Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies

gracey1103 writes "Popular Mechanics has put together an easy-to-follow matrix of where the '08 presidential candidates stand on different science, tech and environment issues. Everything is cited and links back directly to each candidate's published policy pages so you can get more info."

Comments

Not every candidate

[LGagnon]

They didn't mention Kucinich or Gravel, and allowed more Republicans on the list than Democrats. This seems a bit biased to me.

Re:Not every candidate

[morari]

The media has been doing and wonderful job of either making Kucinich look like a nutcase or just outright ignoring his existence. Being the best candidate for the people quickly earns enemies though, I suppose.

Re:Not every candidate

[Entropius]

Kucinich gets my support simply because he wants to reduce the military budget. I don't care how much of a nutcase you are or what other bad ideas you have, it's hard to make an error that'll offset the hundreds of billions a year saved.

Re:Not every candidate

[PresidentEnder]

So does Paul get your support, too? (Kucinich is my other favorite, of course).

Re:Not every candidate

[bckrispi]

Well he's had at least one proposal that no-one else in Congress has had the guts to initiate. You've gotta give some credit there.

Re:Not every candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

He opposes them personally. But his beliefs that the federal government should have no say on abortions whatsoever trumps that. You can either wait for a candidate that aligns with you on every single belief you hold, or you can go for one that might disagree with you but will never use the machinery of the state to enforce that.

Re:Not every candidate

[homer_s]

Consider this: the current amount of U.S. currency in circulation is $783 billion. Current estimates put the US's gold reserves at around $252 billion. So where does the extra $531 billion come from? The government buying massive amounts of gold; about $531 billion.

Or the price of gold will increase from $252 billion to $783 billion.
Don't know why otherwise intelligent people don't get this simple fact. Whether you use paper money or gold or diamonds or cigarettes or whatever, they can only stand-for or represent or reflect the true wealth in the economy. They are not wealth by themselves.

Not that I support the gold standard, but I think currency (and the value of currency) should be set by market forces and not by some unaccountable bureaucrats who create inflation while also pretending to 'fight' it.
Not that I'm complaining - I made (and continue to make) a lot of money courtesy of helicopter Ben and his clueless pals.

Re:Not every candidate

[alshithead]

"The media has been doing and wonderful job of either making Kucinich look like a nutcase or just outright ignoring his existence. Being the best candidate for the people quickly earns enemies though, I suppose."

Welcome to the wonderful world of modern US politics. If you aren't in the pockets of the multiple corporate overlords then the corporate owned media will spin you into oblivion...if they mention you at all. I'm not sure what the solution is.

Re:Not every candidate

[Elemenope]

I support Paul and Obama at the same time. It goes something like this:

"I'd like the government to curl up and die [Paul], but if I can't have that I'd rather it be in competent hands with interesting ideas [Obama] than incompetent or malevolent ones [most other Democrats, all other Republicans]."

Re:Not every candidate

[Elemenope]

Actually, Paul is the exception to his statement. With his policies, he's so likely to run the the country into the ground that no amount of military budget reduction can offset it (unless he completely eliminates the military altogether, allowing the people to revolt against the quagmire government he'll create).

And you're against this...why? A government should be "weak" enough that it cannot survive a determined effort from its citizens to change its form. I sincerely doubt that Paul's policies will "run the government into the ground", but even if they managed to I can't see myself getting very worked up about it. Government has been running people into the ground for so long, it might do for a teensy change...

Re:Not every candidate

[pintpusher]

If there was ever an argument for instant runoff elections, that's it right there. I like candidate A, but if he/she doesn't get enough votes, then I go for candidate B. That way you don't completely lose just 'cause your first vote didn't win.

Re:Not every candidate

[jcr]

Competent and interesting ideas like more taxation, more spending, and bombing an ally?

Obama's entire qualifications are 1) he's not GWB, and 2) he's not Hillary. Once you get past those admittedly great points in his favor, all you have left is an utterly conventional politician.

-jcr

Re:Not every candidate

[PopeRatzo]

Kucinich gets my support simply because he wants to reduce the military budget.

I heard a speech he gave on the radio. It was some college station and I only caught about 8 minutes of what was a broadcast of a complete speech. I couldn't believe I was listening to a presidential candidate. He actually sounds like an extremely intelligent and thoughtful person. Person not public-relations robot. And unlike at least two of the Republican candidates, he actually accepts Darwin's theory of the origin of species as a viable explanation of evolution!

I'm afraid he could never carry Megachurch America.

I'm voting for him just because any funny looking little guy who's not rich and can get a hot piece of ass wife like Kucinich's got who actually seems to be in love with him must have some serious Mojo. I know this sounds funny, but that's exactly the kind of guy we need to deal with the Iranians and Chinese.

