Let's see, we've got two jerks running for office... one of 'em smart and irritating, the other's dumb and irritating. Now, let's see... try to guess which states go with which candidate...
This argument is why I don't have such a problem with the state flag that incorporates the confederate flag and the American flag. I can see that. I still think it's lame, but not offensive enough to get one's knickers in a twist.
But I'm not buying this argument in the case of flying the actual confederate flag. When I've seen this argument used, it's used with a metaphorical wink and nudge. And I've rarely seen this argument used.
Here's my analogy. My sister's best childhood friend married a black guy, and my sister refused to even attend the wedding. Now maybe her and her friend were on the outs for other reasons, I don't know, but the reason I heard from her was that she just "felt sorry for their kids", and she was adamant about that. That was such a lame excuse - she didn't go because she hates niggers, but in order to justify it to other people she had to make with the "just hating for the kids' sake" excuse.
Same deal with symbolizing the loss of the fallen. It's a phony-ass justification. Sure, on its face, there may be a point to it and it may indeed be legitimate for some people, and there are certainly appropriate places for it, like in cemetaries and on battlefields. But in wide usage: riiiiiiight.
Someone else posted a link to a newsletter from the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and I wanted to quote this from that link:
The following reports reveal that there are serious concerns with the computer systems used to count votes in the United States. These systems, many of which tend to be very primitive by present-day computing standards, are subject to error from software problems, hardware malfunctions, and user miscalculation or misunderstanding. There is also an alarming potential for electronic fraud in modern, computerized elections, with corresponding difficulties in detecting criminal activity or intent. - CPSR, fall 1988
There's some interesting reading there. Now, obviously the "Votescam" guys are, uh, a little out there... but still:
Why shouldn't we be able to see the source code for voting computers?
We should be able to independently audit every last bit of the election process. Everything. That's just fundamental. I'd always assumed that there's some really strict oversight of this stuff, but... I guess not? Weird, and a little creepy...
Oh, nice comeback. Just note: you haven't put me in my place, you haven't learned me a thing or two, and you haven't written one intelligent word in your own defense. The only thing you've done is reinforce my stereotypes.
Which I suppose is what I've done for you, though I'll be damned if I know what a "carpetbagger" is supposed to be and why I'm one. I guess because I don't buy into some kind of bullshit "southern pride", which has always been understood to be a code phrase for "racism". If you want to pretend it isn't, that's fine, it's your world, man... but I'm still going to call you out on it. If you don't want to listen to it, then don't listen.
$15k. Right. If you think the federal government is going to change the tax code, with or without Dubya, to put an extra 15k in your pocket then you are seriously deluded. It's a nice pipe dream, AC, and go ahead and vote for Dubya and cash in another pile of stocks in 3 years, and we'll see exactly how much more money you get. Hey, maybe I'm wrong, you never know - but I seriously doubt it.
Pot is not quite in the same league as coke. Oh, sure, I know, it was the 80s and everyone was doing it, but if you're going to harp on the Democrats for smoking pot you gotta come down a little harsher on your own team. Fair is fair.
Drunk driving's drunk driving. The guy is an admitted alcoholic. OK, that's cool if you're a Russian, but I like to think we could do better. And way to downplay it, too, as if you wouldn't be all over the other team if their guy came up with a DUI.
Neil Bush is Dubya's brother, and if you don't know that, you probably don't know fuck-all about the Bush family money shenanigans. Go educate yourself and try again.
There is indeed circumstantial evidence to suggest Dubya does not read at an adult level. I'm buying it, but then again I think he's an idiot in the first place, so there you go.
And whadda I care about Gore if he came from humble beginnings or not? And I don't seem to recall saying anything about being rich being a crime, or really espousing any "Trotskyist" ideals (do you know, BTW, what exactly those are?). As much as it pains me to have to spell out such an obvious disclaimer, my use of the phrase "spoiled rich frat boy moron" should not be taken to mean I think rich people are bad and communism is good, although from the sounds of things I can see where you might take some personal offense to that phrase. You seem a little overeager to leap to assumptions, there, AC. No, the phrase "spoiled rich frat boy moron" instead is meant to conjure up an image of, say, "Billy Madison", the extraordinarily grating Adam Sandler character who shares, I think, a remarkable likeness with your beloved Shrub.
And lastly, please, please, please explain to me how it follows that if I hate Bush then I must be an Al Gore fan, or fresh out of school, or a "commie"? What is it, a little too much Rush Limbaugh? That'll do it, it's true. Maybe you should take a little of that stock money and invest in a real education instead of sitting around feeding your head with a load of crap.
Who says the rich are evil? And who says you have vote for Gore instead?
All I'm saying is, Bush's tax plan is a joke, and you're the butt of it. Even if whichever scumbag gets elected actually managed to get a tax cut pushed through, and even if it actually meant that you would personally save a few lousy nickles, rest assured, that money will come out of your pocket in some other way anyway. Neither of these huckleberries is in the business of making LESS money for the government. Now, you might have had a realistic shot for that with John McCain, but of course we saw how well that went over with the establishment - see how it works?
But anyway, c'mon, man, it's the oldest trick in the political book. Everyone promises to lower taxes. They always have, always will, and it will always turn out to be a sham in one way or the other. Christ, even Dubya's own DAD pulled this stunt in a big way just a few years ago. Does no one remember this? And it sure as fuck isn't like Dubya has some superior ethics over his dad, and it sure is true that the only way Dubya functions even as just a candidate is by the extensive propping-up of the same people who helped his pappy... that's right, G.W., brought to you by the makers of Read My Lips.
And yeah, Gore's lousy with the tech issues we geeks care about, but damn, just wait and see what a Dubya administration does for us. Or more to the point, TO us. Gore might be punching us in the head, but at least he's using gloves... Dubya's more of a bare-knuckle kinda guy.
Of course, I'd rather vote for someone who doesn't want to punch me in the head at all, but I'm wacky like that.
Y'know, I don't agree with the results of your analysis... and frankly could barely muster the interest level required to read about tax credits for kids, much less actually think about it, as I have no sprog and plan no sprog... but I gotta say, bless you for passing on "fucktrophy" and "crotchfruit" into my vocabulary, where they will, from now on, be an indispensable part of my verbal catalog. Seriously, it just about brings a tear of joy to my eye.
