Geeks, Geek Issues and Voting

David Allen wrote in with a question we would all do well to think about this year. For Americans: it's high time we thought about who we want to run the country for the next 4 years. What kind of laws we would want passed...or repealed. Who would be the ideal "Geek Ticket" and why? Although slightly USA-centric, this topic might also be of interest to our non-US readers so that they can discuss what they want out of their government in the near future. Click below for the actual text.

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."

Comments

Best Bet - Make YOur own choice.

[Patman]

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.

Ralph Nader The Geek Candidate?

[waldoj]

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. :)

Fusion

[jagapen]

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.

Re:Fusion

[Nathaniel]

Third-party candidates have no chance of winning the Presidency;</FUD>

Go look up 'self-fulfilling prophecy'.

Now stop spouting that worn out fud. Get a grip. Each vote for a third party helps dispell the mindset which helps make third party votes more difficult to get.

There is nothing special about the Democratic or Republican parties. They are not enshrined in the constitution, they haven't always been around. And they both seem to be a bit long in the tooth.

Go outside sometime, and find a registered voter who belongs to one of these parties. Ask them if they agree with their party on all issues. They will say 'no'. Now ask them to give the party a rating on a scale of 1 to 10. Repeat this process a few times. You will find that very few people are happy with they two party system.

Bias alert, please parse accordingly

[babbage]

Here's an agenda I'd like to suggest: strongly consider supporting and voting for third party candidates. There has been a mentality in this country that you have exactly two choices on that first Tuesday in November (where year % 4 == 0 (heh)). Not so. The emergence of the Reform party has cracked that wall a little bit, but I'd like to see it crumble completely.

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.

Not Bush

[Robert Wilde]

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.