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."

Comments

Ummm .. Vote?

[OzPeter]

Or is that obvious?

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[damn_registrars]

Good luck getting anyone to vote in this country. We've had some of the lowest rates of voter turnout of any democracy for many, many election cycles now.

Besides, it is much easier to say "I didn't vote because there was no candidate that was running on [insert favorite cause here]". And as long as the non-voters continue to not vote (or just complain), we'll continue to have this same system.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[RealityProphet]

Good luck getting anyone to vote in this country. We've had some of the lowest rates of voter turnout of any democracy for many, many election cycles now.

For someone to do anything requires some amount of motivation on the part of that person. For voting, that would mean getting to understand the issues and know the candidates, and then to form an opinion one way or another on those issues and where the candidates stand on them. What makes you think it would be a good idea to have unmotivated people vote when they obviously have no interest and, more than likely, no understanding, of the issues involved?

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[Ioldanach]

My favorite is "I live in a (blue|red) state, so my vote doesn't matter, the state will go with (blue|red) candidate regardless, so I won't vote."

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[nscheffey]

Actually that is true. Because of our ridiculously antiquated electoral system people in non-swing states are effectively disenfranchised.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[RealityProphet]

Frankly I have more faith in the average person then the zealots when it comes down to it.

I, too, put much stock in the belief that, fundamentally, the average person is good and has a strong moral compass. However, that is often not enough to make an informed decision.

For example, take an issue such as abortion. If you ask the average person, "Is it alright to kill babies?" What do you think they'll say? Their gut reaction, which will be nearly universal, is "absolutely not!" But there is more to the issue than that. There is the issue of unwanted pregnancy, rape, and other mitigating factors that need to taken into consideration that, at first glance, may seem like distant, secondary factors when held up against the horror of killing babies.

Or, take the issue of capital punishment. If you ask the average person, "Should we spare the lives of serial killer-rapists?" What do you think the answer will be? But, again, there are mitigating factors, such as the plethora of cases in which condemned men have been found not guilty of their crimes. Some before their execution, but many, unfortunately, afterwards. That may seem like small potatoes compared to the justice that should be given to serial killer-rapists. But not if you're one of the unfortunately condemned.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[SatanicPuppy]

Because that's not true? I vote, 80% of the state votes against me, and my vote counts for nothing in the national election. It's pathetic.

Now, I still vote, but I don't have the illusion that my vote means anything in the presidential election. Winner take all politics is sure and certain death for minority candidates, and it can decide the national election as well, as in 2000.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[damn_registrars]

As long as elections in the US are a choice between fascism (Republicans) and socialism (Democrats), I will vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE by abstaining.

I would call that terrible short-sightedness. You are showing really nothing beyond total lack of concern. Have you even looked at a ballot? Ever looked at the other names that are listed?

Sure we hear almost exclusively about the candidates of the two major parties. And the third parties currently active are minor at best. But if you aren't even showing the initiative to cast a vote, then you are just allowing the system to continue un-checked.

You could do better by going and casting an empty ballot. Or even putting down your own name for president. Or Crusty the Clown or Mickey Mouse. Or even a damned ficus tree would be a better action than choosing to not vote. The two party system is defeating you when you choose to be so apathetic as to not bother going to the voting booth at all.

And if you honestly believe that there is no difference between the Democratic party and socialism, then you don't know squat about what the parties are actually proposing.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[Elladan]

Thank you, that's for the best.

If you honestly can't tell that the Democrats are a classically conservative party on almost all issues (leaning more to the moderate side) and somehow manage to think of them as socialist, then you shouldn't vote.

I shudder to think what would happen if there was an actual socialist party in the USA (which actually ran for office, not the hobby ones). Would half the country's heads asplode? Would Fox News implode, leaving a black hole on millions of televisions simultaneously sucking in all light and sound? Would the world as we know it end in an instant?

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[DogDude]

My state (NC) decided that my political party (Libertarian) wasn't worth keeping on the ballot, because they arbitrarily change the # of votes that that party has to get to be on the ballot every year. I'm not allowed to vote for the candidates that I want to vote for, hence, I don't vote. The whole system is a complete and total sham, anyway. It's just designed to make people think they have a choice, when in reality, it's all the same system, and the same crap.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[rhsanborn]

So you're going to vote for the guy who you think can convince people to go for policies that you disagree with rather than vote for the guy who you think won't be able to get anything done on the policies you do agree with.

Godwin's law be damned (I'm certainly not trying to compare the policies of Barack Obama, or any candidate, for that matter, to Hitler), why don't we vote for Hitler. Sure, he's a facist and we don't like the things he stands for, but gosh he just speaks to people so well.

Again, I'm not implying there are any Hitlers in this election, but I am saying that a vote for the guy who makes you feel good inside is shallow and silly.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[somersault]

What is even sillier is that the freaking running of a country has little to do with issues such as abortion or gay marriage or whatever. Capital punishment perhaps is a little more relevant, but I think has been shown to have little effect on actual crime rates. Anyway, for issues like that wouldn't it make much more sense to vote on the issues rather than vote on people who may agree with you on one issue, but have completely opposite ideals for a lot of other things? IMO even if everyone voted for 'the third guy' or whatever, the country would still keep going to shit. That's pretty much why I've never voted (I live in the UK though, not the US).

