The problem with this view is that it gives those who have more money more "free speech".
I don't want George Soros or the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush to have more free speech than I do. I want them to have exactly the same amount, regardless of how much money they have or can gather. Simply because I get paid more than someone else does and can contribute more to someone's kitty for political ads doesn't mean that my views should be more widely disseminated.
Hey, wait a minute! I want as much "free speech" as Dan Rather. Why does he get to rant on national TV every night, but all I get is my little website?
You see, it isn't just about who has the *money.*. It's also about who controls the *media*. And if you are going to restrict the wealthy from having undue influence, why aren't you going to restrict ABC, NBC, CBS, etc., likewise? Oh, wait, that would violate the First Amendment. Are you starting to get the idea yet?
You are the first person I've heard of that has believed the Swift Boat Vets. Where are you getting your facts? Faux News?
That just goes to show how out of touch you are with the real world. A majority of the American public believes the Swift Boat Vets. And why shouldn't they? They've been vindicated in virtually every dispute with Kerry, who has been forced to "back down" on the Cambodia claim, the purple hearts, etc., etc. If you are interested in the truth, you should read Unfit for Command. But I doubt you are.
People on the left seem to believe that campaign finance money can buy votes. It can't. Take the so-called 527 groups. The anti-Bush 527s have spent something like 20 to 50 times what the anti-Kerry 527s have spent, much of it coming from ultra-wealthy folks like George Soros. But the relatively small amount that the Swift Boat Vets have spent has been much more influential. Why? Well, apparently having the truth on your side is worth quite a bit.
Apparently you are not American. The Electoral College is a system we have of electing our President indirectly at the state level (rather than by direct popular vote). If you google it, you will find a plethora of information on it, but you might want to take a couple of aspirin before doing so.
Maybe a good solution would be to use approval voting at the state level. Then each state generates a list of candidates ordered by number of votes they receive. At the national level, we can do instant runoff, or any of the other methods that require an ordered list. Each state is weighted by the number of electoral votes it has.
You're proposing to radically change the Electoral College. That requires a Constitutional Amendment just as much as abolishing the EC would. Besides, using IRV would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
Yes, the {-1,0,1} method has been proposed, and its a good system. In fact, you can generalize it to any number is integers, such as 0-10. These are all special cases of what is known as "Cardinal Ratings", which we discuss briefly at ElectionMethods.org. Approval is the simplest possible form of Cardinal Ratings.
More general Cardinal Ratings are great, but the problem is that they require new voting equipment and they are different enough from our current system that they will be a much harder sell. Let's take this one step at a time. Even the smallest step to Approval will be a major hurdle.
Thanks for posting that link criticizing the Electoral College (which I wrote myself). At one time it was more prominently displayed at the site, but I found that it was a turnoff to too many conservatives. I consider myself a conservative myself, but I disagree with them on the Electoral College. I found that too many people would see that link and simply dismiss the entire site out of hand. It was too much of a distraction, so I "buried" it.
Approval Voting (or any other alternative election method) can be used with the Electoral College in place, but then it can't help minor parties get a fair chance.
Think about it. Suppose your state uses Approval Voting and selects Nader. Now, the spoiler effect is just transferred to the national level, where Nader can spoil the race in the EC. Your state "wasted" its electoral votes on Nader. Most people will figure this out in advance (or be told) and won't let it happen.
As the webmaster of ElectionMethods.org, I am thrilled to see this link on slashdot. Please tell your friends and relatives too!
I would just like to clarify a couple of points. We believe that Condorcet voting is the best system if properly implemented. However, as you will see at our site, the proper implementation gets very technical. Therefore, we realized a long time ago that Condorcet is simply not practical for actual implemention on a large scale in the forseeable future. It's just too darn complicated.
However, Approval Voting is very simple. It's the same as our current plurality system except that the voter is allowed to vote for more than one candidate (no ranking). When people first hear about Approval Voting (myself included), they think it is defective because it does not allow you to rank the candidates (as in IRV and Condorcet). But this is misleading. IRV lets you rank the candidates, but it does not properly count your preferences. Technical analysis shows that Approval Voting is a surprisingly good system given its extreme simplicity. And it requires no new voting equipment. It could be implemented very quickly once a consensus is reached to do so, and the only objection I can see is to protect the two-party duopoly.
