This is not really accurate (and it gave most of the major networks' news anchors headaches just trying to get the facts straight). I live in Oregon, and the way the vote-by-mail system works here, the ballots must be received at the polling place by 8 PM on election day. Voters must either mail them far enough in advance to make certain they arrive on time or they must bring them into the polling place and physically drop them into a dropbox.
Only absentee ballots can be counted after the 8PM deadline.
According to the Constitution, each State is given a certain number of Electors to choose the President. It's called 'indirect election'. It is up to the State to decide how to appoint those Electors. It just happens that all of the State constitutions decree that Electors should be themselves Elected.
So, when I'm going to the polling booth, I'm not voting for the president or the vice president, really. I'm voting for a set of Electors to represent my state.
Now, the logistics of having the Federal government run 51 different elections for 51 different groups of Electors (Washington D.C. has its own set) would be a nightmare. So, it makes sense that each State should have an Election Committee/Comissioner/Officer or something of the sort to handle the details. And in some States, that authority is further delegated to County election committees/comissioners/officers.
Another major reason why the ballot can't be the same in all states: We've got more than just the President (or, more accurately, our state's Electors) to vote on. A large number of the states usually have seats to fill in Congress. Should the Connecticut ballot have the name for candidates for one of Georgia's Senate seats on its ballot? Plus, there's representatives in State legislatures, Governors, Mayors, County Commissioners, Sheriffs... State constitutional amendments, County referendums, local tax issues... Heck, half the stuff on my ballot doesn't match the ballot my parents voted on, and they're only a couple of counties away from me!
When it comes down to it, out of the twenty-or-more separate issues on my ballot, I only share one issue with everyone else in the country... and then, I'm not really voting directly on that issue. I'm voting for someone to represent for my state. There are pros and cons to the system, but in most cases, it works, and it's practical. As any engineer will tell you, though, the real test of a system is under extreme circumstances... and I think that the results of this extremely close election will be, if nothing else, enlightening, especially after the dust has settled and we've had some years to think about it and look at it from a historical perspective.
One member of my family who happens to be a Political Science professor is enjoying this election. In his words, it's good every now and then to 'dust off' some of those clauses of our Constitution that are rarely used. Clauses like those providing for impeachment. Helps to remind us of how things -really- work. He thinks that the vote going to the House of Representatives (as would happen if the Electors can't come to a majority agreement) would be -really- neat. We've never even tried that portion of the Constitution out....
Truth is, each state choses on its own how to pick its Electors. Some states require Electors to vote along party lines, other states don't. Most Electors vote along party lines anyway. The only reason an Elector might not vote that way is if he/she got an impression that his/her candidate practiced some Dirty Politics right at the end. If you think your state's Electors should be -absolutely- required to vote party lines, well, write letters to your state legislature representatives! You can amend your state's constitution much more easily than you can amend the national Constitution!
Another interesting twist is the winner-take-all rule in all but two states. That's what really make it easy early on to count how a state's Electoral votes are gonna go. I personally think it would be both more fair and more interesting if more states divided their electoral votes proportionally, especially for states with more Electoral seats. So, for example, if Bush had gotten 60% of the vote in a state with 10 electoral seats, he'd only get 6 seats, and Gore would get 4. And though you can often tell early on who's got the majority, it can take quite a while to tell exactly how big the margin is, as the Florida situation has shown.
And again, this is something you can make happen in your state with just a little lobbying.:-)
To all you folks complaining of just how 'undemocratic' this election has proven to be: Show me one place in the Constitution where the word 'democracy' is even written. Democracy is a concept of an ideal. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution had ideals, but building a government is a practical matter, as they knew all too well.:-)
Any system that allows a voter to submit an invalidly filled out form without feedback to allow him or her to fix it seriously flawed.
In my area, we use a fill-in-the-dots-with-pen method. Not all votes are mechanically checked the moment they're submitted, in some precincts they're simply dropped in a (forgive me for using this word) lockbox. It's posted absolutely everywhere, though, that if you make a mistake, you're -not- supposed to fix it yourself, you're supposed to ask for a new ballot.
Thing is, neither side has much cause to complain, imho, since the ballot -and- the process, flawed as it is, was approved by both Democrats and Republicans before the election began. Yes, it screwed some folks over. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a few Bush folks somewhere, in some state, made a Stupid Mistake(tm) themselves. The only reason Florida's getting all that attention is because this race is so damned close, and Statistical Error, the enemy of any polling process, has been exceptionally cruel this time around.
