Since the original margin between the Bush and Gore was only 1784 votes, I'd call that signifigant.
Sure, it's significant. But what are we supposed to do about it? We can't change the rules of the contest after it's over just because we didn't like the result.
More than 19,000 voters
selected two presidential candidates, which is more than five times as many as made the same mistake for senators, and more
than ten times as many as Bush's lead statewide.
In these cases, the entire ballot is spoiled and the voter gets a new one. So the 19,000 ballot number is completely irrelevant. These people got the opportunity to fix the problem. If they didn't then something illegal happened and the polling supervisors should be held accountable.
In no case can we allow re-votes because we'd be giving more voting power to those people. They have future knowledge of the election outcome.
I
don't think an argument can be made that the president should represent farmers (or any other minority population) *over* the majority.
Of course not, but shouldn't the candidate have to listen to their issues? They won't have to if we go to a popular vote system.
individuals who are in the minority get *less* say with the current electoral system because their votes essentially get cancled when the majority takes
their state
This is true. I was thinking more of the upper midwest (Iowa, the Dakotas, etc.). This problem wcould be solved with a proportional electoral system in the state. I'm not as clear on whether this is a good idea, though.
Line item veto and not allowing unrelated items to be voted on at the
same time (i.e. the CDA in whatever bill it was squished into) would go a long way in helping this in either our current system or this hypothetical
one.
Except that the line-item veto has been declared unconstitutional due to the illegal delegation of power from the legislative to the executive.
Also, the current system (winner-takes-all) in practice leads to a two party system.
This is a good thing as it forces candidates to gravitate toward the center.
whereas with a multi-winner system you might win with 30 or 40% of the vote (or even 20 or ten, depending on how many
candidates there are for how many positions, and how the votes come out)
I don't think I'd want a president with a 20% mandate.
Can you really argue that the majority of poor and middle class voters were happy with their choices this year?
No, probably not. But voters will never be happy with the candidates because the system requires compromise. No one wants to give up their pet belief. One of the reasons we have such a stable government is that compromise is the center of it. Things do not tilt too far in either direction. Proportional representation would upset this.
The ballot is not an issue. It was approved by the state election commissioner. The only relevant item remaining is the Florida recount. We will not have a re-vote or have those ballots discarded. We can't start changing the rules in the middle of the contest. It's the same thing regarding keeping the polls open past ther scheduled hours. That is illegal.
The point is that each CITIZEN, not each STATE, would have equal representation if we went by a popular vote.
Each citizen does have a voice. Through the states. Every vote counts toward the allocation of votes in the Electoral College.
Do you agree that citizens don't have a voice in the House or the Senate?
THEN, have the states divide their alloted electoral votes percentage-wise by their own popular vote.
Note that this is a state issue, not a federal one. Each state would have to change its practices individually.
One thing to keep in mind with this is now a candidate can win without a supermajority of electors (assuming third parties play a part). We already complain about this in the popular vote.
Actually, they would be if Florida had counted its votes faster.
The great thing about this election is that if we assume Bush wins Florida, then if any state went the other way, it would chage the results. This was truly a national election. If Gore had taken his home state or Clinton's state, the election would no longer be an issue.
Eh? The Civil War began after Lincoln was elected. Certainly the slavery/states' rights issues played a significant role, but the actual Civil War had nothing to do with it.
Yes, it is. If the Electoral College goes away, the candidates will pander to the large population centers. They do that now, but not to the degree they would with a purely popular vote. The farmers would kiss their representation goodbye. If we abolish the Electoral College, we might was well have population-based representation in the Senate. Why would we want one without the other?
A. I'm not sure what tyranny of the minority is.
With a coalition government, the more radical factions of the ruling coalition can force concessions to their radical agenda without having to compromise their position, because they know if the dominant party doesn't concede, they can form a coalition with the other side. This happens in Isreal, for example.
B. as if we don't have tyranny of the minority already
This doesn't make any sense to me. Women being a minority in government has absolutey nothing to do with women having the power to elect whomever they wish. It's not valid to look at voter breakdown this way, as women/poor/races don't vote in a single block the way political parties do.
