Slashdot Mirror
Geeks, Geek Issues and Voting
David Allen asks: "Along with everybody else, I've been thinking about who to vote for recently. I've been seriously considering Bill Bradley, or even David McReynolds for President. Now the question: It seems to me that what I'm really looking for is a mixture - somebody who will regulate the Internet insofar as they will keep businesses from violating my privacy, but people who will keep out of the internet, so it can remain a free conduit for information exchange. (No silly crypto laws, freedom of speech and such). There's no mistaking that the internet is a big issue for me. Where do many slashdotters fall along this continuum? There doesn't seem to be a candidate who's willing to go to bat for privacy but not muck around in freedom of information areas. Of course you could always just not vote. Is there a candidate that would fit that bill, and somebody who could really make those things happen?
By the way, for slashdotters interested in getting a decent fix on what each candidate thinks, check out the candidate selector which isn't quite as arrogant as it sounds."
I got a 61 on the Pat Buchanan scale! Other candidates scored higher, but he could be the President that would satisfy all of my deviant homosexual urges.
I shudder when I hear people talk of the Geek Ticket, or the Republican Ticket, or the Democratic Ticket.
I am proud to say that I don't belong to a single political party. Why? Because I make my own decisions. I support the candidate that best fits me, not the candidate with my favorite letter after their name.
I urge all of oyu to engage in some good political discussion and debate, but in the end, make your own choice. Don't let anyone shame you into a choice, and dont be a one-issue voter. Vote for more then just the guy who's best for the Net, because the Net is just a small piece of our world. No one is perfect. Make your choice on the best candidate. And for God's sake, vote. If you don't vote, don't bitch.
Why don't we start our own "Geek" party? Our mascot would obviously be the penguin. I can think of a few open-source programmers who would make pretty good politicians. The ideals held by most open-source people seem to be more ethical than most politicians I've seen. Most modern day politicians just run for personal glory, making issues out of non-issues. I think the "Open Source" candidiate would get things done. Good idea? Bad idea? I just think our current two-party system stinks.
Mike
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
You know, I've never really given Nader much thought. Small potatoes, wasted vote, could never win, etc.
:)
:)
But I sure as hell ain't voting for Bush, and I'm less and less certain of Gore.
So I took the Presidential Candidate Selector. And, much to my surprise, I found that nobody even came close to my beliefs, save for good ol' Ralph Nader. (Though, to my fright, Orrin Hatch showed up, though way down on the list.
Nader really seems to be right up there on the geek ticket, if my results and those of several fellow geeks are any indicator. Anybody know his beliefs on copyrights, patents, etc?
It's clear that he doesn't think much of Microsoft. That's a hell of a start.
Looking at the president only as a way of changed seems a bit short sighted. If we really want to protect privacy online, but not limit business, we need to also look into the senators and congressmen/women. The president can't make the law. Laws go through congress and then to the president.
LBS
Why is it that its easier to write a huge comment here, but I still can't write the first paragraph of that english st
That's what I am thinking about.
I think Clinton's plan of having the government invest a portion of Social Security is about the most God-Awful idea I have ever heard of in my life.
Could you imagine the federal government being an influential shareholder in the 500 largest companies in America!?
I would like to see social security either done away with (for individuals under the age of 30 or so), or the ability to invest a portion of that money into (approved) equities... but YOUR ownership, not the governments.
It would be nice to see a candidate come up with a realistic plan of lowering taxes. Definitely estate taxes (the end-all of the small businessman) and capitla gains taxes, but also income taxes. I really do feel we are paying tad more than our forefathers had ever envisioned.
I have not seen one who has come up with such a plan however.
Hell, I'm a people's person. I read Slashdot. I love computers. I have a significantly low tolerance for frivilous lawsuits. And I like Brocolli. Really, I do.
Anyway, our next president should be a geek. Seriously. What typical politician do YOU know of that sympathizes with the geek community? (Al Gore's "Open Source" website DOES NOT COUNT.) And believe me, we know what we're talking about. For example, when DIVX was introduced, I, as well as many many others predicted it's demise, and LOOK! It's gone.
(Hell, we as a community should run. Slashdot for president?)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Personally, I would like to see the practice of "fusion" legalized and/or instituted in Presidential elections. "Fusion" is the practice whereby multiple political parties can nominate the same candidate. This is a highly useful tool for voters. Here's why:
Third-party candidates have no chance of winning the Presidency; therefore very few people will "waste" their votes on a third-party candidate; therefore... You get the idea. With fusion, a third party can nominate one of the major-party candidates that most closely represents their views. Then when at the polls, one can vote for a third-party ticket without "wasting" one's vote, because the candidate is also a major-party candidate and could win.
For example: Suppose that the Green Party also nominated Al Gore. Then on election day, Gore gets 47% of the vote as a Democrat, and 5% of the vote as a Green. These add up to 52% of the vote, and Gore wins. He also knows that he owes a good chunk of his victory to Greens, and he'd better pay attention to the issues they espouse.
I'd be happier with such a system, though I did vote for Nader in 1996.
From HHGTTG
"Anyone who wanted to be president, shouldn't be allowed to be president"
Presidents, Congressmen, All those bunch should be drafted. It's not a very high paying position so the only advantage to being a president is powah. And we all know powah leads to corruption and sinister stories involving cigars and stained blue dresses.
I hearby draft... um... My parrot.
You are a threat to free speach and must be SILENCED!
Fish! LipHo
People assume that one of the Big Two parties is going to win anyway, and voting for a third party is a waste of a vote. But what if everyone stood back for a second and voted *not* for the most likely candidate, but for the candidate that seemed most likely to be the right person for the job? What if we voted as individuals, not as a pack? Maybe we'd end up with 40 candidates and none get over 10% of the vote. Maybe we'll need a runoff election every four years. But would that be such a bad thing? Maybe it would give a suitable underdog a shot for once.