Man, do you really believe that YOU will see more money if Bush gets elected? Unless you are in a way higher tax bracket than me, you're getting suckered. And if you are in that high of a tax bracket, is a lousy few dollars in your pocket really worth the further erosion of our civil rights and environment that a Bush administration represents? Not to mention just the sheer embarassment of having a coke-snorting, drunk-driving, S&L-robbing, semi-literate spoiled rich frat boy moron for a chief executive...
Federal Spending Growth by Function, 1950-96
(millions of 1987 dollars)
1950...1996...% Change
National Defense
$83,990...$197,675...135.4%
Veterans Benefits
$54,064...$28,099...-48.0%
International Affairs
$28,599...$11,039...-61.4%
Income Security
$25,073...$169,973...577.9%
Agriculture
$12,540...$5,745...-54.2%
Energy, Natural Resources, & Environment
$10,006...$18,436...84.2%
Commerce & Housing Credit
$6,334...-$7,998...-226.3%
General Government
$6,034...$10,116...67.6%
Transportation
$5,918...$29,603...400.2%
Social Security
$4,780...$261,221...5,365.2%
Health and Medicare
$1,640...$222,418...13,460.9%
Education, Training, Employment, & Social Services
$1,475...$40,294...2,632.0%
Administration of Justice
$1,181...$13,968...1,082.5%
General Science, Space & Technology $337...$12,563...3,632.3%
Community and Regional Development $184...$9,586...5,121.2%
Net Interest
$29,449...$179,439...509.3%
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts and Allowances
-$11,120...-$31,707...185.1%
Total Outlays
$260,477...$1,170,471...349.4%
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Tables 3.1 and 10.1.
That gives you a little perspective. I can't show you a graphic here, but overall, if you look at a graph you'll see that the "size" of the government has been increasing at a rapid and roughly equivalent pace NO MATTER WHICH PARTY is in power! Don't just listen to their rhetoric, and don't be suckered... these guys are both in favor of a large and powerful government. And why wouldn't they be? It's what they do!
Here's a couple of things to think about:
The federal government currently spends $75 billion a year on direct subsidies to business (as of 1997, anyway) - almost HALF of national defense, three times veterans benefits, almost double all the education and social services for citizens put together... and NEITHER Bush nor Gore will lift a finger about it. In fact, Bush is even a more pro-business (read between the lines, wink-wink) candidate than Gore.
You might remember, in 1950, we had a couple of very serious enemies that we were actively fighting. Now, all we have is the overseas target range called Iraq, yet we still spend more than twice the amount of money, and Bush wants to spend a whole lot more... for what, exactly? No one seems to know. But try not to think of the U.S. armed forces as the largest government bureaucracy, provider of gov't jobs, and overall funnel of wasted money on the planet - that wouldn't be patriotic.
Man, if I was that concerned about government expansion - and don't get me wrong, I am - I sure wouldn't vote for Gore OR Bush.
What mixed up system of marillity? What I'm saying is, flying a confederate flag is blatantly racist. Of course you don't think so because you don't think you're racist. But I'll tell you what, it is disingenuous to say the least to say "I'm not a racist" and then turn around and say the Civil War wasn't about that "PC crap". You are so not getting it. And what does that have to do with liberal/conservative, speaking of stone age stereotypes?
And who are you calling imperialist? Do you know what that word means? I'm not going to stop y'all from making asses of yourselves. I'm calling a spade a spade, as I see it... and what I see is so obviously fucked, making a target of you is every bit as righteous as targeting Scientologists and Holocaust revisionists. It's a totally deserved dope slap, and so far I haven't seen one - not ONE - ounce of common sense, intelligence, or wisdom of any sort that supports hanging a racist, traitorous, loser flag on a state building. And yeah, I've read all the stuff about tariffs and states rights, so spare me the bullshit - you need to come out and say what you really feel and not hide behind bogus rationalizations. That is such a weaselly, punkass maneuver, it's no wonder you feebs go for Bush.
You may notice, by the way, that I am not referring to your precious state flag that incorporates the stars and bars in its design. I'm not so opposed to that design per se. Sure, I think it's lame and stupid, and the people who have such great love for it at that mystateflag.com site are some stone age stereotypes, but it's still not the same thing as flying an actual rebel flag.
Finally, I think I made it clear enough that I think y'all should be free, as states, to decide what flags you want to fly. I've got no interest in forcing you to conform to my world view. However, if you're going to act like dumbass cracker morons, I reserve my right to call you on it. And so far, you haven't exactly done much to change my mind.
I'm totally fascinated by this "liberal" phenomenon... if not A, then B. There's no room for a C or D or anything else with these guys, they just divide everything into two groups, black and white, good and bad, what I think and what the liberals think. Is it just a need to categorize? A need to identify with a group - "I am a conservative, and the enemy is the liberal"? At what point do their individual beliefs, ideals and thoughts become subservient to that of the group's, and what is their breaking point? If Rush Limbaugh were to finally come out of the closet yet still be embraced by the conservative elite, for example, would these guys suddenly be down with homosexuality, would they look for a new group, or would they say screw it, I'm a free-thinking individual and I believe x, y and z and I don't need a label to prop up my partially-formed sense of self?
Maybe it's just a lack of processing power. I know this type - they can't wrap their heads around concepts like "libertarian" or "bisexual" or "agnostic" or anything that doesn't fit into the black/white worldview. It just doesn't compute for them. It's spooky, I say... to cop a little Dennis Miller, it's like Darwin's waiting room - these guys have missed the evolutionary bus.
Oh, well. Anyway. Thanks for proving my point, AC. I notice you exclude yourself from the "barefoot" and "toothless" categories, which is nice for you, but I want to thank you for not even bothering to try to exclude yourself from the "fuckwit" category. Believe me, if you had tried, it would have been about as convincing as your "I am not a racist" (oh, yeah, AC, you ARE the United Colors of Benetton). Sweet Jebus, either I'm getting trolled myself, or there isn't anyone here with a three-digit IQ who can justify flying the confederate flag over a state capitol building, and I'm more convinced than ever that that rant is generally correct...
What's so delightful about this is how people seem to assume that my above rant is somehow pro-liberal... as if there are just two teams, and you're either for one or the other. That's an interesting perspective on reality, and I think I'll have to develop my feelings on that into my next rant...
