Slashdot Mirror
Vote Swapping Ruled Legal
cayenne8 writes "During the 2000 election, some sites were set up for people across the nation to agree to swap votes, among them voteswap2000.com and votexchange2000.com. They were established mainly to benefit the third-party candidate Ralph Nader without throwing local elections to George Bush. The state of California threatened to prosecute these sites under criminal statues, and many of them shut down. On Monday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the vote-swap sites were legal (ruling here, PDF). The court held that '...the websites' vote-swapping mechanisms as well as the communication and vote swaps they enabled were constitutionally protected' and California's spurious threats violated the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit also said the threats violated the US Constitution's Commerce Clause.'"
Retroactive?
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
If politicians can shape districts to 'coordinate' votes, why shouldn't the people be able to do the same?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
I thought I had already burned the damned thing.
If not already, I'll have it burned before I declare elections null and void.
Feloniosly As Always,
George W. Bush
Selling your vote is illegal. Trading == selling.
The same software could also solve the Libertarian/Republican crisis as well as the Green/Democrat crisis, so I see no point in arguing that it's one sided.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
9th Circus ?!? It will be reversed on appeal. These jokers get overturned more than any other court, and with good reason.
to sell my vote?
Is there anything stating you can't offer your vote for sale? I can't recall anything saying you can't do that... just that it would be impossible for anyone to verify you followed your part of the contract.
I'll agree with just about anything that helps "the third guy" in elections. I'm tired of throwing my vote away!
Unfortunately, it's hard for me to believe that a third party will ever have a legitimate chance at winning the presidency...
End transmission.
The ruling says that vote swapping web sites are legal. I don't see it saying anything about whether vote swapping is legal.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
It's a little known fact that this is why Dewey lost to Truman, falling for the old "you vote for me and I'll vote for you" trick. Poor sportsmanship on the part of Harry S, for sure.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
Diebold is already swapping everybody's vote for cash from the highest bidder.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
...everyone voted at a guaranteed same time, instead of across 4+ time zones where the open and close times for each polling station varies.
I recall one of the many controversies in the 2000 election in Florida was some people were staying home in the panhandle (Central Time) because they were being told by the TV talking heads that Florida was already decided (in the rest of the state, Eastern Time) and so their vote didn't count.
NBC's Tom Brokaw actually had an interesting idea -- have the polling take place over a two or three day weekend instead of Tuesday and have ALL the poll stations open and close at exactly the same time irrespective of time zone. That way you mitigate the 'my vote doesn't count' problem as well as making it more convenient for those of us who want to watch 'House MD' on Tuesday night.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Personally I find that this is probably a distasteful ruling -- voting is supposed to be a matter of conscience in one's own locality -- not somewhere across party lines where presumably money could also change hands to encourage the vote swap -- i.e. who says a person can't claim to vote swap with multiple people, or even use a spam list to fake the trades -- thus essentially buying votes -- which IS illegal.
But on the one on one level, since this is America a person ought to be able to say whatever they want short of "fire" in a crowded theater type stuff, so this isn't necessarily a bad ruling.
The question is, what SHOULD the law or at least constitutionality of something like this be given the 'Net?
Thoughts?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Frankly, I think that the only way to prevent abuse is to go to direct democracy. But that requires superior education. At the moment, the US spends $50 per person per year on education. This doesn't seem to be a whole lot. You'd certainly never reach the level of enlightenment required for a stable democracy. The US would also need more leisure time. That's when people get a chance to think and to mature. Besides, it's pretty well established that people will do more productive work on a 35-hour week than a 40+-hour one.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How about we have a system where each vote is equal!!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Sorry, but a Republican vote isn't an "almost as good as" vote for a libertarian.
A modern day witchhunt.
"beneath criminal statues"? Can they fit under here? When did they make being anthropomorphic and inanimate illegal? If prosecuting websites requires first prosecuting statues, I can see why we have so many inanimate objects in prison...
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. There might be something wrong with the election process in the U.S., but that doesn't mean people should be finding ways to circumvent it, legally or otherwise. What's happening here is a workaround, and workarounds don't typically lead to solutions.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
It would have been interesting if they'd ruled it was illegal. Vote swapping in Washington is done every day of the week, you vote for my bill, I'll vote for yours. While this is a slightly different type of voting, it usually has much more stringent requirements, i.e. no absentee voting.
This mechanism of reaching a compromise by agreement on how someone will vote on various issues is pretty deeply ingrained in U.S. politics, so it would be odd indeed to restrict it's use to elected officials only.
I didn't know the courts had taken to gelding.
I can see how it's displeasing to have people selling their votes, but it's a much preferable use, rather than the current trend in the United States (no use). The only real harm that can come from allowing this to happen is somebody loses a few dollars to someone who didn't vote for their candidate.
;d
So is this vote swapping thing related to that in some way?
I think that since nobody can watch me vote and it is an anonymous process, i will sell my vote to the highest bidder.
I promise to vote your money, not my own political leaning..... I promise.
Dude, I know it's a popular misconception, especially among the R's, but Libertarians are NOTHING LIKE republicans, and it's just as easy for us to see their behavior is deceitful, wasteful, totalitarian, and just plain disgusting.
We libertarians believe in things like civil rights and limitations on federal government power. If republicans have ever supported these concepts, it hasn't been during my politically aware lifetime (last 15 years or so.)
I don't know what the hell Ron Paul thinks he's doing acting like part of that group of idiots. And don't tell me that they are both supposed to be "conservative". The pointless and unnecessary wars they tend to start and glamorize are the most expensive, wasteful, and downright suicidal (on a national level) government programs I've ever seen.
Libertarians are much more similar to democrats these days - Oh, except we have actual beliefs where democrats* use polling.
---
* Dennis Kucinich and possibly Mike Gravel excluded
What's happening here is a workaround, and workarounds don't typically lead to solutions.
That's not necessarily true. Workarounds sometimes allow a problem to build to enough of a critical mass to demand attention instead of just causing people to quit trying like an intractable problem does. Voting in America is definitely a system that a majority of "users" think is flawed and don't bother with anymore.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. There might be something wrong with the election process in the U.S., but that doesn't mean people should be finding ways to circumvent it, legally or otherwise.
What exactly is morally or ethically wrong with doing this anyway? In an approval voting system, you'd be able to vote for both candidates. In a direct election system, your vote would be sure to matter.
If the system sucks and isn't as fully democratic as it could be, why not game it for the purposes of making sure the will of the people is reflected more accurately?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So, how does vote swapping help anything other than make sure parties rule politics instead of individuals? I mean, Bush and McCain are of the same party, Obama and Lieberman are of the same party.
I understand the point of political parties is to get elected and to collectively wield power, but vote swapping seems to undermine the actual election of individuals who are ultimately each responsible for their own upholding of their constitutional oaths.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Current data puts the average per-student spending at $8,701. I'm really curious about where you got YOUR figures.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Vote Libertarian--crisis solved :-)
Incorrect, as this may well throw the election to the Democrats.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
For whatever ends, this is still called corruption.
I don't know what the fuss is over, I swapped my vote with six or seven people, no problem.
Yes, but from that point of view, it's a far sight better than a spoiler vote for a Democrat, which the Libertarian vote might become (has become in the past) without vote trading software.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This completely violates the way the election system was built. You cannot swap votes with someone in another state because there is no such thing as a national election. All states hold their own elections. When you cast a vote, you are casting it for your state to decide which candidate gets the electoral votes for your state, not as a direct vote for the president (aka, popular vote). This is why it is technically possible for a candidate to win with electoral votes, but lose the popular vote.
Until the constitution is amended to make the popular vote count or eliminate the electoral college, this judge should have his robe taken and should be beaten with large stick. I'm sick of judges trying to change the Constitution and degrade our federation because they think something should be a certain way. They do NOT have the power to amend the Constitution, yet we sit around and let them do it time and time again. Not everything in the Constitution is up for interpretation. Some things are black and white. Individual states can setup elections any way they see fit. in fact, I have no problem with this vote-swapping within a state, if it is sanctioned by the state...which would probably require a change to the state Constitution.
there is no way vote swapping would work anyway. voting is private, and you can't prove how you voted even if you wanted to.
note that this is intentional. (and it's the reason all those voter-receipt-check-that-your-vote-was-counted ideas don't show you HOW you voted) imagine your boss at work saying "everyone bring in your voter receipt wednesday if you want to get a pay check friday!" (or your union leader, who might say "if you want your wife to not have any 'accidents'.")
http://kered.org
We libertarians believe in things like civil rights and limitations on federal government power. If republicans have ever supported these concepts, it hasn't been during my politically aware lifetime (last 15 years or so.)