Think about it, folks. We could revolutionize our political system by simply letting voters vote for more than one candidate. This will have a far more profound effect than term limits or campaign finance reform, for example.
What effect it will have cannot be predicted exactly, of course. Perhaps the Republicrats will still remain dominant for a long time, perhaps not. But it's definitely worth a try, perhaps starting at the local level.
Oh, one more caveat. You must realize that *no* alternative voting system can make the US Presidential election fairer for minor parties as long as the Electoral College is in place. Trust me: it just can't be done. That's why I'm for aboloshing the EC. Unfortunately, many of my fellow conservatives are dead set against that, and it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
Approval Voting is very easy to explain: vote for ("approve") as many candidates as you wish (no ranking), and the candidate with the most votes wins. There it is in one sentence.
Approval voting requires no new voting equipment. It could be implemented very quickly once a consensus is reached, and it would truly revolutionize our political system, giving minor parties a much fairer chance than they now have.
One caveat: it will not work well in US Presidential elections as long as the Electoral College in place. Then again, neither will any of the other alternative election methods. Oh well.
No not "saying" it. You can "say" it all you want. Anybody can "say" it anytime they want, as often as they like. Buying advertisement is not the same as "saying" it. When you buy advertising you are participating in commerce, it's commercial speech.
No, it's not commercial speech. When the Swift Boat Vets advertise their firsthand views on Kerry, that's political speech. They are not selling something that you can pay them money for. Until you understand that, you don't have a clue about freedom of speech and the First Amendment.
That's an interesting view, but I don't see how it could possibly be correct. Read the First Amendment. It mentions the "press". Is the "press" a person? No, the "press" is virtually always a corporation.
I don't see it that way. Allow me to continue with *my* version of the bacterial infection. The folks who are trying to thwart Bush are analogous to the AIDS virus, and if they gain power, our defenses will be completely subverted.
Let me clarify my position on the war in Iraq. I *respectfully* disagree with those who think it is too costly (in terms of lives and/or dollars). However, I have little respect for those who equate it to an immoral "imperialist" war. Those are the AIDS bunch in my analogy.
The idea you are suggesting would allow Al Qaeda to use anybody who does not fit your racial (therefore illegal, though IANAL) profile as the actual attackers. Would your argument have been any differnet if the shoe-bomber had been an 80-year-old white woman in your words?
First, I specifically said that not even 80-yr-old white ladies should be completely off the hook. And yes, al Qaeda (sp?) could recruit white ladies to do their dirty work. But do you really suppose they will do that? Can you imagine how risky that would be for them? Let them try!
I think the idea of giving free speech to soul-less immortal beings is repugnant. Corporations should no more have the right to free speech then they have to bear arms. Many people agree with me on this. The supreme court defiled the constitution and humanity by equating a corporation with a human being. I hope to god that before I die this abomination is overturned and the rights given to human beings by their creator is once again limited to just human beings.
A corporation may be a "soulless immortal being", but it is run by human beings, so I don't get your point. Should we say that the First Amendment does not apply to CBS because it is a corporation? If so, the 1st Amendment was just neutered (not that I have any fondness for CBS, mind you).
80 year old white women aren't a threat? How about 20-some year old white men? Race isn't an issue, neither is age. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can be a terrorist...just look at the Unabomber.
Yes, anyone can be a terrorist, but not anyone is equally likely to be one -- not by any stretch. So efficient prevention begins with focusing on the most likely culprits. This is plain common sense -- which seems to be in short supply these days. No, I'm not saying that we should let old white women off the hook completely, but certainly they don't warrant the same attention as 20-yr-old male Arabs.
There is a scene in one of the old Airplane movies involving an airport security line. In the scene, an old white lady is given the third degree and a young Arab male is waved right through. That was a comedy, but today people like you think it should be actual policy. I suggest you rethink your position, because it is absurd.