Campaign finance is a touchy issue, due to the First Amendment concerns you addressed. But getting more candidates in the debate would go a long way to at least giving information to voters.
The poll workers could not give
a definite answer either way, and did not have any other authority to check with.
This may be somewhat misleading. It may be that the poll workers were legally prohibited from giving an answer. Poll workers are not allowed to explain the wording of referendum items, for example. The statement here makes it sound like the pool workers themselves were confused, which may in fact be the case, but it's not necessarily the reason they couldn't provide an answer.
- President elected by popular mandate (no more electoral college)
Nope. You'll kill the elective power of small states, as has been explained many, many times.
- Proportional Representation. Party X gets y% of the vote, party X gets y% of the seats in the house/legislature. Many
European countries have this model.
Nope. Coalition governments are bad (tyranny of the minority).
- Third party inclusion into the debates. One of the biggest barriers to entry for third parties in my opinion. Even if
they don't win, they can keep it real by bringing up issues the corporate parties don't want to discuss.
Agreed.
- Campaign Finance limits. Limits on total $ allowed to be spent so it's harder to buy an election like Mark Dayton did
in MN. Also soft money limits to curb special interests influence.
Yes, we need campaign finance reform. I don't know if a spending cap is the answer, but something should be done.
BTW, I have an Indian co-worker who believes that the two-party system is one of the great strengths of our system. I
disagree with him, but I present his view (which he claims is widely held in Parliamentary-system countries) for
discussion.
I happen to agree with your co-worker. A two party system forces the major party candidates to compromise. Compromise has been the basis of our government from day one. Coalition governments tend to create a tyranny of the minority. Witness Isreal's troubles getting a peace plan past the Knesset.
A lot of people bemoan this, as they see "two identical candidates." This is actually good, because it means the candidates are actually listening to the people.
How many people voting for Nader really wanted the Green party to win? Most people I've talked to just wanted a third voice, which is fine. It allows them to voice their opinions. Now the Democrats have to listen. But the Greens can't manipulate government policy directly. They are radical, and the majority of the populace doesn't want that.
Just a clarification: opposition to abortion is not purely a religious issue. It is an issue for all "pro-life" people. And when I say "pro-life," I most certainly do not include Bush and others who support capital punishment and euthenasia.
This painting of the pro-life viewpoint as directly tied to religion really irks me, if you couldn't tell.:)
You're writing from the perspective of someone who doesn't go to church. Naturally, many of your friends are going to be like-minded. I can list off just as many people who do go to church.:)
My point is that trying to establish national trends from personal experience is very, very difficult.
And as far as the minority extreme right having a disproportionately loud void: why is it you're not voting, again?
Your vote counts for things like funding and debate appearances in the next election. Want third parties in the debates next time 'round? Vote for them! Especially in a state where things are locked up for one of the candidates.
Ok, so how does that relate to real world computing then? How often does an application do the same thing over and over again?
A lot. And it doesn't require a re-run, either. This is why things like FX!32, Dynamo and dynamic compilers work. Remeber: "90% of the time in 10% of the code."
It's because 'creationism' tends to carry a lot more baggage than just the concept of a creator existing. Typically, creationism
encompasses the 6,000-year-old-earth nonsense, and that's what educated, reasonably intelligent people find absurd.
I think one problem that has hurt the image of faith-oriented people such as myself is that various terms have been invented or used overgenerally to pigeonhole people into well-defined categories when those categories don't really exist (this happens to all of us, but since we're debating the source of the universe here, I'll limit the discussion to "creationists").
Typically (as in the quote above), "creationist" is used as a term to refer to those who believe in a God who takes an active role in the universe. Unfortunately, that same label also encompasses what I would call "biblical literalists" -- those who take the Bible as-written (as-translated, actually).
I personally believe in an active God who not only creates but also works in our everyday lives. The actual method of creation is unimportant: whether by big-bang, evolution, clay molding or transmundane Lincoln Logs, the result is still at once spectacular and intimately familiar.
Yet I hesitate to call myself a "creationist" due to all the negative connotations that go with the term. Perhaps "activist" is a better term, but it is confusing due to the political overtones it conveys.
"Religionist" is a particularly damning term. As my pastor once said, "religion often gets in the way of faith." I am faithful first, religious second.