Youngster. You don't remember Ronald Reagan, who basically ran on civil rights and limitations on federal government power, and who actually popularized "The scariest words in the English Language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Republicans have certainly become corrupted since then (The current administration very much so), but they're still more likely to limit government interference in the free market than Democrats are.
Dude, I know it's a popular misconception, especially among the R's, but Libertarians are NOTHING LIKE republicans, and it's just as easy for us to see their behavior is deceitful, wasteful, totalitarian, and just plain disgusting.
Don't mistake the current crop of oil-industry idiots for the majority of Republicans.
I don't know what the hell Ron Paul thinks he's doing acting like part of that group of idiots. And don't tell me that they are both supposed to be "conservative". The pointless and unnecessary wars they tend to start and glamorize are the most expensive, wasteful, and downright suicidal (on a national level) government programs I've ever seen.
Ron Paul and Ronnie Reagan have a lot in common- and while I have a tendency to agree with you on "pointless and unnecessary wars", back in the 1980s they knew how to fight them cheaply with a very minimum of waste. The invasion of Panama was the worst, and even that was over in a couple of weeks. Most followed the War Powers Act that gives the sitting President 48 hours before he has to report to Congress to ask for permission for a war. A good Republican IS a Libertarian.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
To those who are complaining about this: please spare me the bullshit. Gerrymandering has been around a long time, and until we get rid of THAT nonsense, there's no reason I can think of, legal or moral, that its reasonable counter shouldn't be employed by the people being gerrymandered against.
Obviously.
Here are some more apt comparisons, imho:
A vote for a republican is "almost as good as":
- Giving $100 million to each and every Anti-American group to support terrorist recruitment.
- Killing millions of innocent civilians in foreign country for PR, without achieving any actual goals, and then refusing to even set any goals.
- Supporting the fools who continue to do the above (oops, that's "exactly as good as").
- Switching the US dollar to be officially backed by rotted poached eggs.
- Receiving a steel-toed kick in the nuts.
- Popping your own eye with a fork.
I dunno....since the vote swapping thing might get more exposure now, it might actually work to get some real votes in for a 3rd party on a national level??
No one said this had to be Rep vs Dem swapping......why not set up one for swapping Republocrats votes for Libertarian? If Ron Paul were to go indie.....maybe this would work to get him more votes.
I gotta think that there are a fair number of centrist Dempublicans that would be happy to migrate towards a 'real choice' if a 3rd party were to present one. This might be a viable option to promote that?
Hehehe..cool....my first article on Slashdot too...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I think that was the point: the end result is the crisis is solved.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Oh, except we have actual beliefs where democrats* use polling.
I think it's interesting that representatives listening to what their constituents think has been turned into a bad thing by the politicians and pundits who don't give a crap what people think, and just want to force their ideologies onto everybody else.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
I'd go farther than to say the repulicans are not conservative,
I would say they represent a conquering foreign government.
They have destroyed our public education system,
they have halted our intellectual progress,
they have weakened the infrastructure of our society,
they have concentrated the wealth in the hands
of their supporters, and they have broken treaties
we had agreed to as a nation.
Captcha : suffrage
Also in the past I would have agreed with you that the Republicans are the lesser evil, but these days the Neocons are out of control. I'm just hoping Ron Paul can get his message out.
I'd love to, but here in New York State at least one of the libertarians in the last election was a 9/11 conspiracy nut. In general, I try to give them my vote just so they don't have to go through the whole petition process to get on the next ballot, but I just couldn't do it this year :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
But not in that order.
how about Wife Swapping?
> Don't mistake the current crop of oil-industry idiots for the majority of Republicans.
Why not? They voted for these people. And when actually faced with the prospect of another Democrat in the white house, especially Hillary, they will again.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Umm, actually, you're completely wrong. Is this "lie with statistics" day? The PDF you show lists percentages of cases reviewed by the supreme court that are overturned, i.e:
number of decisions overturned / number of decisions reviewed = 75% for 9th district
However, the supreme court only reviews cases that are controversial and/or of judicial importance in the first place. The 9th circuit had a whopping 24 cases reviewed by the SC and 18 decisions were overturned - most of the other courts had only 1-4 cases reviewed.
The important metric is really:
number of cases overturned by supreme court / number of cases decided by circuit court
Your source document does not show this data.
Here in British Columbia we had a look at how to run elections, which ended up with a provincial referendum on changing from our current first-past-the-post system to Single Transferable Vote. Other jurisdictions (e.g. Ireland) use STV, and it works for them.
I did some research, liked what I saw, and voted YES on STV. Lots of others did, but not enough for the referendum to pass.
...laura
Strategic voting, which our system demands from all sensible voters, does not imply full support of whomever receives a persons vote.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Incorrect, as this may well throw the election to the Democrats.
I fail to see how this is a worse result than handing it to the GOP.
While the GOP pays lip service to Libertarian principles, anybody who has paid attention can clearly see that the GOP tends to spend significantly more money, expand government, and add government power, all at rates that outpace Democrats.
As such, I see it as a feature, not a bug, that a vote for a Libertarian could get a Democrat instead of a GOPer.
IRV is good. I wish we used it. Condorcet methods are better. I currently lean towards Smith/IRV (a Condorcet & IRV mix).
Any who doesn't know what I'm talking about, please visit here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
How is that? I'd vote Libertarian as a 1st choice and Democratic as a 2nd choice.
If you even believe in the "siphoning votes" argument, the Constitution party is the one that draws from the Republicans. Libertarians seem to draw about evenly.
IANAL, but prosecution under a criminal statue isn't likely to go anywhere fast... unless the statue falls and kills someone.
From the freakin' article:
the JoshMeister on Security
Yes, but from that point of view, it's a far sight better than a spoiler vote for a Democrat,
This is only true if you're an idiotic fuck who listens to what the Republican party says, instead of watching what they do.
They increase spending at rates that vastly outpace that of democrats, and they increase deficit spending at a ludicrous rate.
I know some short-sighted people will point out "but they cut my taxes ever so slightly", and that's lovely... but it's only lovely if it's done in the context of something that at least remotely resembles a balanced budget and reasonable spending.
When done while paired with GOP spending, it is simply creating an inevitable catastrophe, and helping to destroy the value of the dollar.
Only a fool would love that outcome.
Yes that is interesting.
I think what the problem is democrats appear to have no beliefs and go on what the polls say.
Where as republicans will go solely on belief and not care what the poll says.
Its best to have a balance of the 2.
If I vote Libertarian, what odds will you give me that my vote will throw the election to the Democrats?
If your vote contributes to throwing the election to Democrats, that's the only way it'll be effective.
Think about it. The Libertarian candidate isn't going to win no matter what, but the Republicans might. If the Republicans can still win and gain power without your vote, then why should they care about Libertarian issues, or your opinions?
If you vote Libertarian and the Republicans lose because people like you didn't vote for them, it forces them to take notice. They lost the election because certain people were so disaffected by the party that they deliberately withheld their votes by supporting the Libertarians instead.
In short, the only way you can get mainstream parties to listen to you isn't by helping them win, it's by making them lose, and doing so in a way that clearly demonstrates the direction you want them to take.
Switching the US dollar to be officially backed by rotted poached eggs.
In fairness, both parties have been complicit with regard to this one (probably the others also, but that's a more heated/complex discussion).
A modern day witchhunt.
I liked Reagan. I think he really did end the cold war and naysayers who say it was ending anyway are wrong.
However, he presided over a huge growth of government.
In a way, he was the start of Republicans who said they would act on certain principles and then threw them aside once in office.
You can argue that he had to give butter to the democrats in exchange for his guns- but he did not run on a platform of guns AND butter (and anything else you want as long as you vote for funding against the soviets).
As such- Reagan was NOT a "conservative" in the sense of small government. He was not even close.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
That data is for the October term, 2002.
Take off every 'sig' !!
Actually, I think you're getting "geld" and "held" mixed up. "Held is usually spelled with an "h", but geld is usually spelled with a "g".
Oh, wait...
As a former Libertarian (full disclosure: now pretty much a Dem), let me say that Libertarians aren't really against Democrats any more than Republicans.
Libertarians tend to agree with Conservatives on fiscal issues and small government (with exceptions, of course. Libertarians tend to be in favor of little to no national debt, while Republicans generally either don't care or see mounting debt onto the nation as a way to bleed money from government programs like welfare and public education). However, Libertarians tend to side with Democrats on most social issues (they tend to be in favor of keeping the government out of your bedroom and strongly believe in civil liberties, but tend to be against programs that try to "artificially" achieve equality, such as affirmative action).