Man, I was hoping for some flames of quality here, but that barely qualifies as literate. Although "radiating hate" is a nice phrase, and I like the bit about exploding all over. Those were inspired. In a few years, little AC, when you get out of school, you really should think about going to college... I think you've got potential, but it's going to take some work. And try to go to a good school - community college is OK in a pinch, but you'll get more out of a university or state college.
WHY
I WON'T VOTE FOR BUSH
(Reason No. 43) Apparently,
there are people in South Carolina - I won't name names - who think flying
the Confederate flag on their state capitol building is some sort of proud
testament to their glorious past. OK, fine, to the rest of civilization
it's a symbol of the ignorant, aggressive, racist losers of a vicious,
unnecessary war... but to each his own. Now, last spring John McCain,
Al Gore and Bill Bradley all agreed that the rebel flag was inappropriate
and should be removed from the South Carolina capitol building... but
not George W. Bush. Dubya felt that flying the Confederate flag was an
issue best left for the people of South Carolina to decide on.
Well,
on one hand, that's a good answer. The federal government shouldn't be
in the business of telling the states what flags they can and can't fly
on their own buildings. But on the other hand, it is SUCH a pussy answer.
If
George Bush had said something like this:
"Well, I think the federal government has no business
getting involved with this issue. It's clearly a matter between the people
of South Carolina and their elected state representatives. But I'll tell
you what... here's how I really feel about it:
Listen,
you toothless dumbass backwoods cracker feebs, the Civil War was a HUNDRED
AND FIFTY YEARS AGO, and YOU LOST. Don't you think it's about time you,
y'know, let it go? Especially considering that pretty much every person
on the planet can agree that slavery probably wasn't such a good idea.
You don't see many swastikas over at the Reichstag these days, do ya?
You know why that is? It's because they're not particularly proud of having
an evil, fucked-up past where they killed and/or enslaved a whole bunch
of people. Surprise! What's next on your list, an Andersonville theme
park?
And
another thing, the next time I'm driving around down here and I see a
73 El Camino toolin' around with a 'Nuke the North' bumper sticker, look,
I'm running your fuckin' ass off the road with my entire presidential
motorcade. Nuke the North. That's pretty funny considering all the ICBM
sites there aren't in the South. Like we'd really let a bunch of
fuckwits like you at the controls of global thermonuclear destruction.
I tell you what - any of 'ya'll' who want to fight the Civil War all over
again, you just let me and the Pentagon know the time and place and we'll
be more than happy to settle this thing once and for all, alright? Until
then, all of you ignorant redneck web-toed David-Duke-votin' sick-motherfuckin'
Ned-Beatty-rapin' sons of bitches can just sit the fuck down and shut
the fuck up, because the rest of your species is so embarassed by your
existence that the only sign of your pathetic lives we ever want to see
again is the footnote in the history books that starts: 'Here's an example
of a truly despicable people...' ...
but, uh, anyway, no, if the people of South Carolina want to fly a confederate
flag or swastika or rising sun or Union Jack or whatever on their public
buildings, well, that's their business."
I'm
telling you, if George W. Bush were to say something like that, not only
would I be first in line at the polls to vote for him, I'd paint his portrait
all over my car. I'd name my dog after him. Hell, I'd change MY name to
George W. in honor of him. But he won't, because either he agrees with
the sentiment, which is fucked, or because he's a wuss and he'd
rather dodge the question. Either way -- he's a douchebag.
Do you have a source for this? I work in the environmental consulting field, and right now I'm working on two of the largest Superfund sites in the West. The people with the biggest problems are, surprise, chemical plants, petroleum and heavy industry.
I suspect the 25% recycling/reprocessing figure could be accurate, but I think that needs to be qualified - I'd wager most of these places are not the romantic green ideals of recycling plants. These aren't where your newspapers and bottles go. These are probably more along the lines of the heavy industrial reprocessing facilities, and that includes a whole spectrum of nasty stuff. One of the PRPs at one of our sites is indeed a heavy scrap metal reprocessor... but their responsibility for the site is very, very, very small in comparison to the neighboring chemical plants - if any, in fact.
I was under the mistaken impression that the electoral college worked a little differently than it actually does. But I'm going to challenge the conventional wisdom on this point by looking at recent history:
1976
53.55% Voter Turnout
1980
52.56%
1984
53.11% Turnout
1988
50.11% Turnout
1992
Clinton: 44,908,254 - 370
Bush: 39,102,343 - 168
Perot: 19,741,065 - 0
(Total for all three: 99.21% of voters)
104,405,155 votes
189,529,000 potential voters
55.09% Turnout
I think, looking at the numbers here, you've got several million people, easy, who went to the polls specifically to vote for Perot. In 1996, where did those people go? Looks to me like most of 'em stayed home.
If the conventional wisdom is that Perot took votes mostly from Bush in 92, I say pfah... no way. There's eight million votes that stayed away in 1996, and it looks to me like most of those who deserted Perot in 96, yet still voted, voted for another third-party candidate. And I think that will be partially true for Nader/Gore this year... sure, Gore's going to lose some votes to him, and in a race this tight I guess it might actually matter in some places. But I bet we'll see a bump up in turnout this year - I predict somewhere in the 52% range - and I further bet most of that bump goes to third-party candidates.
In '92, the media were all over themselves talking about how Perot could theoretically get enough votes to cause no candidate to get a majority, thus throwing the election to the House where Perot would lose anyway. This was all fine fun and wonky games (and gave a lot of us, I think, the illusion of choice), but what they DIDN'T say is: hey, Perot has no electors, there's not a damn thing he can do in this race, it couldn't possibly ever end up in the House, he's just wasting all of our time.
It's the same today. I don't hear anyone, anywhere talking about the need for greens and libertarians and reformers and all of us fringey types to work on our local elections. No one's saying, hey, wait a minute, until we get more support in our own communities we don't have a shot at the big leagues. All I ever hear is people blathering on about their no-chance vanity candidates (myself included, BTW), but the highest possible office for a third-party, left-field populist candidate is governor. A third-party left-field president isn't just a noble, Quixotic, extreme long-shot, it's an actual IMPOSSIBILITY.
You'd think, at some point, someone somewhere would be bringing this point up.
