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 What kind of laws we would want passed...or repealed.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.

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.