Traditionally, Libertarians run as Republicans, because Republicans have had better fund raising and a better "brand" in the US. If you agree with both sides equally, why not run as the one that you're more likely to win as? However, with the general democratic trend on the 2006 elections and the rise of democratic fundraising, more and more Libertarians are running as Democrats. In many ways, the Blue Dogs that got elected in 2006 were just that.
Many now are even being more open about it. Bob Lord is raising huge cash right now to make a run in Arizona. Technically running as a Democrat, he's calling himself a Libertarian. It'll be interesting how this turns out.
Maybe not illegal, but I'd say unethical. The search for a "soltuion" to the problem of the two-party system is laudable, but this ain't it.
Were that I say, pancakes?
Politicians should have uncompromising beliefs and ideologies, and the people should vote for or against them accordingly.
Anything less is mercenary. The politician you vote for is not the politician you inaugurate. Bush voters know what this means; and soon Hillary voters will, too.
I'm not saying that representatives listening to their constituents is a bad thing. It's wonderful.
..
The bad thing is when they are RUNNING for office, and use a constantly changing series of the latest poll results to change their presentation of themselves and their positions; sometimes even changing their (public) positions.
To put it bluntly, there is in my opinion a lot less actual content in the (metaphorical) democratic mission statement vs the (metaphorical) libertarian one. It's too vague - there aren't enough clear assertions for me. If there was such an official statement (there may be, I didn't check), I bet it would include a lot of marketing bs.
The basic idea I've gotten growing up in California, a heavily democratic state, was that they are populist. They were supposed to be "for the people", support civil rights (against the surveillance-state republicans), stand up for the small guy, you know.. union type stuff on a larger scale. That has been my impression of what their core focus is.
But being about someone else, even those you represent, cedes responsibility about policy decisions to a mythical public opinion, which a hypothetical perfect democrat would obviously modulate through her or his own feelings about right and wrong, as would any other human being.
The public opinion part is the problem. It's easy for anyone to claim that the public thinks anything. Most people act as if they believe that "public opinion" is whatever beliefs news programs express. They can come out with "surveys" or do selected interviews or change any story to be told from any angle.
There are also polling-scams, cross-party interference, gender and ethnic bias, etc.. My basic point is that nowadays, with mass media, you can not trust "public opinion" to be accurate, period. Yet policy and campaign decisions are made on these issues regularly.
At it's heart, it feels to me like the democratic party doesn't really know what it supports, except the people. Thus it's constantly showing it's weak side, acting in service of so many different interests that it's trivial for it's own enemies to influence these interests and thus the party.
---
Libertarians on the other hand have a VERY clear concept of which policies they support or do not, without having to resort to an insecure constant checking and re-checking of who agrees on this one. Libertarians are not about compromise. We're about freedom of the individual and minimal intrusion of government.
I believe that it should be the case that my rights end where yours begin, and that they are equal. It all grows out from that core.
I believe that the government is there to help moderate those boundaries and solve issues too large for individuals - such as prosecuting murders - and that it should do so with minimum overhead and minimum intrusion into any person's freedom.
I also believe that other governments and their citizens should be treated with the same respect, unless/until they prove unworthy of it. Country interaction is just a fractal expansion of the same core principal for individuals - equal rights, opportunities.
No true Libertarian would EVER vote to authorize a government to spy on it's own people without a strong duty of proof that it was justified. Or to invade a non-threatening country. Or to take away any person's rights unless they threatened or violated some other person's.
enough ranting. that's my take.
Think about it. The Libertarian candidate isn't going to win no matter what,
Only if enough sheep believe you.
It's statute, not statue
You know, it's funny to see Marxist Hacker 42 of all people schooling someone on the history of the Republicans. Although, to be fair, Democrats were historically more likely to protect civil liberties than Republicans (until Bill Clinton got all anti-civil-liberties on us--strangely enough supporting free trade, too).
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Many would see merit in doing both; honoring the desires of your constituents while also making important decisions that ignore them. There are several reasons why we elect representatives, and protecting the minority from the majority is one of them. Think about the American Civil War and how, at the time, there was little public support for emancipation. True democracy can be a very ugly thing.
Let me say that most of the Greens I've talked to are not in favor of vote-swapping, for several reasons.
1. As you say, it's not enforceable. You might trust your cousin in another state to trade with you, but that doesn't scale, certainly not via an anonymous website.
2. It defeats the purpose of voting: to cast your ballot for what you believe in. There's an argument that vote-swapping could bring you closer to what you want in the long run, but picture trying to swap votes in different races with different people in assorted districts in your state -- the calculations get out of hand very quickly.
3. This is a distraction from the structural flaws in our voting system, such as prohibitive ballot-access laws, first-past-the-post, and the Electoral College.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
Trading votes isn't democratic, it's capitalistic. Sure you can parlay your vote into the maximum influence on the system possible, but the idea is to each have an equal share (and responsibility) of the government.
Capitalism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, but we can agree that they are not the same thing. A marketplace of votes makes a capitalist system out of a democratic one. Although I know that the average person anywhere is an idiot, trading votes isn't going to make things better.
Democracy is still the best way to divide power, marketplaces are the best way to divide non-vital resources. If you can do both, more power to you, literally, but it won't be as democratic.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The Department of Education's budget is $67.2 billion, which per head of population is $224. Not so much, except when you consider that, for instance, the California Department of Education has a budget of over $50 billion. Per head of population, that's about $1,800 (note: university spending not included). Now, Orange County has an education budget of $4.2 billion, or about $1,500 per head of population...but that comes out to $6,557 per student...only 9% of which comes from the federal government and only 29% of which comes from the state--and, again, that's just K-12. So, regardless of the bottom-line dollar value or whether we're talking students or overall population, you're missing somewhere between 60-90+% of the cash.
Ronald Regan's administration formed what we might as well call the new Republican policy: cut taxes and outspend the democrats. His tax cuts are well known enough that they're now called "Reaganomics". He started the war on drugs. His policy during the cold war was to force the Soviet machine to spend so much to maintain equilibrium that they'd break. The Secretary of the Interior was discovered to be involved in directing HUD money to contractors in exchange for kickbacks. His administration retroactively removed tax loopholes, breaking business's assumption of a social contract, something even dear Ron Paul won't do with Social Security, ultimately contributing to the Savings & Loan scandal.
If this guy was the end of libertarian administration, it seemed like a pretty shitty way to go out. Or maybe libertarian philosophy is something that can exist only in the mind?
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Please don't interpret this as a defense of the Republican Party, but you have made this claim twice now without citing a source to back it up. You also ignore the fact that a large portion of the deficit spending at least started because of the drop in tax revenues when the economy went belly up. (although that probably pales in comparison to the spending in Iraq)
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
You don't remember Ronald Reagan, who basically ran on civil rights and limitations on federal government power, and who actually popularized "The scariest words in the English Language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Are we thinking about the same history? Is this the same Reagan that increased government spending to levels that were unmatched for twenty years? The same guy who (nearly) single handedly added trillions of dollars to the national debt? Or are we talking about the Reagan that set the bar for government corruption with Iran/Contra?
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Our public education system was already destroyed by the teachers' unions before the Republicans even had a voice in the matter.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Don't mistake the current crop of oil-industry idiots for the majority of Republicans.
It required a majority of Republicans to support these guys, and they did it several times in a row.
As such, I think it's you who is deceiving yourself.
This voting system is weak and broken. Patching it? perhaps, it probably needs rewriting though. The fact that your vote does not count as much as this dude from this other state is wrong. The fact that someone can actually pay you to vote for someone or whatever is totally wrong: Thats when you see that Bill Gates is actually quite a nice guy. Instead of using his shitty "products" to make propaganda of himself and paying you to vote for him, he just sends money to charity. A shame everyone is not like him. Look at RIAA, they are in control!
I am not american, however, if you dont want your rights to be stripped away from you -little by little... marketing is subtle, not brutal-, go tell those corporate fuckers what democracy is about.
In your example if the Republicans win, so what? How should that change my behavior? Only if the election is down to one vote will it matter what I do. That does not concern me for the same reason playing the lottery does not concern me. And yes, the major parties do not care about libertarian issues, and why should a libertarian care for theirs or vote in support of a major candidate?
I liked Reagan. I think he really did end the cold war and naysayers who say it was ending anyway are wrong.
