Slashdot Mirror


How Can Nerds Make a Difference In November?

Scott Aaronson offers an intriguing call for ideas on how nerds can supercharge the political process this year. He's clearly an Obama admirer and phrases his challenge this way: "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?" But the question itself is not inherently partisan. The analogy Aaronson gives is to the Nadertrading idea in 2000 (which we discussed at the time). What's the Nadertrading for 2008? "The sorts of ideas I'm looking for are ones that (1) exploit nerds' nerdiness, (2) go outside the normal channels of influence, (3) increase nerds' effective voting power by several orders of magnitude, (4) are legal, (5) target critical swing states, and (6) can be done as a hobby."

6 of 950 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I know I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    When mentioning Diebold, it is always crucial to mention that they now call themselves Premier Election Systems, in an attempt to make people forget that they are "that" company.... you know, the one with broken and insecure voting machines.

  2. Re:I know I know! by Burz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not only is there no method of inspecting the "mechanics" or logic (one transistor or bit out of billions could throw an election) of these Black Box Voting machines, but the prospects of forensic investigation are extremely poor.

    It is hard enough maintaining security/integrity in computerized transactions these days even when the identity of both parties is known and a statement/receipt is generated. But where the user is necessarily anonymous, accountability with computers goes out the window.

    Computerized "ballots" (those not submitted as physical objects) can't truly exist and must be banned.

  3. Re:I know I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    what if they had asked black people to vote on wednesday instead to prevent long lines?

    They did

  4. Re: voting and motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Democratic leadership is just itching for their turn at the helm of the war machine.

    WWI
    WWII
    Korea
    Vietnam

    Those weren't Republican Presidents who entered us into those wars. You're sadly mistaken if you think the Democrats want less war. What the Democratic leadership wants their own wars that benefit them financially and benefit them politically. They've said they had enough of Bush's war only because it doesn't help them. Have you not noticed how the all powerful Democrats in the house and senate, and Pelosi made promises of getting the U.S. out of the Iraq situation....have faded away?

    Democrats know just like they've always known, war is profitable, war can help you win elections....and they're pissed of that the Republicans have stolen this page out of their playbook.

    Just face it. You're a goddamn sheep, who believe the kumbaya song the Dems are singing is real.

    It's not. It never has been.

  5. Re:I know I know! by MaliciousSmurf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Okay. Please don't even joke about that. There was a really extreme campaign in Florida where Republicans discouraged blacks, Hispanics, and other traditionally Democratic voters from going to the polls by saying things like, "If you have any outstanding traffic tickets, pay them before voting," and, "bring proof of citizenship," (and this discouraged people who WERE legitimately citizens, because they didn't really understand and they were afraid of losing what they had worked so hard to gain), and, of course, "election day changed to Wedsnesday." Many people think that this was a big part of why the Democrats lost Florida. It's not funny, regardless of which side loses. More examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30?language=printer http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E5D6123FF935A2575BC0A9629C8B63 Not funny, not appropriate.

  6. Re:Ummm .. Vote? by greenguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I realize you're not actually advocating this kind of thinking, but I'd like to answer it just the same... in case others out there come across it.

    If you KNOW your state is going to go one way or another (e.g., Massachusetts or Wyoming), vote third party. If the Libertarian or Green candidate gets 5% this year, their party will get matching funds in 2012. Then they'll have something like one half of 1% of the money the big two have, instead of 1% of 1%.

    This is counted nationwide, not by state, so this is a good way to make a difference, wherever you live.

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?