I suppose the only issue I'd see affecting me as an individual in an immediate and direct way is changes in taxes. Politicians often make a big deal about that too, but overall tax levels tend to stay the same even if they are shifted to different places or spun in a different light. Rich people are still rich, poor people are still poor. Voting for a change in tax isn't going to make that much difference - educating yourself and getting a better job is (though in this case voting could make a difference if you found a politician sympathetic to this kind of issue, who will make it easier for people to go through nightclasses or open university courses, stuff like that). Better education should generally lead to a better economy (as long as you can keep people in the country!) at least, and that will be good for most people.

If I was allowed to vote on individual issues like abortion, capital punishment etc I think I would. But during the time that they are in office, politicians will have to deal with a lot more things besides those 'obvious' issues. And those little issues along the way are likely to be the things that change the face of a country, rather than whether they kill rapists or allow abortions. Lots of people in the US, UK and other countries protested against the war in Iraq, but their governments went along with it anyway. Besides, everyone knows (or perhaps just 'knows') that politicians often can't be trusted to do what they say they will do. When does that ever happen? What they have been claiming to be 'for' all along, they may be outright against, or just don't care about. When they get into power they can do whatever they want for a few years.

Sure, some politicians may want to get re-elected and therefore are forced to do a good job (or at least try to shift focus onto things that they know people will like and away from stuff like the PATRIOT act), but some will have their own hidden agendas. Voting just seems like such a poor way of 'making a difference'. Someone will say "but it's the best system we have", and that's kind of true, but all I see happening is people whining about republican this, democrat that, creating a pretty artificial divide and pointless groupthink system that just serves to create a lot of friction and distraction from actually getting on with the realities of improving government. Get rid of the politicians and the stupid amounts of time and money being wasted on the popularity campaigns, and get some people who actually want to manage the country, rather than people who want to become superstars. I know that's not going to happen though - the masses love their celebrities and are too easily fooled.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[Kismet]

If you have ever been to vote, you may have noticed that there are other choices on the ballot. You can even write in your own preference.

If you are interested, there is the Green Party, which often appeals to disaffected Democrats.

There is the Libertarian party, which sometimes appeals to the disaffected Republicans.

The Constitution party attempts to capture the spirit of the Founding Fathers and of the intent of our Constitution, although they have swapped the Founders' positive-secularism and Deism with a decidedly Christian view. So, this party sometimes appeals to the Christian demographic.

Those are the big alternatives. Of course, there are many other political parties in America. If you want communism, socialism, fascism, capitalism, centrism, and any other manner of "ism" that humans have invented or described, there is a party for you.

I personally am not affiliated with any political party, although I find virtues in all of the major parties (and also ideas that I do not agree with). But this does not prevent me from voting.

So, get involved. Ignore what people tell you about "throwing away your vote" or "as good as a vote for the bad guy." Vote for what you think is best.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[LWATCDR]

You see here is where I think you are totaly wrong.
"For example, take an issue such as abortion. If you ask the average person."
The average person right now is pro choice. I am probably right around where the average is on this.
I think abortion for convenience is immoral. I can not think of a fair and just way to make it illegal. Even the majority of pro-life people will live with the exception of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
So I think this is a great example of where the average person has a good grip on it.

Capitol punishment is a harder one. I am anti-capitol punishment because I feel it is abused. Every now and then there is someone that I look at and think boy we know this guy did it and he can never be let loose and frankly the world would be a better place without them.
I am still anti-capitol punishment but I can understand those that disagree with me.

So even your too examples I think show that your wrong. The average is probably right or very close to it. Sometimes they are wrong but eventual they will get it. The problem is way to many of us are WAY too sure that we are right. That is dangerous for good or bad every evil ruler on the planet was sure that he was right as well.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[FiloEleven]

could you just vote for Mccain this time and save the hippy crap for the next election? it's kind of important.

You see what I did there?

Your statement shows a failure to recognize that there are a significant number of people who believe that McCain will take this country in the right direction and Obama the wrong. I am not one of them.

Your statement also shows a blatant disregard for a significant number people who believe that neither Obama nor McCain will take this country in the right direction. I am one of them. You are, in effect, asking me to suspend my principles in favor of your principles, and I'm sure you would be incensed if I were to suspend them in favor of those who support McCain. (In reality you probably wouldn't care, since I'm just some random internet dude, but you get the idea.)

Let me be frank. I know that this election will result in one of those two men as our next president. I fervently hope that it is Obama, because if we're going to have big spending I would rather see my tax dollars going to help the poor in my country than to fight wars of aggression. On this and likely several other points, your principles and mine match up. I cannot vote for Barack Obama, though, because he still wants more government while I want less. That is going to make far more difference in this country's direction in the long run as it factors into every single decision he makes, not just the hot-button ones that we're discussing now. It is for this same reason that I cannot vote for John McCain, though his stances on the hot-button issues would keep me from doing that anyway.