As an American Marxist, I saw the end of the cold war starting in the 1950s- with the mismanagement of Stalin that the USSR's economy never actually recovered from (it just kept getting worse from then on out). Reagan was only president of the Screen Actor's Guild back then. But he was right to force the issue with his fake SDI program.
However, he presided over a huge growth of government.
Only if he fooled you like he fooled Gorbachev.....
You can argue that he had to give butter to the democrats in exchange for his guns- but he did not run on a platform of guns AND butter (and anything else you want as long as you vote for funding against the soviets).
The real trick is that there were no guns. SDI was all a fake-out, it wasn't until 1992 that the technology *began* to be available, and it wasn't effective (that is, shooting down a real ICBM with a single missile, as opposed to the scattershot system used by the Patriot batteries) until 2006. But that didn't keep Gorbachev from destroying his economy in an attempt to keep up, which forced the end of the Soviet Union.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Well, strictly speaking, I'm actually anti-Marxist as well- I no longer believe in economic systems that encourage anonymity, and thus applying communism to anything larger than the small village is something I'm against.
Of course, that should lead you to know what I think of the stock market as well- which effectively hides ownership information from the end consumer....
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I am adverse to any solution that suggests the hiring of more lobbyists. Our political system is already grossly weighted towards those with more money, we do not want to exacerbate the issue.
Personally, I feel that districting should have strict mathematically-based boundaries. We can use math to describe the convolution of a line, so why not say that it has to be within a certain amount? Politicians are using math to maximize their leverage, why not use math to protect the voter? Other than you have to get it by the politicians, first, and they're notoriously adverse to such things that might mark them as someone with a brain.
[Ego]out
Are we thinking about the same history? Is this the same Reagan that increased government spending to levels that were unmatched for twenty years? The same guy who (nearly) single handedly added trillions of dollars to the national debt? Or are we talking about the Reagan that set the bar for government corruption with Iran/Contra?
Or at least appeared to- he was one heck of an actor. Iran/Contra was about fighting communism, in the end result. And the SDI "increase in military spending"? a fake-out, an act. They had to borrow the money, they had to appear to spend it, even though the technology to actually accomplish it would have to wait another 20 years (last year we saw our first true ABM system pass it's final tests).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's just that, in context, you could have been seen as defending old Reaganesque conservatives--the moniker aside, you're a well-known enough contributor for your decidedly not Reaganesque views that I found the juxtaposition rather amusing.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
It required a majority of Republicans to support these guys, and they did it several times in a row.
The lesser of two evils choice does not necessarily indicate support.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'm embarrassed by your behavior. Grow up.
how about we just count votes outright, no electoral college or such twisting babel...
Let's just say that the present crop of neocons has me WISHING for the old Reaganesque conservatives. They may have cost just as much, but at least they knew how to WIN a war.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Please don't interpret this as a defense of the Republican Party, but you have made this claim twice now without citing a source to back it up.
m age001.jpg
g
m age002.jpg
Here is a graph of the national debt by year, with the Presidents helpfully color coded.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt_files/i
It shows that under Republican rule the debt not only tends to increase, but so does the rate of growth of the debt.
If you view the graphic in log scale, it flattens some of the current spending, but it also clearly shows that the debt grows faster under GOP rule.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/us_debt_log.pn
A typical Republican answer to all of this is that it's not such a big deal, because the economy as a whole is growing, and as such, one should view the debt as a percentage of GDP.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt_files/i
When one does that, it becomes even more clear that the GOP is the big spender of the political parties.
As for the rest of your claims, I'd simply note that since 2000 the debt has grown by 3.5 trillion dollars. For perspective, total federal tax revenues in 2000 were just about 2 trillion dollars.
The Republicans are huge spenders. I know they claim otherwise, but the facts neatly disprove those claims.
There are things called primaries.
In those primaries Republicans went out and voted for these folks. They did so out of a large field.
So yes, Republicans went out, and a majority of them said "we think that these oil company neoconservatives are the best choice to represent Republican values."
This was not a "lesser evil" versus the Democrats, as you contend. You do so only because, like most GOPers, you have an aversion to truth, and a desire to rewrite history.
You've massively oversimplified the situation. The post you're responding to is much closer to accurate. There are very few ways for a third party candidate to win in our current plurality system. One, if we constantly hear from others (read: media) that they have a chance (Liberman in the last election). Two, if the vast majority of people don't care which candidate gets elected and throw their votes away together (unbelievable, but hypothetical). Three, I don't know. I think there is no three.
As long as the majority both care who is elected, and don't think a third party has a chance, then the third party candidate has no chance. People will always vote against the party they dislike most by voting for the party they dislike least.
(shameless plug: that's why we need a different voting method in the US; examples: Instant Runoff (IRV), Condorcet)
The only reason I think you are voting Libertarian (it sounds like) is because you care more about the principle of the thing than about who actually wins. You sir, are a rare minority (for better or worse).
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Huh?
I'm not sure what you're trying to get across, but lately (and sadly), protecting civil rights would have to be done BY limiting federal power.
It's pretty obvious that federal power has been expanding at the expense of civil rights.
It's time to hit undo.
Alabama- Population- 4,557,808- Electoral College votes - 9 - Votes Per Electoral College Votes- 506,423.11111111111111111111111111
Alaska- Population- 663,661- Electoral College votes - 3 - Votes Per Electoral College Votes- 221,220.33333333333333333333333333
So Basically a person in Alaska has twice the amount of say that a person in Alabama has, that's right, in terms of how your country is run, you vote is worth less than half of what it is worth in Alaska if you are in alabama. And I just took the first two states in the alphabet! Really, now how is that a good system, especially when it gets people like George Bush in power when he lost by the popular vote.
Infact, I haven't done the maths, but I reckon if you worked out all the ratios, that if you positioned your supporters strategically in the states where votes are worth more, you could actually win an election with around 10% less votes than the party with the most votes.
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
The SC reviews more cases from the 9th circuit because it is, far and away, the largest of all of the Federal circuit courts, and thus hears more cases than any of the other circuit courts.
my pet machine
Right.
BTW, Hitler was a populist.
Anything less is mercenary. The politician you vote for is not the politician you inaugurate. Bush voters know what this means; and soon Hillary voters will, too. Anything less is called "representative democracy."
What do you mean "appeared to"? Are you saying that the billions of dollars the Reagan Administration borrowed by issuing treasury bills are imaginary or something?
i st.pdf
From http://zfacts.com/p/318.html - original source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/h
The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
I want a Republican party that doesn't pander to neocons or the religious right. So as long as the Republican Party continues to claim it represents those repulsive groups, my vote goes elsewhere. People who want a better Republican party, but still vote for the same old Republican candidates aren't going to be the cause of any change.
I'll go one better than voting for the Libertarian candidate: as long as the Democrat candidate isn't Hillary, I'm going to vote Democrat in 2008. Even if it is Hillary, I'll vote Libertarian. But there's not really a chance in hell that this registered Republican is going to vote Republican in 2008. They've fucked this country up for far too long.
Or you can do what the Singaporean government does, realign the electoral boundaries to favour the current government.
Both have essentially the same outcome, pick your poison.
.
I voted libertarian last election cycle, and it sure as hell didnt get me a libertarian candidate. Just more earmarking corrupt pork-fed collectivist Democrtats, to go with the earmarking corrupt pork-fed statist Republicans.
So yes, thats emperical evidence: voted L, got D in a mixed district.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
I'm not sure if this has been pointed out, but the point of these vote-swapping sites was to circumvent the Electoral College. So if you oppose the EC system, this should be right up your alley...
Say you live in a solid Red state but really want the (D) to win. Your vote doesn't have as much value as that of a Blue voter in a toss-up state. Compound that if the toss-up state is only in play because a 3rd-party candidate is on the ballot.
IMO vote-swapping is unconstitutional since it circumvents the Electoral College put in place by the Constitution. And before you rail against the EC, imagine the havoc created by a popular-vote-wins system. Unless you're a resident of CA, NY, or TX you are SOL! A candidate would only need to campaign in those states alone, promising the moon while ignoring the other 47 states and s/he becomes the next President.
Ronnie talked the Libertarian talk on economic issues, but even his fiscal policies where not much different than Clintons. And he was 180 degrees from Libertarians on social issues.
I think there has to be a balance. We do have two extremes, and Bush is one of those extremes: someone that will hold true to his beliefs no matter how absolutely fucking insane it is. But on the other hand, I don't want someone flip-flopping on key issues because some polls tell him so. PROTIP: In polls and votes, everyone counts for one vote: reasonable people, faggy bleeding heart liberals, and Billy-Joe Dumbfuck with the Larry the Cable Guy records on repeat... all one vote.
