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."
Be smart enough to realize that, as is usually the case in software, starting from scratch is a waste of time.
Refactoring the existing structures to better suit current needs and eliminate bugs saves a lot of set up time and costs.
Seriously. The establishment played dirty with the media, let the geeks play dirty with the proprietary voting machine companies with no method of peer review ;-)
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
"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.
You and I seem to have different ideas of what 'partisan' means.
Honestly, the best thing a nerd can do during an election is spread information. Not slanted information but stuff like the folks over at factcheck.org are doing. Another thing is discussing various differences in the voting process like trying to build a grassroots movement to move back to the popular vote or opening up discussions on runoff voting. There's plenty of ways to inform the public, possibly the most important and least rewarded job--in my mind anyhow. I find it humorous when Democrat workers go around alienating Republican voters and vice versa.
If you approach me with the mindset that I need to be voting for your candidate I'm probably not going to react well to it.
My work here is dung.
You mean like that? Or, did you mean
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Close, but if you want to really fix electronic voting, there's one sure-fire way of doing it.
It's one thing to get somebody to admit the elections are riggable in theory. People don't really believe it until you show them. They still have faith in the process, or the government, or human nature. This way, you can get people to take notice without actually doing any real harm.
What you don't do is rig the election for an unbelievable candidate. That way, they immediately go into damage-control mode, make you out to be a prankster, and find some way of "retrieving" (e.g. making up) the "real" results. The point is that you wait long enough for everybody to congratulate themselves on another well-executed election, make all the acceptance speeches, etc, so they really commit themselves and can't say that they weren't utterly fooled.
Bonus points for giving up your anonymity afterwards and pointing out that you rigged the election in favour of a candidate you don't want to win.
Lets say you are pulling for Obama. Go into Call of Duty 4 and change your name to "McCain 2008" and run around with the shotgun. Or go play Counter-strike and change your name to "McCain Roxors" and camp in a dark corner with a sniper rifle.
You can also go into people's skype channels and spam your love for the candidate that you do not want to win. People will be so put-off by your actions that you may just swing an independent in the opposite direction!
That happened in Iowa City where I live. KCJJ (A local radio station known for their run ins with the court system) were threatened with a lawsuit for telling people on the air that republicans were being asked to vote on Wednesday to help prevent long lines at the voting places. Honestly, if you dont know what DAY you're supposed to go vote, you probably should stay home.
Very good point. I think this gets to the root of why those MTV "Rock the Vote!" style campaigns get on my nerves.
I'm all for people making the effort to learn what's going on in politics, and then being able to make an informed decision.
But at the same time, some people are simply apathetic. If you prod them to go out and vote (by selling the idea as trendy and "cool", applying peer-pressure, etc.), you wind up with people voting for completely wrong reasons. EG. I just like candidate X because he looks better on TV. The other guys look too old and ugly!
All things considered, I think we'd do just as well to have them opt out of the whole process, if that's all the effort they're going to put into it.
At the same time though? I *really* wish the people who don't like either of the two "major candidates" would get out there and vote 3rd. party, rather than skipping the process. That's where I'm at right now, myself. I can't bring myself to cast a vote for yet another person following in the footsteps of Bush, but Obama comes from the typical crooked Chicago politician pool, screwed us over by not fighting the telcom immunity bill, and has professed ideas for public healthcare that I think aren't going to work. Both candidates are apparently fine with a continuation of the "Patriot Act" too, which tells me a LOT about them.
That's why I'm going to cast a vote for Bob Barr. Frankly, the guy's kind of a "tool". He's just trying to ride the coat-tails of Ron Paul, and his V.P. already was heard admitting that he's really only running because he hopes it'll boost his popularity so he can get a book deal or radio show program in the future. But that's not the point. The point is, a vote for him is a protest vote the other guys can CLEARLY see they didn't earn.
At this point, armed insurrection is the only way for anybody to change anything. The voting process has been defunct since before the Union was established due to gerrymandering, for several decades due to both major parties being crypto-fascist, and recently due to rigged machines. It is true that anyone who dares to physically oppose the US government is almost certain to die, but with enough numbers, change can still be effected. If a thousand men with rifles marched to Washington and got as much politico blood on their hands as they could, that number is too high for them to kill us without consequences. A thousand US citizens' lives can't be swept under the rug in the way even a hundred could be.
