I couldn't agree with you more. Don't worry, when them Reb's shoot you down, I'll pick up yer flag and wave it high.
Protest votes are wasted for one reason that EVERYBODY is overlooking: YOUR VOTE DOES NOT DETERMINE WHO IS ELECTED. Has anybody ever heard of the Electoral College??? When "the people" vote, we are telling our electoral representatives (each state gets a few based on its population) who we want to see in office. If a single candidate gets the majority of the *popular* votes (uh, that's us) from a state, that candidate gets all of the electoral votes. One catch: the electors subscribe to the 2 party system. Disagree? Look back at the first 5 elections of the US. In at least one of them, the popular vote and the electoral vote did not concur. One candidate received more of the popular vote, and the other WON THE ELECTION because he carried the electoral vote.
ERGO: When you cast your vote for Nader, Browne, etc., you are telling the electorate to dis-regard your vote. So choose your 3rd party candidate with impunity. But don't bitch about which of the two big guns gets the office. You might as well have not voted at all.
Sorry to be so nasty, but it's damned frustrating to read all of these petty squabbling posts and know that nobody has taken our (granted--outdated) electoral system into consideration. Quit attacking people who understand the system. I think I'll go throw something now.
Actually the point is quite valid, although I don't believe that it is the crowning achievement of any presidency. The appointment of Supreme Court Justices is often as public a controversy as is the election of the President. Anybody here remember Clarence Thomas and the pubic hair? The whole thing might have seemed silly, but our presidents have stacked the court several times in the past when difficult cases were pending--often with the intended effect. Our oval office has caused the Supreme Court to swell to 13 justices in the past in order to sway power from one side to the other. We fortunately have more checks in place now to prevent that sort of thing, but 2 or 3 seats is a huge percentage of a nine-person panel.
All of this comes at a time when Microsoft--though bounced back to a lower court--faces some of its most difficult legal hurdles. Imagine a president who wants to be touchy-feely (this would, by the way, refer to the same man who believes that all cars should be outlawed--the man who invented the internet...) seeing an opportunity to make a political statement with such a big case as this. Does anybody really want Froot Loop Gore to have an impact on the future of operating systems? Or Bush's stance on gays and abortion? Roe v. Wade overturned through careful court-stacking?
The reality of 3rd party candidates, to return to the other subject, is many years from fruition. Currently we only see the Ross Perot effect, whereby frustrated voters pick Bill & Opus because they don't like George or Al. Remember what happened in '92? We got Slick Willie because of frustrated Republicans.
For all of those who fear Al Gore (and we should all be in this group), a vote should not be cast in frustration for some random guy who might get a few percent of the vote, but for the other major candidate. That way we aren't working against each other. Currently about 60% of registered voters do not like Gore. Why waste the votes on Nader? All he ever did was get rid of the Corvair, and even that was a crock.
Please believe that I do not support the 2 party system. But in the absence of a 3rd or 4th strong political party, votes are wasted on independent candidates. And that's all I have to say about that. Dammit.
I read the message about the Asimov story of the hammer...
A man in the mid part of the 20th C successfully filed a patent for the wheelbarrow under the same concept. Fortunately some patents expire over time...
I don't know about what to patent, but I sure would love to trademark a "total meal solution" called: "Whatever you want to do." Think of all the money you could make if every time a man or woman asked "Honey, what do you want to do for dinner?" Those responding with the afore-mentioned would be compelled to purchase my "total meal solution" (available at fine-grocers everywhere) or cough up thousands of bucks in royalties for usage. Think about that the next time you say "velcro", "styrofoam", or "xerox".
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't agree with you more. Don't worry, when them Reb's shoot you down, I'll pick up yer flag and wave it high. Protest votes are wasted for one reason that EVERYBODY is overlooking: YOUR VOTE DOES NOT DETERMINE WHO IS ELECTED. Has anybody ever heard of the Electoral College??? When "the people" vote, we are telling our electoral representatives (each state gets a few based on its population) who we want to see in office. If a single candidate gets the majority of the *popular* votes (uh, that's us) from a state, that candidate gets all of the electoral votes. One catch: the electors subscribe to the 2 party system. Disagree? Look back at the first 5 elections of the US. In at least one of them, the popular vote and the electoral vote did not concur. One candidate received more of the popular vote, and the other WON THE ELECTION because he carried the electoral vote.
ERGO: When you cast your vote for Nader, Browne, etc., you are telling the electorate to dis-regard your vote. So choose your 3rd party candidate with impunity. But don't bitch about which of the two big guns gets the office. You might as well have not voted at all.
Sorry to be so nasty, but it's damned frustrating to read all of these petty squabbling posts and know that nobody has taken our (granted--outdated) electoral system into consideration. Quit attacking people who understand the system. I think I'll go throw something now.
Actually the point is quite valid, although I don't believe that it is the crowning achievement of any presidency. The appointment of Supreme Court Justices is often as public a controversy as is the election of the President. Anybody here remember Clarence Thomas and the pubic hair? The whole thing might have seemed silly, but our presidents have stacked the court several times in the past when difficult cases were pending--often with the intended effect. Our oval office has caused the Supreme Court to swell to 13 justices in the past in order to sway power from one side to the other. We fortunately have more checks in place now to prevent that sort of thing, but 2 or 3 seats is a huge percentage of a nine-person panel.
All of this comes at a time when Microsoft--though bounced back to a lower court--faces some of its most difficult legal hurdles. Imagine a president who wants to be touchy-feely (this would, by the way, refer to the same man who believes that all cars should be outlawed--the man who invented the internet...) seeing an opportunity to make a political statement with such a big case as this. Does anybody really want Froot Loop Gore to have an impact on the future of operating systems? Or Bush's stance on gays and abortion? Roe v. Wade overturned through careful court-stacking?
The reality of 3rd party candidates, to return to the other subject, is many years from fruition. Currently we only see the Ross Perot effect, whereby frustrated voters pick Bill & Opus because they don't like George or Al. Remember what happened in '92? We got Slick Willie because of frustrated Republicans.
For all of those who fear Al Gore (and we should all be in this group), a vote should not be cast in frustration for some random guy who might get a few percent of the vote, but for the other major candidate. That way we aren't working against each other. Currently about 60% of registered voters do not like Gore. Why waste the votes on Nader? All he ever did was get rid of the Corvair, and even that was a crock.
Please believe that I do not support the 2 party system. But in the absence of a 3rd or 4th strong political party, votes are wasted on independent candidates. And that's all I have to say about that. Dammit.
I read the message about the Asimov story of the hammer...
A man in the mid part of the 20th C successfully filed a patent for the wheelbarrow under the same concept. Fortunately some patents expire over time...
I don't know about what to patent, but I sure would love to trademark a "total meal solution" called: "Whatever you want to do." Think of all the money you could make if every time a man or woman asked "Honey, what do you want to do for dinner?" Those responding with the afore-mentioned would be compelled to purchase my "total meal solution" (available at fine-grocers everywhere) or cough up thousands of bucks in royalties for usage. Think about that the next time you say "velcro", "styrofoam", or "xerox".