For a good look into language and its importance in our worldview and political process, I highly recommend this article.
if only your government was interested in facilitating democracy.
I, for one, am glad it isn't, because the U.S. is a republic. A democracy would be far too unwieldy.
As for the debates, I too am disappointed that third parties did not appear. I plan to register my displeasure with the debate commission (www.debates.org).
I think an open-ended question can be useful sometimes. If you get a BS answer, you pretty much know where the candidate stands, right? If you get a clear and concise answer, you also know.
Either the candidate answers "no" to the question, or they answer "yes" and then must provide concrete examples.
Last I checked, you were free to chose your own religion, unless you went to some institution where you have to be a specific religion (i.e. catholic HS, college, etc). Then, you get what you pay for.
While overall a sensible post, this line exhibits a misunderstanding of private education. I received Catholic schooling through my undergraduate days, and not once was following Catholicism a requirement for admission. In fact, recent attempts by the Vatican to restrict faculty hiring by colleges (requiring all theology faculty to be Catholic) was soundly rejected by U.S. institutions.
I think this question should be phrased differently. The way the question is worded now, it's clear on which side of the debate the poster sits. The candidates are going to pander to that viewpoint.
Perhaps a better version of the question is:
"What, if any, changes to copyright law will be necessary in the 'digital economy?' What, if any, changes are necessary with respect to more 'traditional' fields?"
An analogous question could be asked of patent law.
This is just off the top of my head. Any other, better versions of this question out there?
Questions (this and others) should go to all candidates, not just Gore.
So public school parents don't want to make sure they're getting their tax dollar's worth?
I never said that. But there is more incentive for private school parents to get involved.
Now some public schools have serious problems: crumbling buildings, lack of space, special needs students, etc. These issues must be addressed immediately. If we're to spend more money on public education, we should spend it in these areas. But there seems to be this belief in the US that money will solve all the problems. The point I am making is that money isn't everything. Participation is what really counts.
The problem is that in America we somehow have a culture that fosters a fear of becoming more intelligent than the people around us.
Indeed. I'd even take this one step further and say that in the US there is intense pressure for young people to conform. Students feel compelled to dress in the latest fashions, eat at the trendy restaurants and listen to the empty, soulless pop hits of the day. It's ironic that in a country known for innovation we don't allow our children the slightest bit of freedom.
But that is a much wider issue than education. We start somewhere and pressure advertisers to stop the school-bashing. And I don't want to see lots of sappy ads about how "school is cool." Either don't mention school or integrate a positive message in subtle, non-bludgeoning ways.
but can't we take 3% of the defence budget in order to triple (or more?) our education spending? More teachers, higher standards (for both teachers AND students),
public involvement, PR work to counter anti-intellectualism, etc.
Note the emphasized text. This is where the change needs to take place. Money is not really the answer beyond providing basic infrastructure. If it were, private schools, with their barely up-to-date textbooks and lower teacher salaries would have folded long ago. Private schools work because parents who pay extra to educate their children want to make damn sure they're getting their money's worth.
The PR work is also, I think, a critical part of the overal equation for improving education. How many times each day do children view advertisements that have an underlying anti-school message (i.e. "if you have to go to school anyway, why not at least wear hip clothes?")? These sorts of subtle messages do far more harm than the blatant disrespect shown by Bush with his comment last night.
The only truely revolutionary changes that Intel has ever done is the 386 and the Pentium. Every other design that they did was a simple upgrade to already existing chips.
You're kidding, right? What about the P6 core? O-O-O is not a trivial change. The P4 is a complete redesign of the core that implements concepts like the trace cache that are relatively recent in the computer architecture research community.
Yes, of course Intel has released incremental changes. If they didn't we'd all be complaining about Intel not advancing their technology. Honestly, I'm getting tired of seeing the same old Intel and Microsoft bashing with little or no useful argument to back it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it's significant. But what are we supposed to do about it? We can't change the rules of the contest after it's over just because we didn't like the result.
In these cases, the entire ballot is spoiled and the voter gets a new one. So the 19,000 ballot number is completely irrelevant. These people got the opportunity to fix the problem. If they didn't then something illegal happened and the polling supervisors should be held accountable.