With all due respect, I don't think you have a clue about freedom of speech. Yes, there are legitimate restrictions that can be placed on it, but preventing political ads before an election is most certainly not one of them.
If you think that free speech only means that I can stand on the corner and give a speech to passersby, you don't have a clue. It means that I can use any medium I wish, so long as I don't *force* anyone to listen to me (as in using a bullhorn in the middle of the night).
Your idea of freedom of speech is, to be frank, rather alarming. If it is a common view, the Constitution is in jeopardy.
I read recently that certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act allowed law enforcement to foil an attempt to blow up a bridge in New York. I'm getting old, so I can't remember the details, and I can't give you a specific reference. Take it or leave it.
I view terrorism as analogous to a bacterial infection, say pneumonia. At first it doesn't seem all that deadly, but if you don't kill it early you could have serious problems later. We are in the early stages now, and we had darn well better do something very decisive about it. Bush is doing just that. The people who talk about how unlikely any particular individual is to die in a terrorist attack at this stage are missing the point altogether.
You're making no sense. So a political advertisement isn't protected by the First Amendment because it is somehow comparable to someone shouting at my house with a megaphone? OK, then I guess the very same principle applies to the television station that might carry that ad. Hey, wait a minute,... there's goes freedom of speech!
I can turn off a political ad just as easily as I can change the channel on a political analysis show. Nobody is forced to watch it.
I'm sorry, but the fact that a law entitled "USA PATRIOT Act" passed the Senate almost unanimously, just 45 days after a major terrorist attack on US soil, with NO discussion or debate, does not strike you as un-democratic?
Thankfully ONE of our senators, Russ Feingold (D-WI), actually has a clue.
Russ Feingold is a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. This law blatantly violates the First Amendment by outlawing "issue advocacy" ads within 60 days of a general election. It is truly astounding how some on the left can worship a guy who is doing everything within his considerable power to overturn the Constitution -- in the name of that very Constitution no less!
Hey, I agree completely that airport security is largely a joke, but that's because our sec. of trans., a holdover from the Clinton administration, thinks we should spend as much time on 80-yr-old white ladies as 22-yr-old Arabs. If that's not idiotic, what is?
Having said that, the notion that the Bush administration has not used the PATRIOT Act to protect us from terrorist attacks is just plain wrong. Many attacks have been foiled, including major ones.
You're comparison of the war on terrorism with the war on drugs is typical of the misconceptions here on/. The war on terrorism is very real whether or not you have your head buried in the ground.
Well, thanks for disagreeing *respectfully*. It doesn't seem to happen a lot here.
Are you aware that the PATRIOT Act passed the Senate by something like 98-0? No, that doesn't prove that it is perfect, but as much as I distrust the Senate, I think that unanonymous vote provides good evidence that the Act could not possibly be the Nazi tactic that its opponents claim it is. As I said earlier, it probably has flaws around the edges, but it is fundamentally reasonable at its core. By the way, I believe it has also stopped major terrorists attacks.
What really amazes me when I read the posts here at/. is that so many seem to think the war on terror is some kind of ruse. The very success of the Bush administration in preventing further attacks has allowed his detractors to lull us into a false sense of complacency. But the terrorists are really out to get us, folks. They tell us every day, and they are not kidding.
Hey, fellas, wake up. The PATRIOT ACT may have a few flaws, but it is *not* the threat to our freedoms that so many on/. seem to think it is. for the most part, it simply extends traditional law enforcement practices to new technology, such as cell phones, still requiring the same legal checks (court approval, etc.).
Do you want to know what *is* a *real* threat to our freedoms *right now*? Check out the Dept. of Child Protective Services in your community. They can take away your children for the flimsiest of reasons, and you can go bankrupt trying to get them back. This is happening *right now!* And it ain't John Ashcroft who is behind it. It's your friendly local leftists. Wake up and start worrying about *real* threats to your freedom!
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this view is that it gives those who have more money more "free speech".