Myself, I really like Ralph Nader and the Green Party -- he got my vote in 1996 and he'll get it again this year. But a lot of the hackers I know are Libertarians or Free Marketeers or Socialists or whatever, and that's fine. I'm sure there are great candidates in all these camps, really. Why not give them a shot. "Gee Dubya" is pretty obviously an imbecile and a stuffed shirt for his corporate backers -- do you really want to see him win? Is Al Gore, proud internet innovator, any better? Fuck no he's not. The survey at Select Smart isn't a bad place to find a candidate that comes close to your ideology, whatever it may be. And Project Vote Smart is also a pretty good place to learn more. And don't forget about local elections either -- they're less glamorous, but they have far more impact over your day to day life than the high profile CNN elections. Be an informed and active voter above all else. It's worth it.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Q.? Can a political party exist soley on the Net?
/. Party. I should be elected because:
.com that is annoying and stupid.
I hereby nominate myself as the Offical Canidate of the Geek or
I am a geek - and all geeks are superior to other types of humans.
I run Linux. (Distro is kept secret for fear of alienating geek voters)
I can code C,C++,Pascal,Basic,Visual Basic, HTML and have a rudimentary (very poor) knowledge of Perl.
If elected:
I will destroy Windows - and open the WinNT source.
I will destroy etoys.com amazon.com and any other
I will let DeCSS go to the stars (tell DVD guys to go to hell)
I will make the stupids slaves. (This should attract voters.)
Note: The above presentation assumes that only smart people vote. Sadly (I am in Minnesota USA) that is not the case - our gov is Jesse "The Body" Ventura (an ex-pro wrestler whos iq ranges from 1 to 5). While literacy tests and like should not be reinstituted how about making a geeks vote count for 2.
Yes, I vote... but rarely does the canidate of choice get elected.
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
...I think Geeks take themselves way too seriously when they talk of building their own political platform. Geekdom is hardly broad enough to warrant its own ticket.
Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen so I can't vote myself, but I do live in the US, and what happens in the US has a big effect on the rest of the world, so I do care about this.
To me, the big issue is simply campaign finance reform. Behind most of the evil legislation that's passed these days, you can see the shadowy hand of corporate lobbying and influence. It's a sickness that is destroying democracy in this country (and elsewhere).
Basing your vote on other issues is futile: it doesn't matter who's the President or what they try to do, as long as corporations have a lock on the legislative process.
So therefore I favour John McCain. Sure, he may have some odious positions on Net censorship and other things, but the fact is he has a track record of trying to deal with the corruption at the core of the political system. It's pointless to hack away at the branches of the tree of evil and ignore the root (apologies to someone-or-another for the quote).
As the campaign unfolds many people may make all kinds of promises for reform, but we all know those promises are worthless. Vote on the track record.
I don't think there can be an ideal geek ticket. We are all way too different. The Internet "elite" often gets sterotyped into a conservative, quasi-Libertarian type of group - but in the first 4 posts in this subject I saw a socialist and somebody supporting Ralph"corporations are evil" Nader. We all have different beliefs, different backgrounds, and ultimately we all want different things from government. Personally, I want government to leave me alone - to stop regulating every aspect of my behavior and to stop using the police power of government to take about 40% of my gross earnings to redistribute to other parties who have absolutely no claim on my personal output.
I'll be voting Libertaian - probably Harry Browne as he seems to be the leading candidate to win the nomination. You can learn more about Harry at http://www.browne2000.org
I'm 31 and have been voting in Presidential elections since '88. Usually I vote Democrat in federal and state elections, because I prefer most of the stated Democrat policies over Republican. But I'm just disgusted with huge soft money donations, lobbyists writing the bills that our legislators pass (along with another contribution), and the many riders and procedural tricks legislators use to subvert debate in what was supposed to be an open and public legislative forum.
I'd like to support the Reform ticket, but there's no way in hell I'll vote for Pat Buchanan. I'm actually considering joining the Republican party just so I can vote for McCain in the primary, because of his support for the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform legislation... and I think he stands a better chance against Bush than Bradley does against Gore.
Honestly I like both McCain and Bradley more than I like the entrenched Gore and Bush and if either of them wind up in the general election I'll probably vote Democrat or Republican based on this and not party politics.
I am SICK of party politics! The constant fighting between these two behemouths is affecting our democracy/republic in very dangerous ways... I honestly feel very disenfranchised from our political system -- which as a middle class computer geek if I'm the norm then our leaders better wake up. The current duality and conflict between just two parties has turned far too corrupt leaving us citizens holding the bag time and again.
What about a multi party system based on proportional representation like Germany has? I think if we could reform campaign finance and create a system with more than two parties we might gain the citizen's trust in the political system once again. Obviously, the only way for citizens to trust their government is if the government's representatives actually act in the citizen's interests, and that's clearly not happening with our current political system.
I think, whether we have to put up with McCain, Forbes, Gore, or Bradley will be generally okay. The only real threatening candidate is Bush.
In the end though, research the candidates yourself. Don't rely on the superficial mass media reports, but spend some time using the vast resources of the Internet to probe their positions, and reach your own decision. Do vote because our democracy is not a sham unless you believe it is.
What a poor joke the American political system really is.
-too fucked to drink.
