowledge of buisness in general, that is important. Knowing the latest business school jargon is far more important than (in IT) knowing a TCP/IP stack (not just the names of the layers, but what they do, and code backing the functionality of the layer up). This is a thing that we can put a contract onto, and hire (remotely, from India or China or somewhere). Knowing that its a stack of tubes that gets things out the door is all they want to know. They refuse all other knowledge. Their lack of knowledge isn't accidental. Its intentional. They go out of their way to not know, and they get angry at technical people for any assault on their bliss.

Re:Was Educating, but the PHB fired me!

[Spinlock_1977]

What day? I suppose it was during that blissful period when there were too few deep techies to go around, so we reported directly to VP's or Pres's - the guys/gals who were leading the charge to build the next innovative product.

I encountered such bliss in varying engagements between 1982 and 1995. Haven't seen it since ;-(

That, and more

[RAMMS EIN]

``Techies Must Educate Governments''

While "must" is a bit strong, I agree it's a good idea. And so is voting for politicians who have a clue about the things you care about. In the upcoming elections (in the Netherlands - yes, that's what the stories about the voting machines were about), I'm probably going to be voting for some tech-savvy politician, rather than just for whatever party seems the best choice.

I've not decided which politician is getting my vote yet, but I know that at least Kees Vendrik (Dutch) (of GroenLinks) has done good things when it comes to computer-related issues, including filing the Motie Vendrik, which ``requests that the government ensure that by, 2006, all software used by the public sector supports open standards'' and ``requests the government to actively promote the use and development of open source software by the public sector''.

Good Luck!

[Noryungi]

I don't know about the USA, but in my (European) country, trying to approach the "government" goes like this:

• Are you someone famous? If not, government officials don't want to hear from you. [and by famous, I mean: "tabloid famous", the kind of pretty face politicians want to be seen with]
• Are you rich? If you are rich, have you given money to such-and-such politician campaign? If not, government officials don't want to hear from you.
• Are you supported by thousands of angry voters? If not, government officials don't want to hear from you.
• Are you supported by a massive media campaign? Or: is your media communication successful? If not, government officials don't want to hear from you.

In other words, unless you can mobilize media, public opinion or vast sums of money, government officials don't want to hear from you. And most geeks are not very good at presenting their ideas to the public, or being media darlings. Which explains why important legal battles have been lost in the recent past... Most people/voters simply did not care enough to mobilize and most politicians are ready to sell their souls to The Almighty Buck (or Euro).

And, frankly, these are the only things politicians care about these days: money, media and votes. Rather than approaching governements that don't give a hoot about you , I believe it is much more important to crack these three things. And all of them go hand-in-hand: get enough money, and you can get media exposure, and you'll mobilize normally apathetic voters (for instance). It's a sad state of affairs, but it's true: politicians are not here to serve their fellow citizens, they are in this line of work to further their own private ambitions . And as long as we have a professional political class, this can only get worse. But I digress.

Of course, I am not Eric Schmidt, who, as the CEO of Google is able to mobilize enormous amount of money and media attention. YMMV.

Re:Good Luck!

[TheCrayfish]

these are the only things politicians care about these days: money, media and votes

Based on my reading of history, that statement has been true for all time -- not just in "these days." For example, run this search or this search over at the Google New archive and notice how many results come back, and the dates that appear on the articles.

(I ran the second of these searches and came across these great quotes from 1864 and 340 BC):

Politicians are like the bones of a horse's foreshoulder--not a straight one in it.--Wendell Phillips, 1864.
The good of man must be the end of the science of politics.--Aristotle, circa 340 B.C

Re:Good Luck!

[Mattintosh]

"It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his own step." - Jeremiah, circa 650 B.C. (Jeremiah 10:23)
"Man has dominated man to his injury." - Solomon, circa 1000 B.C. (Ecclesiastes 8:9)

Talk to the Government?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the right has suspended Habeas Corpus? Yeah, right.

The best way to educate governments

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote out the idiots!

Demographics

[Tisha_AH]

That's sort of funny, that the average age of internet users is poorly represented in government. If you did an 80/20 rule on the internet most of the active users would be in their teens to their mid 30's. Most people in government are in their 30's to 50's. In fact, for many elected offices there is a minimum age requirement.

Voting?!?!?!

[Original Replica]

Seriously, When was the last time you saw a Candidate that you were actually excited to have as a leader?

Re:Voting?!?!?!

[inKubus]

When was the last time you thought your vote would be actually COUNTED CORRECTLY?

Re:Voting?!?!?!

[smooth wombat]

Jesse Ventura and Ross Perot? In both cases they were so far out of the norm that it would have been fun to see what they could do.

Unfortunately, only one got in and I couldn't vote or benefit from his election.

Re:Voting?!?!?!

[ElleyKitten]

Seriously, When was the last time you saw a Candidate that you were actually excited to have as a leader?

I've seen plenty of candidates that I'd be excited to have as a leader. Did they win? No.

Re:Voting?!?!?!