I am in a swing state, PA, so I'm seeing even more pressure to vote for Obama than I would otherwise. I seriously considered doing so, but have decided that in addition to following my principles, my vote for an alternative to the big two will make more of a statement precisely because I'm in a swing state. Everybody has a "lesser evil" choice; I don't think anybody when pressed will tell you that both nominees are exactly the same. Choosing to get out of the "lesser evil" game and vote for my principles, especially when my vote could conceivably make a difference, speaks volumes about my dissatisfaction with both political parties.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[sm62704]

If you abstain you are seen as apathetic, and painted as such by the corporate media. I vote "none of the above" by picking Green, Libertarian, and Constitution Party candidates.

All five parties are on my ballot this year! Hooray!

"I'm voting fro the black candidate!"

"You're voting Obama?"

"No, I'm voting McKinney! Who are you voting for?"

"The Republican."

"McCain?"

"No, Bob Barr, he's a Libertarian this year!"

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[shadwstalkr]

The whole system is a complete and total sham, anyway. It's just designed to make people think they have a choice, when in reality, it's all the same system, and the same crap.

So your answer is to sit silently and let the system destroy the world around you. That'll show em, well done.

Re:Ummm .. Vote?

[FiloEleven]

I am a fucking blowhard, you insensitive clod!

Real nerds...

[subl33t]

... should be smart enough to see that neither party works and would start their own.

OK, flame away. :P

Re:Real nerds...

[PontifexMaximus]

Amen, brother. Only I would amend what you say to '...to see that the parties ONLY WORKS FOR THEMSELVES AND SCREW EVERYONE ELSE....'

But either one works.

echo chamber

[stoolpigeon]

I don't care who wins the election. Just to get that out of the way.
 
I think that people who spend a lot of time on the internet build up a false sense of community size and influence. If one were spending a lot of time on Digg last year, they were probably surprised by how poorly Ron Paul did.
 
What percentage of Americans are regularly active on the internet? What percentage watch hours of t.v. a day?
 
I'm all for people getting out and doing something they believe in but the fact that this is compared to something involving Nader illustrates my point perfectly. It is a small group of people taking fringe actions what will not increase voting power by orders of magnitude.

development as direct action

[xappax]

According to the criteria, I would say contributing labor to key "political" software projects such as GPG or TOR would be best. It can be done as a hobby, definitely exploits our nerdiness, and absolutely goes outside the normal channels of influence.

Granted, this has nothing to do with getting a politician elected, but that's exactly the point. Taking direct action to solve the problems of privacy and government surveillance increases our "effective voting power" many times over, because we don't have to hope that whatever shmuck we put in office will do what we elected him to do. In a certain sense it makes us even more powerful than the president.

I guess my point is that the most powerful things nerds have done to change the political landscape haven't had anything to do (directly) with elections. Because our power and potential is bigger than any politician.

Simple..

[houbou]

I'm Canadian, but I do hope Obama wins, In the recent weeks, I've been working on getting work in the US, I think it would be nice to expand my computer consulting horizons. As I've been following US politics for the last 10 yrs, I do think Obama is indeed going to be a great president. I would consider moving to the US if a president like Obama was elected!

But really, the problem with Obama, like anything else, are the myths propagated by others, or the misinformation about him. I say that anyone who wishes to help Obama (nerds included), only need to ensure that the facts are made clear to anyone willing to listen.

Nerds and the web, can obviously create ads for Obama such as "did you know" blurbs on their websites for example.

It's not about tricking people into voting for Obama, but about ensuring he's clearly understood by people. So, anyone who can clearly explain who Obama is, what he stands for and most of all, get his message across, is obviously going to help!

Re:Simple..

[bigstrat2003]

Dude, are you serious? Obama sold us out. He voted for telecom immunity for their illegal wiretaps, and thus proved he'll bend us over just as hard and fast as any other politician would. How can you say you want him as president, when he already killed our ability to have any faith in him?

Re:Simple..

[faloi]

I know he's for "change." That's evidenced by getting a VP pick who's been involved in normal Washington politics for 35 years. I know that not voting for him will "prove the US is racist", so failure to vote for him will obviously prove I'm racist regardless of how I feel about his stance on issues. I guess the US is already sexist because of our failure to get Hillary elected. I know he voted for telecom immunity.

The more I learn about him, the more I view him as just another politician.

Re:Simple..

[iserlohn]

Think of it as a strategic move. If he voted against the entire bill containing the immunity clause, then yes, he's probably get a whole lot of respect from people like you and me.

However, that's going to be a big thing that the McCain camp is going to harp on, and drill it in that Obama doesn't support measures to tackle terrorism.

Obama has already voiced his opposition to the immunity clause by voting for the amendment to ditch it. That's didn't go through so you can imagine it's not a easy move to play.

Re:Simple..

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"But really, the problem with Obama, like anything else, are the myths propagated by others, or the misinformation about him."

Really? That's it? My problem with Obama comes straight from his mouth, from his supporters' mouths, and even from his wife's mouth:

"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done...

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual; uninvolved, uninformed."

Re:Simple..

[keithltaylor]

you find that a problem? Holy cow, dude.

Re:Simple..

[bigstrat2003]

If he'd voted against the bill, he might have gained the respect of a lot of sane-minded people, but at the same time, he'd have given McCain a classic soundbite of "Obama doesn't care about terror".

And now, he just gave McCain a classic soundbite of "Obama doesn't care about your privacy". Great victory, that!