It is still early enough in the race to consider a meta-view of what this is all about. I suggest the chapter T he Political Marketplace from David Friedman's book Price Theory: An Intermediate Text. I think the average Slashdot reader can handle the math. Friedman gives a lengthy discussion of the undesirability of tariffs. If that doesn't interest you, or you don't like all that math, skip to the section labelled, PUBLIC CHOICE: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE POLITICAL MARKET about halfway through.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
To be prez of the USA, you have to be over 35, born in USA, and lived in USA for a certain amount of time (I think it's 14 years, but that may be the speed..er caffeine... talking). Leaves out a good many hackers and general /. populace (myself included).
Actually, I just checked, and 14 is correct. I'm amazed. Some of my 9th grade civics is still there after all these years!
Eric
Try again with more 'don't care' boxes checked on the issues you don't feel as strongly about.
Not likely.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the American electoral system (which, unfortunately, includes a great many Americans), here's what happens if nobody gets a majority of the electoral votes (actual popular votes only decide which candidate the electoral votes of a state go to):
Which means, that if no candidate gets a majority of the vote, it goes to the house, the Republicans vote for Bush, the Democrats vote for Gore, and Bush gets elected (which might be the lesser of two evils).
Just my $.02 to clear things up.
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
And this concludes my post. You may now moderate me down per the dogmatic policies.
To me it seems strange to presume that all geeks will agree on any set of issues.
Are all geeks pro-choice?
Do geeks want affirmative action to continue?
How about drug controls? More? Less?
OK the majority probably feel that Evolution should be taught, but really how many issues do geeks really agree on? Yes many probably agree on the laws governing the internet. But that's probably not even going to be much of an issue. Maybe we should make it one.
-cpd
And what, presently, is the population and land area of Switzerland?
It's easier to have direct representation in these circumstances.
as for my own opinions, I have voted in every election here in Toronto since I became eligible:
If ya don't vote, ya don't get the right to bitch.
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
We are certainly independent thinkers the rest of the time.
Actually, the geek stereotype is one of the most common and well-known stereotypes that there is. The fact that you're at Slashdot and trying to explain what an independent thinker you are shows that you're doing a good job of fitting that stereotype. It's hard to take the group seriously as a bunch of free-thinkers when they're falling all over themselves to act just like everyone else. It's just like the little goth kiddies who think they're so independent, even though they all dress and act alike.
I'm an independent thinker, and I wanna be unique! (Just like everybody else)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
The current Slashdot Poll is getting stale anyway. Why not make the 2000 election the next poll. Take the complete list of candidates from the candidate selector and see who we say we'd vote for. CmdrTaco, Hemos, are you listening?
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
I want all the presidential candidates to undergo Voight-Kampff testing. I'd be a lot happier about Al Gore if I knew for sure whether or not he was a replicant (Not That There's Anything Wrong With That). Also, given that Voight-Kampff tests for normal human empathic response, it might also prove whether such a thing as a "compassionate conservative" really exists.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
For a political party to be "official" in most U.S. states, it needs to get a certain percentage of votes in a statewide election. For a party to get U.S. matching funds for a presidential campaign, it needs to have gotten a certain percentage of votes in the previous presidential campaign.
Many state Green Parties are vying for official status with this election, and the Association of State Green Parties is working to get matching funds for the next election. So a vote for Ralph Nader is an important step in breaking up the current two party system. (If the Republicans and Democrats even count as different parties.)
-Dave Barker, Green Party member,
http://cr@zyuncledave.com
Just because I'm a geek, what does this tell you about my opinions on:
- abortion
- welfare
- homosexuality
- civil rights
- church-state separation
- taxation
- defense spending
- market freedom
- monetary policy
- foreign policy
- immigration
- economic theory
- judicial activism
- gun control
- freedom of expression
or any other important political issue by which I might choose a candidate for high office?Political opinions among the geeks who are my friends and coworkers ranges from radical leftism, to centrist liberalism, to free market libertarianism, to fiscal conservatism, to right wing religious radicalism, all the way to outright apathy. While we may usually agree on what is a good or bad technical issue, it is rare indeed for us to agree about the broader issues that govern our lives and how we cast our votes.
I would as soon vote for a geek-centered candidate as I would vote for a candidate running on a platform emphasizing only their stand on abortion or foreign policy. These may be important issues in an election but they are not the only issues. The same goes for geek/technology issues.
"I am proud to say that I don't belong to a single political party. Why? Because I make my own decisions. I support the candidate that best fits me, not the candidate with my favorite letter after their name."
Makes sense to me. But I didn't really think all that many people really identify themselves with republicans or democrats so strongly that they don't make their own decisions. It's just that the parties tend to fall in a certain spectrum. For example, if you feel strongly about the need to regulate gigantic businesses through legislation, it's pretty bloody unlikely that you're going to vote republican. Similarly, if you want to get rid of welfame and affirmitive action, I would think it would be very rare that the democrats would put somebody up that you'd want to vote for.
I was the guy who submitted the question - hopefully you checked out the David McReynolds link. I've been thinking more and more about voting for him if I see him on the ticket in my state. (Unfortunately, I find myself in Virginia) I agree with his views more than any other candidate, with some small nitpicking exceptions. In general though, I think it's worth voting for him even though I know he can't win, because IMHO (and I know this could draw flame because other people tend to have NSHO's) a vote for a third party candidate is like a protest vote, or equivalent to a "vote of no confidence"
For those of you who have ever heard any spoken word performances by Jello Biafra (yes, that's his name) he suggested something quite interesting - running the election as usual with an extra option - you could vote "No Confidence" on as many candidates as you wanted. And if any candidate had more than X% (where X is determined through the democratic process) of no confidence votes, the election would have to be redone, BARRING that candidate from the "redo" election, because voters had voted him off the ticket.