That's all I've got so far. It looks like third-party candidates have always had a real disadvantage, and it looks like in the past twenty years that it's gone past being just a disadvantage. One might assume, just by looking at the numbers for 92-96, that a third-party vote counts for fuck-all in the real election.
Another interesting data point: in 1916 in W. Virginia, electors were chosen directly on the ballot. That year 7 Republicans and 1 Democrat won. Apparently, this is a Bad Thing and is described as being the result of voter confusion or fatigue. So these days most states just keep things nice and simple so the po' folk just pick one man or the other, and let the smart people behind the scenes sort things out. Maine and Nebraska, oddly enough, are the exceptions, as they still allow for a few individual electors to be voted upon.
The 19th century had a slew of wacky electoral college antics. These seem to have been perfectly tamed for most of the 20th century, for better and for worse, with the major political parties securing their hammerlock on the system in the past 20 years.
I guess how it works in California, for example, is that whichever major party gets the most popular votes gets to send their hand-picked team of electors to Sacramento to cast their votes... all-or-nothing, it's either going to be Republicans or Democrats. Since electors are chosen by state office-holders, as long as there aren't any third-party office-holders already in the state, there's not even a chance that there will be a third-party elector in any event.
And like was pointed out ad nauseum during Perot's run, even if there came to be a three-way tie in the electoral college (which would be a miracle itself at this point), the election would be decided by the House of Representatives. Good luck with your third-party candidate there.
So the only way any third-party presidential candidate will ever even stand a chance of any kind will be if that third party can gain a substantial foothold in each state government first, and then they better have a similar hold in Congress. Otherwise there's zero-nada-zip-zilch chance, no matter how many popular votes your guy gets. I bet Perot could've kicked Bush's ass in 92 and still scored 0 electoral votes (and that might've happened, BTW, if anyone remembers back that far... if only Perot hadn't gone a little wiggy midway into the campaign).
This seems really unfair at first, but upon relection I think it actually makes sense. I mean, c'mon, seriously... did anyone REALLY want to see Perot get elected in 92, or was it more that the other candidates sucked? Do we actually want to see Browne or Nader or whoever become president?
The system in place now may suck, but it does prevent some unqualified yahoo from riding a popularity wave into office (yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Jesse Ventura) (hey, I don't know squat about Jesse, OK, I'm just using him as an example of what COULD happen - for all I know he's a brilliant governor). Let these guys build up enough local support, let them and their party platforms get battle-tested before they graduate to the most powerful position on the planet. Run for governor first, at least.
All of us third-party fanatics should keep in mind - it's all well and good to support an oddball presidential candidate, but if you're serious about your views you gotta start at the local level. Otherwise, for better and for worse, it is just fun and games, a waste of time. Should you still vote your conscience? I say so. Why not? Your one lousy vote isn't going to swing the presidential election, so I say, go for it.
Alright, in trying to answer my own question I've gone out in search of info on the web. Gosh, there sure is lots of spiffy historical info and blahblah, but I'm having a hard time finding the nitty gritty - like how exactly third-party votes are handled in the electoral college.
As it turns out, at least in this century, yeah, it looks like the electoral college goes like the state popular vote goes. Sorta. I'm under the impression that there have been times when this hasn't necessarily been the case, but I haven't actually checked that out. And anyway, what I'm talking about here is the fact that third-party votes appear to get "lost" in the electoral college. I know on the surface this is due to the winner-take-all scheme, but I'm more curious about how it breaks down within the electoral college itself.
Interestingly, there have been a few recent cases of rogue major-party electors... one guy in 1976 voting for Reagan, and IIRC one or two rogues against Nixon. There certainly seems to be no formal obligation for an elector to vote a certain way (although I bet rogue electors have a hard time getting their phone calls returned afterwards). And I'm not seeing any breakdowns on the electors themselves... how many popular votes does it take to get yourself an elector? How many major-party electors have there been in past elections vs. third-party electors, and how did they all vote? Do third-party electors stick to their guns and vote their party, or do they tend to be more pragmatic and vote the lesser evil, since at that point there wouldn't be any advantage to being a holdout?
Here's what I don't get... seriously, I don't know the answer to this and I'm hoping someone here does.
The popular vote doesn't mean anything, it's the electoral vote that counts. If the electoral college is under no obligation to vote the way the popular vote goes, and frequently doesn't, then why would a vote for Nader be a vote for Bush? What's all this noise about "stealing" votes from Gore?
A few weeks ago someone here posted the results of popular votes v. electoral votes. I seem to recall Perot getting a very substantial number of the popular vote and ZERO electoral votes. So what's the deal? Who did Perot steal votes from? Did all the Perot popular votes have any influence on the electoral votes at all? I assume that Nader won't get as many votes as Perot did in 92, so I assume that he won't be getting any electoral votes, either. So how does this work in practice, and why do people go on about "strategic voting" when it doesn't appear to matter at all?
Wouldn't an electromagnet strong enough to wipe a disk in one not-so-near pass (i.e., walking through the doorframe) have to be so powerful, it would induce a noticeable pull on the metal of the box?
I can just picture a g-man lugging a tower case out the door, only to have it CLANG against the frame and get stuck there and they have to get crowbars to pry the thing off. You know, they just might get a little suspicious at that point...
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see, we've got two jerks running for office... one of 'em smart and irritating, the other's dumb and irritating. Now, let's see... try to guess which states go with which candidate...
Why, gol-leee...
Hey, thanks for the rational input.
This argument is why I don't have such a problem with the state flag that incorporates the confederate flag and the American flag. I can see that. I still think it's lame, but not offensive enough to get one's knickers in a twist.
But I'm not buying this argument in the case of flying the actual confederate flag. When I've seen this argument used, it's used with a metaphorical wink and nudge. And I've rarely seen this argument used.
Here's my analogy. My sister's best childhood friend married a black guy, and my sister refused to even attend the wedding. Now maybe her and her friend were on the outs for other reasons, I don't know, but the reason I heard from her was that she just "felt sorry for their kids", and she was adamant about that. That was such a lame excuse - she didn't go because she hates niggers, but in order to justify it to other people she had to make with the "just hating for the kids' sake" excuse.
Same deal with symbolizing the loss of the fallen. It's a phony-ass justification. Sure, on its face, there may be a point to it and it may indeed be legitimate for some people, and there are certainly appropriate places for it, like in cemetaries and on battlefields. But in wide usage: riiiiiiight.