The only politically expedient thing to do was abstain. Since he didn't do that, he's either an idiot, or actually supported the bill. Given that he doesn't seem like an idiot to me, the only possible conclusion is that he actually supported the heinous bill. Which disqualifies him from being a good presidential candidate.

Re:Simple..

[Graff]

What I don't get is why geeks would want someone as US President whose main focus will be to increase the role of government and tax the people who work hard. It seems to me that successful, hard-working professionals would rather have someone who will focus on less government and lower taxes rather than more government.

I mean lets look at McCain vs Obama on Taxes. McCain wants to keep taxes low across the board and cut federal spending. Obama wants to cut taxes for people earning less than $75k a year and increase taxes for those earning more than $250k a year and he says he will increase federal spending.

We already know that the government is terrible at managing money, why would we vote for anyone who wants the government to have MORE control over money? The candidate that is committed to REDUCING the US government is the one that I'll be voting for and that sure as hell isn't Barack Obama.

To those people who say "well what about the poor and unfortunate"? How about we, as a society, get off our butts and help our fellow man directly? I work at a non-profit agency that provides services to a poverty-stricken inner-city and I can tell you from experience that direct volunteers and assistance are FAR more effective than government intervention. The government is lazy, riddled with too many layers of bureaucracy, wasteful, slow, and ineffective. The organizations that do the best are the ones which get direct assistance from individual volunteers and corporate assistance. One of the main reasons we have so many problems with poverty is the fact that we want to government to solve all our problems.

The mindset of "let the government tax the successful and help the unfortunate" is the wrong idea. It squanders resources by passing them through multiple layers of bureaucracy and it encourages people gaming the system to their advantage. The problems of society will only be helped when more members of society take it upon themselves to directly help those around them. Passing this responsibility off to the government does nothing but further rot our already fragile country.

My voting algorithm

[BitterOldGUy]

... should be smart enough to see that neither party works and would start their own.

OK, flame away. :P

1. Vote third party.
2. If not third party, vote AGAINST the incumbent.
3. If incumbent is unchallenged, abstain in protest.

I'd run myself, but if I'm asked about my Christian Faith, I'd have to lie. I'm a shitty liar. I'm in the Bible belt here, so it comes up.

Not inherently partisan?

[DaveV1.0]

How can that question be anything but partisan when it specifically mentions helping a specific party?

"What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?"

That is a VERY partisan question. Maybe the submitter doesn't understand the word partisan, so let me make it simple: If a question or statement singles out a particular party or candidate, then said question or statement is partisan.

An inherently non-partisan question would be "What non-obvious things can nerds do to improve voter turnout and the election process in general?"

Re:Not inherently partisan?

[fbjon]

Look at the headline. Now look at the question. Observe: "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help make a difference in November?". This question, being what is implied in TFS, is not partisan, is it now?

You may upgrade your intellect now.

Vote third party

[megamerican]

If you want to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, stop voting for the flawed two-party system. Simply vote third party to show that you want to be involved but hate the choices given to us by the corporate controlled parties.

It doesn't matter if you vote for Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader or Alan Keyes.

People need to start demanding that these 3rd party candidates get air time and in the debates. I'm really hoping that google or someone else has a debate with some of these candidates.

The best thing you can do to make real change and a difference is to take over your local government and work up. Get some friends and like minded people and start running for city council, judges, etc....

Wrong position to take

[stubear]

"(6) can be done as a hobby"

Affecting a political outcome and changing the policies of your government is NOT a fucking hobby. If you want change you need to put forth commitment and while this might not be a full-time job, it is a second job at the very least. This is not another fucking coding project you can fork if you don't like the way things are going, you can't call others noobs, and you actually have to learn something about social interaction if you want others to listen to your ideas. If you treat this like another OSS project then it will languish in code hell, a perpetual alpha with the occasional vulture picking at the carcass every now and then.

Re:Wrong position to take

[xant]

This is black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking.

Politics is a process everyone should get involved in and contribute to--but it doesn't have to be everyone's full-time job. A few will treat the problem space as important enough to them to make a job out of it, but most of the contribution eventually comes from everyone else. The real strength of the Internet masses is in their mass. Only a teeny tiny bit of it needs to be applied to make important things happen, with just enough guidance to make it non-random. See Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody. He describes a tiny surplus of effort as enough to create thousands of complete Wikipedia projects every year.

So yes, let's look at solutions that can be done as a hobby, perhaps guided by someone for whom it is a bit more than a hobby. Structure the project to encourage the masses to contribute their single raindrop, and watch the flood change the world.

A massively co-ordinated disinformation campaign?

[MosesJones]

In these days of sloppy journalism and down right bias on mainstream channels in the US then surely the most "effective" is to learn from the real scum of the political process the people who do the anonymous negative campaigning, shooting malicious falsehoods out into the world via leaflets and other approaches.

Nerds could go hugely further than this by creating fake sites, bombarding social networking sites and editing wikipedia to spread these rumours and even create "verifiable" sources. Low quality videos suggesting illegal or immoral behaviour could be uploaded onto YouTube and main stream news channels could be bombarded with votes/emails/text pushing an agenda, view or revelation.