You would have to redo the whole thing though, since if there are two candidates, and one gets 60% no confidence, the guy who actually wins obviously wasn't running against a worthy opponent in the public's view. (i.e. it wasn't so much that he was good, but rather "The lesser of the two evils"
My ~3.2 Pfennigs
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
If you don't want to vote, that's fine. You can just say you'd rather play quake or whatever, that you don't care who wins.
But claiming you won't vote because of the electoral college is a complete cop out.
First, there are other issues of the ballet, that are not decided by the electoral college. These are worth voting on.
Second, not voting is a show of support for the current system, with the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans. They are currently enjoying the status quo, and will do nothing to change it.
The only way we will ever get rid of the electoral college is to shake things out of this rut, and topple the two parties currently in control.
If you really want to get rid of the electoral college, go out and vote for ANY third party. It won't help overnight, but it will help get us there sooner.
Actually, not voting does not mean that you're apathetic or that you don't give a damn. Check out the link in the article that's on the words "not vote" (I'm not looking at the story at the moment, I don't have the text)
It has a link to a site with a large number of philosophical reasons to stay home and avoid voting. And it's not about apathy.
A quote by Jello Biafra comes to mind - I don't really buy it, but it just popped into my head for some reason - "If voting CHANGED anything, they'd make it ILLEGAL. The Republicans are on the outside what the democrats are on the inside"
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Ralph Nader Pro gun? I think not. Anyone who supports the Brady bill in any form cannot have a label of "Pro Gun" when the Brady bill is just the first step toward greater gun control. It happened in Australia, Great Britain and now Canada, and you can be sure the same tactics are working in the US as well.
Personally, I got Harry Browne, a libertarian candidate at the top of my list - but unfortunately it gave me some socialist ass as #3 (completely the oppositve on most of my views).
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Good thing I voted for him in the last election... (now, how many of you out there even realized you had the choice when all you ever heard about was Bill Clinton or Bob Dole?)
... quantum physicist" - just like myself and the man of the century...! And he's also challenging for the Reform party nomination. Then I remembered where I'd heard of the guy - anybody remember the Maharishi International University with the bouncing transcendental meditators? Hagelin was their token physicist, and he'd previously recommended transcendental meditation as the solution to crime in Washington DC (crime was up the day they tried the experiment). More info at
Of course a lot of the items I expressed no particular opinion on - however what I would have preferred would be an option to keep the status quo, without radical change either on one side or the other (for example, affirmative action - I don't want to vote for somebody who vows to never let it be changed, but on the other hand I don't want to vote for a racist either). Be that as it may, here's the scores I came up with:
Ralph Nader: 76
Bill Bradley: 69
John Hagelin: 69
Al Gore: 64
Warren Beatty: 54
John McCain: 48
Howard Phillips: 33
Donald Trump: 32
Pat Buchanan: 29
George W. Bush: 29
Steve Forbes: 27
Gary Bauer: 23
Orrin Hatch: 22
Harry Browne: 15
Alan Keyes: 10
The only surprise there (other than how poorly that moron Bush did) was John Hagelin. I'd heard of him, but couldn't remember where. The Natural Law Party platform does look like one I could support. And he's a "PhD
http://www.politics1.com/nlp.htm.
Hagelin is "director of Maharishi University of Management's Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy". He "follows the teachings of His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi". The institute publishes on the "Maharishi effect". Weird stuff. I don't want to be a religious bigot or anything, but I've got to wonder if there's some undercurrent here we should be concerned about...
Energy: time to change the picture.
Well, If I were able to vote next year I'd be voting for Harry Browne. He's the Libertarian Party canidate.
As for the best possible presidential canidate I can think of... ESR for president!
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
[As stolen by me from snpp.com]
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
-- "Treehouse of Horror VII"
The next day, Kodos announces the result: "All hail, President Kang."
The field in front of the Capitol has now become a working ground
where humans are whipped by aliens and used to carry materials.
The Simpsons family is working too, with Homer and the kids carrying
wood, and Marge pushing a wheelbarrow of cinderblocks -- with Maggie
on top.
Marge: I don't understand why we have to build a ray gun to aim at a
planet I never even heard of.
Homer: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
It should be noted that Buchannan, Hatch, Keyes, Forbes and Bauer are similar to Browne in supporting gun rights. But all of these candidates (except Browne) are too fascist for me. Browne is Libertarian, which I have some issues with, although nowhere nearly as many as with the GOP in general.
Finding God in a Dog
If that's your criteria, I'd go with Al Franken in a heartbeat. I'd vote for him anyway, tho.
Umm, most libertarians have always acknowledged that military projects, such as DARPA, are valid functions of government. DARPA may have provided the backbone, but the Internet as it exists today is almost entirely the product of freedom and capitalism.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I agree that fusion should be legalized in the U.S. I believe it is currently only legal in New York state (and possibly a smattering of other places).
Of course, speaking as a member of the Green Party of Michigan and follower of third party politics it is highly unlikely the Greens would nominate Al Gore.
Speaking of the Greens, Nader is again the forerunner to receive the Green Party nomination for president. Last time he spent less than $5,000, only one in seven voters even knew he was running, and still came in fourth. This time he has promised to do real campaigning and real fundraising. Help Nader out.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that you are elected President of the United States. Further assume that you have the power to enact or overturn any piece of legislation and that the Congress will back you up on it. Would you overturn Roe vs. Wade? What sort of effect do you think that would have on the number of abortions performed in the United States?
:-)
I think that any reasonable person would agree that the country would be better off if there were fewer abortions. I mean, nobody runs around saying "Gee, we need more abortions in this country!" But legalized abortion, as it exists now, is only a mechanism. If you remove the mechanism without doing anything to address the problem, another mechanism will spring up in its place.