4. If incumbent is unchallenged... Challenge him.
That is what this long time slashdoter is doing. I am the Republican nominee for congress in the Second Congressional District of Maryland. www.richardmatthews.org
The issues aren't really that important. The trick is to vote for who you feel (emotionally) better for.
Yes it sounds like a horrible idea, to most people but hear me through.
I actually like McCain's policies and issues however I am voting for Obama because I think he would actually be the better leader and president. Because the way he charges people. It is easier to lead when people want to follow you. The problem with Bush wasn't any of the policies it was just so many people didn't like him, thus made him a poor leader.
Eg. No Child Left Behind, Now if the teacher liked him they would use it to an advantage to improve education, They would praise it as it helped standardize curriculum, and will tout how great it is in in the places where it actually helped. It would have the same problems but with good leadership they could have worked around it. However... Because Bush really failed to impress the teachers on an emotional level, they see it as a hindrance and use it for a scape goat for not being able to teach the material the way they want it, and allow the city kid who has no ambition to just slide without a fight (allowing them to focus on the A students who would learn the material anyways good or bad teaching)
This is not intended to debate the Merits or Deficiencies of No Child Left Behind but to illustrate that people who do not have an emotional connection to their leader they will not follow him but fight him and pout about all the lemons they have vs. if there is a leader who they like they will find a way to make Lemon aid.
Just as Clinton was credited for ending the recession. It wasn't the president it was a sense of optimism the people had about the future. 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.
The emotional choice is actually a better voting technique then trying to figure out where the guys sands on this or that. Because the president cannot create laws only enforce them. If you want to vote on issues do it for you senator and congressman. But the president is more of a figurehead then a issues engine. The emotional section is far more powerful to the United States then the policies.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You do all that and don't actually rig it, just make them question. Yeah -- Mindgames are great!
How difficult is it to vote in the USA? I.e. how much time does it take, is it generally convenient etc?
I ask, because last time I voted for something pointless (the party I was voting for would have won anyway) it was less than five minutes of my time for me to go to the polling station, pick up the form, mark it and drop it in the box. I know there's a lot of people that don't bother with even this, but the extra few % of red votes in the blue state can make a difference -- not in who gets in power, but how they act once they're there.
Exactly. As a conservative, I'm at the opposite end of the political spectrum from most Slashdotters on a lot of issues (although I agree with most of you on issues with technological implications such as net neutrality, privacy, that sort of thing). It's true, I hate the Democratic party with a passion. But over the last four years I've come to hate the Republican party just as much. It's the system that's messed up. We don't have real representation any more. I won't be voting for Obama because I disagree with almost every single policy he has, but I don't trust McCain either. I haven't exactly decided on who yet, but I'll be voting 3rd party this November.
Frankly, I see the pick of Biden as saying "I'll have the voice of experience in my ear, so I know I'm not as likely to be doing something monumentally stupid or unrealistic while trying to change things."
I am officially gone from
Sane with people in states where the population is not even close to evenly distributed. For example, NY. The majority of things are decided by votes cast south of Westchester. Which is a completely different world as compared to upstate.
BOTH US Senators representing New York really represent NYC and Long Island. Upstate NY has no true representation in the Senate.
I'll be on the ballot for the US House of Representatives for Florida's 15th Congressional district.
http://lowing08.com/
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
NO NO NO!!!
Be an election observer of both the machines and the servers. We need a pair of nerd boots of both republican and democrat persuasion at each tally server to ensure that no one can sit down and alter the unencrypted count files. This is the most important nerd activity you do. At the last election all my lawyer friends were working as observers but they were looking for something completely different than the real vote rigging activities.
As for Diebold, we naked short the fuckers into the ground then buy back the stock and refill the board of trustees with people who are not partisans.
Here in Australia you're fined if you don't vote.
As someone who would vote anyway obviously I think it shouldn't be mandatory, because it gives my vote and people like me more sway. But for true democracy I suppose it's better.
The question of whether people are, in general, "qualified" to vote is a tough one I think.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
1. Use a deniable encryption scheme to encode a document which has multiple plaintexts, each describing your intent to rig the election in favour of a different candidate.
2. Send the encrypted multiple-plaintext document to the news media.
3. After the election, send along the appropriate key.
4. Singlehandedly psycho-disenfranchise the electorate without ever doing anything illegal. Good job, you anti-democracy terrorist, you!