In my state, we had some problems, but not of this sort. For us, it was logistic problems coming from an unexpectedly high voter turnout. Folks being forced to wait for hours in the rain and so on. Most of the vote machines at some locations being broken. There was one story on the radio of a woman who had waited a long time in the rain when the county sheriff came over and said that her car would have to be moved or it would be towed. She drove about a mile away to the nearest free and legal parking spot, walked back in the rain, and had lost her place in line. So, she had to wait again, for hours.
Ironically, that sheriff's position was up for election. I'm sure he lost at least one vote.;-)
Anyhow, we've heard promises from the Election Committee in our state that they're making plans to improve both logistics and hardware next year. Personally, I think some of those touch-screen polling machines I've heard about would be absolutely neato to use....
Does anyone know why Oregon still isn't decided?
From what I've heard, that state is trying out a new system by which -all- ballots are submitted by mail. One of the upsides to such a system, I would imagine, would be cutting out all the logistics problems we had in my state. On the downside, some folks did wait 'til the last minute to send their votes in, and they can only collect them as fast as the postal service will allow.
Can someone please tie this election in with legos?
Certainly. Each candidate thought he had the vote tied up in Florida before the other guy said, 'Lego!' (Or, would that tie the election in more with Eggos?)
Never before has the Daily Show been so prophetic. One friend of mine has called this Schroedinger's Election.
So, if I don't actually look at the polls in Florida, does that mean neither of these schmucks is the next President? Or, nightmare of nightmares, does that mean that both of them are?
...you live in my state. We've never had more than 50% of registered voters ever turn out. So, if current trends hold, my vote will count about twice as much as it would if we had a full turnout, not just on who gets to be the Big Cheese for the next four years (and aren't Gush and Bore both rather cheesy?), but also on all those annoying little things like what county taxes I pay.;-)
The benefit the government has to charity organizations is stability: the government will, barring any major revolution, still be here fifty years down the line. A private charity might very easily still be with us then, but there's little assurance of that.
The International Red Cross has been in operation for well over a century. The international Boy Scouting and Girl Scouting movements have been around since 1910 and 1912, respectively. Churches and church organizations of nearly every religion and denomination out there sponsor charities on both local and global scales, and I think most of those religions, both majority and minority ones, are likely to be around for a good long while.
The life of a non-profit charity is usually not determined by market pressures. There's no 'bottom line' to meet, no shareholders to make Big Bucks for. The life of a charity is determined by two things: The need for that charity, and the ability of that charity to meet that need. For some reason, there are always people who are willing to give there time, their efforts, their very lives to help out complete strangers. This isn't strict market economy. Different philosophers have given different answers as to what it is. It's one of the more noble aspects of human nature, if you ask me.
If there's no more need, miracle of miracles, then I hope you wouldn't complain about the sponsors of that charity moving on to other business. If that charity doesn't fulfill its purpose, someone else will hopefully start a charity which can. And if a limitation in resources means you can't start such a charity in your county or city, perhaps your county or city doesn't really need that charity. The government would force those benefits down your throat whether you need them or not. Or, perhaps resources simply need to be freed from elsewhere. Such as those unneeded, unwanted benefits the government is 'giving' you. In this way, I'd say the federal government is much -less- responsive to needs than local groups.
I know that as long as there are people going hungry in my home county, there will be local organizations collecting canned goods throughout the year, and giving those goods -directly- to those who need it. Government welfare can never be as efficient as long as there are bureaucrats to skim off the top.
If Microsoft never again made money from another version of Windows or Word or whatever, they wouldn't fold for another decade or two.
Just how does Microsoft compete with, say, the Red Cross? (And I don't think 'Microsoft sucks blood, while the Red Cross just takes donations' works as an answer.;-))
And if I don't choose any of the options, then I effectively fall out of the market system in the first place and lose all voice.
If you're fatally ill, and you haven't the means to pay for it yourself, you're not 'in' the market system in the first place. You're relying on Society to help you out. Therefore, you have to rely on the options given to you by Society. Now, would you rather rely on the options given to you by people who are doing this of their own goodwill, people who feel a moral obligation to give you the best options possible, people who spend their lives seeing the people whose lives they save... or would you rather rely on the options that filter through the red tape?
government regulation on Concealed Nanotubes and Buckyballs, right away! Sure, one Buckyball may not hurt... but what if someone got a Beowulf cluster of them together?
one's vote should not be based on what other people have voted.