I wish we lived in a country where we didn't have to deal with rape. I wish we lived in a country where we didn't have to deal with incest. Where we didn't have to deal with pregant heroin addicts. Where we didn't have to deal with rampant unsafe, unprotected sex. Where we didn't have to deal with single mothers living in filth and squalor. And on, and on, and on. Yes, I wish we lived in a country like that, but we don't. And it doesn't do anybody a bit of good to pretend that we do.
This is why I'm amused by people like Gary Bauer who sanctimoniously proclaim "If I'm elected president, abortion-on-demand will end!" Beg pardon? How naive can you get? I'll say it again: legalized abortion is only a mechanism, and if you take one mechanism away, another will spring up in its place. All that you've really taken away is the ability of a woman to have access to a safe (albeit unpleasant) medical procedure. If a woman needs the procedure, she'll still be able to get it from some back-alley butcher. Or perhaps a guy that her older brother knows will set her up with some black-market European abortion pill for a couple of Benjamins.
If you want to work to reduce and eventually eliminate abortions, then I say: fine! It's a noble effort. But if you're going to do it, do it right. Work to alleviate the problems that I enumerated above. Stop and ask yourself why women get abortions, and concentrate your efforts on attacking those problems, because if you do that, then abortion becomes superfluous! It would no longer be necessary! But don't say "Hey, I'm going to sign this piece of legislation and that will be it", because I'll tell you what: Women were getting abortions before Roe v. Wade, and if a right-wing president and a right-wing Congress overturns it, they'll still be getting abortions after it, unless you focus on the core problems.
I guess you could call me strongly pro-choice, but strongly anti-abortion.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
This platform was used by a character in Robert Anton Wilson's "Schroedinger's Cat Trilogy", and now constitutes my minimum standard for candidates. If they won't work for life extension and an economy based on something better than wage slavery and taxation, then i'm ignoring them. In the ideal world, there would be no death or taxes. A true idealist should expect no less from a candidate.
---
120
chars is barely sufficient
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
Alan Keyes is the African American candidate in this race. He's got a PhD from Harvard. He's also anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights, which is enough to eliminate him as a candidate for my vote.
Finding God in a Dog
I think that many potential candidates that people believe in get otherwise eliminated because people don't want to 'waste' there vote. Thus the candidate doesn't get the support they need to win, or to even look competitive, and it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Thus, to solve this problem, I propose the following- Any non-major candidate that may have decent prospects of winning should propose the following - that each of those who would desire to see him/her win, vote in a pre-election (online or a similar methodology)- If a sufficient number of votes are recieved to suggest a win, or a close race even- then they should be encouraged to vote in the primary for that candidate. If not, then the voters should be encouraged to vote for whom they would have chosen as second best, or alternatively the candidate may suggest whom they would like the votes cast for and why...
Thanks,
LetterRip
because once you start regulating somewhere, where is the limit?
'Slippery slope' arguments sound really good, but in fact they only really apply to actual tangible slopes which happen to have low-friction surfaces. The Internet is already regulated otherwise it wouldn't work. Think DNS. Or how about if someone defrauds you in an online sale; would you prefer that he get away scott-free in the interest of non-regulation?
Instead of mindless opposing 'Regulation' in all forms, take some time to think about what (specifically) you think should be free of regulation (and why), and what kinds of regulation the rest should have (and why). That's called a position; otherwise it's the worst form of naive idealism.
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Bill Bradley, is that the African-American?
No, but he did play professional basketball... however, that does not make him black.
Interestingly, the only African-American candidate on the list, Alan Keyes, also seems to be one of the most conservative. After I took the poll, he was at the bottom. With a score of 4. Only 4. I can tell that if his views determined where this country was going, I'd be going to another country. But I guess I'm an extremely liberal person (80 for Ralph Nader, 79 for Bill Bradley).
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Depends on the position. I suspect that
would be considered more than "just left of centre" even in many of the European social democracies - didn't the British Labour Party "abandon that goal" (although I have the impression not all members approved of that) in the past couple of years or so? (I'd check out their Web site, but it appears to have been designed by Yet Another Damn Javascript Rules OK Web designer - I select "Our policies" under "What are you looking for?", but see no sign of a "Go" button, so my suspicion is that it expects you to be running Javascript so that the page's code can take you there as soon as you select it; sorry, I'm running Netscape on a UNIX-flavored OS, and the main function of Javascript on those platforms appears to be to create files in your current directory with "core" in the name. BTW, the page in question has "Build and powered by Oracle", etc., on it; I'm not sure whether Oracle counts as one of the "commanding heights of industry" or not.)
I suspect the "maximum wage" proposal of no more than a 4x difference between minimum and maximum wages might be considered more than "just left of centre" in at least some of those countries as well; they have lower wage differences than the US, some significantly lower as far as I know, but I don't know how many of them have only a 4x difference.
On the other hand, more stringent gun control, a universal health plan, and a drug policy other than "fill up the prisons" would, I suspect, not even be considered left of center in most other industrialized countries. Various of those have, in the past, been proposed in the US by politicans other than those from the Socialist Party.
Yes, the center, in US politics, is significantly further to the right than the center in other countries (not that the centers in other countries are necessarily clustered closely together; I have the impression that the center in the UK would be to the right of the center in France, for example). I'm not sure that McReynolds would be only slightly to the left of center in other countries, however; I think that's a bit of an exaggeration of the situation.