I want someone that has strong beliefs, but knows that he doesn't know everything; no one does. For situations like that, then yes, I want someone that can look at the polls, see what the democracy wants, and use that as a GUIDE; not a gospel, a GUIDE.
Then, and only then, will we have a leader that we deserve.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
You're right, but it might not be obvious from your explanation as to why Condorcet is better in this case. (by the way, I like IRV, but agree that Condorcet is better.)
If:
you have 39 ballots as: a b c
you have 20 ballots as: b a c
you have 41 ballots as: c b a
(this is the parent post example)
The second round of IRV would be :
59 for a
41 for c
While with a Condorcet method, b would win. Why (and this is important)? In a one-on-one election between b and either a or c, b would win. b is therefore the Condorcet winner (by definition). It's easy to see why b should be elected: he's preferred over both a AND c!
Condorcet matrix:
(made ugly to get past lameness filter; looks a little cleaner if copied into a text editor.)
a b c
a -- 39 59
b 61 -- 59
c 41 41 --
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You don't remember Ronald Reagan, who basically ran on civil rights and limitations on federal government power
What they say and what they do are two different things. Regan quadrupled the national debt. That's not conservatism. He just made conservatives feel better with his grandfatherly approach. Although, he was far more conservative than the Bush dynasty I suppose. Ron Paul on the other hand, I have little doubt that he'd veto most of the bills that came across his desk. Gridlock leads to economic boom, see 90s for example.
* Dennis Kucinich and possibly Mike Gravel excluded
** I'd add John Conyers to that list too.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Maryland just passed a law saying that if enough other state will go along, their electoral college votes will be cast for the nationwide winner rather that the winner of the state.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power with net metering even in Phoenix: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Ah, but who gets into the primaries? The people the corporations want to win....
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
But, the consequence of IRV described seems to happen ONLY if voters are forced to rank ALL the candidates. I don't think that is necessary: The system should allow voters to rank only candidates for whom they have a POSITIVE preference so that their vote won't get counted for candidates that they dislike. I understand the Australian implementation forces voters to rank all candidates but that need not be a requirement.
But range voting looks pretty interesting too.
The dollars were real. The spending was fake. He spent just enough to appear to have this whole new scary missile defense system that would give the US a definitive first-strike capability. Never mind that the technology didn't exist yet, and likely most of those dollars were redirected elsewhere...but it won the cold war.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So how much of this decision was possibly based on a Bush administration appointed judge possibly?
Hillary's Socialized Health Care. I find that among many libertarians, their fear of large government is only overshadowed by their fear of government controlled industries.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Putin doesn't like the idea of no soviet union.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/10/schneider.e lectoral/index.html. Vote swapping writ large....
Obama has no experience, consider his recent battle of words with Hillary (which Hillary's campaign loved btw), he really has no clue, he even has less of a clue then hillary...
does that mean the republicans are better or worse... maybe neither, but I daresay that most of the candidates on the republican side are more qualified for the office of the president than any on the democratic side...
I would love it if Paul got in, although I disagree with him on some things, but I really think it's going to come down to Gulliani and Clinton.
Disclaimer: The above is my opinion, not to be confused with a troll. At the risk of being a victim of the ever-present groupthink here on slashdot, I am not posting as AC.
King of kings and Lord of lords
Nothing like that self-fulfilling prophecy the Republicans (fuck you, Grover Norquist) like to push. Defund all of the useful social services (like, um, inspecting and repairing highway bridges, or inspecting imported food), and then when the bridge falls down, or tainted food from China sickens people and kills pets, they can say, "well, it's the government's fault."
The dumbest of frogs simply can't find work. No one will hire the truly stupid when it takes six months to fire their lazy asses.
French productivity stats are skewed higher as the bottom 15% of their population is producing zero, those people are not part of the denominator.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The conspiracy nuts seem harmless enough to me. There actually was a conspiracy that no one denies. U.S. gave weapons to the Taliban to fight the godless commie Russians. After they were done with that they turned on us and started harboring other religious nutcases. These guys then conspired together to attack the WTC.
After the event, politicans in the US conspired to use the public reaction to the event to gain support for eroding civil liberties, invading the Middle East, and printing tons of new money for Homeland Security, conveniently doled out to the states, thus reinforcing the Congress's power.
Does it really matter any more whether the official story about the attack is accurate?
Right on. If there is one man who could single-handedly change Washington with veto power, it would be Ron Paul. See this video for example. My only fear is that Congress would begin to abuse the 2/3 majority vote to overrule him. So are you part of a meetup group? I'm co-organizer for the Jacksonville, FL group. We have almost 120 folks in our group, and we're doubling in size every month! Exciting times...
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
I find a hippie. Hold my nose and promise to vote Libertarian and (s)he can vote Green and we won't have to worry about changing the outcome on the 'lesser of two evils' vote (of which we are both well aware).
I then repeat, there is nothing in the verbal contract that says I can't swap votes with more then one greenie. Stupid greens.
It does come down to trust. But at the end of the day I was going to vote Libertarian anyhow. Even if it only cost the 'rats one vote it was worth the effort. If the greens actually had a chance of winning It would be different. They are even more disconnected from reality then the 'rats.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your math assumes you can throw the entire swing vote in those states on your side, *and* your opponents don't figure that out.
If it's truly a proportional vote and the election is close, then your *majority* in those states is still going to have to beat the swing the other guy gets in the states you ignored.
do you believe they are harmless because you are one?
It is easy to vote for third party candidates and still ensure your vote counts: Preferential voting. Makes things fairer.
So, to improve the democratic process in the US you introduce preferential voting, eliminate the electoral college and make voting compulsory.
This is how it works in Australia.
I think I understand what you mean, but I'd state that as "the spending was real, but the results were fake. That is, they were welfare for the military-industrial complex." :-(
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Fortunately for our friends in Washington, only a few nuts actually think that is what happened... and for good reason. I'm always amazed that these guys keep saying things like "it wasn't hot enough to melt steel". Anyone with an engineering degree can tell you that steel will get weaker with heat before it actually melts. Hell, watching the things burning on TV, the structural guy next to me said, "Ohhhh, that thing's gonna pancake." Sure enough, an hour or so later, they both pancaked.
I won't vote for anyone so full of themselves that they think they know better than every structural engineer on the planet. That person is either pandering to nutcases or is a nutcase himself.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Few people seem to recognize that spending on k-12 education is comparable to the defense budget. $500 billion dollars in 2005 (http://sourcebook.governing.com/topicresults.jsp? ind=631) versus 532 billion for the defense budget in 2007(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie s_by_military_expenditures)
Don't discount property taxes so easily (to the gp)
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
When can I start selling my vote?
Wow. You guys managed to embarrass Lindsay Lohan.
... ;)
Takes a lot these days
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Come on. Do you honestly believe there is some cabal of corporations that decides who we vote for? People get into the primaries because they manage to get a significant number of supporters, generally by holding a previous political position.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
"You're either with us, or against us" is a great tribute to a great crime spree. To do as one wishes with what is essentially their entitlement or privilege is good. Can disgruntled American citizens now trade their citizenship with foreigners for citizenship abroad? That would be too darned logical to believe.
I think you're thinking of Richard Nixon.
Evidence? Of what? I hope you don't think the Democrats won in your situation because of the choice you made. Because there is no evidence of that. It mystifies me that people think they are single handedly altering the outcomes of elections.
The same software could also solve the Libertarian/Republican crisis as well as the Green/Democrat crisis, so I see no point in arguing that it's one sided.
There is no such crisis on the right. Libertarians and Republicans have a huge schism because of abortion.
Libertarians need to court Democrats because they will never make a dent in the Republican base.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
While minor parties do not get many lower house seats, 'preferences' significantly influence who wins those seats (History of Preferential Voting in Australia)
The consequences (apart from not always getting who I want elected), are generally benign. Governments that get elected have either direct support or grudging acceptance from the population.
I guess what I'm trying to say is the people who are otherwise sound of mind, I've found, can have some interesting ideas about 9/11. If there were somebody willing to roll back the post 9/11 damage to civil liberties and give us an exit from Iraq, I'd vote for him even if he was confused about 9/11.
Also I find the theory that the government knew about 9/11 before hand or some faction therein planned it with the hijackers totally plausible, although I am not convinced it was the case. It's nearly unprovable. I tend to apply Occam's razor in these cases, however it contradicts the cui bono principle in this case.