Personally, I agree... and I also believe people should vote on what they believe, not on who is 'likely to win', or what the polls say. I almost think it'd be nice to get rid of pre-election polls, add to the guesswork of candidates who only want to say what The Masses want to hear, and (maybe, just maybe) get a few more candidates who'll say things not just for the sake of a few poll points in a few 'swing' states. (Yes, I'm in the US, not Canada, but what you've said here, I think, goes beyond that border.)
But of course, as long as the Two Parties in control can scare potential third-party voters by making them think the Other Guy might win.... And I can see how polls are popular. It's a lot easier to take part in a popularity contest than to make a true judgement of merit.
However, the question is, are you really willing to let people who cannot afford medical care die?
I don't believe anyone with a conscience or a sense of moral duty would. But another 'the question' is, how do you want to help them?
USA Today had a good article yesterday about this issue. Most seniors today are -not- being weighed down by 'budget-busting prescription-drug bills', despite the rhetoric that's being bantered back and forth betwen the candidates, and the plans of both Bush and Gore would, in all likelyhood, simply increase the burden on an already strained Medicare system.
If the only way to provide that care is through government, would you still say no?
If it were the only way in the universe, perhaps I would say yes. But I do not believe that to be the case. There are thousands of charities out there, many of them with the sole purpose of providing medical aid, whether the case be 'hopeless' or 'reasonable'. IMHO, a private, non-profit charity is, 9 times out of 10, if not more, going to be much more efficient than a bueaurocratic government could ever be. If I could've given the money the government took out of my last paycheck for Medicare to a charity of my choosing, I'd be a lot more confident that it might be used well. And if I could've invested the money the government took for Social Security... well, that would be a nice boost for not only my own retirement, but also taking care of my parents someday, I'm sure. But then, that's another topic....
Me, I'm voting for Browne. Whether he wins or loses, I'm sick of all this 'lesser of two evils' nonsense.
I have a close relative with a Ph.D. in Political Science. He's constantly criticizing politics. When folks ask him why he studies something he hates so much.
His answer: He has friends at the Centers for Disease Control who have no liking at all for viruses or diseases, but find them nonetheless absolutely fascinating....
Disclaimer: I'm not a certified expert on networking, just a Computer Engineering major who's done a fair share of learning about how networks work.
That said, I wouldn't imagine you'd be able to catch it, if all it's doing is sniffing packets. When you transmit data over the network, your computer is essentially 'shouting' the packet it wants transmitted over the wire. Every other computer on the network can 'hear' the packet being transmitted, but any computer which doesn't need to hear it (usually) ignores it. If you're requesting a web page, the only computer which should pay any attention to the packet should be the one which serves as the gateway for the network.
It's possible, though, to tell your computer -not- to ignore those packets not addressed to it. That's what a packet sniffer does. Kinda like eavesdropping on a conversation being shouted across a crowded room. Polite folks ignore it, rude folks might not.
There used to be a problem on my campus with this when they first put a LAN in each dorm. Folks could eavesdrop on the telnet sessions of other people in their building. Then they found a way to set it up so that -every- packet transmitted over the campus networks would be encrypted.
Same episode, when Homer revealed the aliens' plot for what it was:
Alien: It doesn't matter, you still have to vote for one of us! Person in crowd: No, wait! We can vote for a third party! Alien: Go ahead, throw your vote away! Muahahahaha! Cut to Ross Perot punching his hat out in frustration.
And Homer's comment at the end of the episode: "Don't blame me, I voted for (insert name of alien who didn't win, I don't remember)."
Of course, it didn't matter which way Homer voted, the same result would've happened. He and everyone else would've had to have voted third party to stop the Evil Alien Plot.
Who's gonna vote third party? Only someone who's seriously dissatisfied with the results being produced by the first two parties.
And what happens if the people who are seriously dissatisfied simply don't vote? Well, those folks aren't going to be saving the world, that's for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
something as simple as a spoof song.
Look out, Weird Al....
---
a great disturbance in the Force... as if millions of /.ers cried out in an attempt to load the page... and were DoSed.
---
Oh, I'm sure it will... at least sometime in the next four years, by which time we get to do it all over again. ;-)
---
This is not really accurate (and it gave most of the major networks' news anchors headaches just trying to get the facts straight). I live in Oregon, and the way the vote-by-mail system works here, the ballots must be received at the polling place by 8 PM on election day. Voters must either mail them far enough in advance to make certain they arrive on time or they must bring them into the polling place and physically drop them into a dropbox.