In no case can we allow re-votes because we'd be giving more voting power to those people. They have future knowledge of the election outcome.
--
Of course not, but shouldn't the candidate have to listen to their issues? They won't have to if we go to a popular vote system.
This is true. I was thinking more of the upper midwest (Iowa, the Dakotas, etc.). This problem wcould be solved with a proportional electoral system in the state. I'm not as clear on whether this is a good idea, though.
Except that the line-item veto has been declared unconstitutional due to the illegal delegation of power from the legislative to the executive.
This is a good thing as it forces candidates to gravitate toward the center.
I don't think I'd want a president with a 20% mandate.
No, probably not. But voters will never be happy with the candidates because the system requires compromise. No one wants to give up their pet belief. One of the reasons we have such a stable government is that compromise is the center of it. Things do not tilt too far in either direction. Proportional representation would upset this.
--
--
Each citizen does have a voice. Through the states. Every vote counts toward the allocation of votes in the Electoral College.
Do you agree that citizens don't have a voice in the House or the Senate?
Note that this is a state issue, not a federal one. Each state would have to change its practices individually.
One thing to keep in mind with this is now a candidate can win without a supermajority of electors (assuming third parties play a part). We already complain about this in the popular vote.
--
The great thing about this election is that if we assume Bush wins Florida, then if any state went the other way, it would chage the results. This was truly a national election. If Gore had taken his home state or Clinton's state, the election would no longer be an issue.
--
--
Yes, it is. If the Electoral College goes away, the candidates will pander to the large population centers. They do that now, but not to the degree they would with a purely popular vote. The farmers would kiss their representation goodbye. If we abolish the Electoral College, we might was well have population-based representation in the Senate. Why would we want one without the other?
With a coalition government, the more radical factions of the ruling coalition can force concessions to their radical agenda without having to compromise their position, because they know if the dominant party doesn't concede, they can form a coalition with the other side. This happens in Isreal, for example.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Women being a minority in government has absolutey nothing to do with women having the power to elect whomever they wish. It's not valid to look at voter breakdown this way, as women/poor/races don't vote in a single block the way political parties do.
Campaign finance is a touchy issue, due to the First Amendment concerns you addressed. But getting more candidates in the debate would go a long way to at least giving information to voters.
--
This may be somewhat misleading. It may be that the poll workers were legally prohibited from giving an answer. Poll workers are not allowed to explain the wording of referendum items, for example. The statement here makes it sound like the pool workers themselves were confused, which may in fact be the case, but it's not necessarily the reason they couldn't provide an answer.
--
Nope. You'll kill the elective power of small states, as has been explained many, many times.
Nope. Coalition governments are bad (tyranny of the minority).
Agreed.
Yes, we need campaign finance reform. I don't know if a spending cap is the answer, but something should be done.
--
I happen to agree with your co-worker. A two party system forces the major party candidates to compromise. Compromise has been the basis of our government from day one. Coalition governments tend to create a tyranny of the minority. Witness Isreal's troubles getting a peace plan past the Knesset.
A lot of people bemoan this, as they see "two identical candidates." This is actually good, because it means the candidates are actually listening to the people.
How many people voting for Nader really wanted the Green party to win? Most people I've talked to just wanted a third voice, which is fine. It allows them to voice their opinions. Now the Democrats have to listen. But the Greens can't manipulate government policy directly. They are radical, and the majority of the populace doesn't want that.
--
This painting of the pro-life viewpoint as directly tied to religion really irks me, if you couldn't tell. :)
--
My point is that trying to establish national trends from personal experience is very, very difficult.
And as far as the minority extreme right having a disproportionately loud void: why is it you're not voting, again?
That's a collective "you," BTW. :)
--
--
Your vote counts for things like funding and debate appearances in the next election. Want third parties in the debates next time 'round? Vote for them! Especially in a state where things are locked up for one of the candidates.
--
Yes! The tenth amendment is why the line-item veto was struck down! The legislative was delegating powers to the executive.
--
A lot. And it doesn't require a re-run, either. This is why things like FX!32, Dynamo and dynamic compilers work. Remeber: "90% of the time in 10% of the code."