[Original Replica]

I live in the wrong state from Mr. Ventura. As for Ross Perot, I personally knew five people who voted for him, and that they were all voting at the nearby elementary school. The next day the newspaper published the election results with a breakdown of how many votes in what areas of town. The official record showed Mr. Perot as receiving 3 votes. So yes you are correct that occassionally someone from outside the professional politicians club steps up to the plate, but somehow inspite of a healthy amount of support from the masses they never seem to get any momentum. hmmmm.

Re:Voting?!?!?!

[__aaclcg7560]

... I personally knew five people who voted for him... The official record showed Mr. Perot as receiving 3 votes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the other two votes went to a Democrat and a Republican. Just because people say they voted for a popular politician doesn't mean that they did.

Re:Voting?!?!?!

[Richard Steiner]

Jesse was a breath of fresh air. No, he couldn't get a lot done given that the state legislature was split, but he had no problem letting us know where he stood on issues.

Yes, I voted for him when I lived in MN, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I wish he'd run in Georgia... :-)

Re:Voting?!?!?!

[Original Replica]

These five were people I knew well enough to be able to amicably disagree with them. If they told me they voted for Perot, they voted for Perot. My point is more that there is no accountablity in the processing of votes, and no recourse if you know that it is wrong. This huge flaw in the fabric of our society was most notably demonstrated in Florida in 2000, but as I was attempting to demonstate it has been an exploited problem for much longer.

Age isn't really the problem

[richg74]

The average person in government is not of the age of people who are using all this stuff ...

While I mostly agree with Mr. Schmidt's basic point, the fundamental problem is, I think, quite a bit more complicated than just the age of the participants. I'm 54, and I've been working with computers since 1970, and I think I'd qualify as fairly sophisticated about technology (heaven knows my friends and family members with computer problems seem to think so).

Look at the backgrounds of most of our elected representatives: they are predominantly people from the law, graduates of local politics, and a scattering of other fields; people trained in science or engineering are not exactly thick upon the ground. They are often very good at constructing arguments, but that's not the same thing as discovering what's true. There's also, historically, been a strong anti-intellectual undercurrent in US culture.

Re:Age isn't really the problem

[hughbar]

I'm 55 and spend some time teaching people from 50 and upwards to use computers. I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. The problem with law and politics is that it often depends on clever/slick arguments (sophistry, although that isn't the original meaning of sophistry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism )whereas science and technology are (somewhat) 'truth' based.

It's hard for us (technologists/scientists) to tell someone something works when it doesn't but a politician can make some kind of capital or evasion out of its malfunction (Our NHS computer system is a great example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3613220.stm).

I feel that we need more technical people within mainstream politics. The trouble is that most of them are repelled by it.

Re:Age isn't really the problem

[Spinlock_1977]

There's also, historically, been a strong anti-intellectual undercurrent in US culture.

Is that why every time I work for a large North American company, each new wave of management that gets installed holds big "rah rah" sessions and rewards those who kiss ass and follow dumb orders the best?

Management desperately needs to figure out that it's not a football game, where team-play and short-term gains trump all. Instead, let's think chess, where wise, well-reasoned moves, made at the appropriate time, produce superior results over the longer term. An intelligent, longer-term strategy, executed consistenty quarter after quarter, accumulates compound results over time like the proverbial downhill-rolling snowball.

During Microsoft's rise, they bought up every brianiac willing to sell his soul. Google's rise shows similar properties - they're now the mecca for boffins of these arts. Brianiacs can win big, if you put enough of them in a room and relegate the football coaches to delivering soda and wiping up the twinkie stains.

Re:Age isn't really the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If more legislators were graduates from law schools we would probably have more sensible laws (we used to when that was the case). If you look at the statistics in your state and nationally you will probably find approximately 1/3 from the trucking industry (so your gas tax pays for the damage they cause to roads rather than they pay it directly), about 1/3 from various parts of the real estate business, about 15% lawyers, a few farmers and ranchers and various small business men. One or two bankers in your state house is pretty high. What you are witnessing is the revenge of the C students for the most part--our government at every level is run by people who see no need for education for other than diesel mechanic school, a cram course on the uniform building code, and other trade schools, and generally won't fund education out of taxes beyond prevent rioting in the streets levels. Their encounters with technology come from outside--new fuel injection in diesel motors, gotta have the latest wiring in the high end homes you are building for all the tech toys of the owners, gotta get a new computer for the bookkeeper--and are not something they ever have personal use for (other than email). they are techno-nin-compoops.

While we're at it...

[Rachel Lucid]

Can we get them to stop treating Video Games the way they did TV, Comic Books and D&D?

That might help...

Re:While we're at it...

[anti-human 1]

Sure, once game publishers hire enough lobbyists and start making campaign donations. Until then, we've got to create something else to fearmonger over (besides the trump card, 'terrorism').

Maybe it'll be kids on social networking sites, although I doubt that will happen with them being bought out by the media outlets.

Educating Politicians

[Phu5ion]

Remember, our elected officials are only as smart as the people who elected them.

Re:Educating Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you're saying is that that the average American is no smarter than Bush.

No wonder our nation's going to hell.

Re:Educating Politicians

[RAMMS EIN]

``our elected officials are only as smart as the people who elected them.''