(Personally, I wish the center in the US were further to the left. I suspect there are other "geeks" in the US who'd like to see it further to the left, some who'd like to see it further to the right, and some who think it's fine where it is. If you move from a one-dimensional scale to a multi-dimensional scale, to account for the fact that there isn't a 100% correlation between views on government health insurance and views on the minimum wage and views on free trade and views on teaching evolution in the schools and views on homosexuality and views on feminism and..., I suspect, as others have indicated, that the "geek community" wouldn't cluster narrowly in a small region of that space, although they might be less widely distributed than the population as a whole.
BTW, I'm not saying there's no correlation between views on various issues, I'm saying it's not 100%, and it's probably not 99%, either.)
I submitted this story yesterday but it was rejected. Here it is roughly as I remember it:
I recommend that slashdot members nominate a representative. Here are a few questions to consider:
I visited the FEC web site today. It gives this description of the committee:
Here's a few useful links:
The New York Times' Story written by Jeri Clausing.
She may be a good contact on the issue.
The FEC site- includes a link to an acrobat file describing the committee and the nominating process.
Nominations are due by January 5. Nominees must be able to attend meetings on
Feb. 4, Feb. 25, March 31, and April 28. The meetings are open to the public. We could see whether C-SPAN will cover them.
--------------
My personal website, openpolitics.com, is offline for the Christmas break.
Other than the "I have a problem with destroying farmland with concrete jungles" part (where they might agree, but not think the Government should do anything about it other than not encourage it by subsidizing it either directly or indirectly), I suspect Harry Browne should've been the one it picked for you.
In order to check whether the selector included Harry Browne, I entered what I thought would be the "hard-core Libertarian" choices, and it did put Harry Browne at the top...
...followed by Alan Keyes (I hit the "social issues" buttons pretty hard on the Libertarian side; I don't know whether it weighted them differently, or if the neutral stance I took on some - e.g., gay rights, as I suspect Libertarians would, in general, oppose both sodomy laws, etc. and anti-discrimination laws affecting private citizens - helped him out, or if he's just not as hard-assed on those issues as some of the other "social conservatives", or what).
I'm curious precisely how it makes its guesses about how well various candidates' positions fit somebody's positions. Does it give some answers a greater weight, based on, for example, a notion of how strongly people tend to believe in their positions on those issues?
BTW, Nader was so far down the list I didn't even notice his name. So I am very curious as to why so many "geek" posters like the guy so much.
Which leads me to an idea for Rob and the gang... Maybe /. can run a set of polls over a few days with the same questions so we can see how the /. geek voice looks -- then enter the results into the SmartSelector (after all the polls are done) and see how the candidates are ranked accordingly. (Personally I'd have an initial poll which would rate which questions /.'ers found most important, then run the polls in that order. Betcha by the time the polls were done, the whole 'Net media world would be watching for the results. Comments anyone?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Some stand. If voting means you have miniscule power, not voting means you've effectively given those who do vote the right to speak for you. At that point, you may as well be a non-citizen.
Someone once said that democracy is like three wolves and a sheep voting on breakfast. Constitutional Democracy forbids such a vote. On the other hand, if the sheep decide not to excercise their rights, the wolves can simply ignore the Constitution. This might explain the government we have today, in fact.
Besides, who the fsck counts non-voters? I sure don't. All non-voting says to anyone is that you're too lazy to participate. Voter strike has to be the most brain-damaged protest concept I've ever heard of, period. No offense.
Finding God in a Dog
Well, if anyone, not Bush.
Bush is a governor-backed governor. As you know, governors are "losing" a lot of sales tax to ebusiness. Of all the candidates, Bush was the most reluctant to maintain that the tax ban be pushed back a bit more (note - note indefinately).
It also appears Bush might be the most of inept of the candidates about technology (my own impression there). Al Gore seems semi-clueful...but I personally don't agree with all his views. Bill Bradley seems a bit more open-minded, and all encompassing. His views involve querying all possibilities, and then coming to a consensus, instead of thinking "My idea is Hot Shit - agree with me!" I have no idea about McCain, but of all the Republicans he seems to least dangerous and most approachable.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
They forgot to include the rights of unborn babies
In my book unborn babies shouldn't have any more rights than do dogs and cats (and before someone flames me, I am not a PETAphile err... animal rights nut). We put hudreds unwanted dogs and cats to sleep every day. Nobody likes doing that, but it is an unfortunate reality. Let me ask you this: Would you send a baby home with someone who wants to abort it? I think maybe abortion is the more humane things. Be realistic, what every baby deserves is to have parents that want it and can take care of it, can support it and can do what is necessary to bring it up to be a good and productive member of society. Abstinance is a religious nut's pipe dream. It just isn't going to happen. Birth control of course is what really should happen -- but of course it isn't 100% effective, and sometimes people don't use it when they should (again I ask, should we send home babies with people with judgement as bad as that?) Adoption is a valid option in many cases, but it isn't the right thing for every situation of an unwanted pregnancy. Not to mention that many babies are essentially unadoptable (those that aren't white healthy newborns are unfortunately unlikely to get adopted). I don't see why it is a good thing for every baby that would be born with birth defects, drug addicted or AIDS infected to be forced to be carried to term.
I don't consider the anti-abortion stance to be consistant with conservatism either, at least not fiscal conservatism. It is much more cost effective to abort a baby than pay for 18 years of welfare for mother and child followed most likely by a lifetime of either welfare or incarceration for the kid who is likely to have grown up neglected and/or abused. Sure, that doesn't always happen, but unwanted kids usually grow up (or sometimes don't) with two strikes against them from the beginning.
Call me a cold hearted, callous person (you wouldn't be the first one), but I am unappologetic about looking at this from what I would consider to be a calm and rational viewpoint.
I think it is better to concentrate on taking care of the children that are already born before we worry about the rights of the unborn.
is he an American citizen?