--
Feed the trolls...
While not all over 35 yeas old, here is my list (in no particular order -- it also doubles as a film recommendation list, BTW):
Animal House, The Blues Brothers and Terminator pale in comparison.
--
I think one problem that has hurt the image of faith-oriented people such as myself is that various terms have been invented or used overgenerally to pigeonhole people into well-defined categories when those categories don't really exist (this happens to all of us, but since we're debating the source of the universe here, I'll limit the discussion to "creationists").
Typically (as in the quote above), "creationist" is used as a term to refer to those who believe in a God who takes an active role in the universe. Unfortunately, that same label also encompasses what I would call "biblical literalists" -- those who take the Bible as-written (as-translated, actually).
I personally believe in an active God who not only creates but also works in our everyday lives. The actual method of creation is unimportant: whether by big-bang, evolution, clay molding or transmundane Lincoln Logs, the result is still at once spectacular and intimately familiar.
Yet I hesitate to call myself a "creationist" due to all the negative connotations that go with the term. Perhaps "activist" is a better term, but it is confusing due to the political overtones it conveys.
"Religionist" is a particularly damning term. As my pastor once said, "religion often gets in the way of faith." I am faithful first, religious second.
For a good look into language and its importance in our worldview and political process, I highly recommend this article.
--
I, for one, am glad it isn't, because the U.S. is a republic. A democracy would be far too unwieldy.
As for the debates, I too am disappointed that third parties did not appear. I plan to register my displeasure with the debate commission (www.debates.org).
--
Either the candidate answers "no" to the question, or they answer "yes" and then must provide concrete examples.
--
While overall a sensible post, this line exhibits a misunderstanding of private education. I received Catholic schooling through my undergraduate days, and not once was following Catholicism a requirement for admission. In fact, recent attempts by the Vatican to restrict faculty hiring by colleges (requiring all theology faculty to be Catholic) was soundly rejected by U.S. institutions.
Just clearing up confusion.
--
Perhaps a better version of the question is: "What, if any, changes to copyright law will be necessary in the 'digital economy?' What, if any, changes are necessary with respect to more 'traditional' fields?"
An analogous question could be asked of patent law.
This is just off the top of my head. Any other, better versions of this question out there?
Questions (this and others) should go to all candidates, not just Gore.
--
I never said that. But there is more incentive for private school parents to get involved.
Now some public schools have serious problems: crumbling buildings, lack of space, special needs students, etc. These issues must be addressed immediately. If we're to spend more money on public education, we should spend it in these areas. But there seems to be this belief in the US that money will solve all the problems. The point I am making is that money isn't everything. Participation is what really counts.
Indeed. I'd even take this one step further and say that in the US there is intense pressure for young people to conform. Students feel compelled to dress in the latest fashions, eat at the trendy restaurants and listen to the empty, soulless pop hits of the day. It's ironic that in a country known for innovation we don't allow our children the slightest bit of freedom.
But that is a much wider issue than education. We start somewhere and pressure advertisers to stop the school-bashing. And I don't want to see lots of sappy ads about how "school is cool." Either don't mention school or integrate a positive message in subtle, non-bludgeoning ways.
--
Note the emphasized text. This is where the change needs to take place. Money is not really the answer beyond providing basic infrastructure. If it were, private schools, with their barely up-to-date textbooks and lower teacher salaries would have folded long ago. Private schools work because parents who pay extra to educate their children want to make damn sure they're getting their money's worth.
The PR work is also, I think, a critical part of the overal equation for improving education. How many times each day do children view advertisements that have an underlying anti-school message (i.e. "if you have to go to school anyway, why not at least wear hip clothes?")? These sorts of subtle messages do far more harm than the blatant disrespect shown by Bush with his comment last night.
--
You're kidding, right? What about the P6 core? O-O-O is not a trivial change. The P4 is a complete redesign of the core that implements concepts like the trace cache that are relatively recent in the computer architecture research community.
Yes, of course Intel has released incremental changes. If they didn't we'd all be complaining about Intel not advancing their technology. Honestly, I'm getting tired of seeing the same old Intel and Microsoft bashing with little or no useful argument to back it up.
--