Oh or did you mean what nerds could do on their own rather than what they will be paid to do in this campaign?

Nerd is synomous with Democrate

[jag7720]

One thing you can do is stop associating nerds with an effeminate/liberal/bleeding heart/socialist/Marxist/ political party.

More of us than you think, are level headed and conservative and actually love this country.

Re:I know I know!

[initdeep]

and if it was done the other way would you feel the same about it?

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

a public broadcast medium making what appears to be a legitimate announcement (and yes i live in iowa and have heard their "parodies" which sound amazingly official) SHOULD be held responsible for their actions.

Just because you thought it was funny, doesn't mean it might not have disenfranchised many people.

Preventing people from casting legitimate votes, regardless of their political affiliation, race, religious background, or any other criteria covered under law, is both legally and morally irresponsible.

Re:I know I know!

[INT_QRK]

Just keep explaining how morally superior Democrats are...and how they need to soak those rich who make over $60K... and how evil those corporations are, and how their obscene profits need to be taxed more...and how much we need union bosses and hip Democrats to make our spending decisions for us...and how they need to redistribute wealth...and how smart Democrats need to tell dumb hicks who cling to their guns and religion how to live and what to drive to keep their carbon foot-prints low...FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITIES AND TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS!!! Si! Se puede! That's the ticket. Get it out in the open.

Re:I know I know!

[PainKilleR-CE]

Preventing people from casting legitimate votes, regardless of their political affiliation, race, religious background, or any other criteria covered under law, is both legally and morally irresponsible.

And yes, for some reason this does include being stupid enough to fall for something like this in the first place.

Faking Christianity.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I'd run myself, but if I'm asked about my Christian Faith, I'd have to lie. I'm a shitty liar. I'm in the Bible belt here, so it comes up.

American Christians take a very simplistic approach to their religion, which makes it very easy to fake Christianity if one is willing to make the effort. You don't have to be C.S. Lewis to convince the average American fundie that you're a believer. In fact, most fundies would probably find C.S. Lewis' brand of Christianity beyond their intellectual grasp.

Riiight...

[denzacar]

Like "refactoring" from DOS 2.1 to include all the support for all the advancements in the technology since 1983 till now, while still being able to run on the 1983. computers - with exactly the same performance like today's computers.

There ARE times when you should just say "OK, let us start from scratch".
You know... what Microsoft should have done with Windows instead of Vista.

Re:start by caring who wins

[stoolpigeon]

I've never seen any proof that the party holding control of the executive branch has any impact on the economy.
 
You make the mistake of assuming that our current economic situation would be different had a democrat been in office. That somehow lenders wouldn't have been making bad loans to people who couldn't afford them. That somehow oil prices would be much lower.
 
The 'tone' in Washington, as far as I can tell - never changes. It's the same the last 8 years as the 8 years prior.
 
It tickles me that you think McCain and Obama are fundamentally different. Maybe you thought Democrats taking over congress meant something too. They said it would, when they won they said things would change. Guess what?
 
And if you want to get hung up on policy in regards to technology, I have one name for you - Biden. Yeah, that's just awesome news for all the nerds out there.
 
I don't care because there are two candidates who stand for exactly the same things in 2 slightly different packages. You care because you've invested yourself in the propaganda of 1 of the 2 sides. I have lots of friends who've done the same for the other side and think the world will end if Obama gets elected. I'm glad they spend most of their time burning all their energy up at the partisan sites like huffpo, lgf, etc. That way I don't have to hear it.

Re:Do the math; don't vote

[zippthorne]

I think the point is to convince other people not to vote.

It's actually a sound idea, couched in cynicism. Some people really shouldn't vote. For instance, everyone that doesn't care enough to find their own way to the polls. If they have to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way by volunteers, I don't want their crappy, underinformed vote influencing the election.

Right now, the elections are basically a coin toss, in part because of all the misguided "get out the vote" programs. Yes, you have a right and a duty to participate, but if you're derelict in your duty, you should be punished, not prodded along. That punishment should be that your voice gets unheard.

Turning the election into a random event with nearly equal probability (partially an effect of McCain's very legislation) was not a good road to go down for this country.

Be realistic and grow the fuck up

[mlwmohawk]

Sorry, I'm just pissed off at the micro-issue morons. Gun control, telco immunity, abortion rights, etc. These "micro-issues' distract from the whole.

You aren't going to EVER get someone with whom you agree with 100% all the time unless its you.

Weigh the pros and cons of the two candidates, CAREFULLY, and think about who will best serve the country as a whole. Weigh the VP choice as well, McCain is old enough to die or become incapacitated and Obama is black, I can imagine the KKK or some white supremacy group trying to off him ASAP. Those guys are scary crazy, if you think islamic terrorists are crazy, you haven't seen the KKK. They'll kill a black man with no remorse, they enjoy it. (It isn't a racist troll and don't tell me you haven't heard it before. I'm just an engineer looking at the potential issues.)

Third party? Don't be an idiot. A third party will not get elected in this cycle, maybe we can work for a viable third party over time, but not now.

This election is IMPORTANT. Don't screw around and take your citizenship and right to vote seriously. Vote for the best all around package, knowing full well that there are no perfect people, and they will disagree with you on various issues, but *mostly* represent you.