I don't want George Soros or the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush to have more free speech than I do. I want them to have exactly the same amount, regardless of how much money they have or can gather. Simply because I get paid more than someone else does and can contribute more to someone's kitty for political ads doesn't mean that my views should be more widely disseminated.
Hey, wait a minute! I want as much "free speech" as Dan Rather. Why does he get to rant on national TV every night, but all I get is my little website?
You see, it isn't just about who has the *money.*. It's also about who controls the *media*. And if you are going to restrict the wealthy from having undue influence, why aren't you going to restrict ABC, NBC, CBS, etc., likewise? Oh, wait, that would violate the First Amendment. Are you starting to get the idea yet?
You are the first person I've heard of that has believed the Swift Boat Vets. Where are you getting your facts? Faux News?
That just goes to show how out of touch you are with the real world. A majority of the American public believes the Swift Boat Vets. And why shouldn't they? They've been vindicated in virtually every dispute with Kerry, who has been forced to "back down" on the Cambodia claim, the purple hearts, etc., etc. If you are interested in the truth, you should read Unfit for Command. But I doubt you are.
People on the left seem to believe that campaign finance money can buy votes. It can't. Take the so-called 527 groups. The anti-Bush 527s have spent something like 20 to 50 times what the anti-Kerry 527s have spent, much of it coming from ultra-wealthy folks like George Soros. But the relatively small amount that the Swift Boat Vets have spent has been much more influential. Why? Well, apparently having the truth on your side is worth quite a bit.
Apparently you are not American. The Electoral College is a system we have of electing our President indirectly at the state level (rather than by direct popular vote). If you google it, you will find a plethora of information on it, but you might want to take a couple of aspirin before doing so.
Maybe a good solution would be to use approval voting at the state level. Then each state generates a list of candidates ordered by number of votes they receive. At the national level, we can do instant runoff, or any of the other methods that require an ordered list. Each state is weighted by the number of electoral votes it has.
You're proposing to radically change the Electoral College. That requires a Constitutional Amendment just as much as abolishing the EC would. Besides, using IRV would be a huge mistake in my opinion.
Yes, the {-1,0,1} method has been proposed, and its a good system. In fact, you can generalize it to any number is integers, such as 0-10. These are all special cases of what is known as "Cardinal Ratings", which we discuss briefly at ElectionMethods.org. Approval is the simplest possible form of Cardinal Ratings.
More general Cardinal Ratings are great, but the problem is that they require new voting equipment and they are different enough from our current system that they will be a much harder sell. Let's take this one step at a time. Even the smallest step to Approval will be a major hurdle.
Thanks for posting that link criticizing the Electoral College (which I wrote myself). At one time it was more prominently displayed at the site, but I found that it was a turnoff to too many conservatives. I consider myself a conservative myself, but I disagree with them on the Electoral College. I found that too many people would see that link and simply dismiss the entire site out of hand. It was too much of a distraction, so I "buried" it.
Approval Voting (or any other alternative election method) can be used with the Electoral College in place, but then it can't help minor parties get a fair chance.
Think about it. Suppose your state uses Approval Voting and selects Nader. Now, the spoiler effect is just transferred to the national level, where Nader can spoil the race in the EC. Your state "wasted" its electoral votes on Nader. Most people will figure this out in advance (or be told) and won't let it happen.
As the webmaster of ElectionMethods.org, I am thrilled to see this link on slashdot. Please tell your friends and relatives too!
I would just like to clarify a couple of points. We believe that Condorcet voting is the best system if properly implemented. However, as you will see at our site, the proper implementation gets very technical. Therefore, we realized a long time ago that Condorcet is simply not practical for actual implemention on a large scale in the forseeable future. It's just too darn complicated.
However, Approval Voting is very simple. It's the same as our current plurality system except that the voter is allowed to vote for more than one candidate (no ranking). When people first hear about Approval Voting (myself included), they think it is defective because it does not allow you to rank the candidates (as in IRV and Condorcet). But this is misleading. IRV lets you rank the candidates, but it does not properly count your preferences. Technical analysis shows that Approval Voting is a surprisingly good system given its extreme simplicity. And it requires no new voting equipment. It could be implemented very quickly once a consensus is reached to do so, and the only objection I can see is to protect the two-party duopoly.