That would be true if you had a real choice. As it stands, the system limits your choices: even if a good candidate is running, voting for that candidate is only a good idea if he stands a chance of winning. With limited choices, you can be as smart as you like, but that won't change your chances of putting a good candidate in office.

Re:Educating Politicians

[dctoastman]

"Voting for [a good] candidate is only a good idea if he stands a chance of winning."

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Not only are there innumerable benefits for voting even for a "hopeless" candidate, but perpetuating the myth that voting for less popular candidates is wasteful just ensures that those candidates remain unpopular.

Plus it assumes that you know what a good candidate is and others don't. Maybe everyone who voted for Bush honestly thought he was a good candidate. Hell, maybe they're right. Who knows? We've dropped into the fuzzy area of "What is good?".

However, if everyone who voted for Bush, voted for Bush because Buchanan (closest I could think of) didn't stand a chance of winning, then everyone who voted for Bush wasted their votes. Why? Because they let speculative groupthink choose something that was popular rather than something they thought was right.

So I would have to agree with the GP (even though he was probably cracking wise) that our elected officials represent our collective intelligence. So as sad and horrible as it may seem to some, Bush does represent the (for the reactionaries: United States of) American people.

Nerdy 29-year-old seeks non-clueless family

[Rob T Firefly]

Nor is the problem the age of the representative. I'm closing on 60, and I know a great deal about technology. My mother knew more than any representative I am aware of when she died recently, and she was almost 90.

O_O

I inherited her dual CPU Dell running Red Hat SMP when she died. She wrote some pretty tricky perl scripts; I wish I could have converted her to Python, but alas. I didn't say she was perfect.

.....will you adopt me, sir?

take away their power

[Kohath]

If you don't allow your government to have power over youe everyday life, then their "education" level is a non-factor.

You only need to educate your government if you want it to rule people on your behalf. People who want that are called "tyrants". They're bad.

Re:take away their power

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't allow your government to have power over youe everyday life, then their "education" level is a non-factor.

Uh huh. So next time the government wants to go to war it can hold a bake sale. And everyone who supports the war has to get a tattoo on their forehead so that when people want revenge for having their families killed by the US military then they will know who to target.

Like it or not, we're all in this together. The government's decisions have a very real impact on everyone in the country.

You only need to educate your government if you want it to rule people on your behalf.

Unless you have complete anarchy that's kind of unavoidable. Either the country goes to war or it does but either way everyone gets carried along for the ride.

I agree that there are a lot of situations where the government neither needs to be involved nor should be involeved.

On the other hand, if the government had known something about science (or at least made use of it), it wouldn't have been claiming WMD as a justification for invading Iraq. It was claiming Iraq had a bunch of WMD left over from decades ago but scientifically the shelf life would have rendered them useless.

But that gets to my real point. It's not that the government doesn't know about science and technology. It's that they just don't care.

Re:take away their power

[RAMMS EIN]

``If you don't allow your government to have power over youe everyday life, then their "education" level is a non-factor.''

True, but will that make the situation any better? I think human advancement has been boosted enormously by getting organized into societies, and dividing tasks. I'm not convinced that would work without a government.

Re:take away their power

[Original Replica]

They took away my ablity to take away their power. The Second Amendment was not about defending my house from a burgular but defending my freedoms from my government. That has been taken away in the name of "safety". Protest marches allowed the grievences of the people to be heard without the need for bloodshed, now they are denied permits and instructed to protest "over there out of the way". Ask yourself, if Dubya declared himself King what could you really do about it?

Re:take away their power

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't allow your government to have power over youe everyday life, then their "education" level is a non-factor.

Ok, maybe you can explain how to say "no, you may not arrest me" to a cop. If your answer is "have more deterrent firepower than them" then you will be labelled a kook. If your answer is something else, then it is impractical. I see lossage on both sides. Government has power, and you don't get to decide otherwise.

You only need to educate your government if you want it to rule people on your behalf.

Or if you want it to stop ruling you.

More than just a generational gap ...

[Woldry]

... there's a philosophical gap. In my experience, people who show a deep interest in techie things and people who show a deep interest in being politicians tend to have a fundamental difference in the way they approach the world.

For the politician: nothing exists, or has a particular quality, except as decided by popular belief; people are more real than things; opinions count for more than data; agreement matters more than knowledge; emotional perception is all-important; the many matter more than the one.

For the techie: things exist, and have immutable qualities; things are more real than people; data counts for more than opinions; knowledge matters more than agreement; emotional perception is irrelevant; the one matters more than the many.

These differences make meaningful "education" a very difficult task, because the techie's impulse is to say "Here is Tab A. Here is Slot B. See how they work?" The politician's reply is either "Not everyone agrees that that's how they work" or else "That's disgusting! Inserting tabs into slots. The very idea!"

So the techie tends to think that the politician's reactions are irrelevant, and gives up on further teaching; and the politician tends to think that the techie's facts are irrelevant, and gives up on further learning.

(As with all generalizations, of course, anyone -- myself included -- could point out glaring counter-examples, so maybe I should just be modded "Full of $#!+".)

Re:More than just a generational gap ...

[dctoastman]

Very Insightful. I'm giving you virtual mod points in the upward direction.