As for the micro-issues:

Telco immunity. Think about this, yea, they should have been nailed to the wall, but they WERE ordered by the government to do something. It is hard to resist being compelled like that. The real prosecution should be against BushCo. If a cop told you to help him, you'd feel compelled to help. If it is illegal, the cop is responsible, not you.

RIAA, well that's the courts and congress. We need to fight it there.

Re:Be realistic and grow the fuck up

[Just Some Guy]

Third party? Don't be an idiot. A third party will not get elected in this cycle, maybe we can work for a viable third party over time, but not now.

My state's going for McCain - no ifs, ands, or buts. I'm voting for Barr to send a message to the Republicans.

But beyond that, your argument against voting for third parties is stupid in a way that a self-proclaimed engineer should immediately grok. If third parties call only win the N+1 election, where N is the first one where they make a good showing and demonstrate viability, then at some point you have to have N or you'll never get to N+1. If the people using your logic last time had thought it through and voted their conscience, then maybe 2004 would have been N and this year could have been N+1.

Re:Be realistic and grow the fuck up

[Anonymous Coward]

Third party? Don't be an idiot. A third party will not get elected in this cycle, maybe we can work for a viable third party over time, but not now.

Just because a third party doesn't have much of a chance to win doesn't mean it's idiotic to vote for them. Case in point: in my state, a third party candidate for any office needs at minimum over 200 signatures on a petition to get on the ballot. It can get as high as over 5000 (Pres, Senate and Governor). But if your party got at least 2% of the vote in the last presidential election, you only need 2 signatures.

Libertarian candidates usually get very close to 2% here. This year, with the distaste for McCain, the LP stands a better chance than usual.

So basically, if I can help increase Bob Barr's votes in my state by about .5%, then I will only need 2 signatures to get on the ballot when I run for the state house in 2010. Otherwise I need a couple hundred.

Re:Be realistic and grow the fuck up

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to vote for the candidate that "best" represents my concerns. And that person may be a third party candidate. The third parties help pull the main two away from the middle. They serve a valid purpose. This election is important but so was the one in 2000 and look what happened then.

Telco immunity? They punished the guards at the prison camps in Nazi Germany and they should punish the phone companies over here. Illegal is illegal.

Re:Be realistic and grow the fuck up

[Anonymous Coward]

Third parties are responsible for women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery.

But their voices now are being excluded from the media.

The two major parties have a duopoly on the system, and voting for one of them is never going fix any problems.

Re: voting and motivation

[gad_zuki!]

Eight years ago your post would be: "These two candidates are the same guy! I'm voting for Nader!"

Do you honestly thing Gore would have run things just like Bush?

Now, do you honestly thing McCain would run things just like Obama?

Enough with the protest voting, we should mobilize people and teach them to vote for their best interests, not teaching them to be cynical and become protest voters.

Re: voting and motivation

[maxume]

Plenty of partisan nutjobs cast their votes for reasons less substantial than 'he looks better on TV'.

Re:GenY snookered by the messenger instead of mess

[PainKilleR-CE]

It's not just young people. Older people vote based on what they read in the paper, what they're told by talk radio, and what they see on TV (or just what someone said down at the barbershop/hair stylist or the bingo hall).

Mass ignorance is the reason that the US democracy was set up to eliminate votes from the system, starting by preventing people from voting for all sorts of reasons (though race and sex were part of it, there were also issues of land ownership, literacy, and other items eliminated previously).

Since we've decided that everyone's vote must count, we have to deal with this issue by attempting to educate people, not by bemoaning their ignorance. At least some of these uses of modern tools are trying to educate people, though obviously in a self-serving manner wherever possible.

That is a very, very bad idea

[Quila]

It lets bad people do bad things with little resistance.

Jim Jones and Adolf Hitler stirred the emotions of the people, and the people followed them almost without question to disastrous results. We need a president who will try to convince us he is right and follow him, not one who will be assumed right because everybody loves him.

I will credit Credit Clinton for doing it, but it wasn't about policies but, but general leadership and making people feel good about the future.

There's the problem with feeling instead of thinking. The Republican Congress ended the recession with sound fiscal policy, aided by the dot com boom. Clinton also saved a lot of money by not asking Congress for it in the area of defense, and look where that got us as he let Al Qaeda grow for a decade, doing nothing about it. Now we get to pay a lot more due to his laxity.

Re:I know I know!

[multisync]

and if it was done the other way would you feel the same about it?

The AC didn't say how he felt about it. He merely reported the fact that it happened.

Just because you thought it was funny ...

I've read the comment several times, and I don't see how you got the impression he thought it was funny, or that he was making light of it. If you are taking issue with the remark "if you dont know what DAY you're supposed to go vote, you probably should stay home," I think you are off base. That comment is insightful, not funny.

You should direct your indignation at the radio station, not the person who reported on their actions.

Re: voting and motivation

[MrNaz]

Yea, because voting for someone other than democrat or republican is a waste of time, even if you don't agree with the democratic or republican political platforms.

Re:I know I know!

[IDtheTarget]

Interesting idea, but I believe that this would cause a constitutional crisis, as the "winning" candidate and his/her party attempt to hang on to the presidency by "proving" that the fix didn't happen and that the encrypted message was a hoax, and the "losing" candidate and party demanding a re-vote.

