Slashdot Mirror
How We Used To Vote
Mr. Slippery writes "Think hanging chads, illegal purges of the voter rolls, and insecure voting machines are bad? The New Yorker looks back at how we used to vote back in the good old days: 'A man carrying a musket rushed at him. Another threw a brick, knocking him off his feet. George Kyle picked himself up and ran. He never did cast his vote. Nor did his brother, who died of his wounds. The Democratic candidate for Congress, William Harrison, lost to the American Party's Henry Winter Davis. Three months later, when the House of Representatives convened hearings into the election, whose result Harrison contested, Davis's victory was upheld on the ground that any "man of ordinary courage" could have made his way to the polls.' Now I feel like a wuss for complaining about the lack of a voter-verified paper trail." The article notes the American penchant for trying to fix voting problems with technology — starting just after the Revolution. This country didn't use secret ballots, an idea imported from Australia, until quite late in the 19th century.
Think hanging chads, illegal purges of the voter rolls, and insecure voting machines are bad?
Yes.
This doesn't make any sense. No one thought to call the state police, FBI or the media?
More importantly, these statements don't add up:
There were no republicans running in our little township
They also explained how important it was to vote democrat
If no republicans are running, then why go to all the effort?
Something smells in your story.
But don't tell me that you are not already in 10 different databases from the moment you are born. I assume you guys also have to register for a birth certificate, you need to pay taxes at some point so you have a social security number, etc. I really don't see the point.
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
Well to be fair the UK's House of Lords is an unelected body that holds no accountability to anyone and they've looked out for the "average Joe" way more than the elected and accountable house of commons.
You'd be surprised how honest people can be when their job doesn't rely on what the average dimwit thinks.
The U.S. does not have any (official) national citizen database (despite attempts to change that), and the various U.S. states do not have them either. As a result, to be able to vote, voter registration is required.
Two words. Selective Service.
Unless you are a woman, then you don't have to register for selective service. So, the government only has half of the population over 18 in that database.
Even that statement is a bit weak. Women are forbidden from registering with the SS (even if they want to for whatever odd reason). Yes, they can fill out the form but unless they lie about their gender, the SSA simply discards their registration.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
The law is the law, and shouldn't be controlled by current community opinions.
How is that not counter to "by the people, for the people"?
If enough fucktards want to change the law, move elsewhere and watch them get their just deserts.
Informed decisions based on public debate that includes experts on subject matter will probably lead to better decisions than the will of the average mob. But the law is the people's, not the elite's.
It's easy us to look down on people. But consider this: there may be smarter people than us who govern us. Would we want to be cut out of the loop because we weren't elite enough?
Canada sounds similar to Australia, both run their elections via a central statatory body and the people staffing it actually do understand the process and the importance of simplicity and transparancy. If I'm not mistaken there are at least 50 different bodies in the US running the national elections?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Your head is either in the clouds, or in the sand. If you think Bush pushed an Iraq invasion for any purpose but the acquisition of their oil resources, you're doing a great job of ignoring nearly one hundred years of history. This is the fifth time the US and/or Britain have invaded Iraq since oil became the most necessary component of the modern military. You may think it's a coincidence, but I urge you to read something besides opinion pieces.
The Bush White House may be saving him face for the moment, but I haven't seen any compelling argument against the dozen or so books that provide good evidence that he not only ordered the manufacture of the famed letter about Nigerian yellowcake, but went out of his way to have the CIA discredit all evidence - and there was a lot - to the contrary. Defending the president because he's the president is the sincerest imitation of soviet era politics, but so is destroying human rights for the sake of security.
James Kirchick is the former Ralph Nader supporter who couldn't land any writing jobs until he unabashedly began parroting neoconservative talking points, right? Who graduated Yale barely two years ago? What are you, part of the McCain campaign?
And your other source, Norman Podhoretz, is a member of the PNAC. The bias is so deep and obvious I can't even come up with a witty analogy for these two. Bravo.