Think about it, folks. We could revolutionize our political system by simply letting voters vote for more than one candidate. This will have a far more profound effect than term limits or campaign finance reform, for example.
What effect it will have cannot be predicted exactly, of course. Perhaps the Republicrats will still remain dominant for a long time, perhaps not. But it's definitely worth a try, perhaps starting at the local level.
Oh, one more caveat. You must realize that *no* alternative voting system can make the US Presidential election fairer for minor parties as long as the Electoral College is in place. Trust me: it just can't be done. That's why I'm for aboloshing the EC. Unfortunately, many of my fellow conservatives are dead set against that, and it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
Approval Voting is very easy to explain: vote for ("approve") as many candidates as you wish (no ranking), and the candidate with the most votes wins. There it is in one sentence.
Approval voting requires no new voting equipment. It could be implemented very quickly once a consensus is reached, and it would truly revolutionize our political system, giving minor parties a much fairer chance than they now have.
One caveat: it will not work well in US Presidential elections as long as the Electoral College in place. Then again, neither will any of the other alternative election methods. Oh well.
No not "saying" it. You can "say" it all you want. Anybody can "say" it anytime they want, as often as they like. Buying advertisement is not the same as "saying" it. When you buy advertising you are participating in commerce, it's commercial speech.
No, it's not commercial speech. When the Swift Boat Vets advertise their firsthand views on Kerry, that's political speech. They are not selling something that you can pay them money for. Until you understand that, you don't have a clue about freedom of speech and the First Amendment.
Oh, so saying that Kerry is not fit to be Commander in Chief is "commercial speech". Now I'm starting to get it.
That's an interesting view, but I don't see how it could possibly be correct. Read the First Amendment. It mentions the "press". Is the "press" a person? No, the "press" is virtually always a corporation.
I don't see it that way. Allow me to continue with *my* version of the bacterial infection. The folks who are trying to thwart Bush are analogous to the AIDS virus, and if they gain power, our defenses will be completely subverted.
Let me clarify my position on the war in Iraq. I *respectfully* disagree with those who think it is too costly (in terms of lives and/or dollars). However, I have little respect for those who equate it to an immoral "imperialist" war. Those are the AIDS bunch in my analogy.
The idea you are suggesting would allow Al Qaeda to use anybody who does not fit your racial (therefore illegal, though IANAL) profile as the actual attackers. Would your argument have been any differnet if the shoe-bomber had been an 80-year-old white woman in your words?
First, I specifically said that not even 80-yr-old white ladies should be completely off the hook. And yes, al Qaeda (sp?) could recruit white ladies to do their dirty work. But do you really suppose they will do that? Can you imagine how risky that would be for them? Let them try!
I think the idea of giving free speech to soul-less immortal beings is repugnant. Corporations should no more have the right to free speech then they have to bear arms. Many people agree with me on this. The supreme court defiled the constitution and humanity by equating a corporation with a human being. I hope to god that before I die this abomination is overturned and the rights given to human beings by their creator is once again limited to just human beings.
A corporation may be a "soulless immortal being", but it is run by human beings, so I don't get your point. Should we say that the First Amendment does not apply to CBS because it is a corporation? If so, the 1st Amendment was just neutered (not that I have any fondness for CBS, mind you).
80 year old white women aren't a threat? How about 20-some year old white men? Race isn't an issue, neither is age. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can be a terrorist...just look at the Unabomber.
Yes, anyone can be a terrorist, but not anyone is equally likely to be one -- not by any stretch. So efficient prevention begins with focusing on the most likely culprits. This is plain common sense -- which seems to be in short supply these days. No, I'm not saying that we should let old white women off the hook completely, but certainly they don't warrant the same attention as 20-yr-old male Arabs.
There is a scene in one of the old Airplane movies involving an airport security line. In the scene, an old white lady is given the third degree and a young Arab male is waved right through. That was a comedy, but today people like you think it should be actual policy. I suggest you rethink your position, because it is absurd.