As a member of the National Guard, I view this scenario with horror, as I'm one of the guys that would probably be called out to keep the peace. Not something I look upon with any enthusiasm...

Vote for the SAME Non-Democrat/Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer as I see it is simple. If all of us who are sick of the 2-party system we've become stuck with, and we can all agree that regardless of which 34rd-party we vote for we will still have either a Democrat of a Republican in office next year, then the solution is for all of us to somehow pick the one 3rd-party candidate (perhaps a /. poll?) to show support for.

Since we all agree they wouldn't have a shot at winning anyway, it shouldn't matter which candidate is chosen. It would just be a way to show the rest of the country that "hey, this candidate actually got a decent set of the population, maybe next election voting for them won't be like throwing my vote away."

Together, we can make the election process feel the /. effect!

Re:I know I know!

[fredrated]

How far we have fallen.

It could be worse

[Chmcginn]

Clinton also saved a lot of money by not asking Congress for it in the area of defense, and look where that got us as he let Al Qaeda grow for a decade, doing nothing about it. Now we get to pay a lot more due to his laxity.

It could be worse - he could have been giving arms & equipment to Al Qaeda. Man, I'm glad we've never had any presidents who were stupid enough to do that...

Re: voting and motivation

[Prien715]

But if these people don't vote, who will vote for them?

Voter turnout is historically the lowest for middle and lower income people, so if the well-to-do merely vote their pocket books and can dupe enough other people through flag-waving, we could easily get another Gilded age.

Oh wait...it's already here?

Re:I know I know!

[truthsearch]

democrats are defunct on family standards

What "family standards"? And why should that matter at all to the government?

People who always say "both candidates are evil"

[glassware]

Every year, when we get close to the election, tons of people come out of the woodwork and say, "Both candidates are evil, I've lost my will to vote, I'll vote third party. Why can't they ever nominate someone good?"

If you recall, tons of people said "Both Al Gore and George Bush are lame politicians" in 1999. Many of those people didn't vote. And simply because Al Gore seemed dull, we lost out on the chance to have a politician who really cared about environmental issues and who would have applied some moderation to the response to terrorism instead of going cowboy.

The trouble is, people, in general, are flawed. The sheer number of decisions a person has to make each and every day means that some of them will be wrong. It's simply not possible to find "a good candidate," because every human being has made a mistake in the past. Part of the reason Senators don't usually become Presidents is that they have a solid, visible voting record and lots of conflicting demands on their votes, so that anyone can point to and say "Haha! This one decision was wrong! You can't be trusted!" By contrast, Governors and Generals seem to have less visible records, so people can't play the "gotcha" game as often.

Please stop thinking that an election is a chance to find a perfect person and vote for him or her. That's not the way elections work; if you keep waiting for a perfect candidate you'll never vote. Elections work by presenting you with candidates, and you get to judge which of them you think will do the best job.

I'll confess this: in 1999, I listened to the candidates and decided that I would be a John McCain supporter. I decided to support him because I looked at Bill Bradley, Al Gore, George Bush, and him, and I decided McCain seemed like the best leader. Unfortunately, after the election, everything I learned about McCain gradually turned negative and everything I learned about Al Gore reinforced his solid reputation. In this campaign, I know a little about Obama and (I think) a fair amount about McCain. Both of them have had to abandon their key supporters to reach across the aisle and compromise with others, but I find McCain's decisions more wrong than Obama's.

Obama showed great courage not backing a junkie's-quick-fix approach to gasoline prices.
McCain supports creationism / intelligent design in schools.
McCain sponsored an amendment to ban torture, and then meekly backed away when George Bush announced that he'd ignore the law.

I'm voting for Obama. I may not agree with everything he does, but I think he's the best person to repair the damage that Bush has done to our country.

Re:I know I know!

[Digital End]

The enemy? For fucks sake, we're citizens of the same god damn country.

This is the cancer that is killing america

Re:I know I know!

[sorak]

You do NOT want to mess with the stupid people lobby... They are a powerful group.

Well, they did get W elected...

Re:I know I know!

[ukemike]

and if it was done the other way would you feel the same about it?

I'd feel... well exactly how I feel because it has been done, many times. There was a widespread phone banking effort in heavily Democratic areas in Florida in 2000 reminding people to vote, on the following Tuesday. If you want to read a laundry list of such abuses, read the Conyers Committee Report on the elections in Ohio in 2004.

Re:I know I know!

[nomadic]

In the case of announcements of moving voting day for certain groups of people, only peoples stupidity prevented them from casting legitimate votes....nothing else.

Wow, way to completely exonerate the malicious, anti-democratic thugs who actually went out with the purpose to subvert an election. You have quite a moral compass there, I'm sure your mother is proud of you.

Volunteer as an election judge

[Antibozo]

One thing you can do that isn't blindingly partisan is to volunteer as an election judge. Election staff are in short supply in many places in the country, and as new (insecure) equipment has been purchased by states, a lot of older staff have retired from the process, overwhelmed by the march of technology. Being a geek is a good fit for this problem.