Re:Not every candidate

[Alsee]

If there was ever an argument for instant runoff elections, that's it right there.

Nope.

There is precisely one argument for Instant Runoff Voting, and that is that it is easier to explain to voters how IRV votes are counted than it is to explain how Condorcet votes are counted. But based on that argument Approval Voting beats out IRV.

Our current Plurality Voting system is just about the worst of all known voting methods. IRV is better than our current system, but that just merely makes it less bad than out current system. If we are going to change our election system we really should change it to the best known system, and mathematicians have studied election methodology in depth and determined that that the best available system is Condorcet voting. Casting votes in Condorcet is identical to casting votes in IRV, and the behind the scenes election mechanics of handling those votes is much better than IRV, and the results of Condorcet are better than IRV (in some cases IRV can elect clearly the "wrong" person"), and in most cases explaining how Condorcet elected a candidate is dead simple (this candidate would clearly and simply beat any of the other candidates in a 1v1 race).

The only problem with Condorcet is that it is possible that none of candidates would beat each and every one of the others in 1v1 races. A situation like:
Adam would beat Betty by 60 million votes to 40 million votes in a 1v1 race,
Betty would beat Chuck by 58 million votes to 42 million votes in a 1v1 race,
and Chuck would beat Adam by 52 million votes to 48 million votes in a 1v1 race.

A sort of three way (or more) "tie" from that initial simple count. In that case you have to do math-type-stuff examining the numbers more closely to pin down the winner who most closely reflects the will of the voters. And unfortunately that final "tie breaker step" is not so simple to explain. Anyone comfortable with math or software can follow along with written "tie breaker" method to validate the election results, but typical Aunt Clueless is just going to say "Huh?" about the tie breaker method.

The math says Chuck has the weakest support so in the tie breaker Chuck gets eliminated first leaving Adam the winner. If it is a four of five or more way "tie" then solving the tie breaker will take extra steps.

Condorcet is not the simplest election method, but it is hands down the most accurate. Instant Runoff and other methods can run into oddball situations and oddball vote counts where they go haywire and clearly elect the wrong person.

An example comparing Condorcet to Instant Runoff. Imagine there's four candidates Adam Betty Chuck and Dave.
34 million people vote Adam as their first choice and Dave as second choice.
33 million people vote Betty as their first choice and Dave as second choice.
33 million people vote Chuck as their first choice and Dave as second choice.
No one votes Dave as their first choice.

In Instant Runoff Dave gets eliminated first (for having no first rank votes), and Adam wins.
Condorcet sees that Dave would beat each and every opponent by 2-to-1 in a head to head election. In particular Dave would beat Adam 66 million votes to 34 million. Dave is EVERYONE's second choice and has by far the broadest support. Dave is the centrist choice. Condorcet elects the most centrist candidate with the broadest support.

-

Re:Not every candidate

[gambolt]

Here you go:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

That's what he's been up to in congress.

Ammending the constitution to define a zygote as a peson is not in any a consistent with a libertarian position on liberty.

If you read the above link you'll see he's opposed to federal funds for all family planning efforts, not just abortion. He's also opposed to gay equality.

There's a reason he's a republican. Libertarians consider the right to be left alone and unmolested sacred. They wouldn't let him get away with using elected office to impose his religious views on the country.

Re:Not every candidate

[Moridineas]

I think you must be confused somehow.. Please, if you're going to be preachy, it might help to post better info. My post was,

Whoa, I had no idea Ron Paul wants condoms, birth control pills, vasectomies, onanism, etc to be illegal. Can you provide a link to back that up please? Nowhere on your link is anything remotely like what I said suggested. Ron Paul wants to get the federal government out of EVERYTHING. That's why he wants to block funding. Let me explain simply. From your link "H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity." This does not make abortion illegal. This does not make family planning illegal. This doesn't make ANY actions illegal. This makes the *FEDERAL* government funding such things illegal. States--fine. Private people--fine. Hospitals--fine.

I find this topic very interesting--it seems to me that more and more people (primarily on the left, but certainly on the right as well) are so used to a huge and all encompassing federal government, that many people DO, like you, get confused that cutting federal funding is the same as making something illegal. We saw the same thing with stem cell research. Even on slashdot, a place full of generally well informed geeks and science wonks, you see statements like "bush made stem cell research illegal." That's not remotely close to the truth, and quite frankly, FUD--just as your post is.

I'm mixed on the zygote issue. I do think that abortion is killing a life and that it's a horrible thing to have to do... but... sometimes it's gotta happen, and for utilitarian reasons, probably better that it does. That doesn't make someone that thinks life starts at conception a cook. If libertarians / objectivists view an individual life as of great importance, is it any wonder that new lives are considered as important as old lives? You're viewing the issue of an abortion solely through the lens of "it's a woman's freedom to control her body." He's looking at the issue through the lens of "there's a new life with a right to live." I really hate this kind of "you're either with us, or you're against us" politics...