The electoral college is one of the biggest problems in the whole election system. If a state votes 30% dem, 30% lib and 40% rep ALL electoral votes will go to the rep party. If it's a state like Florida with a huge amount of electoral votes this will completely misrepresent the will of the people. There is also the problem that candidates don't see the need to go to "safe" states and have their debates there. The biggest problem imho though is, that third parties under this system will never have a chance to gain significant votes, be it in safe states or "battleground" states. If the electoral vote was split up according to the respective percentages each party gets this would make the whole thing more democratic (as in "representing the will of the citizens") and third party voters will actually see their votes affecting something. I find it strange why this major flaw does not pop up in discussions.
Now the Maryland approach is nice, because they at least see the problem and want to do something, but it's still not the right approach (furthermore they'd only go with their proposal if other states join in too), because they won't split the votes according to what people voted for. This "winner takes all" mentality is what creates such negative attitudes as "We won! We don't need to care about those 40% of people that didn't vote for us, because they lost." and has no place in politics.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Just wait for this to be shot down by a more sane court.
You're right in that "Star Wars" had no hope of going operational in the 80's, but you're wrong that the Soviets didn't need to "keep up". Presuming that the Soviets assumed that the USSR would exist in the new millennium, they had to know that the technology would eventually become feasible. What were they to do? Wait for the US to successfully deploy the technology before beginning to develop it themselves? That would put them at a strategic disadvantage for the duration of the development time.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
They might be sound of mind, but their judgment is impaired - and the judgment of a politician is paramount.
:)
Of course the other possibility is that they are simply pandering to some nutjobs so that they get the nutjob vote. Since they can't reveal whether or not they are pandering or just have bad judgment, I have to assume that their judgment is flaky.
I guess that it's conceivable that someone in the government knew about 9/11 ahead of time. It's even conceivable that someone in the government helped to plan it. But that's not what these conspiracy theorists are claiming (because there is no evidence whatsoever). No, they are claiming that the buildings were brought down by explosives - and then they have a million other equally ludicrous claims to "support" this theory. All of their "evidence" are things like: "They cleaned it up too fast. Survivors reported wind going UP the stairwell. Witnesses heard explosions. Steel doesn't melt at such low temperatures." All of their claims have equally (or more) plausible explanations that do not require an elaborate conspiracy.
In any case, no one who thinks that there even MIGHT have been explosives planted in the WTC is getting my vote!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I know as a Marxist, you believe in some grand battle between Capitalism and Socialism - But the battle between left and right is the battle between National Socialism (such as under Nazi Germany) and International Socialism (such as in the Soviet Union). Both believe in economic central planning in order to accomplish state goals (large scale warfare is impossible without state central planning of the economy), and in implementation both end up very similiar (ideological purges vs. ethnic cleansing)... they just differ on some of the esthetics.
From a Libertarian perspective, it makes no difference. The Republicans want to turn CEOs into government officials, the Democrats want to turn government officials into CEOs.
You rank the candidates instead of just picking one. On the first pass of counting, the highest ranked candidate on your ballot gets your vote.
Then they eliminate the lowest ranked candidate
What is this, Survivor?
Yet there is no way to tell when and where this will occur. You sound like you vote libertarian, or would if you thought it counted. Your one vote counts far more than you think. If every apathetic third party supporter who doesn't vote turned around and voted there wouldn't be such an issue with the two-party system.
Selling your vote is illegal. Trading == selling.
Fine, don't sell your vote... Sell your services to spend the time & effort required to vote in an election. Campaigning near voting booths is forbidden, but simple clothing (i.e. wear a solid blue shirt without text) is not.
I'm sure the parties would be willing to make it worth you're while...
And I sure hope I don't ever see the crap I just described ever taking place in our elections!
I just don't see why this is such an issue in the USA, can you enlighten me as to why medical emergency services are seen as separate to police or firefighter emergency services?
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/brad ford-spending.html
which says in part...
So it was just a matter of putting the numbers into a spreadsheet and doing relatively simple calculations to determine annual government spending per capita, and to see whether it grew more slowly during the Reagan years than before or since.
The data verified my earlier claim: spending grew a little faster during the Reagan years than during the Carter and Ford years that preceded his terms in office, and at a much faster rate than during the Bush I and Clinton years that followed.
It goes on to say that pre 1970, republicans were fiscal conservatives and "The fact that Republican presidents have been bigger spenders than Democratic presidents during the past 34 years startles many people."
There are other sources that make similar points.
The republicans (conservatives) also oversaw the grown of an enormous and pervasively intrusive surveillance system. It's always for a good cause (fight communism, fight drugs, fight terrorism). But the result are huge, secret government agencies that spy on our own people with multi-billion dollar budgets.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Well seeing as he just dryly mentioned a few historical facts and their causal connections, I'd say he's far from a conspiracy nut. The conspiracy nuts are worthless, as the connection between the US governments cold war support of people like the Muhajadeen and 9/11 is irrefutable, obvious, and requires no explicit government intervention to have the attacks take place, just decades of incompetent foreign relations.
Amen to that. BTW: The lack of a runoff system is itself the very heart and soul of our current electorial college. You know... the one that dissuades multiple candidates and helps keep Green and Libertarian parties out of the loop.
I often wonder if our current two party monopoly encourages black and white thinking... or perhaps vica versa?
You are where you are at the time you are there.
And that is what is wrong with your two-party system. How can you make people interested in politics if the coices they make and the people they vote for do not matter at all?
"You can vote if your left leg or your right leg is cut off." How about the vote where none of my legs are cut off?
With the wto party system, many people have no option to vote for things they believe in. This is about as bad as systems where there is only one part you can vote.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Due to the fact that we live in a republic, and the continued existence of the electoral college, your vote has already been sold.
What I mean is that our votes don't directly influence the decisions about who goes into office, or what laws get ratified. In a true democracy, that would be the case. However, we live in a republic where we vote for individuals who theoretically share our interests. In essence, by electing a politician, we grant that politician custody of our voting rights. We let them do the politicking while we go about our daily lives.
Summary: Your vote has already been sold. You gained no monetary profit thereby. And you didn't really have a whole lot of choice on who it was sold to.
Now, I know this rant doesn't answer the question you asked (as I read it anyway). I just saw it as an opportunity to point out how insubstantial our relationship to our governors really is. Go ahead and mod me as flamebait.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
Need a break from the dull, repetitive life of America? Tired of overweight, sweaty people shouldering past you in the street? Bored with 300 TV channels and air-head celebrities?
Then come to Iraq, nice country. Plenty of adrenaline-pumping action in the streets. You can even bring your own arsenal of guns and ammo that you've collected over the years.
Swap with some nice Iraqi that just wants one day without a bomb going off and enjoy a break from Bush's America.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
>I recall one of the many controversies in the 2000 election in Florida was some people were staying home in the panhandle (Central Time)
>because they were being told by the TV talking heads that Florida was already decided (in the rest of the state, Eastern Time) and so their vote didn't count.
I keep hearing this argument, but I'm unmoved. If you don't go and vote just because you think the outcome is already determined you are a moron. Everyone knows the old saw, "It ain't over 'till it's over". If you give up before the election is over, too bad for you. You should know better.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
"Two, if the vast majority of people don't care which candidate gets elected and throw their votes away together (unbelievable, but hypothetical" In the 1990 Ontario provincial election, a lot of people voted New Democrat (NDP) because they were making a protest vote against the Liberal and Conservative parties. The protest vote was enough for the NDP to win.
Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
First, let me say I oppose vote swapping and selling and other electoral schemes. However, even if I supported it, I would remind you that (a) the 9th circuit is THE most over-turned circuit court in the country, bar none and (b) the justices at the Supreme Court are likely to guard The Constitution very jealously (as is their duty) in this regard. Even the supporters generally admit this scheme is an attempt to get around the Electoral College part of The Constitution. The Supreme Court ( Liberal and Conservative justices alike ) generally finds schemes to dodge The Constitution, as a form of violation in spirit but not in word, to be distasteful.
In short, the only way you can get mainstream parties to listen to you isn't by helping them win, it's by making them lose, and doing so in a way that clearly demonstrates the direction you want them to take.
(sarcasm)Oh, that worked marvelously well in the last few elections now, didn't it.(sarcasm/)The latest example is the Republicans, since they lost, you'd think they'd be all about finding out why and changing their behavior, but that's certainly not happening. The Democrats did the same thing back when they lost control of Congress, it took them many years to come back and it wasn't because they started listening to their constituents, it was because the Republicans got so full of themselves they started behaving even worse than the Dems did when they were in power.