More staff at the polls makes things run more smoothly, and that encourages turnout in future elections, and even in current ones when people who stayed away hear on Election Day that the line moved quickly, and decide to head in and vote after all. Bigger turnout generally favors Democrats, so if you want to help Obama this is a good thing to do.

But even if you support McCain or someone else, it's a fun, interesting experience, and you'll be helping the country express itself. A lot of staff positions at the polls require a member of each major party, so both Republicans and Democrats are needed to staff the polls sufficiently.

Voting is how we buy in to the government we end up with; even when we vote the loser, we participate in the process and that makes us stakeholders. When you become part of the election process, you facilitate this for your community.

Hear hear!

[Anonymous Meoward]

The 2000 election was decided by less than 600 votes in Florida. About 90,000 Floridians voted for Nader that year. If only 1% of those Nader voters could see what the future held.

Seriously. Don't vote for the candidate who merely claims to serve your interests. Vote for the one who will lay the cultural groundwork for the change you wish to see in your country.

It's up to you to be that change, regardless of who wins.

your vote doesn't actually count

[Anonymous Coward]

now bear with me: you should still vote, the same way you shouldn't throw cans on the road. it's a "civic duty" in the sense that while one person voting or picking up litter doesn't matter, we're better off if everybody does those things.
because of this, it doesn't matter what party you vote for; chances are you live in a state where the winner's margin of victory was in the millions. Gee, you sure made a millionth of a difference.
Vote honestly; treat it as an opinion poll.

Re:I know I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you support Zimbabwae's method of Democracy. It's not Bush that scares me about the states these days, it's people like you.

Re:I know I know!

[sm62704]

We're getting some new voting machines this election (they're being rented) and if the newspaper is to be believed, these machines will actually be trustworthy.

They're doing it as I've advocated for years.

Sangamon County had to obtain new voting machines after the State Board of Elections ruled the county couldn't use the more than 900 machines it purchased for $2.7 million three years ago.

The board said the company that made the machines, Populex Corp. of Elgin, had not completed all the required testing.

County officials say they prefer to rent equipment for this election because the state is likely to adopt new standards for voting machines, and the county does not want to be stuck with even more machines that might not be certified under the new rules.

<snip>

Compared to the Populex machines, the rental equipment is fairly simple. Voters will mark paper ballots with a pen or pencil, and those ballots will be fed into a scanner. Voters who miss a race or over-vote will be alerted by the machines and given the option of changing their ballots.

Simple design == elegant design. I wish some of you guys (especially you mechanical engineers and software coders) would learn that.

Re:I know I know!

[FiloEleven]

If this is a war (which it's not), then the good guys are the American electorate regardless of party affiliation, and the bad guys are the career politicians. If you don't want it to become a war, perhaps you should respect and educate your fellow citizens instead of deriding them and making it easier for the plutocracy to keep up the charade.

Douglas Adams again, because it's appropriate as usual:

"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No, nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in," said Ford. "Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them. They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

Re:If growing the fuck up means settling for the..

[mlwmohawk]

...lesser of evils, I'll stay Peter Pan.

That is a childish perspective, progress is made in steps. Is there one candidate who you think is any better than the other, even by a little bit?

If you don't think so, you are a fool. There are many differences in these candidates and I can't believe they could be seen as "equally bad."

So, you lose the opportunity to affect the outcome to make it less worse.

Maturity is patience. The old people keep winning because they know patience wins, the young people keep losing because they think they can change things over night.

Re:I know I know!

[BobTheLawyer]

do you really think Gore would have invaded Iraq, established Guantanamo and cut taxes for the wealthy on an unprecedented scale?

Voting History

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone actually looked at Obama's and Biden's voting records concerning technology and the internet?

Democrats and War

[weston]

WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

It's definitely true that foreign policy is one of the areas in which the differences between the two parties narrow, despite the popular conceptions.

But there's a couple of problems with this thesis. The biggest one I can think of is the radically different nature of the wars on that list. Another one is the fact that the post-Vietnam Era Democratic party was already becoming fairly different from the pre-Vietnam Era Democratic party... and all your examples belong to the earlier period.

Ultimately, though, I think the biggest problematic assumption is that Democratic voters themselves are a bunch of Kumbaya hippies. I'm sure there's some real pacifist contingent that genuinely believes violence is never ever the answer, but my experience suggests that it's not particularly more common among the dems than isolationist philosophies are among the republicans.

Re: voting and motivation

[WrongMonkey]

Vietnam was over 30 years ago and the Democratic involvement was over 40 years ago. The individuals who made those decisions are out of politics or dead. Parties change platforms all the time. A significant example is when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and the Dems went from being Dixie-crats to progressives.

Re: voting and motivation

[Paradigm_Complex]

The Republicans freed the slaves, and so as a black man I'm going to vote Republican this time around. *rolls eyes*

Please do not put much value on what a given party did historically, but rather what the party's leading candidates are most likely going to do given their own personal history. Yes, the Democrats were in charge as we jumped into a number of wars. However at the moment the Democrats want the support of those who are upset about the whole Iraq thing. Therefore they're playing the anti-war card. It's not that complicated.

There is some merit to your mention of the fact that many of the anti-war claims from the Democrats aren't quite what they were a number of months ago. This is not, however, even remotely related to the fact they were in charge as we went into WWI.