One of these things is not like the others

[Curien]

o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Gun control
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space

WTF??

Re:One of these things is not like the others

[Oriumpor]

let me fix that:

o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Cowboy Neal
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space

Re:One of these things is not like the others

[megaditto]

You are right: while all the other listed issues are interrelated, this "Gun Control" stands on its own. To fix the list, we need to add:

Freedom of Speech,
habeas corpus and
Civil rights

Also needed is Immigration all of these up together.

Re:One of these things is not like the others

[jank1887]

No, it fits. This is a PopularMechanics list. They are quite proud of the fact that guns are a significant topic with their readership. they run ads for gunmakers, and don't apologize. they print both sides of letters to the editor about guns, gun control, gun ads, etc. gun control as a topic is likely high on the list of interest to the readership, along with tech/science/etc.

Disappointment

[pete-classic]

This seems to assume that 1. you only care about "mainstream party" candidates and 2. spending is the primary measure of support.

I don't know how willingness to spend confiscated funds on research became a qualification for office, but I am completely convinced that this point of view is part of the problem, not the solution.

-Peter

Where's the column

[joeflies]

on whether the candidate supports PS3 or XBOX360? Or BluRay vs HDDVD? Or KDE vs GNOME?

not easy to follow at all

[yali]

"Easy to follow matrix"? Not exactly. At first, I thought the matrix indicated endorsements, but it doesn't -- checkmarks simply indicate that they were able to find out where a candidate stands. If you actually want to know what that stance is, you sometimes have to click through many screens to get to it.

Great idea, mediocre execution. (And why is gun control on a list of science and technology issues, but not stem cell research?)

Re:not easy to follow at all

[yali]

Has anyone actually come out against stem cell research?

Democrats all seem to favor stem cell research. But among Republicans it's mixed:

• Giuliani favors expanding stem cell research.
• McCain and Romney oppose research using cloned human embryos but not embryos left over from fertility treatments.
• Huckabee only favors continuing research with existing lines.
• Hunter, Keyes, Tancredo, and Thompson oppose embryonic stem cell research.
• Paul opposes funding stem cell research (but for econo-libertarian reasons rather than religious/moral ones. If you generalize from his stated position about stem cells, he apparently would oppose most federal funding for science and medicine).

Source: The Pew Forum (except the Ron Paul parenthetical).

Re:not easy to follow at all

[Empiric]

Yeah, Ron Paul likely would, but probably largely because of his economic stance. "Against stem cell research" and "against federally-funded stem cell research" (your link) are different statements, with different drivers for evaluation involved.

Good point, though.

Re:not easy to follow at all

[Brandybuck]

Be careful with your definitions. There is a world of difference between opposing stem cell research, and opposing federal funding for stem cell research. As such, your list doesn't really tell me anything, as it doesn't separate these two distinct issues.

Affirmatives only?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't go through all of them, but it seems the matrix only shows which topics a candidate has an affirmative stance on. If they do, then a checkmark links to an explanation of the stance. If not, no information is given. For example, all of them except Giuliani and Huckabee were "in favor" of digital technology. I assume that Giuliani and Huckabee weren't taking the Amish approach, but rather they hadn't made any clear statements on the matter.

So the chart is a mildly intersting way of presenting a limited amount of information on candidates stances, but not particularly useful for comparing them. A better approach (although still imperfect) would have been to attempt to determine sides of an issue and divide the candidates that way.

For example: Should federal government increase spending on internet infrastructure projects? *

Biden: No
Clinton: Yes
Edwards: No
Obama: Yes
Richardson: No

* (answers randomly assigned)

5 IT questions going to the 08 candidates - help!

[apachetoolbox]

http://www.copyrightreform.us/2008-presidential-candidates has something much better going on. Help out by suggesting IT related questions to ask the candidates. Replies and scans of the letters they send back will be posted as they come in. Help us figure out some good questions.

Meaningless drivel

[Normal_Deviate]

Every election year, people get caught up in the candidates' "positions" as if they meant something. Face it: the Presidential election is the world series of lying, and you are not wise enough to detect it. In a political debate, you may safely ignore any sentence that does not begin with "When I faced this problem before, I ..." Remember, under Jimmy Carter we got deregulation of trucking, airlines, and natural gas. Under Nixon we got actual wage and price controls (!), and the EPA.

Obama is quite specific

[Anonymous Coward]

I was interested in the difference between Obama and Hillary. Obama's strategy depends heavily on Cellulosic ethanol. One of the advantages of cellulosic ethanol is that there are a couple of major ways to make it. That makes it a pretty safe bet that the necessary technology will develop. The other advantage is that it can be made from agricultural waste.