There was a really extreme campaign in Florida where Republicans discouraged blacks, Hispanics, and other traditionally Democratic voters from going to the polls
I lived in Florida for five years. There are so many Hispanics there that there are places there you can't buy a pack of cigarettes without knowing how to speak Spanish. However, the Hispanic population is so Republican I doubt seriously you could find a hundred Hispanic Democrats in the whole state. If the Republicans were asking "proof of citizenship" in Floride, they would have shot themselves in the foot.
Methinks they understand Florida quite a bit better than you do.
As to the question "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?" I'd like to know why the submitter thinks that nerds as a whole will be voting Democrat?
I've split my vote on every election, as I imagine most of my fellow nerds do, since by definition nerds are too smart to fall for partisan politics.
This election on the one hand you have a doddering old fool who supports the current clusterfuck of an administration. On the other hand you have a wholly inexperienced political hack from the most corrupt city in the nation, in the most corrupt state in the Union (mine). Here in Illinois we're so patriotic even being dead doen't keep us from voting. Our last Governor is in Prison, our current governor may be there next because of his ties to convicted felon Tony Rezko, who Obama has ties to as well (the Rezko sleazeball has ties to politicians of both Democrat and Republican arms of the Corporate Party).
I'll be voting "none of the above" (Libertarian, Green, or Constitution) this election, as I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate who is beholden to nobody but the corporations again. The DMCA, Bono Act, FISA, PATRIOT act, all were voted in with almost 100% vote from both arms of the Corporate Party. Why should I vote for a person or party who almost always votes against my interest on bills? A pox on both their houses.
If you consider yourself a Democrat or a Republican, I don't think you're smart enough to be a nerd. Sorry, that's my opinion. Real nerds don't fall for Jedi mind tricks.
Whoever wins, I fear that the present Preseident has fuX0red things up so badly that if you vote for the winner, you vote for Herbert Hoover.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Neither Obama or McCain does very well on the issues we care about like Net Neutrality, security theatre by DHS, the Patriot Act, letting the MAFIAA have whatever they want etc. It's too late for this election because what nerds need to do first is make themselves felt as bloc that will fund this candidate or that or votes for this candidate or that based on the things that are important to use.
We also need something like GeekPAC but with a more public image friendly name that actually works to serve as a set of faces politicians learn to associate with these issues. Politicians fear groups like the NRA and AARP. We have the numbers and the dollars to inspire that same sort of respect. It is a matter of leadership.
Tell me about it. Why go through all the effort to implement start="0", as opposed to start="A", "a", "i", "I" (Roman numerals), etc., but not allow start="2", start="3", etc. to start at a number other than 1?
Yes, I know ordinal isn't cardinal, but wft. For 20 extra seconds implementation effort, it buys you a huge extra amount of functionality. Someone needs-a-slappin'.
Also, I don't know if inviting nerds into your campaign is all that good idea, Republican or Democrat. They're the most likely to know about and understand Rand, Julian Simon, and so on, i.e. the flaws with big government and their intervention in the economy. Oh, I'm sure you, dear reader, are vastly superior intellectually to those types of nerds...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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."
You know, I'm actually finding this liberating this election cycle. I typically vote Republican, but I live in King County, Washington (the county that includes Seattle), and based on some of the recent elections, my cynical opinion is that King County will keep counting the votes and finding votes that they somehow magically lost until the Democrats win. It's extremely unlikely that Washington will turn red for the presidential election, so effectively if I vote for McCain, my vote won't count. (I'm not convinced I really even like McCain that much, but I definitely like him better than Obama)
What this means though is can can basically stay out of the battle between McCain and Obama. I'd love to see a third party become more viable, so now I can contribute to that by voting for a third party and at least having my vote show up in the popular vote counts. This time around, if I were to vote for McCain or Obama, my particular vote wouldn't matter that much. I think my vote will actually matter a lot more if I cast it for a third party.
I'm not a citizen of the USA, so I think I have an outsider's perspective on this. To me it looks like there are two Americas. At the risk of a gross over-simplification...
One is the America of Obama, Democrats, people who think torture is wrong, Internet startups, Free Software advocates, scientists, people who believe in reality.
The other is the America of Bush, Republicans, people who think torture is OK, megachurches, fundamentalist preachers, creationists, and people who believe in irrationalist mumbo-jumbo.
I regard the first group as fellow members of Western Civilisation in the tradition of the Enlightenment; the second group, if not enemies, then certainly not ideological allies.