:)
Only absentee ballots can be counted after the 8PM deadline.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
---
According to the Constitution, each State is given a certain number of Electors to choose the President. It's called 'indirect election'. It is up to the State to decide how to appoint those Electors. It just happens that all of the State constitutions decree that Electors should be themselves Elected.
So, when I'm going to the polling booth, I'm not voting for the president or the vice president, really. I'm voting for a set of Electors to represent my state.
Now, the logistics of having the Federal government run 51 different elections for 51 different groups of Electors (Washington D.C. has its own set) would be a nightmare. So, it makes sense that each State should have an Election Committee/Comissioner/Officer or something of the sort to handle the details. And in some States, that authority is further delegated to County election committees/comissioners/officers.
Another major reason why the ballot can't be the same in all states: We've got more than just the President (or, more accurately, our state's Electors) to vote on. A large number of the states usually have seats to fill in Congress. Should the Connecticut ballot have the name for candidates for one of Georgia's Senate seats on its ballot? Plus, there's representatives in State legislatures, Governors, Mayors, County Commissioners, Sheriffs... State constitutional amendments, County referendums, local tax issues... Heck, half the stuff on my ballot doesn't match the ballot my parents voted on, and they're only a couple of counties away from me!
When it comes down to it, out of the twenty-or-more separate issues on my ballot, I only share one issue with everyone else in the country... and then, I'm not really voting directly on that issue. I'm voting for someone to represent for my state. There are pros and cons to the system, but in most cases, it works, and it's practical. As any engineer will tell you, though, the real test of a system is under extreme circumstances... and I think that the results of this extremely close election will be, if nothing else, enlightening, especially after the dust has settled and we've had some years to think about it and look at it from a historical perspective.
---
One member of my family who happens to be a Political Science professor is enjoying this election. In his words, it's good every now and then to 'dust off' some of those clauses of our Constitution that are rarely used. Clauses like those providing for impeachment. Helps to remind us of how things -really- work. He thinks that the vote going to the House of Representatives (as would happen if the Electors can't come to a majority agreement) would be -really- neat. We've never even tried that portion of the Constitution out....
:-)
:-)
Truth is, each state choses on its own how to pick its Electors. Some states require Electors to vote along party lines, other states don't. Most Electors vote along party lines anyway. The only reason an Elector might not vote that way is if he/she got an impression that his/her candidate practiced some Dirty Politics right at the end. If you think your state's Electors should be -absolutely- required to vote party lines, well, write letters to your state legislature representatives! You can amend your state's constitution much more easily than you can amend the national Constitution!
Another interesting twist is the winner-take-all rule in all but two states. That's what really make it easy early on to count how a state's Electoral votes are gonna go. I personally think it would be both more fair and more interesting if more states divided their electoral votes proportionally, especially for states with more Electoral seats. So, for example, if Bush had gotten 60% of the vote in a state with 10 electoral seats, he'd only get 6 seats, and Gore would get 4. And though you can often tell early on who's got the majority, it can take quite a while to tell exactly how big the margin is, as the Florida situation has shown.
And again, this is something you can make happen in your state with just a little lobbying.
To all you folks complaining of just how 'undemocratic' this election has proven to be: Show me one place in the Constitution where the word 'democracy' is even written. Democracy is a concept of an ideal. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution had ideals, but building a government is a practical matter, as they knew all too well.
---
Any system that allows a voter to submit an invalidly filled out form without feedback to allow him or her to fix it seriously flawed.
;-)
In my area, we use a fill-in-the-dots-with-pen method. Not all votes are mechanically checked the moment they're submitted, in some precincts they're simply dropped in a (forgive me for using this word) lockbox. It's posted absolutely everywhere, though, that if you make a mistake, you're -not- supposed to fix it yourself, you're supposed to ask for a new ballot.
Thing is, neither side has much cause to complain, imho, since the ballot -and- the process, flawed as it is, was approved by both Democrats and Republicans before the election began. Yes, it screwed some folks over. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a few Bush folks somewhere, in some state, made a Stupid Mistake(tm) themselves. The only reason Florida's getting all that attention is because this race is so damned close, and Statistical Error, the enemy of any polling process, has been exceptionally cruel this time around.
In my state, we had some problems, but not of this sort. For us, it was logistic problems coming from an unexpectedly high voter turnout. Folks being forced to wait for hours in the rain and so on. Most of the vote machines at some locations being broken. There was one story on the radio of a woman who had waited a long time in the rain when the county sheriff came over and said that her car would have to be moved or it would be towed. She drove about a mile away to the nearest free and legal parking spot, walked back in the rain, and had lost her place in line. So, she had to wait again, for hours.
