Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election
We made it. It's election day. Tomorrow we'll know. So for today's election discussion story, I'm throwing it wide open: let's discuss the election itself. Who are your picks and why. And also what about your actual experience voting today? Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?
FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%
I like those odds.
MABASPLOOM!
I wrote the following for the blog I recently started ... I come at Politics from an Anabaptist (radical Christian from the 16th century) perspective, so I spend more time justifying the decision to vote in the first place than justifying who I vote for. The blog's at <a href="http://digitalscriptorium.info/">http://digitalscriptorium.info/</a> if you're interested.
--
So, here we are two days short of the election, and I suppose it's finally time for me to make up my mind. I often waver between three choices rather than the usual two:
1. I can not vote at all.
2. I can vote for Obama.
3. I can vote for McCain.
Let me state at the outset that my natural predisposition is not to vote at all. That is the choice that I've taken in the last 3 elections, and a goodly part of me wants to continue the tradition.
Now that I've offended all right-minded and morally straight Christians, in Ameirca and beyond, I hope you'll stick with me long enough to hear why, because my reasoning on this subject will inform my ultimate decision in this election. I believe that, as a Christian, I owe my primary allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and that that allegiance is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of secular government. As Philippians 3.20 says: "our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." I believe that it is no accident that here (as elsewhere) Paul borrows political imagery to describe the church--the church is, in fact, an alternative power structure that should fundamentally subvert traditional power relationships.
Now, I can already see some who will read this jumping up and down, raising their hands, and dying to say, "but we can be citizens of the kingdom of God and citizens of the United States!" Any second now, someone will bring up Romans 13 and think that they've proved me wrong. The problem with this sort of interpretation is that it reads back the political situation of the 4th century into the first, by assuming that Christian participation in government was a real possibility that Paul envisioned in the first century. Let's be clear here: first century Christians were not the rulers, they were the ruled. The issue at hand in the first century was whether Christians should submit to secular government, not whether they should join it. Paul's admonition to make prayers for kings (1Timothy 2.2) is not given so that they may be successful in their secular purposes, but so that the church may live at peace.
There is a reason to suppose that this sharp division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is necessary, which is scripturally attested both in secular political science and in scripture. Scripture first:
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." (John 18.36)
Notice the contrast: there are two sorts of kingdoms. One comes from this world, and (we might say by extension) depends on worldly methods, that is, violence. The other comes from somewhere else, and seems to render violence not so much unnecessary as irrelevant. That is scripture's description of the kingdom of God. Contrariwise, scripture describes the politics (or kingdom) of this world in Romans 13, where world rulers are described as the servants of God "to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13.4b) But these wrongdoers are, to Paul, outside the church. Paul elsewhere envisions the church as having its own judicial function, whose sole sanction is expulsion from the church--see 1Corinthians 5.9-6.8. The division in scripture between the kingdom of this world and the earthly kingdoms is wide, deep, and complete. Our sole relation to them is to "render unto Caesar" by paying taxes, which is the real "take-home point" of Roma
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Yeah. no matter who wins I'm afraid we are on the verge of: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You had better get it straight that it is not a bunch of boy scouts that you are up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We are after power and we mean it. You fellows are pikers, but we know the real trick, and you had better get wise to it. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power that any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ...just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that is the system Mr. Reardon, that is the game, and once you understand it, you will be much easier to deal with."
I voted today in New York State. The poll workers recorded each voter's name and the number the voting machine assigned to his vote. I asked them why and they replied that the board of elections told them to.
What is going on? The board of elections can now see who everybody voted for. I thought we had the right to a secret ballot.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Who are your picks and why.
Third party, since I don't like either main candidate. This happened to be Barr, since I figured he probably has the best (but unfortunately still very small) chance of getting enough votes to scare some sense into the duopoly.
And also what about your actual experience voting today?
I got there at almost exactly 7am (when the polls opened), and the line was almost exactly 1 hour (I finished voting and left at 8:05). There were 10 Diebold voting machines lined up along one wall with no privacy screens, just little flaps on the sides.
Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?
Well, that's kinda hard to know, isn't it? (Some might say that's kinda the point of buying from Diebold.)
...I had the option of either voting by electronic machine or paper ballot. As you might imagine, I chose paper ballot for the simple reason that it leaves unchangeable records. Electronic voting machines are far too easy to manipulate or are far too likely to have glitches. (Especially the Diebold machines based on Microsoft Access.)
The downside is that the Illinois ballots are *bleep*ing insane! First, there's no simple checkbox. Instead, you have these bizarre arrows you have to fill in. i.e.:
You are supposed to draw a line for the vote you want to cast. e.g.:
Which is then complicated by a list of about a bazillion judges to vote in or out of office. No judge runs against another judge, so you simply fill out the arrow or you don't. Incumbent judges have a "Yes/No" option to possibly vote them out of office.
I got up pretty early this morning, so it ended up taking more time to fill out these super-ballots than it did to wait in line. I then went home and listened to WGN ponder why it was taking Obama so long to vote for himself. Perhaps someone should show them one of these ballots! :-P
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I find your intolerance intolerable.
It's outstanding how in an election where I didn't start off hating either candidate, McCain's choice of talking points (and running mate) brought me to the point of incoherent spitting fury...I had to read the transcripts of the last few debates because I couldn't stand to actually listen.
I just refuse to vote for someone who ran a filthy campaign whose only issue was "the other guy sucks." That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.
McCain was a guy I'd have voted for in 2000...Hell, I did vote for him in the primary. And I think this country wouldn't be worse off if he'd been president for the last 8 years. But he sold his soul for the brass ring this time around, and that level of intellectual whoredom I cannot abide.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
most of us know it as the tiny hamlet clser to montreal than anything else in far northern new hampshire that releases its election results shortly after midnight on election day (since there is only 21 people voting there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire#Midnight_voting_tradition
quaint and pointless mostly. this year, they landslided for obama (15 for obama to 6 for mccain)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7707667.stm
why is that notable?
in all previous elections, back to 1968, they landslided republican
so that's an interesting changeup, north country new hampshire, solidly republican, giving us a glimpse of a new trend?
portent of things to come later this evening for the rest of us perhaps?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"...a candidate that not only uses technology to its fullest potential..."
Yeah, like turning off all the validity checking on credit card donations via his web site to facilitate illegal donations.
Agreed. I love how Republicans call him a socialist as if that's a bad thing. they say he reads MArx like that's a negative trait. Have these people got any idea what they're saying?
Snopes has some good articles about myths and urban legends about each candidate.
McCain
Obama
Joe Biden
Sarah Palin
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Just a thought, from a guy who used to work on gambling ("gaming") systems back in the 90s--your average 20-year-old slot machine is light years ahead of a current voting terminal, in terms of the independent multiple party audit capability, internal logging requirements, tamper detection, and ruggedness.
Me, I'll be demanding a paper ballot at my polling place.
Remain calm! All is well!
I voted early, but got a call from the Obama campaign saying that the county hadn't received my ballot (which I mailed). I showed up at the county courthouse yesterday and they were right. I filled out another one.
Voted straight Dem ticket this year, except the county auditor (who was in the room -- small county) who is an R. I figure, the fact that my ballot didn't arrive may not have been his fault, but the fact that I found out about it and was able to correct it is at least partly due to him, so kudos, and 4 more years!
Also I wrote myself in for sheriff. I feel good about that.
Synergy is your friend
Good luck with that. I really hope that Obama's presidency comes out as good a people think it will. I'm not so sure myself. I just don't see where Obama will have any near the level of support in congress to pull off his plans. He just hasn't been a political animal long enough.
I remember Jimmy Carter. He came in with pretty much the same promises that Obama has. Problem with him, like Obama, is he didn't have the political clout to pull it off. What we had was pretty much a lame duck in the Whitehouse for 4 years. That is what I see Obama's presidency is going to be about.