No, he is a Mexican citizen, and therefore not elegible to run for the office of President of the United States. In fact, even if he were to become a naturalized citizen of the US, he still could not become the US President under the rules which state you must be born on US soil in order to be President.
When I can vote, you can bet it won't be for any politicians. I'll be writing in people I know and trust
While a somewhat noble jesture, it is essentially throwing your vote away unless you can convince a lot of other people to write in your choice. I don't like voting for the lesser of evils much either, and I have occasionally written in someone when I absolutely couldn't stomach any of the candidates running (usually someone who is running unopposed), but it is not something I make a standard practice of. Unfortunately that often does mean that I am voting for someone I don't like very much in favor of someone I really dislike.
May I suggest that perhaps you would be better off trying to convince those people you know and trust to seek the nomination for offices for which they might be able to make a difference in? If they can't find an established party they can live with, candidates can usually be put on the ballot by means of gathering enough signatures on a petition. A candidate even without a party has a much better chance of getting elected if they are on the ballot instead of a write in. Even minor party candidates generally get far more votes than do total independants on the ballot. And the unfortunate reality is that most of the time, one or the other of the major party candidates will be the one that gets elected. I'm not saying that there isn't a reason for people to run for office even
One thing I'd really like to see is a requirement that a candidate has to get more than 50% of the vote to get elected (even in a 3-way race). I am a bit torn between forcing a run-off between the top two vote getters or whether we should do something like have an option for 'none of the above'. If none-of-the-above won, then all of the current candidates on the ballot would be disqualified and we'd have to have a new primary to select new candidates. I think that might allow us to get rid of some of the real turkeys by forcing the parties to give us candidates that don't totally suck.
Libertarianism says that what the US Government is doing with M$ is wrong
Don't confuse Ryndianism with Libertarianism. Not all Libertarians think what is happening to Microsoft is wrong.
We don't give absolute power to government, we shouldn't give absolute power to business, either.
That is almost exactly how I feel about it. The thing that Microsoft has done wrong is that they have conspired to infringe on all of their competitor's rights to compete fairly. While we should legislate as little as possible, if a given market has continuously proven that it cannot correct itself (which generally only seems to happen when one company resorts to anti-competitive measures such as Microsoft has been found to), then unfortunately the government may not have much choice but to act to help restore a balance.
If Microsoft had really gotten their monopoly position through building a better product, doing a better job of marketing or distributing it, etc, then I'd be against breaking them up. Unfortunately, it seems indisputable that their reliance on dirty tricks and anticompetitive behavior has at least as much to do with their financial success as anything else.
Why the hell are we paying for 'non-critical' portions in the first place? If they aren't important, lets just cut them out permanently.
Honestly, people complain about the "two-party" system, but that's not the problem America has. We can get third-party (and in many cases, fourth-party, fifth-party, etc.) candidates on the ticket, but people, even if they prefer the underdog to one of the major party candidates, still don't vote for him. Why?
.3245 votes to each candidate, so they could rank them by preference... but stupid people would think that was too complicated, and stupid people have a vast majority vote no matter what system you use to count them...
Because except for the "protest vote" value, it doesn't pay to vote for a candidate that doesn't have a good chance of winning. Whine all you want about how you're not "throwing your vote away", but this is a real problem.
Hypothetical election: If McCain (who's my favorite of the current candidates, BTW), Gore, and the Perfect Libertarian Geek candidate are on the ballot in the presidential election, I'm probably still going to vote for McCain, lest the Perfect Geek siphon off enough Republican votes to cause Gore to win. If 30% of the voters preferences run "McCain,Geek,Gore", 30% run "Geek,McCain,Gore", and 40% run "Gore,McCain,Geek", then if everybody voted for the candidate they liked best then you'd end up with *more* people unhappy with the election results.
There's an essay in _A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper_ (great book, worth buying or borrowing; sorry I forget the author) about the quirks of voter preferences in multi-candidate elections - in it the author presents a hypothetical election with 5 candidates, and 5 fair-sounding ways (including the plurality vote) of determining a winner.. except that a different candidate would be chosen the winner by each method.
People have talked about "None of the above" votes and other different systems that would force a new election... but we shouldn't *have* to have election after election to choose between the same group of candidates. And besides, while "None of the above" might help in cases where neither party puts up a good candidate, it does nothing for cases where a third party candidate is marginalized because of a close race between the major parties.
What I'd like to see, personally, is an election system where each voter can vote "Yes" or "No" for each candidate, and the candidate with the largest majority of "Yes" votes wins. (Or a new election is held if no candidate gets a majority). That way, if no party puts up a good candidate, then a new election must be held. If a good third party candidate is running in a race where the two leading parties are close in votes, then voters can safely vote for *both* the underdog and their favorite of the leading candidates, giving the third party entry a chance without risking "throwing their vote away". We wouldn't have to worry about the Greens "stealing Democrat votes" or the Libertarians "stealing Republican votes" anymore, and nobody would ever be "throwing their vote away". And if people were really fed up with all the candidates, they could vote "No" to all of them and get a new batch.
Of course, since such a system:
a. Is change, and therefore "scaaarry"
b. Is threatening to both the entrenched parties
it'll never happen.
And of course, what I'd *really* like to see is the ability for people to give 0 votes, 1 vote, or
I was a campaign manager in two elections for the state house. Most of the so called reform is one group trying to prevent it's opponents from making contributions. The real problem is the Goverment has assumed too much power. Most contributions are made because someone wants to use the goverment as a club to beat someone over the head OR because someone is trying to keep from getting beat over the head. Limit the power of the Goverment and you will find the contributions drying up.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
In theory, he could be eligible to run for President in the (very unlikely) event that wherever he was born in Mexico was ever annexed by the United States. That's where the "14 years" clause in the qualifications for office comes in. I don't know how exactly the interpretation would come down on that if it were ever litigated, though I suspect for reasons of expediency (if nothing else) any citizen of the former sovereign would be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen.