Someone else posted a link to a newsletter from the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and I wanted to quote this from that link:
The following reports reveal that there are serious concerns with the computer systems used to count votes in the United States. These systems, many of which tend to be very primitive by present-day computing standards, are subject to error from software problems, hardware malfunctions, and user miscalculation or misunderstanding. There is also an alarming potential for electronic fraud in modern, computerized elections, with corresponding difficulties in detecting criminal activity or intent.
- CPSR, fall 1988
There's some interesting reading there. Now, obviously the "Votescam" guys are, uh, a little out there... but still:
Why shouldn't we be able to see the source code for voting computers?
We should be able to independently audit every last bit of the election process. Everything. That's just fundamental. I'd always assumed that there's some really strict oversight of this stuff, but... I guess not? Weird, and a little creepy...
1. Complain (part I) 2:16
Some people will work
Some simply will not
But they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain
Some people must have
Some never will
But they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain
I don't have a house, I don't have a car
I spend all my time drunk in a bar
I wanna be rich, I don't have a brain
Give me a handout while I complain
Hey but you're livin' in the land of the free
No one's gonna hand you opportunity!
Some people will learn
Some never do
But they'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain
It's society's fault, I don't have a job
It's society's fault, I am a slob
I have potential no one can see
Give me welfare, let me be free
Hey but you're livin' in the land of the free
No one's gonna hand you opportunity!
- Bob Roberts
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0103850
http://www.geocities.com/dh374/bob.html
Oh, nice comeback. Just note: you haven't put me in my place, you haven't learned me a thing or two, and you haven't written one intelligent word in your own defense. The only thing you've done is reinforce my stereotypes.
Which I suppose is what I've done for you, though I'll be damned if I know what a "carpetbagger" is supposed to be and why I'm one. I guess because I don't buy into some kind of bullshit "southern pride", which has always been understood to be a code phrase for "racism". If you want to pretend it isn't, that's fine, it's your world, man... but I'm still going to call you out on it. If you don't want to listen to it, then don't listen.
You know, I'll get back to you on that just as soon as I figure out what the fuck you're talking about.
Yeah, you're impressive.
$15k. Right. If you think the federal government is going to change the tax code, with or without Dubya, to put an extra 15k in your pocket then you are seriously deluded. It's a nice pipe dream, AC, and go ahead and vote for Dubya and cash in another pile of stocks in 3 years, and we'll see exactly how much more money you get. Hey, maybe I'm wrong, you never know - but I seriously doubt it.
Pot is not quite in the same league as coke. Oh, sure, I know, it was the 80s and everyone was doing it, but if you're going to harp on the Democrats for smoking pot you gotta come down a little harsher on your own team. Fair is fair.
Drunk driving's drunk driving. The guy is an admitted alcoholic. OK, that's cool if you're a Russian, but I like to think we could do better. And way to downplay it, too, as if you wouldn't be all over the other team if their guy came up with a DUI.
Neil Bush is Dubya's brother, and if you don't know that, you probably don't know fuck-all about the Bush family money shenanigans. Go educate yourself and try again.
There is indeed circumstantial evidence to suggest Dubya does not read at an adult level. I'm buying it, but then again I think he's an idiot in the first place, so there you go.
And whadda I care about Gore if he came from humble beginnings or not? And I don't seem to recall saying anything about being rich being a crime, or really espousing any "Trotskyist" ideals (do you know, BTW, what exactly those are?). As much as it pains me to have to spell out such an obvious disclaimer, my use of the phrase "spoiled rich frat boy moron" should not be taken to mean I think rich people are bad and communism is good, although from the sounds of things I can see where you might take some personal offense to that phrase. You seem a little overeager to leap to assumptions, there, AC. No, the phrase "spoiled rich frat boy moron" instead is meant to conjure up an image of, say, "Billy Madison", the extraordinarily grating Adam Sandler character who shares, I think, a remarkable likeness with your beloved Shrub.
And lastly, please, please, please explain to me how it follows that if I hate Bush then I must be an Al Gore fan, or fresh out of school, or a "commie"? What is it, a little too much Rush Limbaugh? That'll do it, it's true. Maybe you should take a little of that stock money and invest in a real education instead of sitting around feeding your head with a load of crap.
Who says the rich are evil? And who says you have vote for Gore instead?
All I'm saying is, Bush's tax plan is a joke, and you're the butt of it. Even if whichever scumbag gets elected actually managed to get a tax cut pushed through, and even if it actually meant that you would personally save a few lousy nickles, rest assured, that money will come out of your pocket in some other way anyway. Neither of these huckleberries is in the business of making LESS money for the government. Now, you might have had a realistic shot for that with John McCain, but of course we saw how well that went over with the establishment - see how it works?
But anyway, c'mon, man, it's the oldest trick in the political book. Everyone promises to lower taxes. They always have, always will, and it will always turn out to be a sham in one way or the other. Christ, even Dubya's own DAD pulled this stunt in a big way just a few years ago. Does no one remember this? And it sure as fuck isn't like Dubya has some superior ethics over his dad, and it sure is true that the only way Dubya functions even as just a candidate is by the extensive propping-up of the same people who helped his pappy... that's right, G.W., brought to you by the makers of Read My Lips.
And yeah, Gore's lousy with the tech issues we geeks care about, but damn, just wait and see what a Dubya administration does for us. Or more to the point, TO us. Gore might be punching us in the head, but at least he's using gloves... Dubya's more of a bare-knuckle kinda guy.
Of course, I'd rather vote for someone who doesn't want to punch me in the head at all, but I'm wacky like that.
Y'know, I don't agree with the results of your analysis... and frankly could barely muster the interest level required to read about tax credits for kids, much less actually think about it, as I have no sprog and plan no sprog... but I gotta say, bless you for passing on "fucktrophy" and "crotchfruit" into my vocabulary, where they will, from now on, be an indispensable part of my verbal catalog. Seriously, it just about brings a tear of joy to my eye.
Man, do you really believe that YOU will see more money if Bush gets elected? Unless you are in a way higher tax bracket than me, you're getting suckered. And if you are in that high of a tax bracket, is a lousy few dollars in your pocket really worth the further erosion of our civil rights and environment that a Bush administration represents? Not to mention just the sheer embarassment of having a coke-snorting, drunk-driving, S&L-robbing, semi-literate spoiled rich frat boy moron for a chief executive...