Ironically, that sheriff's position was up for election. I'm sure he lost at least one vote.
Anyhow, we've heard promises from the Election Committee in our state that they're making plans to improve both logistics and hardware next year. Personally, I think some of those touch-screen polling machines I've heard about would be absolutely neato to use....
Does anyone know why Oregon still isn't decided?
From what I've heard, that state is trying out a new system by which -all- ballots are submitted by mail. One of the upsides to such a system, I would imagine, would be cutting out all the logistics problems we had in my state. On the downside, some folks did wait 'til the last minute to send their votes in, and they can only collect them as fast as the postal service will allow.
---
Less-than-perfect engineering in a mechanical user interface hardly constitutes voter fraud.
---
Can someone please tie this election in with legos?
Certainly. Each candidate thought he had the vote tied up in Florida before the other guy said, 'Lego!' (Or, would that tie the election in more with Eggos?)
---
Welcome to Indecision 2000!
Never before has the Daily Show been so prophetic. One friend of mine has called this Schroedinger's Election.
So, if I don't actually look at the polls in Florida, does that mean neither of these schmucks is the next President? Or, nightmare of nightmares, does that mean that both of them are?
---
Maybe Katz could start an article about other countries views of US politics
;-)
Are you sure you want to encourage him?
(End Kidding Around Mode)
---
...you live in my state. We've never had more than 50% of registered voters ever turn out. So, if current trends hold, my vote will count about twice as much as it would if we had a full turnout, not just on who gets to be the Big Cheese for the next four years (and aren't Gush and Bore both rather cheesy?), but also on all those annoying little things like what county taxes I pay. ;-)
Me, I'm voting for Browne.
---
The benefit the government has to charity organizations is stability: the government will, barring any major revolution, still be here fifty years down the line. A private charity might very easily still be with us then, but there's little assurance of that.
;-))
The International Red Cross has been in operation for well over a century. The international Boy Scouting and Girl Scouting movements have been around since 1910 and 1912, respectively. Churches and church organizations of nearly every religion and denomination out there sponsor charities on both local and global scales, and I think most of those religions, both majority and minority ones, are likely to be around for a good long while.
The life of a non-profit charity is usually not determined by market pressures. There's no 'bottom line' to meet, no shareholders to make Big Bucks for. The life of a charity is determined by two things: The need for that charity, and the ability of that charity to meet that need. For some reason, there are always people who are willing to give there time, their efforts, their very lives to help out complete strangers. This isn't strict market economy. Different philosophers have given different answers as to what it is. It's one of the more noble aspects of human nature, if you ask me.
If there's no more need, miracle of miracles, then I hope you wouldn't complain about the sponsors of that charity moving on to other business. If that charity doesn't fulfill its purpose, someone else will hopefully start a charity which can. And if a limitation in resources means you can't start such a charity in your county or city, perhaps your county or city doesn't really need that charity. The government would force those benefits down your throat whether you need them or not. Or, perhaps resources simply need to be freed from elsewhere. Such as those unneeded, unwanted benefits the government is 'giving' you. In this way, I'd say the federal government is much -less- responsive to needs than local groups.
I know that as long as there are people going hungry in my home county, there will be local organizations collecting canned goods throughout the year, and giving those goods -directly- to those who need it. Government welfare can never be as efficient as long as there are bureaucrats to skim off the top.
If Microsoft never again made money from another version of Windows or Word or whatever, they wouldn't fold for another decade or two.
Just how does Microsoft compete with, say, the Red Cross? (And I don't think 'Microsoft sucks blood, while the Red Cross just takes donations' works as an answer.
And if I don't choose any of the options, then I effectively fall out of the market system in the first place and lose all voice.
If you're fatally ill, and you haven't the means to pay for it yourself, you're not 'in' the market system in the first place. You're relying on Society to help you out. Therefore, you have to rely on the options given to you by Society. Now, would you rather rely on the options given to you by people who are doing this of their own goodwill, people who feel a moral obligation to give you the best options possible, people who spend their lives seeing the people whose lives they save... or would you rather rely on the options that filter through the red tape?
---
Oh my god, immortality is bad. you can't even die to get rid of your debts
So much for lifetime retirement by the time I'm 60....
---
government regulation on Concealed Nanotubes and Buckyballs, right away! Sure, one Buckyball may not hurt... but what if someone got a Beowulf cluster of them together?
Sorry, folks, couldn't resist.
---
Is Linus out waiting for the Great Pumpkin?
