Exactly. Not voting is giving your approval to ALL of the candidates - after all, if you had an opinion, you'd go make it known, right?
Well, not entirely, if Nader weren't running, I wouldn't be voting at all, simply because I wouldn't want any of the candidates to be president. Beyond that however, then it just becomes an issue of who you hate more, sort of like the Hillary Clinton vs Lazio; it doesn't matter that Lazio is in the race, you're either voting for, or against Hillary.
If everyone who was going to not vote went in and voted for nobody, that would be a huge percentage, and would definately be noticed. If, when they counted up results, 25% of the people voted for essentially "none of the above", don't you think that would send a message? That all those people found nobody worth voting for?
Perhaps, but I don't think it would either inspire or force them to change anything. Besides that, I don't think you can vote for "none of the above" or that they would even keep track of votes that were for not for someone.
Well, I don't know that they made enough of a distinction between the users and end users. There are kids who use the computer and attempt to figure out what makes it tick, and the kids who use a computer so they are still part of the clique at school. In general, the kids who learn how to make the computers do what they want, are the kids who are going to be founding companies, the kids who only use computers so they have access to AIM and ICQ, won't be.
I think he was refering to having people other than the government spying on us. Its already happening in the US, its legal for them to do it with a warrant (well, aside from echelon, perhaps). But in this case there were frelance spies tapping a woman's phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Not voting is giving your approval to ALL of the candidates - after all, if you had an opinion, you'd go make it known, right?
Well, not entirely, if Nader weren't running, I wouldn't be voting at all, simply because I wouldn't want any of the candidates to be president. Beyond that however, then it just becomes an issue of who you hate more, sort of like the Hillary Clinton vs Lazio; it doesn't matter that Lazio is in the race, you're either voting for, or against Hillary.
If everyone who was going to not vote went in and voted for nobody, that would be a huge percentage, and would definately be noticed. If, when they counted up results, 25% of the people voted for essentially "none of the above", don't you think that would send a message? That all those people found nobody worth voting for?
Perhaps, but I don't think it would either inspire or force them to change anything. Besides that, I don't think you can vote for "none of the above" or that they would even keep track of votes that were for not for someone.
Well, I don't know that they made enough of a distinction between the users and end users. There are kids who use the computer and attempt to figure out what makes it tick, and the kids who use a computer so they are still part of the clique at school. In general, the kids who learn how to make the computers do what they want, are the kids who are going to be founding companies, the kids who only use computers so they have access to AIM and ICQ, won't be.
I think he was refering to having people other than the government spying on us. Its already happening in the US, its legal for them to do it with a warrant (well, aside from echelon, perhaps). But in this case there were frelance spies tapping a woman's phone.