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
3. Has nothing to gain from being President. This probably precludes anyone who actually wants to be President. If you want to be President, you're probably not qualified.
Reminds me of an Arthur C. Clarke novel I once read ("Children of a Distant Sun" or somesuch). The colony had a constitution that basically forbade anyone who wanted to be the leader from doing it, and the person was chosen randomly. I think; it's been eons since I read it.
Of course, then some refugees from Earth show up and all hell breaks loose...
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
Well said. It concerns me that just because I support Free Software, many might expect me to agree with ESR (for example) on issues of extreme libertarianism and gun control.
--
'Nuff said.
- Harry S Truman's re-election. The Republican party thought that their candidate was a shoe-in (easy winner), and was very much the candidate of the "elites". The Democratic party machinery (which put Truman in the Vice Presidency in '44, only to have FDR die on them) didn't support Truman very well either. So Truman hops on a train and proceeds to get out the vote of "the ones who didn't matter" to the elites, and wins the Presidency. (IMHO one of our best Presidents, by the way.)
- IIRC, John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election in a margin narrower than any other election this century. IIRC the margin was so narrow that if a few thousand voters in the City of Chicago had voted the other way, or even not voted, Nixon would have been President in 1960, not 1968. Now then, I have heard that the Daley political machine may have had an undue (essentially controlling) influence on much of the vote, but if a large number of people had not cast their votes one by one for Kennedy throughout the rest of the State of Illinois, Chicago wouldn't have mattered.
So, as flawed as the system may be, votes count. Especially in shaping the local and state judiciaries and legislatures, which is where the future national leaders come from.That's why they call it participatory democracy. And BTW, the U.S. isn't actually a democracy, it's a republic with democratically elected officials.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
This is kind of a pet peeve with me.
The problem with third party candidates in this country is that our system assumes that the relationship of candidate preference is transitive when applied over the electorate. Mathematically, this is not the case, that is to say, it is not the case that if A > B and B > C then A > C. This is like the rock/scissors/paper game. It is quite possible that 2/3 of the electorate prefer A to B, 2/3 prefer B to C, and 2/3 prefer C to A.
This leads to "strategic voting", where you vote atainst your own preferences to avoid a worse outcome. If it comes down to Gore/Bush, I'll vote for Gore though perhaps Nader would be a better choice.
If you took the political theory of Declaration of Independence seriously, you would choose the candidate that the most people would assent to be governed by. That is to say, I should be able to vote for Nader, and also for Gore (or Bradley) if I would find it acceptable to be governed by either. When you added up each candidate's votes, you would get a count of how many people find him acceptable for the job.
The relationship of being acceptable to more people is transitive. This mathematical advantage also has important practical advantages. It would empower third party candidates, who would no longer be caught in a catch 22 phenomenon of unelectability. It would eliminate the need of candidates to pander to political extremes. It would prevent extremist political factions from gaining disproportinate power by their ability to make or break coalitions (like the religious right here, or to a greater degree in Israel). However no minorities would be come irrelevant due to tactical considerations (e.g. I can count the Christian right out because the Buchannan has a lock on them).
This kind of assent based voting would substantially increase the degree of political equality in this country. However it would go against a catch phrase that is used as a stand in for equality: "one man, one vote." Ironically, one man, one vote emphatically does not ensure political equality. This kind of voting system would be a simple cure for many of the political problems of this country; unfortunately, the current parties are in power because of the existing system's deficiencies.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The problem with politics is that it is marketing driven and not idea driven. One of the infuriating things if you've ever been a geek dealing with marketing types is that they want to reduce everything to catch phrases. Comparing political discourse to real discourse is like comparing advertising jingles to Bach. The average Slashdot thread is dozens of times more informative than the average presidential debate, crude references to Natilie Portman's anatomy notwithstanding.
These questions assume that on any given issue, a dimension exists on which you can set up a simple dichotomy. For example, do you want to "reform" Social Security or to "protect" it? What if you think the only way to protect it is to reform it? Doesn't the nature of the reforms factor into things?
The campaign finance reform question is even worse. What they are really asking is whether you would vote for somebody who supports one the kind of reforms currently being bandied about. What if you don't think any of the reforms will work? Practically nobody really likes the way campaign finance works in this country, so nearly everybody should support some kind of reform. However, it would be easy to come up with an even worse system, that of course the nature of the reform is important.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's probably too late to contribute meaningfully to this discussion, but I ought to try anyway.
As I learned in my Business Law class this semester, it's only thanks to Ralph Nader that we even have a legal right to privacy.
Back in the 1960s, Nader wrote a book about a General Motors car (the Corvair?) called Unsafe at Any Speed. He really ticked off General Motors, and they tried everything to discredit him...tapping his phone, going through his mail, even hiring a prostitute to sleep with him.
Nader sued over this, alledging invasion of privacy. He won, and that court case is what set the precedent for the court-sanctioned right to privacy in this country. You certainly won't find a right to privacy specifically delineated anywhere in the Constitution; before that case, it simply didn't exist.
Given that I'm repeating hearsay, I may not have my facts 100% right, but I'm sure they're close enough.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
I think I'd be happy just cutting it all, thanks. I am not so much concerned with an immediate tax cut. Before we can worry about that we need to worry about the huge federal debt. So far the government has only made token progress on that.