I've never thought about it that way and it has made some current happenings very clear to me. While you do say that it is a generalization, it is a generalization of extremes. Most people will fall somewhere in between, and will fall differently based on the subject as well.
And it has made me look at one of my personal creeds in a new light ("Data doesn't lie"). Now, I'm more cognizant of how and why I come to that point and why I am interested in rules systems.

Terabytes for under $500

[Vskye]

Earlier in the afternoon, Microsoft Senior Vice President for Research Rick Rashid spoke of a future fueled by the rise of "human-scale storage." Translation: Since nearly anyone should be able to afford terabytes of disk space by 2016--even today, one can purchase that capacity for less than $500--new possibilities arise for documenting the world around you.
 
Wow, someone gets a deep discount on drive space! ;)

Re:Terabytes for under $500

[TheGreek]

You can get 1TB of disk for $300, cap'n.

Re:Terabytes for under $500

[Anonymous Coward]

In approximately 30 seconds I was able to verify his claim. That's a gig for just over $500. With a couple more hours of searching, I'm betting I could get it for under $500. Especially if I go internal instead of external. What was that about deep discounts?

Our government does not need internet education

[Anonymous Coward]

It needs education on constitutional republics, enumerated powers, and federalism. If they are taught these forgotten truths, our internet will be just fine.

Keep it simple

[Junior J. Junior III]

Just keep explaining that it's not a truck, and eventually they'll understand.

Re:Keep it simple

[teknosapien]

Hand them the keys to a truck and tell them there it is! Can you move this data for me?

Tech Natives Vs. Tech Immigrants

[TheGrit]

The baby boomers are in their last season of power. This generation matured without the wired world that has become an essential part of our entire lives. Consequently, they are slower to adopt technologies that come natural to gen-x tech natives. As the older generation passes the torch; politicians, corporate leaders, etc. will instinctively become more tech savvy.

Excellent Piece

[RAMMS EIN]

Thanks for writing such an excellent piece. Great points about your mother and the problems of the US political system, the small and large absurdities it has caused, and the current state of liberty. I can't comment on the voting advice, because I don't know the libertarian party or what they stand for, but for the rest, you just said everything I would have wanted to, and did it better than I ever could. Hats off.

Techies must BECOME the government.....

[Chanc_Gorkon]

No, we cannot educate the government. At least in the US, we can RUN to BECOME the government. That's the solution. However, with politics being a dirty dirty game, most techies won't drop to a politicians level.

Re:Techies must BECOME the government.....

[Rachel Lucid]

Hey, why be dirty on TV? Be dirty where it counts; on those nice, hackable machines they refuse to fix.

(rolls eyes)

[Quiet_Desperation]

"The average person in government is not of the age of people who are using all this stuff,"

Wow. Stereotype much?

The problem isn't that gummint folks don't know about these things, the problem is that they DON'T CARE.

It's all about power and control and PRETENDING to care.

It's like the old Jay Leno routine about soft cookies sold in bags.

CEO: Everyone has the soft cookies. We need one, too. Any ideas?

Underling: Well, boss, why don't we bake the cookies fresh every day and deliver them just in time to be soft and fresh.

CEO:Are you out of your mind?! Get out of here! Bob, call Dow Chemical. See if they have a softening agent we can use. Bill, call the Metamucil people and find out what they use.

So what I guess I'm saying is that while the Internet may be the best thing since soft, warm cookies, all the politicians care about is feeding us chemicals. I think. Or something.

Re:(rolls eyes)

[Anonymous Coward]

if they dont figure out a way to feed it to the sheeple then they will have to bury it as a hazardous waste

Throwing away your vote.

[Original Replica]

Given the notorious unreliablity of our voting process (broken voting machines, lost ballots boxes, etc) coupled with complete unaccountability (no proof of how my vote was registered, no recipt) why would I think my vote was ever counted in the first place? We refused UN oversight of our elections and you still expect me to believe in the voting process as a way to fix our broken system?
From: http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0706-09.htm "We the undersigned Members of Congress hereby request the Electoral Assistance Division of the United Nations Department of Political Affairs to send election observers to monitor the presidential election in the United States scheduled for November 2, 2004. We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy"
Sorry, We haven't been a Democracy for quite some time.

Re:Throwing away your vote.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

no proof of how my vote was registered, no recipt

What were you thinking? were you thinking? How can anybody be in favor of a receipt that shows who you voted for?

Re:Throwing away your vote.

[fyngyrz]

How can anybody be in favor of a receipt that shows who you voted for?

<SARCASM>Yes, how could one consider sacrificing personal security for accountability? It would be... un-American!</SARCASM>

Secret ballots are not a good thing. As we saw last election. Solidly democrat regions "somehow" voted overwhelmingly for Bush. No receipt? No way to disprove the result. And the result comes from Bush's cronies, Diebold. Suspicious? <SARCASM>Oh, no.</SARCASM>

Re:Throwing away your vote.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

How about we just use manual counting of the ballots, mkay? Do you really want your boss telling you who to vote for?

Re:Throwing away your vote.