OK, give this a once-over:
Federal Spending Growth by Function, 1950-96
(millions of 1987 dollars)
1950...1996...% Change
National Defense
$83,990...$197,675...135.4%
Veterans Benefits
$54,064...$28,099...-48.0%
International Affairs
$28,599...$11,039...-61.4%
Income Security
$25,073...$169,973...577.9%
Agriculture
$12,540...$5,745...-54.2%
Energy, Natural Resources, & Environment
$10,006...$18,436...84.2%
Commerce & Housing Credit
$6,334...-$7,998...-226.3%
General Government
$6,034...$10,116...67.6%
Transportation
$5,918...$29,603...400.2%
Social Security
$4,780...$261,221...5,365.2%
Health and Medicare
$1,640...$222,418...13,460.9%
Education, Training, Employment, & Social Services
$1,475...$40,294...2,632.0%
Administration of Justice
$1,181...$13,968...1,082.5%
General Science, Space & Technology $337...$12,563...3,632.3%
Community and Regional Development $184...$9,586...5,121.2%
Net Interest
$29,449...$179,439...509.3%
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts and Allowances
-$11,120...-$31,707...185.1%
Total Outlays
$260,477...$1,170,471...349.4%
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Tables 3.1 and 10.1.
That gives you a little perspective. I can't show you a graphic here, but overall, if you look at a graph you'll see that the "size" of the government has been increasing at a rapid and roughly equivalent pace NO MATTER WHICH PARTY is in power! Don't just listen to their rhetoric, and don't be suckered... these guys are both in favor of a large and powerful government. And why wouldn't they be? It's what they do!
Here's a couple of things to think about:
The federal government currently spends $75 billion a year on direct subsidies to business (as of 1997, anyway) - almost HALF of national defense, three times veterans benefits, almost double all the education and social services for citizens put together... and NEITHER Bush nor Gore will lift a finger about it. In fact, Bush is even a more pro-business (read between the lines, wink-wink) candidate than Gore.
You might remember, in 1950, we had a couple of very serious enemies that we were actively fighting. Now, all we have is the overseas target range called Iraq, yet we still spend more than twice the amount of money, and Bush wants to spend a whole lot more... for what, exactly? No one seems to know. But try not to think of the U.S. armed forces as the largest government bureaucracy, provider of gov't jobs, and overall funnel of wasted money on the planet - that wouldn't be patriotic.
Man, if I was that concerned about government expansion - and don't get me wrong, I am - I sure wouldn't vote for Gore OR Bush.
What mixed up system of marillity? What I'm saying is, flying a confederate flag is blatantly racist. Of course you don't think so because you don't think you're racist. But I'll tell you what, it is disingenuous to say the least to say "I'm not a racist" and then turn around and say the Civil War wasn't about that "PC crap". You are so not getting it. And what does that have to do with liberal/conservative, speaking of stone age stereotypes?
And who are you calling imperialist? Do you know what that word means? I'm not going to stop y'all from making asses of yourselves. I'm calling a spade a spade, as I see it... and what I see is so obviously fucked, making a target of you is every bit as righteous as targeting Scientologists and Holocaust revisionists. It's a totally deserved dope slap, and so far I haven't seen one - not ONE - ounce of common sense, intelligence, or wisdom of any sort that supports hanging a racist, traitorous, loser flag on a state building. And yeah, I've read all the stuff about tariffs and states rights, so spare me the bullshit - you need to come out and say what you really feel and not hide behind bogus rationalizations. That is such a weaselly, punkass maneuver, it's no wonder you feebs go for Bush.
You may notice, by the way, that I am not referring to your precious state flag that incorporates the stars and bars in its design. I'm not so opposed to that design per se. Sure, I think it's lame and stupid, and the people who have such great love for it at that mystateflag.com site are some stone age stereotypes, but it's still not the same thing as flying an actual rebel flag.
Finally, I think I made it clear enough that I think y'all should be free, as states, to decide what flags you want to fly. I've got no interest in forcing you to conform to my world view. However, if you're going to act like dumbass cracker morons, I reserve my right to call you on it. And so far, you haven't exactly done much to change my mind.
I'm totally fascinated by this "liberal" phenomenon... if not A, then B. There's no room for a C or D or anything else with these guys, they just divide everything into two groups, black and white, good and bad, what I think and what the liberals think. Is it just a need to categorize? A need to identify with a group - "I am a conservative, and the enemy is the liberal"? At what point do their individual beliefs, ideals and thoughts become subservient to that of the group's, and what is their breaking point? If Rush Limbaugh were to finally come out of the closet yet still be embraced by the conservative elite, for example, would these guys suddenly be down with homosexuality, would they look for a new group, or would they say screw it, I'm a free-thinking individual and I believe x, y and z and I don't need a label to prop up my partially-formed sense of self?
Maybe it's just a lack of processing power. I know this type - they can't wrap their heads around concepts like "libertarian" or "bisexual" or "agnostic" or anything that doesn't fit into the black/white worldview. It just doesn't compute for them. It's spooky, I say... to cop a little Dennis Miller, it's like Darwin's waiting room - these guys have missed the evolutionary bus.
Oh, well. Anyway. Thanks for proving my point, AC. I notice you exclude yourself from the "barefoot" and "toothless" categories, which is nice for you, but I want to thank you for not even bothering to try to exclude yourself from the "fuckwit" category. Believe me, if you had tried, it would have been about as convincing as your "I am not a racist" (oh, yeah, AC, you ARE the United Colors of Benetton). Sweet Jebus, either I'm getting trolled myself, or there isn't anyone here with a three-digit IQ who can justify flying the confederate flag over a state capitol building, and I'm more convinced than ever that that rant is generally correct...
Listen, if I want education I'll go back and finish the third grade. Now, c'mon... I'll give you a dollar if you say something funny.
What's so delightful about this is how people seem to assume that my above rant is somehow pro-liberal... as if there are just two teams, and you're either for one or the other. That's an interesting perspective on reality, and I think I'll have to develop my feelings on that into my next rant...