---
Check out this article over at CNN.com.
Internet revolution: New medium, same old wars.
---
one's vote should not be based on what other people have voted.
Personally, I agree... and I also believe people should vote on what they believe, not on who is 'likely to win', or what the polls say. I almost think it'd be nice to get rid of pre-election polls, add to the guesswork of candidates who only want to say what The Masses want to hear, and (maybe, just maybe) get a few more candidates who'll say things not just for the sake of a few poll points in a few 'swing' states. (Yes, I'm in the US, not Canada, but what you've said here, I think, goes beyond that border.)
But of course, as long as the Two Parties in control can scare potential third-party voters by making them think the Other Guy might win.... And I can see how polls are popular. It's a lot easier to take part in a popularity contest than to make a true judgement of merit.
---
What else can you expect when several influential religions claim one Holy Place?
Kiboism, the Temple of the Internet Oracle, the Church of the SubGenius, just to name a few....
And don't forget all those folks who consider the Net an Unholy Place!
---
However, the question is, are you really willing to let people who cannot afford medical care die?
I don't believe anyone with a conscience or a sense of moral duty would. But another 'the question' is, how do you want to help them?
USA Today had a good article yesterday about this issue. Most seniors today are -not- being weighed down by 'budget-busting prescription-drug bills', despite the rhetoric that's being bantered back and forth betwen the candidates, and the plans of both Bush and Gore would, in all likelyhood, simply increase the burden on an already strained Medicare system.
If the only way to provide that care is through government, would you still say no?
If it were the only way in the universe, perhaps I would say yes. But I do not believe that to be the case. There are thousands of charities out there, many of them with the sole purpose of providing medical aid, whether the case be 'hopeless' or 'reasonable'. IMHO, a private, non-profit charity is, 9 times out of 10, if not more, going to be much more efficient than a bueaurocratic government could ever be. If I could've given the money the government took out of my last paycheck for Medicare to a charity of my choosing, I'd be a lot more confident that it might be used well. And if I could've invested the money the government took for Social Security... well, that would be a nice boost for not only my own retirement, but also taking care of my parents someday, I'm sure. But then, that's another topic....
Me, I'm voting for Browne. Whether he wins or loses, I'm sick of all this 'lesser of two evils' nonsense.
---
I have a close relative with a Ph.D. in Political Science. He's constantly criticizing politics. When folks ask him why he studies something he hates so much.
His answer: He has friends at the Centers for Disease Control who have no liking at all for viruses or diseases, but find them nonetheless absolutely fascinating....
---
This could start to sound like Captain Kirk, with all this emphasis....
I have... no problem with typo squatting as a whole....
Dr. McCoy, this joke needs medical attention.
---
Sounds like that should be one of this guy's platform points. :)
---
Disclaimer: I'm not a certified expert on networking, just a Computer Engineering major who's done a fair share of learning about how networks work.
That said, I wouldn't imagine you'd be able to catch it, if all it's doing is sniffing packets. When you transmit data over the network, your computer is essentially 'shouting' the packet it wants transmitted over the wire. Every other computer on the network can 'hear' the packet being transmitted, but any computer which doesn't need to hear it (usually) ignores it. If you're requesting a web page, the only computer which should pay any attention to the packet should be the one which serves as the gateway for the network.
It's possible, though, to tell your computer -not- to ignore those packets not addressed to it. That's what a packet sniffer does. Kinda like eavesdropping on a conversation being shouted across a crowded room. Polite folks ignore it, rude folks might not.
There used to be a problem on my campus with this when they first put a LAN in each dorm. Folks could eavesdrop on the telnet sessions of other people in their building. Then they found a way to set it up so that -every- packet transmitted over the campus networks would be encrypted.
---
Hear, hear.
Same episode, when Homer revealed the aliens' plot for what it was:
Alien: It doesn't matter, you still have to vote for one of us!
Person in crowd: No, wait! We can vote for a third party!
Alien: Go ahead, throw your vote away! Muahahahaha!
Cut to Ross Perot punching his hat out in frustration.
And Homer's comment at the end of the episode: "Don't blame me, I voted for (insert name of alien who didn't win, I don't remember)."
Of course, it didn't matter which way Homer voted, the same result would've happened. He and everyone else would've had to have voted third party to stop the Evil Alien Plot.
Who's gonna vote third party? Only someone who's seriously dissatisfied with the results being produced by the first two parties.
And what happens if the people who are seriously dissatisfied simply don't vote? Well, those folks aren't going to be saving the world, that's for sure.
---