Well when I had my sucky mainframe job, we had JCL apps written by people who had long since left the company. So long ago, in fact, that no one could remember who the person was or when they had worked there, other than it was before 1980 because our oldest JCL programmer could not remember who he was.
What many republicans and other tax-phobic (heh I'm one of them) types don't realize is that states will just make up for the lost revenue by raising their income tax, and making it more progressive (they won't get away with raising taxes on the middle class so they'll raise them on the rich). An internet sales tax would make the tax structure more fair.
The federal government shouldn't be telling individual states what they can or cannot tax (with a few exceptions). Maybe people in that particular like the taxes because they pay for crucial services (unlikely as it may seem). People have the right to vote so they should fight each tax on the local level, where taxation is easier to defeat. Death and taxes blah blah blah. Also your logic is flawed, the 5% tax limit would assure that they tried to tax every last thing.
As much as I believe in federalism, this is clearly a case of interstate commerce. Allowing states to tax e-commerce would be the equivalent of allowing states to impose tariffs on each other.
On the other hand, states will probably increase income taxes and probably make them more progressive, or they will drastically cut services. I also don't like the idea of the federal government telling states what to do.
I'm not sure which one I think is the best solution.
Mapquest will occasionally tell you to get off of an interstate past where the location is, then get back on the interstate and go back in the opposite direction. Anyone else experience this?
Try mapping from Danbury, CT to Rowayton, CT for example.
As I said before - in the 1940's. That's when the USA moved from having the three branches of government with equal power to the president being able to act without consulting the other two branches for some time. Very useful in wartime, which is why the Roman senate also used this method from time to time when Rome was a Republic.
You *really* shouldn't speak of things that you are ignorant of. The US is the Commander in Chief and he had always been allowed to command the US forces to his basic discretion without approval of the other branches as he did countlessly throughout the history of the country. Hell the War Powers act was probably the first real limit of the President's power over the military and that was passed in the early 70's.
Congress has the power to declare war, however the president has the power to use the military to his basic discretion, unless it violates the constitution, in which he is impeached.
As for the LA riots, again let me repeat to you that they had nothing to do with elections, not directly nor indirectly, really. The civil war had nothing to do with elections either, the south felt overpowered by the federal government and wanted to secede (of course one reason among others they felt overpowered is their "right" to have slavery). I assume you're talking about the Civil War (John Brown's body is the Battle Hymn of the Republic, right?).
It's like having multiple rail gauges and trying to get a train across the country.
Poor analogy, elections aren't at all like a train running across a country.
Incidentally, you're forgetting a very important thing, US presidential elections are standardized - the electoral college. Plus you have federal constitutional rights to vote... so on and so forth.
Also, it's good that this Floridian thing happened... imagine if we had a standardized system and the whole country was subjected to hanging chads? You're too confident that your system is the best.
I am against Diebold voting machines, which is why I'm for decentralized voting, it's easier to fight on the state level. If people are against Diebold they could attack it on the federal level(which they are, there are hearings in congress going on investigating it) or they could attack it on a local level (go around and educate people, a democracy is only as good as the citizens who inhabit it) or, better yet, do both.
The LA riots showed that unrest amoung those that feel disenfranchised can occur in the USA - and with an opaque system like the Diebold one all it make take is the allegation of fraud to cause serious unrest.
Haha, you mentioned the LA riots? What do a bunch of gang members rioting (and the LAPD too chicken to keep order) have to do with election fraud? You're reaching here.
Why do I prefer decentralized voting? Well, and I'll try to articulate this as best as I can, for one I think that decentralization makes it harder for the entire system to be taken over by a single party. Simply put it's easier to commit tyranny and or fraud when there is a centralized system of voting in place. You may find that counter-intuitive but I believe that one of the advantages of the US is the decentralization of our system. It's hard to take over things when you're power is spread out over many states and many more towns. SHould their be oversight, sure, and there is. The FBI, but even that is dangerous because a while ago we had J Edgar Hoover running the FBI and he had his own agenda.
That's one reason. Another is that it's easier to change the system when it's decentralized. You're comparing Oz (a country of about 20 million) to the United States (a country of about 300 million). If you try to change the system at the federal level, you're one voice among 300 million. On the state level I would be one voice among 4 million. We prefer to run our country as a collection of states (we are the United States afterall). One US state is equal to your entire country, population-wise (California). To run the US as one big country would be trying to manage 300 million people, MUCH more difficult than 20 million.
Is Diebold a crappy voting system? Sure, but we can fight it more easily on a state level than on a federal level. And don't believe every allegation of fraud you hear (even though it did occur quite a bit in the past). Diebold presents some nasty conflicts of interest but is there any proof it was used in fraud? None that I have seen.
Don't compare Oz to the US, they're two totally different countries.