[fyngyrz]

My being issued a receipt is not a path to my boss -- or anyone else, since I don't have a boss, per se -- telling me who to vote for. Furthermore, should such a thing happen, one video recording and off to jail said "teller" goes. We don't need to compromise the entire election process over a problem that technology solved when cameras got small enough to be concealable. You can't safely coerce a vote in this day and age. The FBI would have your balls for Christmas ornaments.

Re:Throwing away your vote.

[MobyDisk]

Using a hash, it is possible to verify your vote without printing it on a receipt. The voting machine prints hash of your entire ballot. Then, you can login online using your anonymous voter GUID and verify that the hash matches. There are similar, more robust ideas out there by people who know more about this subject than I do.

Re:Throwing away your vote.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That's horrible. There should be no way for you to veify who you voted for. That leads to vote buying and, save for our resident CEO troll, companies requiring their employees vote a certain way.

Cant be done.

[Kenja]

You cant educate people that think the erth is 6,000 years old. All you can do is yell at them.

Re:Cant be done.

[Anonymous Coward]

We could educate them with a brick...

Q: What's the diff. between politicians and PHBs?

[Peter Trepan]

A: Politicians don't bother to comb their hair over their horns.

Missing the real problem

[kogus]

Focusing on the politicians' ignorance of technology misses the point. The real problem is that those politicians feel such a need to regulate something they don't understand.

Re:Missing the real problem

[geekoid]

They are responded to public demand.
If the only people they talk to are people that want to see it regulated, what else are they supposed to do?

Generational gap, generational CHANGE

[tygerstripes]

This problem applies across the board - not just government.

Basically, it's not a problem of "not understanding technology" - though that's a basic issue that needs adressing. The trouble is, trying to educate people who aren't interested. Politicians rarely need to know how it works, and almost never need to know why it works (and why it matters), because they don't get voted in for understanding issues, but for being popular.

You can educate someone who doesn't care about how to use a mouse, a PC, how to browse the internets, how to make a web-page, how the interets tubes work, what hacking is, how encryption works, what the hell DRM is about, etc etc etc, but you can't make him care. "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think". Until it makes a difference to their chances of staying in power, technological understanding will not penetrate the body politick. Not directly, anyway.

I've had this conversation with other people. Things will change, but not by changing those who are in power - it comes from changing who is in power. In big corporations and such, this has happened much more quickly. If your board doesn't understand the implications of technology, the company goes under - the board gets replaced with people who do understand. Not so in government. All you need to be successful in government is... to be popular. And you can set your own agenda, if you publicise enough. So technology doesn't get a look in.

Maybe, over time, we'll see the "generational shift" where everyone's grown up with technology and understand its implications, to the point where they can make (more) informed decisions, so even politicians have a clue what the debate is about. Trouble is, that always leaves politicians ten steps behind the times.

Solutions, anyone?

Re:Generational gap, generational CHANGE

[jo42]

Retire the senile geezers?

Re:Generational gap, generational CHANGE

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an idea. Lets get a few of us to run. Thousands of people read slashdot, I'll bet we can muster up one that's presentable and well spoken, and put together a platform to go on. There's gotta be millions of americans that are just as apathetic about the government as those of us here on slashdot, look at the ratings for The Daily Show. If we could give them a fresh outlook on politics, with real issues and real opinions, and a real person, we just might get the 5% of the popular vote needed to get government funding for campaigns.

+5 Funny!

[Quiet_Desperation]

At least in the US, we can RUN to BECOME the government. ...most techies won't drop to a politicians level.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! That's a good one. :-)

Oh, wait, you were serious.

(blank stare)

HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAA! :-D

Don't forget Ted Stevens

[not already in use]

I think Ted Stevens has done a fine job educating the government and the people about the internet, how it works, and it's importance. Of course, if you think that techies still need more influence on the government, you could always write an internets to your senator. Allow 2-3 days for arrival though, the tubes are pretty clogged.

Scientists and Engineers too

[Tancred]

There's a new group founded last month, with 14 Nobel Laureates on its board, that is advocating for "evidence-based debate and decision-making in politics". Sounds like a good goal.

Tut, tut...

[SilentOneNCW]

Silly Slashdot editors...

What happened to your strategy? This is a story based on something a Google executive said... yet, Google isn't in the title! Not only will you lose ad revenue, but just think of all the Google fanbois that will have skimmed right over this story without even *realizing* that an essential bit of Googley goodness lies within!

Won't someone think of the Google Fanbois!?!

They don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

This article and most of the posts presuppose that those people in government care. They don't. *You* think tech should be important, not them. It is stupidly naive to assume those in positions of power are stupid because you don't like what they do. As soon as somebody starts telling you that Clinton or Bush are stupid, you should walk away, because that person is an idiot. Yes, this means you. Even though you don't think it applies, it does. Really. If you don't believe me, come back in 20 years and you'll be agreeing with me, that you were an idiot for thinking in such a manner.

Systems class

[JustNiz]

Acutally politicians should also learn logic and systems theory from us, as they don't currently seem to think or plan in very logical or structured ways.
The first thing that needs refactoring and clearer requirements definition is the law.

Message

[Reality Master 101]

Test of whether Slashdot is working again...

Mod parent up

[cdn-programmer]

The parent post is overgeneralized of course... to paraphrase is to overgeneralize.