With all due respect, I don't think you have a clue about freedom of speech. Yes, there are legitimate restrictions that can be placed on it, but preventing political ads before an election is most certainly not one of them.
If you think that free speech only means that I can stand on the corner and give a speech to passersby, you don't have a clue. It means that I can use any medium I wish, so long as I don't *force* anyone to listen to me (as in using a bullhorn in the middle of the night).
Your idea of freedom of speech is, to be frank, rather alarming. If it is a common view, the Constitution is in jeopardy.
I read recently that certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act allowed law enforcement to foil an attempt to blow up a bridge in New York. I'm getting old, so I can't remember the details, and I can't give you a specific reference. Take it or leave it.
I view terrorism as analogous to a bacterial infection, say pneumonia. At first it doesn't seem all that deadly, but if you don't kill it early you could have serious problems later. We are in the early stages now, and we had darn well better do something very decisive about it. Bush is doing just that. The people who talk about how unlikely any particular individual is to die in a terrorist attack at this stage are missing the point altogether.
You're making no sense. So a political advertisement isn't protected by the First Amendment because it is somehow comparable to someone shouting at my house with a megaphone? OK, then I guess the very same principle applies to the television station that might carry that ad. Hey, wait a minute, ... there's goes freedom of speech!
I can turn off a political ad just as easily as I can change the channel on a political analysis show. Nobody is forced to watch it.
I'm sorry, but the fact that a law entitled "USA PATRIOT Act" passed the Senate almost unanimously, just 45 days after a major terrorist attack on US soil, with NO discussion or debate, does not strike you as un-democratic?
Thankfully ONE of our senators, Russ Feingold (D-WI), actually has a clue.
Russ Feingold is a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. This law blatantly violates the First Amendment by outlawing "issue advocacy" ads within 60 days of a general election. It is truly astounding how some on the left can worship a guy who is doing everything within his considerable power to overturn the Constitution -- in the name of that very Constitution no less!
Hey, I agree completely that airport security is largely a joke, but that's because our sec. of trans., a holdover from the Clinton administration, thinks we should spend as much time on 80-yr-old white ladies as 22-yr-old Arabs. If that's not idiotic, what is?
/. The war on terrorism is very real whether or not you have your head buried in the ground.
Having said that, the notion that the Bush administration has not used the PATRIOT Act to protect us from terrorist attacks is just plain wrong. Many attacks have been foiled, including major ones.
You're comparison of the war on terrorism with the war on drugs is typical of the misconceptions here on
Well, thanks for disagreeing *respectfully*. It doesn't seem to happen a lot here.
/. is that so many seem to think the war on terror is some kind of ruse. The very success of the Bush administration in preventing further attacks has allowed his detractors to lull us into a false sense of complacency. But the terrorists are really out to get us, folks. They tell us every day, and they are not kidding.
Are you aware that the PATRIOT Act passed the Senate by something like 98-0? No, that doesn't prove that it is perfect, but as much as I distrust the Senate, I think that unanonymous vote provides good evidence that the Act could not possibly be the Nazi tactic that its opponents claim it is. As I said earlier, it probably has flaws around the edges, but it is fundamentally reasonable at its core. By the way, I believe it has also stopped major terrorists attacks.
What really amazes me when I read the posts here at
Hey, fellas, wake up. The PATRIOT ACT may have a few flaws, but it is *not* the threat to our freedoms that so many on /. seem to think it is. for the most part, it simply extends traditional law enforcement practices to new technology, such as cell phones, still requiring the same legal checks (court approval, etc.).
Do you want to know what *is* a *real* threat to our freedoms *right now*? Check out the Dept. of Child Protective Services in your community. They can take away your children for the flimsiest of reasons, and you can go bankrupt trying to get them back. This is happening *right now!* And it ain't John Ashcroft who is behind it. It's your friendly local leftists. Wake up and start worrying about *real* threats to your freedom!
I need to leave to catch a flight right now. However, Byron York has covered this story very thoroughly. Google him.