For the record I'm throwing my vote in with the libertarian party this time around.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means. Some of the highest tax rates in the world, yet everybody is looked after so well. Education is of an exceptional standard, and every person from every background is given equal opportunity to do and become whatever they choose. It's basically social capitalism, by which I am implying that raw capitalism *in practice* is one of the most anti-social and dehumanising concepts on earth.
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
even if mccain won, none of the things you say woudl come to pass
your problem is you are confusing popularity with power. certianly, the usa has become immensely unpopular under bush, but it has lost none of its power. continue bush's policies though, and it WOULD lose power, but not because of anything you worte, but simply because america's ability to create and project power would be diminished because of internal factors
for example, before the global economic meltdown over the last 2 months, there was much hemming and hawing about becoming a non-us centered world, economically. however, as the meltdown progressed, the us dollar perversely gained in value. simply because, even though the problem was started in the usa, it was still the most stable thing still standing as the whole world went down with the usa
someday, the usa will indeed not be the center of the world economically and militarily. but it won't be for any of the flowery and powerless popularity contest-level considerations you put forth, but simply becaus esome other country, such as china, will siply be able to create and project economic and military power, again, simply because of internal efforts, having nothign whatsoever to do with what the rest of the world thinks of china
your understanding of how the world actually works is quite... silly
for example: "Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES."
any country that woudl be foolish enough to do that, would see their economy suffer, since americna businessmen wouldn't be able to get in the country and do business. do you know any country then that would give up millions or billions simply to make a statement that they hate americans?
again, learn: popularity is not the same thing as power
it is possible to be deeply hated, but be in complete control
it is also possible, by the way, hint hint, to be loved everywhere you go in the world, but be absolutely powerless to affect any change about any issue you care about
no, the truth is, even if obama wins (and please god, let him win), the usa will be hated by many (and loved by some), and see its power still quite large in the world, but still slowly dimming while china slowly amps up. and this would be true even if mccain won
power!=popularity
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mayan Doomsday: December 21, 2012
Inauguration Day: January 20, 2013
Seems like the Mayans were a bit off...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
If Obama were a Marxist (which is a laughable concept when you take the world view) then you wouldn't be paying tax, you would be returning that which you had stolen from the working classes.
And while we're on the subject I would definitely argue that a negative income tax isn't Marxist or Socialist - the idea was invented by Milton Friedman, the darling economist of those notorious lefties Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
"However, most people believe in... in free markets"
I think that statement is very much open to debate after the last few months. A better statement would be people believe in regulated free markets. Completely free markets would just be handing all the worlds money to a bunch of wolves who are already using the global economy as a giant casino with all the tables rigged in their favor. The challenge is in figuring out the fine line between enough regulation, not enough and to much.
It is certainly true that a number of the economic problems we have were due to government intervention in the markets, like Fanny and Freddy. Government interventions in markets are almost always bad. The current Treasury program to secretly pump $700 billion in to the pockets of the same system where they work is HORRIBLE.
But credit default swaps, for example, were completely unregulated and a sterling example of what happens when you let greedy people do things without any checks and balances. They are an "economic weapon of mass destruction" where people were making billions writing insurance on investment vehicles when they had no mechanism to pay them off if they ever came due. John Cassano made something like $200 million, personally, selling CDS's as a contractor at AIG, When his house of cards collapsed AIG kept paying him $1 million a month because only he knew the entire history of his screwed up division. His tiny division of a couple hundred people took down a giant company of 100,000 people, and created a gigantic gaping hole in the economy its not clear even the Fed can plug if all the CDS's they wrote, come due.
Just ask Alan Greenspan, champion of free markets and less regulation;
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?
ALAN GREENSPAN: That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
He'd discovered that you couldn't trust people or companies to do the right thing when unregulated. He thought people and company wouldn't do stupid things, if it might end in the destruction of their company. He apparently lacked a basic understanding of human greed, in particular if people see an opportunity to make a lot of money in the near term, they don't necessarily care if what they are doing will ultimately lead to calamity, as long as they know they wont be the one paying the price for their misdeeds. They know that once they have their FU money in hand, it doesn't matter if they cause complete devastation in their wake, in fact in many instances they know the company they are intentionally destroying will give them a golden parachute as reward.