This is a very insightful post. I agree almost 100%... however there are people who are adept at both politics and technology. Someone with both talents may seem scary to either group.

The way I see it - humanity stretches out between two extreems. On the one hand we have emotion and on the other we have logic. There is a knot of people at each end. The population in the middle may be rather sparse. As the author of the parent post correctly points out, for people at either end of the spectrum it can be very difficult to try to understand the other camp.

I would suggest that the political (emotional) side is substantially more heavily weighted than the technical (logical) side of this teeter totter. If we go back through history what we find is a slow progression of technology and science. It was only a few hundred years ago that observers of nature were routinely condeemed. Indeed many were imprisoned. If we consider primative people, what we find typically is a well developed emotional complex. It seems the hallmark of civilization is the development of logic. This is the essence of law for instance... that issues should be decided on fact and logic. Yet in spite of this, we find emotion running the show far too often.

Simply put, the logical individual is still in the minority. As I see it, the world is run primarily by emotion. Even very logical people often misunderstand how much decision making is governed by emotion. Emotional people of course don't consider the question.

Re:Mod parent up

[teh_chrizzle]

"Simply put, the logical individual is still in the minority. As I see it, the world is run primarily by emotion. Even very logical people often misunderstand how much decision making is governed by emotion. Emotional people of course don't consider the question."

well said. the thing with the united states as it is today is that logical arguments, however true they may be, make for terrible soundbytes. sadly, soundbytes are what makes the country go 'round. for example, there are a dozen points to be made in the net neutrality debate, but the anti-neutrality side simply said "net-neutrality means that you pay more". that would have been the deathblow to all those who support net-neutrality, but thankfully "old intertubes" shot his mouth off and did, by way of the almighty soundbyte, what no bit of net neutrality reason or logic could... produce a useful soundbyte.

the trouble with winning elections based on soundbytes is, to quote a line from eddie murphy's "the distinguished gentleman": soundbytes are not sworn testimony... and therefore not legally enforcable.

there is hope tho... steven colbert's "truthiness" is a big hit. he pokes fun at the power that emotion and soundbytes have and people love it. assuming of course that the unwashed masses actually understand what he is talking about.

look im techie

[arkaino]

me : - You should obey me,
McFly: - oh yes,
me: - bring me more coffee Mc Fly.....

Google has all your data , now it wants your Government.... oh sure. here you have.

Its not a bad thing under the right conditions

[TheAxeMaster]

You mention the "mechanism of election" yet you mention two completely different systems. Democracies don't elect representatives to make the laws, people make them. And yes, it is defensless against the "mob mentality." But a deomcratic republic isn't the same as a democracy.
 
The saddest parts about the system though, is that republics (democratic or not) are just as defensless against it, just in a different way. Now, instead of the "think of the children!" actions that might be taken in a real democracy, we have the "voting for someone other than republicans or democrats is just a waste of a vote" blind sheeple statements. They're both born of the mob mentality and they can be equally destructive to liberties.
 
As you can see, its not the elected officials that are the problem, its the people that are the problem. Will that change? As long as they have their bread and circuses, probably not.

squabbling delegates

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon the Gov't will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved them permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.

Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.

Primary verses General Elections

[snoitpo]

It sounds like the poster was describing a primary election form. In some "open primary" states, everyone can vote in the primary and can vote in ONLY ONE party's primary, since primary elections are for the purpose of nominating candidates for that party. It sounds like something the states shouldn't be involved in, but it shows how the political machine is wired for the two parties. Third parties, and the two parties in some states, hold nominating conventions to do the same thing.

A problem in some areas if that one party has a single obviously strong nominee, members of the opposing party will vote the other party's primary, and vote for an unelectable candidate. In very rare cases, the party loyalists will figure that the obvious candidate will win and not vote, and in fact the weaker candidate will win the primary. Or if there are a few good candidates, the opposition will try to get the weakest nominated. I'm shocked, shocked that people would consider doing this.

Funny - I started doing just that, education

[cheros]

I've developed an executive level coaching package that addresses that precise issue.

It's quite fun and relaxing to run a business that makes money by being honest :-).

Net Neutrality violates the End-to-End Principle

[Anonymous Coward]

As a libertarian, I am opposed to legislating FCC (the FCC for christsake!) regulation of the Internet, called Net Neutrality.

I am opposed to Net Neutrality because it violates the End-to-End Principle, which is the defining quality of the Internet as a network of peers (i.e. P2P).
Once you involve a centralized enforcement agency, such as the FCC, into the operation of the Internet, you have effectively destroyed the End-to-End Principle as much or worse than implementation of QoS by ISPs ever could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle

(Yes, this centralization has already been a problem for DNS and spam RBL, but lets not add to that, mmmkay?)

One technical solution is for ISPs to try to make QoS happen, but everyone downloads and installs I2P so that QoS becomes unfeasible to implement.
http://www.i2p.net/

Elect repr

[MobyDisk]

I was asking several school teachers about recent education bills (state & federal). It sounds like the politicians enacted legislation without talking to the educators. This sounds exactly like what is going on with network neutrality, etc. Our elected leaders just don't understand business. If you want to get from point A to point B, you find the appropriate subject matter experts, pay them to research the problem, get proposals for solutions, and implement the solutions. But they don't seem to do that. They just do whatever the lay-person thinks is a good idea.