Sadly, it seems to be a race for the bottom, with the American people losing in the end.
And yes, I am bitter and am trying to stop caring.
No. You vote for the candidate that best aligns with your positions, and that's how you are represented. When politicians change their stripes so readily, you have no guarantee of representation whatsoever.
Well, I mean, its now legal right? So all we gotta do is arrange to swap comment mods around and sit back and bask in the glory...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
If Bush had really stuck by his beliefs (as he portrayed them in the '00 campaign), we wouldn't have unmitigated federal wire-tapping, we wouldn't have DHS or FEMA, we wouldn't have a budget deficit, we wouldn't have retarded airport security (does that 90-year-old lady really need to be detained for having a fork on her?), and he would have vetoed more bills in his first five years. In short, we'd be a better country.
Other than that, I think you got some good points.
The latest example is the Republicans, since they lost, you'd think they'd be all about finding out why and changing their behavior, but that's certainly not happening.
It is happening, but unfortunately the reason the Republicans lost wasn't because they lacked the Libertarian vote, therefore as Machiavellian power-junkies they have no motivation to court Libertarian issues. Instead, they (correctly) perceive the religious right and anti-terrorist patriots as the strongest constituencies right now, so they seek to appeal even more to their concerns.
As you pointed out, it's not enough that the major party lose. They have to lose for the right reason, and that reason has to be that enough people have formed a libertarian (or green, my preference) voting bloc to deprive the major parties of votes.
Sadly, it seems to be a race for the bottom, with the American people losing in the end.
And yes, I am bitter and am trying to stop caring.
I think you're right, and being bitter is understandable - I am myself, sometimes. But not caring, or trying not to care is flat out unethical - and openly acknowledging it doesn't soften the damage. Perhaps politics is just something we see on CNN and argue about with our peers, but for many, many people the same political battles are a matter of life and death. To throw up our hands and say "This is too frustrating, it makes me sad so forget it!" is to place our own comfort above the very lives of people here and around the world. It seems hyperbolic but it's not, it's the literal truth that we all try to forget.
And that is what is wrong with your two-party system. How can you make people interested in politics if the coices they make and the people they vote for do not matter at all?
Right, exactly. And to be frank, I think that ultimately in the long run we're going to need a pretty serious (hopefully non-violent) political revolution in the US before our current governing structure can be truly democratized.
However, in the short term it's really difficult to convince people to vote for a third party candidate when they're obviously not going to win. I mean anyone - even rabid third party supporters - can see that the poor shmuck is doomed to lose. What I was trying to explain is that there is an actual benefit and real political effect to voting for someone who will lose. In many ways, withholding your vote from major candidates has a more powerful influence on them than giving it.
That's not actually the problem with gerrymandering.
It has always been assumed that people with similar concerns group together for mutual self-interest. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with that in a democratic system; your representative should be as close in opinion to as many of his constituents as possible. The difficulty is that when an elected official then gets to decide the boundaries of districts, he gets to choose who is within a district and who is without; and currently there is no constraint on 'shape' of a district.
So then the problem arises that the elected official changes a district shape to include opponents of his platform, but in numbers that are insufficient to challenge the supporters of his platform. In this fashion you can take whole districts of people who were previously voting for representatives of the opposite party and siphon them off to surrounding districts, perhaps down to the block level. You take their votes and nullify them against your superior numbers in other districts. If, as is often the case, you have to lose a district, you make sure that as few of your people as possible are within that district, meaning that proportionally speaking the majority of their people are getting a minimum number of representatives.
It can be worse than this, of course. There was one case in Philidelphia, I think, where the majority party extended the district line in a long 'arm' one block wide for half a mile or a mile, to include at the tip the house of an opponent representative. Because the representative was suddenly no longer a resident of his district, he had to run in an entirely different district where he had no power base.
I think that mathematically speaking you could undercut a lot of these tactics by forcing districts to have a certain 'circular' shape, within reason. Yes, you would still have districts wherein people of like mind clumped together, but they would not be disproportionally represented; they would be proportionally represented.
[Ego]out
Disclaimer: The problem with sweeping generalizations is that they're all wrong.
I'm not sure you really read my post, but you get a reply anyway :)
major parties do not care about libertarian issues, and why should a libertarian care for theirs or vote in support of a major candidate?
You shouldn't. And you shouldn't.
whether I stay home and not vote or vote at random, it will not change the election because I am only one vote.
This is known as nihilism, and the same logic can be applied to pretty much everything you do. You are a relatively tiny element in a comparatively vast system - pretty much nothing you do, ever, has that much of an impact on the system overall. Very few people actually subscribe to this world-view in its entirety, but very many people drag it out whenever they want a sophisticated sounding excuse to not care about something that's actually important.
Yes, you personally won't single-handedly change the world. Get over it and work together with the rest of humanity to create collective change.
The moderation on this post is great.
The GOPers know that I'm right, know that I've cited facts to back it up, so they just mod it down as troll instead of even attempting to respond.
It's as though they're fully aware that they're causing a catastrophe, but they're so wrapped up in the pointless "us versus them" warfare that they can't see they're destroying themselves as well.
Oh well, thanks GOP moderators, for reproving that you are incapable of making a cogent argument, and that you prefer suppression of speech to engagement and discussion. Bunch of fascist idiots.
BTW, just like you, I don't buy into the argument that debt should be viewed as a percentage of GDP.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
California should reassess its values and file against these criminal statues.
I don't even think the military-industrial complex got the dollars, or at least not the majority. I think they went to contras and other South American freedom fighters.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Come on. Do you honestly believe there is some cabal of corporations that decides who we vote for?
No, I think there's a MARKET of corporations that decides who we vote for with their campaign contributions.
People get into the primaries because they manage to get a significant number of supporters, generally by holding a previous political position.
And those supporters are measured in dollars contributed- usually by large corporations, not by individuals giving $1.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Bullshit. Experience is not equal to age or the amount of time a politician has spent in office. The word experience is over-used during campaigns without people understand what is really important, which is the individual candidate. Obama sounds like a person of actual honesty and reason with a sincere willingness to make right the current international and domestic wrongs. Hillary sounds like the same BS as Bush and every other politician in office right now (on both sides).
And the Republicans...fuck, the Republicans are all the same...tell whoever they are talking to at the moment what they want to hear while really only pandering to extremely rich corporate corruption and right-wing/religious nut-jobs. Great.
Honestly, both parties tax the shit out of everyone, both parties spend orders of magnitude more money than they tax and especially the Republicans more than anyone couldn't give a shit about the middle class. So, trying to scare people away from the Democrats based on repeatedly saying they will only increase taxes is a complete crock of shit.
What needs to happen is a real moderate 3rd party. Maybe a strong moderate 3rd party will rise sometime in the future. Wouldn't that be fantastic.
Note: I truly believe the root of all evil are riders on bills. Every single bill should be voted on individually and all riders should be illegal. Then we would see some seriously interesting legislation and politics in Washington.
The trick was, we weren't developing it. All the investment really came from private industry and Moore's law.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
They aren't. But under the libertarian model, they see police and firefighter emergency services as being best served under a subscription model rather than a public tax model.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene Victor Debs
Your sophisticated sounding excuse for everyone to get on the bandwagon is a nice happy thought and you think it will help things, but it won't. It just further entrenches the major parties and the major parties become even less attentive to their constituents. I originally asked for the odds someone would give for a money bet since people like yourself seem so certain that my individual vote can alter the election. So what odds would you give me? And please don't say something like, "if everybody thought that" or " if everybody behaved this way", or "we need to work together". I have no control and you have no control over the behavior of big blocks of voters. Unless you are going to spend your time and money on a campaign you are not working with anyone, you are casting a single vote. It may seem nice to cast your single vote and believe you are working together with others, but you are still just casting your vote, and you have no idea what the people in the voting booths next to you are doing. There is no togetherness.
Obama has no experience
We need people without this "experience" thing, because the only experience they have is most often derived from participating in the standard circle-jerk contests like the rest of the yahoos.
That's why we need to stop electing the fucking lawyers. When was the last time a lawyer did something constructive? Why the heck don't we have engineers, doctors, historians, architects, accountants, dentists, teachers, scientists, etc.? Yeah, that's right, they're too busy doing things other than trying to be on the receiving end of a good reach around. The founding fathers were pretty much all multi-disciplined people; but then they had to be to survive. That's the kind of person we need.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
You're not seriously suggesting that police and firefighters only service those who subscribe? That is a recipe for chaos. If I were a victim of violent criminal behaviour, in a fire or needing vital medical assistance I would expect my taxes go somewhere worthwhile and cover my arse. What's the point of taxes if you get nothing back?