@de_machina
Why do Eric Schmidt and Warren Buffett endorse Obama? Because he is for growth-oriented, social democratic capitalism. Growth through innovation, educating your populace, with a safety net, and did I say education?
McCain's capitalism revolves around military contractors and, what I am not unafraid to call plain old imperialism. It is also based on monopoly capitalism - like the monopoly Verizon has over the local loop. Exploiting low-educated workers to the last penny.
The choice of Obama is obvious, unless you're of the worse-is-better school.
I do really wish that we would move past the single-vote plurality system when voting for federal office (President, Senate, House). I like approval voting for its simplicity and its moderating effect. I love the idea that it might be possible to elect a true compromise candidate instead of violently swinging from one extreme to the next.
But that's not what I want the most (nor is it all that likely to happen any time soon).
What I want the most is for the US to finally welcome international inspectors to watch our elections. We expect emerging democracies to admit inspectors, so we really should eat our own dog food. Would it be painful and humiliating? Quite possibly, for the first few years. But it would be a nice step toward shedding our reputation as a nation that says, "Fuck the rest of the world, we're the US-of-goddamn-A." Oh, and it might actually drive improvements to our voting system, just maybe.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
It's not much of a cunning plan. I voted to change whoever is currently there regardless of party.
And when it comes to strengthen the majority party, I'm fine with it for now. The republicans need to be shown that the neocons and fundies are ruining the conservative party. The only way to show them is to have them lose big. I know it's a risky strategy since it could be hard to rollback policies that get through, but Bush and crew have led us to this.
The fact that I disagree with her isn't what made her lose credibility. It was the fact that she didn't know what the hell she was talking about when it came to a number of topics like
Those are reasons why she lost credibility. The fact that I disagree with her on topics of religion, abortions, economic policy, and so on don't affect her credibility.
Ironically the DMV lines in VT and here in AZ aren't long at all, I've always got right in not having to wait longer than 5 minutes.
Of course DMVs are state managed, not federally managed so it's not really an apt analogy anyways unless you're trying to prove why universal health-care would work.
In VT, all children have healthcare and it seems to be working out quite well so far. Of course that's a small scale as the city of Phoenix has a larger population than the whole state of VT. Still, I don't see why it can't work. The problem becomes less about how to individually pay for healthcare and more about paying for training to have more doctors and nurses since the load will increase if everyone is suddenly covered.
That would be an argument to phase in coverage slowly over several years so the system has a chance to ramp up their resources.
There are problems with all systems but I think the problems of a universal healthcare system would be easier to solve than the people today that go bankrupt after a major surgery they needed to save their life.
You are forgetting about the american dream. The dream that one day YOU will be elite, the rich, the powerful. Eat dirt today because tomorrow you will be eating cake. And of course, if you are eating cake tomorrow, you hardly want to share that cake or have it turned into bread for all. No, eat dirt today, because tomorrow...
It is the american dream. If you were cynical, you might see it as a near perfect ploy to keep the masses content. Not that dissimilar to how certain religions do it. Suffer life now, the after-life will see you rewarded. Never mind dear suicide bomber that you are pisspoor despite millions in support to the palestines. Your reward awaits you in heaven, never mind that your leaders life in luxury in the west (check were the palestine leadership lives, and for instance how many millions old beard face had and where he houses his wife)
The american dream tells americans that they too can one day have it all, and since one day they will have it all, why should they then share it or ask those who have it now to share?
Make no mistake, the american dream is the ultimate enslavement tool. Because the truth of course is that NOT everyone can make it, no matter how they try because a capatalist system needs its homeless to allow for the superrich. The american dream at best is an lottery, but one where the winners can buy the winning tickets.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Denmark does have a surplus on oil trade however, we drill less oil per citizen than the US does. If the American spend as little oil as Danes did, the US too would be an oil exporter.