Nothing will work until we restore basic business intelligence back into the elected leaders.

The problem is govt's reliance on consultants

[tokengeekgrrl]

Politicians aside, I see the problem as being entrenched within government. As someone who works in IT in the state government, I have been baffled by the decisions of IT management. Many of my colleagues are highly competent and motivated IT professionals, (note I said many, not all), but the structure of government impedes our ability to implement better IT solutions and policy. When we try to discuss it with management, they just ignore us and only listen to the consultants they've hired. My colleagues and I are then forced to implement whatever the consultants have recommended which often flies in the face of common sense, nevermind the best interests of the taxpaying public.

Of course, if management actually really understood IT, which I used to believe was the case but am now convinced is not, a real discussion regarding policy could take place but they are truly clueless so of course they rely on the consultants who convince them otherwise. Their decisions are also driven by a pass-the-buck and avoid responsibility at all costs mentality meaning when in doubt, they blame the consultants who are happy to take the blame as long as they can keeping billing for it. On top of that, government's inherent hierachical structure and nonsensical budget process fully insulates management from ever being responsible for the consequences of their poor decisions.

But what really drives me crazy is that the consultants who are pushing bad solutions and poor policy are considered more competent than I am by my own managers because they're in the private sector and I'm not. Wtf?

And yes, in case you're wondering, I have been looking for a new job but there is a strong stigma against government experience in the private sector that I can't seem to get out from under. This is in spite of having worked on 5+ projects compared to most of my colleagues who work on just 1 project and having a graduate degree. So I advise anyone out there considering working in the public sector, only do so if you don't think you'll ever want to return to the private sector. My job is great for someone who wants perpetual job security, a stable 40-hour work week, great benefits, steady raises until their salary reaches the limit for its classification, no pay for performance, no opportunity for growth or promotion and being paid to not think.

- tokengeekgrrl
(not a typical lazy, government worker)

Re:The problem is govt's reliance on consultants

[waterboyev]

That was a great response - as a consulting firm ourselves, we actually try to suggest and implement common-sense, practical, and effective solutions for governmental/quasi-governmental agencies, and while the IT staff loves us for it, we still on occasion get beat out by the smooth-talking ad-agency types who spew knowledge from a book that sounds good and gives managers an easy out if something goes wrong. If you really are looking for a new job, we're always looking for good people - where are you located?

Re:The problem is govt's reliance on consultants

[tokengeekgrrl]

Northern California.

Re:The problem is govt's reliance on consultants

[waterboyev]

We're in So Cal. We're looking to identify individuals with different areas of expertise that we could bring on as consultants if it seemed that expertise was needed for a particular proposal or project. Would you be interested in exploring this further?

Re:The problem is govt's reliance on consultants

[tokengeekgrrl]

Sure. How do you want to proceed?

Re:The problem is govt's reliance on consultants

[waterboyev]

Why don't you check out dreamboxcreations.com to see what kind of stuff we do. Then you could email me at field@ and let me know what you do so we can see how complementary we are.

Techies Must Educate Governments

[kbox]

Can't we just call them n00bs and run away giggling like we usually do?

Terabyte for $400

[freeweed]

Heck, even in Canada you can get 250GB drives for $100 or so. 4x250GB = 1TB = $400.

You must be part of the "generation gap" that this article is talking about. Are you a senior government official, by chance? :)

Techrights.org-Educating Politicians & the mas

[lightyear4]

You precisely echo my view. In an effort to turn sentiment into action, I am attempting to help increase public knowledge of technology and their rights. If you wish to contribute, please contact me.

Lack of time?

[lightyear4]

Perhaps we do not have the time; however, I have a feeling that it is a matter of effort -- effort well worth investing. In that spirit, I am attempting to help increase public knowledge of technology and their rights. If you wish to contribute, please contact me.

Tech burnout

[briancnorton]

I think a bigger problem is that the government leadership has had so much smoke blown up their asses about what "technology" can do that they are (rightfully) skeptical. I can't tell you how many software demos I attend where the sales-weasels promise the solution to world hunger but deliver a smouldering pile of crap. When people start seeing through it, they come up with a different line and use even more nebulous terms to tell you why you need XMLnanostreamservice instead of the old crap they sold you last time. Tech burn is VERY VERY real, and it's getting much worse.

9th Amendment

[Dan Slotman]

They aren't open for debate, they are specifically retained by the people. Read your own link. For example, the Constitution doesn't address the right to jumping. That doesn't mean that my right to jump up and down is open for debate. It means that my right to jump up and down is specifically protected from Federal laws.

Re:9th Amendment

[Reality Master 101]

They aren't open for debate, they are specifically retained by the people. Read your own link.

Sheesh. Why don't we read it together? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The ninth amendment says that some rights not mentioned in the constitution may still be retained by people. Note that it does NOT say that any right not mentioned in the constitution is automatically a right retained by the people -- only that not mentioning it doesn't mean it's not a right.

In other words, everything not mentioned in the constitution is up for debate by the legislature (which is why we HAVE a legislature!). If the legislature wants to pass a law against jumping up and down, it is expressely within their purview.

come again?