Lots of eyes make the bugs shallow. A lot of people are looking at the same system, and the two major parties are watching it very carefully to see if the other one is trying something. Since everyone takes part, a lot of people are interested - almost elevating it to the interest level of a sport where everyone wants to see their team win and gets angry at fouls or the referee favouring one side.
Um, how is that different from the US? Elections here are very hotly contested, look at Florida. And we have lots of eyes watching elections here, but it happens on a local level.Therefor there's less to watch.
We don't have the US system with elected law enforcement officers and other posts - the top bureacrats are appointed by politicians, but the rest wouldn't get any advantage at all (and often would get disadvantaged) by being a member of a party.
We don't have that here, either, not on the federal level. And you're foolish to think that appointed officers may not have their own agendas. And you're foolish to think that centralizing elections makes it harder to commit fraud.
It still happens here - the difference is that people go to jail for it.
Well, you said you had a centralized voting commission in Oz, how do you know that there isn't a conflict of interest there? Some nameless, faceless bureacrat sitting in Canberra with his own agenda. He has the potential to defraud the entire country.
You forget that nearly everyone in government has their own agenda. A more centralized system is easier to be usurped and/or corrupted than a decentralized system in my opinion. The US doesn't have a centralized system, but we do have the FBI which occasionally investigates election fraud.
The lack of any accusations of voting fraud is almost as disturbing to me as an election rife with accusations of voting fraud.
As for Florida, there were accusations of fraud. A more centralized and standardized system wouldn't have made the difference IMO.
The first amendment for starters. You have the right to read terrorist literature, you don't have the right to donate money terrorist organizations, however. That is what was "banned".
Every adult in Australia votes (it's the law), so we know the system works well even with lots of voters.
Um, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of voting?
One of the things that helps make Australian elections very smooth (apart from the fact that politicians keep getting elected) is that we have a federal body (the Australian Electoral Commission) to oversee elections. They control the process in every state - we have nationally consistent rules and processes. They seem to be very organised to an outsider like me: they pop up at election time and run the whole show like clockwork.
Standardization is a BAD idea. I'd rather have the potential to defraud just a few election areas rather than if the system was implemented on a wide are. Voting is best conducted in a decentralized fashion. Trust me on this one.
We have something called due process in this country. You need to bring people up on charges, arrest them and try them. Until you do that, you will not get to see people being led away in handcuffs.
Slashdot Mirror
Well when I had my sucky mainframe job, we had JCL apps written by people who had long since left the company. So long ago, in fact, that no one could remember who the person was or when they had worked there, other than it was before 1980 because our oldest JCL programmer could not remember who he was.
...too little too late. Sorry MS, but you only have yourselves to blame.
What many republicans and other tax-phobic (heh I'm one of them) types don't realize is that states will just make up for the lost revenue by raising their income tax, and making it more progressive (they won't get away with raising taxes on the middle class so they'll raise them on the rich). An internet sales tax would make the tax structure more fair.
The federal government shouldn't be telling individual states what they can or cannot tax (with a few exceptions). Maybe people in that particular like the taxes because they pay for crucial services (unlikely as it may seem). People have the right to vote so they should fight each tax on the local level, where taxation is easier to defeat. Death and taxes blah blah blah. Also your logic is flawed, the 5% tax limit would assure that they tried to tax every last thing.
As much as I believe in federalism, this is clearly a case of interstate commerce. Allowing states to tax e-commerce would be the equivalent of allowing states to impose tariffs on each other.
On the other hand, states will probably increase income taxes and probably make them more progressive, or they will drastically cut services. I also don't like the idea of the federal government telling states what to do.
I'm not sure which one I think is the best solution.
This was the most brilliant comment I've ever read on Slashdot, WHY WAS IT NOT MODDED UP!?!?!
Can Europeans read an article and not interject anti-americanism into it?
Hahahaha, send all yer Nigerian scumbags here for a 2 hour brutal sodomy session. Here's to Danbury!
Mapquest will occasionally tell you to get off of an interstate past where the location is, then get back on the interstate and go back in the opposite direction. Anyone else experience this?
Try mapping from Danbury, CT to Rowayton, CT for example.
Yeah, unless you tell me what you're talking about I'll have to call you on this one.
And yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
You *really* shouldn't speak of things that you are ignorant of. The US is the Commander in Chief and he had always been allowed to command the US forces to his basic discretion without approval of the other branches as he did countlessly throughout the history of the country. Hell the War Powers act was probably the first real limit of the President's power over the military and that was passed in the early 70's.
Congress has the power to declare war, however the president has the power to use the military to his basic discretion, unless it violates the constitution, in which he is impeached.
As for the LA riots, again let me repeat to you that they had nothing to do with elections, not directly nor indirectly, really. The civil war had nothing to do with elections either, the south felt overpowered by the federal government and wanted to secede (of course one reason among others they felt overpowered is their "right" to have slavery). I assume you're talking about the Civil War (John Brown's body is the Battle Hymn of the Republic, right?).