... although it's nice to know that Southerners hate Nazis. Thanks for clearing up that confusion. I don't know what the hell I was thinking.
Wake me when there's a comment here that isn't completely stupid and/or boring.
Man, I was hoping for some flames of quality here, but that barely qualifies as literate. Although "radiating hate" is a nice phrase, and I like the bit about exploding all over. Those were inspired. In a few years, little AC, when you get out of school, you really should think about going to college... I think you've got potential, but it's going to take some work. And try to go to a good school - community college is OK in a pinch, but you'll get more out of a university or state college.
Hugs,
GooseKirk
WHY I WON'T VOTE FOR BUSH ...
but, uh, anyway, no, if the people of South Carolina want to fly a confederate
flag or swastika or rising sun or Union Jack or whatever on their public
buildings, well, that's their business."
I'm
telling you, if George W. Bush were to say something like that, not only
would I be first in line at the polls to vote for him, I'd paint his portrait
all over my car. I'd name my dog after him. Hell, I'd change MY name to
George W. in honor of him. But he won't, because either he agrees with
the sentiment, which is fucked, or because he's a wuss and he'd
rather dodge the question. Either way -- he's a douchebag.
(Reason No. 43) Apparently, there are people in South Carolina - I won't name names - who think flying the Confederate flag on their state capitol building is some sort of proud testament to their glorious past. OK, fine, to the rest of civilization it's a symbol of the ignorant, aggressive, racist losers of a vicious, unnecessary war... but to each his own. Now, last spring John McCain, Al Gore and Bill Bradley all agreed that the rebel flag was inappropriate and should be removed from the South Carolina capitol building... but not George W. Bush. Dubya felt that flying the Confederate flag was an issue best left for the people of South Carolina to decide on. Well, on one hand, that's a good answer. The federal government shouldn't be in the business of telling the states what flags they can and can't fly on their own buildings. But on the other hand, it is SUCH a pussy answer. If George Bush had said something like this: "Well, I think the federal government has no business getting involved with this issue. It's clearly a matter between the people of South Carolina and their elected state representatives. But I'll tell you what... here's how I really feel about it: Listen, you toothless dumbass backwoods cracker feebs, the Civil War was a HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO, and YOU LOST. Don't you think it's about time you, y'know, let it go? Especially considering that pretty much every person on the planet can agree that slavery probably wasn't such a good idea. You don't see many swastikas over at the Reichstag these days, do ya? You know why that is? It's because they're not particularly proud of having an evil, fucked-up past where they killed and/or enslaved a whole bunch of people. Surprise! What's next on your list, an Andersonville theme park? And another thing, the next time I'm driving around down here and I see a 73 El Camino toolin' around with a 'Nuke the North' bumper sticker, look, I'm running your fuckin' ass off the road with my entire presidential motorcade. Nuke the North. That's pretty funny considering all the ICBM sites there aren't in the South. Like we'd really let a bunch of fuckwits like you at the controls of global thermonuclear destruction. I tell you what - any of 'ya'll' who want to fight the Civil War all over again, you just let me and the Pentagon know the time and place and we'll be more than happy to settle this thing once and for all, alright? Until then, all of you ignorant redneck web-toed David-Duke-votin' sick-motherfuckin' Ned-Beatty-rapin' sons of bitches can just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, because the rest of your species is so embarassed by your existence that the only sign of your pathetic lives we ever want to see again is the footnote in the history books that starts: 'Here's an example of a truly despicable people...'
Do you have a source for this? I work in the environmental consulting field, and right now I'm working on two of the largest Superfund sites in the West. The people with the biggest problems are, surprise, chemical plants, petroleum and heavy industry.
I suspect the 25% recycling/reprocessing figure could be accurate, but I think that needs to be qualified - I'd wager most of these places are not the romantic green ideals of recycling plants. These aren't where your newspapers and bottles go. These are probably more along the lines of the heavy industrial reprocessing facilities, and that includes a whole spectrum of nasty stuff. One of the PRPs at one of our sites is indeed a heavy scrap metal reprocessor... but their responsibility for the site is very, very, very small in comparison to the neighboring chemical plants - if any, in fact.
I was under the mistaken impression that the electoral college worked a little differently than it actually does. But I'm going to challenge the conventional wisdom on this point by looking at recent history:
1976
53.55% Voter Turnout
1980
52.56%
1984
53.11% Turnout
1988
50.11% Turnout
1992
Clinton: 44,908,254 - 370
Bush: 39,102,343 - 168
Perot: 19,741,065 - 0
(Total for all three: 99.21% of voters)
104,405,155 votes
189,529,000 potential voters
55.09% Turnout
1996
Clinton: 45,590,703 - 379
Dole: 37,816,307 - 159
Perot: 7,866,284 - 0
(97.35% of voters)
96,277,634 votes
196,498,000 potential voters
49.08% Turnout
I think, looking at the numbers here, you've got several million people, easy, who went to the polls specifically to vote for Perot. In 1996, where did those people go? Looks to me like most of 'em stayed home.
If the conventional wisdom is that Perot took votes mostly from Bush in 92, I say pfah... no way. There's eight million votes that stayed away in 1996, and it looks to me like most of those who deserted Perot in 96, yet still voted, voted for another third-party candidate. And I think that will be partially true for Nader/Gore this year... sure, Gore's going to lose some votes to him, and in a race this tight I guess it might actually matter in some places. But I bet we'll see a bump up in turnout this year - I predict somewhere in the 52% range - and I further bet most of that bump goes to third-party candidates.
OK, here's my beef. Upon further reflection.
In '92, the media were all over themselves talking about how Perot could theoretically get enough votes to cause no candidate to get a majority, thus throwing the election to the House where Perot would lose anyway. This was all fine fun and wonky games (and gave a lot of us, I think, the illusion of choice), but what they DIDN'T say is: hey, Perot has no electors, there's not a damn thing he can do in this race, it couldn't possibly ever end up in the House, he's just wasting all of our time.
It's the same today. I don't hear anyone, anywhere talking about the need for greens and libertarians and reformers and all of us fringey types to work on our local elections. No one's saying, hey, wait a minute, until we get more support in our own communities we don't have a shot at the big leagues. All I ever hear is people blathering on about their no-chance vanity candidates (myself included, BTW), but the highest possible office for a third-party, left-field populist candidate is governor. A third-party left-field president isn't just a noble, Quixotic, extreme long-shot, it's an actual IMPOSSIBILITY.