[aron1231]

This is our generation that is coming of age. We are the ones saturated with computers and the dissemination of information. We are the ones who, in due time, will replace those aging fossils who corrupt our fine country. Why should we help them? Why should we give up the very advantage we have over them? Maybe we should have helped Foley better understand technology so he could have hidden his tracks better... Yeah, I say we help them... help them out of office!

Ask not what your government can do for you...

[sam991]

Ask what you can do for your government!

Except it doesn't really work. In my experience even as low level tech advisor to Joe Bloggs, about PC hardware, knowledge goes in one ear and out of the other. You can give them the best advice you can and they'll probably still go to Dell.

The same goes for large corporations and governments. They aren't going to listen to the man who really does know what he's talking about, they're going to listen to the person who will give them the answer they want to hear. Sad, but true.

Here is a better understanding

[0x1b]

See The Systems Approach and Its Enemies by C. West Churchman, Basic Books 1970, if you can find it.

There are breeds of human thought.

techies educating government

[virtualthinker]

Techies cannot educate gubmut. I happen to know it is totally hopless. I did gubmut work once or maybe twice. I worked for the state of virginia as a temporary person once. They never make me real, so I convinced a charity to hire me. They made me real, but did'nt pay me enough to eat, so I got myself hired by a cola company, who did'nt pay us techies enough to have babies, so I got hired by a consulting company, which hired me out to a telephone company. Telephone and computer companies paid pretty well as long as you didn't work for them. Somehow a consulting company got me involved in a gubmut work project thing. You have heard the term "good enough for gubmut work"; Most of the people started out caring, unless their parents worked for the gubmut, hence they were born with a no care attitude. Most of the people I worked with in virginia were good people who did their job. We had a few goof-offs who smoked pot in the tape library. The resin was good for a couple tape i/o errors a night, sometimes more, especially after it collected on the tape heads. Once in a while we would have a no-brainer disaster, but most things went fairly well. Gubmut work for the federal people was very different however. One of the contractors hired 70 VAX VMS programmers to work on IBM MVS, because VMS and MVS had the same letters. I heard they "didn't know there was a difference". You never win a contract, cause if you do your competition influences the politicians to re-write the reqs so they cannot be done, which causes missed dates, which eventually puts the contract back out for new bids. Or the cometition sues you cause you won. This process goes on and on and on. The never ending gubmut work circus. Everybody but the techies are politicians, and when things go wrong techies are expendable so techies are blamed. So forgetaboutit.

Interpersonal Communication, Folks!

[Phoenix666]

I've been following these threads on Slashdot and elsewhere for years, and recently have come to have a new perspective on why we're not getting anywhere as techies or as citizens living in a democracy. I started out as a techie who's been chased to the Strategy and Management end of the production spectrum by the Dot-bomb and outsourcing craze; and I've been simply astonished by how exceedingly difficult it is to communicate exceptionally simple concepts and goals to Sales people and management--within our own industry! And it dawned on me that the reason we're banging our heads against this same suite of issues year in and year out is that we're not grasping the simple fact that we have to get our message across in the dead simplest way possible. It's about interpersonal communication.

It's true that Joe Q. Citizen doesn't know or understand much about technological issues. Most people know very little about most things. Some might know a lot about a very little if they're particularly ambitious, but most people just try to get by. The world is a big place with a lot of big things going on that they, the little guys, don't feel like they have very much effect on. So why take the time and put yourself through all the heartache to learn a whole lot and invest a whole lot of energy and passion into some big issue that you can't really do anything about? Besides they have to take care of their kids, hold down a job, manage their personal relationships, walk their dog, and just basically do all that you have to live.

If you're lucky, the average person has about 10 minutes a day to think about the big picture, new concepts, and form opinions. The desire and drive to learn, adapt, and grow that we techies share, just aren't by most people. And in all these threads we rail and gibber and threaten and protest that nobody cares and nobody is doing anything. And we just cannot understand it, precisely because our assumptions about people wanting to know are not matching up with reality.

That's why, my friends, if we want the government to change its policies on tech or anything else we have to 1) stop repeating platitudes, truisms, and articles of faith like "in a democracy people get the government they deserve" or "it's not a democracy, it's a republic!" and feeling like we've said or done anything that matters, 2) organize as techies and get our story straight, 3) re-phrase and test and re-phrase our message until your randomly selected group of citizens gets it on the first pass, and 4) repeat it high and low until the hills and valleys ring, until it's lost all flavor in our mouths and we dream it at night and mumble it under our breaths autonomically.

That is the only, only way to break through the great white noise and extremely well-funded spin that is the modern industrialized democracy. We have to be able to get through to people in those precious 10 minutes a day that they have to think about anything that's not right in front of their noses and smacking them in the head.

Now you tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's taken Techies this long to figure that out (in many cases too long--10 years-- to prevent the current mess),then perhaps the techies are lacking something as well.

government

[Treates2]

most governments are in their 40's-70's they dont even know that all websites on the "internets" don't began with Dubya-Dubya-Dubya.

Round 'em up -

[Anonymous Coward]

For re-techucation!