Hillary said a bunch of stuff but it was the kind of stuff that a politician would say. I really liked that Obama was specific. That makes his proposals much more likely to happen.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson

[Curien]

I'm intrigued, and I'm always willing to listen to a fellow Ada appreciator, so let's take a look.

Auto

Invest "in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment."

Wow, there's a well-thought-out plan!

Digital/Tech

Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet. [empahsis added]

Nothing to disagree with there!

Energy/Climate

committed to a balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources ... [and] places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency

Wow, that's a great idea! I wonder why no other candidates say stuff like that?

Science/Education

Encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

Joke elided for fear of sounding like a broken record.

You read this stuff and it reaffirmed your faith in this guy? I knew absolutely nothing about his platform or views before. Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans. I checked his website just to make sure I wasn't missing anything profound, and there's really *nothing* there other than vague hand-waiving. Given his "platform", I don't see why he's even bothering to run.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson

[Entropius]

Thompson's platform is basically "I am more like Ronald Reagan than any of the other candidates, including the advanced age and partial dementia. Thus, since you are a good Republican and fellate statues of Reagan on a daily basis, you should vote for me."

Re:Guns? WTF?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>In what universe does the topic of gun control belong on a list of issues important to geeks

It's just a matter of degree. Your regular gun nut wants his Colt Python, full auto M16, and a K-bar knife. Your geek gun nut feels better with a BFG-9000, plasma cannon, chainsaw, and a backup Death Star if at all possible. It's all about who you think is after you.

Re:I voted....

[Curien]

Everyone running for office in this election is a cunt, and like bush, whoever wins will be a cunt when he/she is elected.

How true. Even Thomas Jefferson turned into a cunt when he was sworn in.

It's not a bug, it's a feature

[Opportunist]

Time and time again, I have to agree that FF is the superior browser.

Re:I never said "Supreme Court"

[Kadin2048]

What you're reading came from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. It was overruled, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert and is scheduled to hear oral arguments in March.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson

[mrchaotica]

Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans.

That's not true. He does have plans; you're just not reading into it cynically or deeply enough to see them:

Invest "in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment."

"I intend to pay lip-service to environmentalism while doing as little as possible to actually improve things, because if I really cared I'd have more to say about the issue."

Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet.

"I support filtering by ISPs and libraries. OMG, think of the children! Oh, and by "child pornography" I really mean 'music, movies, and subversive speech' too. Anonymity is bad, mmkay?"

committed to a balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources ... [and] places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency

"I support 'securing our energy' by subjugating the Iraqis, and I support 'increasing domestic supply' by drilling in protected wilderness areas."

Encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

"Just like the environment, I don't give a shit about this issue either."

By the way: I don't have anything against this Thompson fellow; in fact, I know nothing about him except these excerpts. Any candidate that says the same kinds of things should be suspected of having the same real positions.

despite NASA's charter...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Some friends of mine were involved in a private launch company back in the mid '80s. (At their request it will remain unnamed.)

One of their major problems was obtaining components for avionics and for handling cryogenic liquids. These were made mainly by the companies who contracted to NASA for various parts of the (very lucrative) shuttle program.

One of their contacts told them that a NASA administrator had let them know that if they supplied any parts to a private rocket company they wouldn't be supplying any more for the shuttle.

The company thus had to make do without components that had been developed with tax money, and (on their shoestring budget) develop their own from scratch or convert stuff intended for other purposes - none of them space-rated.

They did some amazing stuff on that shoestring. But it was the failure of one of those re-purposed parts that ended up trashing their effort and running them out of money.

Now NASA was SUPPOSED to be ENCOURAGING the private development of space capability, as they had air flight. But the government space programs had put them in a position where doing so would undercut the funding for their own programs. So it was in their interest to keep the suppliers on a short leash and kill off any company trying to assemble and operate their own craft.

Pulling the plug on NASA as the government-run space transportation company (and boondoggle) would, IMHO, not just open up the field to private companies, but is a necessary step in getting to affordable private space travel in what remains of my lifetime.

Which is not necessarily to say kill it off completely. But putting it out of the transportation business and back to R&D, with private enterprise actually running the spacelines, seems to me to be a necessary minimum for turning space exploration from a government-funded boondoggle (ala Columbus) to an ongoing enterprise (ala private cargo and passenger ships crossing the Atlantic and Pacific ocean).

Re:Ron Paul and NASA

[mrchaotica]

I think it's safe to vote for him because there's no way he'd actually accomplish all that, but he would manage to prevent the Federal government from bloating further.

Ron Paul on /.?

[damncrackmonkey]

I understand why everyone thinks the US would be better if things like the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, and Education were completely replaced by the free market.

What I don't understand is /.'s support for someone to whom Microsoft's "monopoly" would just be a normal, acceptable result of said free market?