You'd think, at some point, someone somewhere would be bringing this point up.
OK, I found a little info from a few different sources...
1856
Millard Fillmore: Popular: 21%, Electoral: 2%
1912
Taft: Popular: 23%, Electoral: 2%
Roosevelt: Popular: 28%, Electoral: 17%
1948
Truman: 24,105,695 - 303 (popular - electoral)
Dewey: 21,969,170 - 189
J. Strom Thurmond: 1,169,021 - 39
Henry A. Wallace: 1,157,172 - 0
1960
Harry F. Byrd won 15 electoral votes
1968
Wallace: 9,906,473 - 46
1980
Anderson: 5,719,437 - 0
1992
Clinton: 44,908,254 - 370
Bush: 39,102,343 - 168
Perot: 19,741,065 - 0
1996
Clinton: 45,590,703 - 379
Dole: 37,816,307 - 159
Perot: 7,866,284 - 0
That's all I've got so far. It looks like third-party candidates have always had a real disadvantage, and it looks like in the past twenty years that it's gone past being just a disadvantage. One might assume, just by looking at the numbers for 92-96, that a third-party vote counts for fuck-all in the real election.
Another interesting data point: in 1916 in W. Virginia, electors were chosen directly on the ballot. That year 7 Republicans and 1 Democrat won. Apparently, this is a Bad Thing and is described as being the result of voter confusion or fatigue. So these days most states just keep things nice and simple so the po' folk just pick one man or the other, and let the smart people behind the scenes sort things out. Maine and Nebraska, oddly enough, are the exceptions, as they still allow for a few individual electors to be voted upon.
The 19th century had a slew of wacky electoral college antics. These seem to have been perfectly tamed for most of the 20th century, for better and for worse, with the major political parties securing their hammerlock on the system in the past 20 years.
I guess how it works in California, for example, is that whichever major party gets the most popular votes gets to send their hand-picked team of electors to Sacramento to cast their votes... all-or-nothing, it's either going to be Republicans or Democrats. Since electors are chosen by state office-holders, as long as there aren't any third-party office-holders already in the state, there's not even a chance that there will be a third-party elector in any event.
And like was pointed out ad nauseum during Perot's run, even if there came to be a three-way tie in the electoral college (which would be a miracle itself at this point), the election would be decided by the House of Representatives. Good luck with your third-party candidate there.
So the only way any third-party presidential candidate will ever even stand a chance of any kind will be if that third party can gain a substantial foothold in each state government first, and then they better have a similar hold in Congress. Otherwise there's zero-nada-zip-zilch chance, no matter how many popular votes your guy gets. I bet Perot could've kicked Bush's ass in 92 and still scored 0 electoral votes (and that might've happened, BTW, if anyone remembers back that far... if only Perot hadn't gone a little wiggy midway into the campaign).
This seems really unfair at first, but upon relection I think it actually makes sense. I mean, c'mon, seriously... did anyone REALLY want to see Perot get elected in 92, or was it more that the other candidates sucked? Do we actually want to see Browne or Nader or whoever become president?
The system in place now may suck, but it does prevent some unqualified yahoo from riding a popularity wave into office (yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Jesse Ventura) (hey, I don't know squat about Jesse, OK, I'm just using him as an example of what COULD happen - for all I know he's a brilliant governor). Let these guys build up enough local support, let them and their party platforms get battle-tested before they graduate to the most powerful position on the planet. Run for governor first, at least.
All of us third-party fanatics should keep in mind - it's all well and good to support an oddball presidential candidate, but if you're serious about your views you gotta start at the local level. Otherwise, for better and for worse, it is just fun and games, a waste of time. Should you still vote your conscience? I say so. Why not? Your one lousy vote isn't going to swing the presidential election, so I say, go for it.
Alright, in trying to answer my own question I've gone out in search of info on the web. Gosh, there sure is lots of spiffy historical info and blahblah, but I'm having a hard time finding the nitty gritty - like how exactly third-party votes are handled in the electoral college.
As it turns out, at least in this century, yeah, it looks like the electoral college goes like the state popular vote goes. Sorta. I'm under the impression that there have been times when this hasn't necessarily been the case, but I haven't actually checked that out. And anyway, what I'm talking about here is the fact that third-party votes appear to get "lost" in the electoral college. I know on the surface this is due to the winner-take-all scheme, but I'm more curious about how it breaks down within the electoral college itself.
Interestingly, there have been a few recent cases of rogue major-party electors... one guy in 1976 voting for Reagan, and IIRC one or two rogues against Nixon. There certainly seems to be no formal obligation for an elector to vote a certain way (although I bet rogue electors have a hard time getting their phone calls returned afterwards). And I'm not seeing any breakdowns on the electors themselves... how many popular votes does it take to get yourself an elector? How many major-party electors have there been in past elections vs. third-party electors, and how did they all vote? Do third-party electors stick to their guns and vote their party, or do they tend to be more pragmatic and vote the lesser evil, since at that point there wouldn't be any advantage to being a holdout?
Hmmm...
Here's what I don't get... seriously, I don't know the answer to this and I'm hoping someone here does.
The popular vote doesn't mean anything, it's the electoral vote that counts. If the electoral college is under no obligation to vote the way the popular vote goes, and frequently doesn't, then why would a vote for Nader be a vote for Bush? What's all this noise about "stealing" votes from Gore?
A few weeks ago someone here posted the results of popular votes v. electoral votes. I seem to recall Perot getting a very substantial number of the popular vote and ZERO electoral votes. So what's the deal? Who did Perot steal votes from? Did all the Perot popular votes have any influence on the electoral votes at all? I assume that Nader won't get as many votes as Perot did in 92, so I assume that he won't be getting any electoral votes, either. So how does this work in practice, and why do people go on about "strategic voting" when it doesn't appear to matter at all?
Wouldn't an electromagnet strong enough to wipe a disk in one not-so-near pass (i.e., walking through the doorframe) have to be so powerful, it would induce a noticeable pull on the metal of the box?
I can just picture a g-man lugging a tower case out the door, only to have it CLANG against the frame and get stuck there and they have to get crowbars to pry the thing off. You know, they just might get a little suspicious at that point...