Poor analogy, elections aren't at all like a train running across a country.
Incidentally, you're forgetting a very important thing, US presidential elections are standardized - the electoral college. Plus you have federal constitutional rights to vote... so on and so forth.
Also, it's good that this Floridian thing happened... imagine if we had a standardized system and the whole country was subjected to hanging chads? You're too confident that your system is the best.
I am against Diebold voting machines, which is why I'm for decentralized voting, it's easier to fight on the state level. If people are against Diebold they could attack it on the federal level(which they are, there are hearings in congress going on investigating it) or they could attack it on a local level (go around and educate people, a democracy is only as good as the citizens who inhabit it) or, better yet, do both.
Haha, you mentioned the LA riots? What do a bunch of gang members rioting (and the LAPD too chicken to keep order) have to do with election fraud? You're reaching here.
before the president was granted emergency powers
When was the president granted emergency powers?
Why do I prefer decentralized voting? Well, and I'll try to articulate this as best as I can, for one I think that decentralization makes it harder for the entire system to be taken over by a single party. Simply put it's easier to commit tyranny and or fraud when there is a centralized system of voting in place. You may find that counter-intuitive but I believe that one of the advantages of the US is the decentralization of our system. It's hard to take over things when you're power is spread out over many states and many more towns. SHould their be oversight, sure, and there is. The FBI, but even that is dangerous because a while ago we had J Edgar Hoover running the FBI and he had his own agenda.
That's one reason. Another is that it's easier to change the system when it's decentralized. You're comparing Oz (a country of about 20 million) to the United States (a country of about 300 million). If you try to change the system at the federal level, you're one voice among 300 million. On the state level I would be one voice among 4 million. We prefer to run our country as a collection of states (we are the United States afterall). One US state is equal to your entire country, population-wise (California). To run the US as one big country would be trying to manage 300 million people, MUCH more difficult than 20 million.
Is Diebold a crappy voting system? Sure, but we can fight it more easily on a state level than on a federal level. And don't believe every allegation of fraud you hear (even though it did occur quite a bit in the past). Diebold presents some nasty conflicts of interest but is there any proof it was used in fraud? None that I have seen.
Don't compare Oz to the US, they're two totally different countries.
Um, how is that different from the US? Elections here are very hotly contested, look at Florida. And we have lots of eyes watching elections here, but it happens on a local level.Therefor there's less to watch.
We don't have the US system with elected law enforcement officers and other posts - the top bureacrats are appointed by politicians, but the rest wouldn't get any advantage at all (and often would get disadvantaged) by being a member of a party.
We don't have that here, either, not on the federal level. And you're foolish to think that appointed officers may not have their own agendas. And you're foolish to think that centralizing elections makes it harder to commit fraud.
It still happens here - the difference is that people go to jail for it.
People go to jail for it here, too.
Well, you said you had a centralized voting commission in Oz, how do you know that there isn't a conflict of interest there? Some nameless, faceless bureacrat sitting in Canberra with his own agenda. He has the potential to defraud the entire country.
You forget that nearly everyone in government has their own agenda. A more centralized system is easier to be usurped and/or corrupted than a decentralized system in my opinion. The US doesn't have a centralized system, but we do have the FBI which occasionally investigates election fraud.
The lack of any accusations of voting fraud is almost as disturbing to me as an election rife with accusations of voting fraud.
As for Florida, there were accusations of fraud. A more centralized and standardized system wouldn't have made the difference IMO.
The first amendment for starters. You have the right to read terrorist literature, you don't have the right to donate money terrorist organizations, however. That is what was "banned".
Well, how do you know that there haven't been any problems?
No way man, he's from Brazil and he says there have been no problems. Therefor it works.
So which backward, illiterate, redneck Bush supporter modded this up?
Enron donations (link.):
Total given to House Republicans: $366,625
Total given to House Democrats: $281,840
Total given to Senate Republicans: $418,480
Total given to Senate Democrats: $118,853
Choke on it.
Um, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of voting?
One of the things that helps make Australian elections very smooth (apart from the fact that politicians keep getting elected) is that we have a federal body (the Australian Electoral Commission) to oversee elections. They control the process in every state - we have nationally consistent rules and processes. They seem to be very organised to an outsider like me: they pop up at election time and run the whole show like clockwork.
Standardization is a BAD idea. I'd rather have the potential to defraud just a few election areas rather than if the system was implemented on a wide are. Voting is best conducted in a decentralized fashion. Trust me on this one.
We have something called due process in this country. You need to bring people up on charges, arrest them and try them. Until you do that, you will not get to see people being led away in handcuffs.
Yes but your overbearing hysteria does our cause more harm than good.
Man, are these things a bad idea.
Loosen the bands on your tin-foil hat a bit, eh?