Ain't that the truth. I voted for Bush twice, just to keep out Kerry and Gore. Never again; I'm voting my conscience or not at all. If too many people vote for Hillary then I guess we get what we deserve.
This space for rent.
Though I agree that they are mostly the same, the democrat candidates are out there screaming that they will raise taxes, that they will repel the tax cuts. It sounds like most of the country has a flawed mentality about the budget, in order to fix it we neet to cut spending (most of all) and cut taxes, that is the only way to help it. Every candidate (well, the major ones that I have paid attention to) on the democrat side has sai they would raise taxes, redistribute wealth, this is the wrong direction.
Now it is true that the congress has been terrible about this (when the republicans were in power, and now (though on a slightly bigger scale, imo with the democratic congress) if you listen to many of the republican candidates they are talking like they have the right idea, but unfortunately, like you said, I'm not 100% sure I can trust them, but I know without a doubt I can trust them more then any democrat candidate that I have seen.
And experience does matter, not to say that just because one has more experience makes them a better all around candidate would be stretching it. I believe if Obama had more usable experiance: 1. he wouldn't have gotten so riled up about Hillary's comments, maybe he would give some examples of why he was more experianced, not just make some random attack at her 2. He wouldn't be announcing to the world that we wouldn't use in any circumstance a type of weapon, and invade an ally in a region that is unstable.
Lastly, I think that republicans not caring about the middle class has risen to the status of dogma and really has no unbiased empirical proof. If you think caring about the middle class means sticking it to the upper class, then I guess you are right, but oh so wrong at the same time. How about leaving both alone and letting all of us prosper!
King of kings and Lord of lords
Listen Up, look at the link below the GP's name. While it's thoroughly remarkable that the GP knows how to turn a computer on, let alone the fact that he stumbled upon slashdot, and somehow lives in an area not inundated by perpetually dueling banjos, it should be clear what kind of person you're talking to. In other words, save your phalanges for some other, more useful purpose.
You're not seriously suggesting that police and firefighters only service those who subscribe?
That is EXACTLY how it used to work in many American communities. In exchange for your subscription, they'd give you a tin badge to nail to the side of your house. If the emergency service came and didn't see the badge, they'd likely turn around and do nothing at all.
That is a recipe for chaos. If I were a victim of violent criminal behaviour, in a fire or needing vital medical assistance I would expect my taxes go somewhere worthwhile and cover my arse. What's the point of taxes if you get nothing back?
The point is that the subscription would completely replace the taxes; there would be no taxes, only the subscription. If you decide not to subscribe, well, that's your own problem.
Now I state this not as a libertarian who believes in the privatization of governmental services- I'm as horrified by the thought as you are (especially since I make my living off of reducing the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the roads). But it is the standard theory behind privatization in America, that only the rich deserve the services to begin with.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I will not vote for my 2nd worse enemy over my ally
:)
That's good, you shouldn't. Read over what I've written in this thread and you may notice that this is exactly what I've been advocating
If you are a third party supporter and you vote for the lessor of the evil major parties you have a one in a billion chance of altering the election
I agree that third party supporters (and everyone else, for that matter), should vote for non-major parties. But I think the reason you're advancing is bad. The probability of affecting an election is not a good basis for deciding anything about how you cast your vote, because if you use this metric it quickly becomes apparent that no way that you vote is very influential. Like you say, one vote is pretty microscopically influential, and casting it one way or another doesn't change how influential it is, just in which direction it influences things.
Unless you are going to spend your time and money on a campaign you are not working with anyone, you are casting a single vote.
Working together doesn't mean we all have to know what each other are doing and help each other, it just means a whole lot of people need to take some actions together, because the more people who do that thing, the more effective it is - each participant adds to the weight and power of each other participant's action. It's like signing a petition, or attending a protest - your individual participation isn't vital to the action, nor do you have any direct control over whether others participate, but that doesn't mean it's not working together.
Nevertheless, we had a private sector that was able to sustain things like Moore's Law, and they did not. If they wanted a technology, they had to either steal it or develop it themselves.
:)
There were a lot of Star Wars programs that were government-funded. In particular most of the directed energy stuff was government-funded IIRC. At the very least they had to blow big money on laser research. And not all of what bankrupted the Soviets was Star Wars related... the stealth aircraft developed by the US required the Soviets to upgrade their air defense radar system... ouch! Add to that the need to keep pace with aircraft development, submarine development... man, the cold war was expensive.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
OK, I guess I misinterpreted some of what you were saying. As for why I dislike this working together idea and how I think most people act on it, let me use Libertarians as an example (this isn't directed at you, just why I don't like group think). Some Libertarians are more left leaning, some more right. Given a choice between only republicans and democrats, for the sake of argument lets say these Libertarians would vote 50/50 given those limited choices. Feeling that their voice cannot be heard voting for a Libertarian, they instead vote for their major party lessor evil thinking they are now part of a larger group and now having influence. The result is both republicans and democrats both gain the same amount of votes, the Libertarian voters have not had the influence that was desired, and the Libertarian voice has been silenced. So I agree that people need to take action and vote, but don't bother thinking about togetherness and the group. Just vote for who you personally want to win, even if you don't think they can win.
The two party system is inherent in the plurality voting system that we employ. Nevertheless, I believe that both parties enjoy the false dichotomy of "Republicans v. Democrats". It's easier to get elected when you have only one other serious contender.
Oh, and if the Electoral College where to work correctly (and it wont), you could put IRV or Condorcet vote between them. Today, that would of course be a farce. It might not be if we could get the EC reps out of the pockets of the political parties (I'd still far prefer a popular-Smith/Condorcet vote).
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
While I disagree with dynamo, his post is an honest one that deserves some respect. It is representative of someone who cares politically and has a valid point.
It is not flamebait. Would someone please mod him (+1 underrated) to get him back up to '1' (I'm not suggesting higher).
For my argument against him, see my own post.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Yeah, I'm in a meetup group but we haven't really met yet. The 2/3 vote thing doesn't bother me so much. Congress can authorize a war, but Paul would simply not send the troops. For much of the rest, getting a 2/3 majority will be tough. Not to mention, if he had the bully-pulpit, it'd be impossible for the press to ignore him. He could expose lobbyist connections and shame legislators for the absurd riders they add to the bills. As for the times, I think they'd be a lot more exciting if Paul had made the $5 million mark this last quarter. He seems to have massive online support, so why aren't people donating?
I found a few deficit graphs, but they're pretty awful because they ignore "unbudgeted" spending, such as for the past few years of Iraq/Afghanistan. As such, you look at a graph like:
i ty4.jpg
http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif
And you might get the idea that George has been improving his bad behaviour in the past few years, when the reality is that the graph is just misleading.
Angry Bear did an interesting graph here:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/deficit_responsibil
In this graph, he illustrates what the budget would look like if various Bush policies were revoked (military spending, tax cuts, etc.) and returned to Clinton-era policies. The result is that while the post-9/11 economic problems would have caused a little red ink, we'd be firmly in the black right now, instead of setting new records for red.
I really wish I could say there was some party that tended to actually cut the debt when they have reigns. Unfortunately, the best anybody seems to do is to slow the rate of growth.
I actually think the Clinton years were good not just because of the economy, but also because you had a Democratic president and a Republican congress that was concentrated on giving the impression that they were against wasteful spending.
While there was still plenty of pork in the barrel, the combination meant that Republicans had to go light on pork, because Clinton would squash it, and Clinton had to be reasonable with what he asked for, because Republicans wouldn't deliver otherwise.
Incorrect?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Not individual but aggregate.
And yes, the margin was close, so libertarian votes that would have otherwise been cast for the R candidate would have made the difference.
Look at the senatorial election in Missouri in 06 - the libertarian vote was the largest ever - and the Republican voted dropped, and the margin was far smaller than the libertarian gain. Doing the math: Libertarians left the Republican party, and in doing so gave the Democrats a victory.
Maybe thats the start of a trend. IF so, its almso a suicidal one, because as bad as the Republicans are on social liberty, the Democrats are far worse on economic and political liberty (PC-ism, speech codes, etc). And they both are still pigs when it comes to pork.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Which is like some many comments on here, which imply that your individual vote swung it, I know I'm taking it literal, but there seems to be this pervasive idea that this individual vs aggregate can just be blurred. On an intellectual level people know it's an aggregate thing and the aggregate is greater than the individual, but on an emotional level they really believe that it's individual thing, that their individual vote is somehow wagging the aggregate.