It would take many hours to tally votes for many positions as I assume is done in the USA.
So? We can hire more people to count the ballots. If I'm not mistaken, Canada has a lot more people counting the ballots (and smaller precincts).
I don't see why my countrymen have this fixation on knowing the exact results yesterday. We already have exit polling which tends to be reliable, so we can still project candidates' victories overnight.
I don't see how knowing the results ASAP is more important than having an accurate count. If poll workers get tired, have them work in shifts around the clock. I, for one, would surely wait a few extra days until all the paper ballots are counted. Speed needs to defer to accuracy when it comes to something this important.
The elites in the Democratic party are openly hostile to Christianity.
You're getting way off track.
I'm a proud independent agnostic liberal. I do not hate Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I don't even distinguish between them. I see people, not religions.
What gets my goat is when the fundamentalists in the said religions use their religion as a justification for their political beliefs. When you invoke God(s), you are effectively saying that if you are not for my policies, you are against God(s).
See, its okay if I strap a bomb on to myself and kill civilians; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT. Its okay if I deny good people rights based on their sexual orientation; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT. Its okay if I kill doctors who perform abortions; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT.
When you invoke the supposed creator of the universe, its hard to argue against that viewpoint. Religion can make people do insane things, which is why it isn't a good idea to base one's politics on it.
If there is a God(s), I highly doubt he (they) wants to be basis of American politics.
I'm not so sure this is ethically the right thing to do, as it may have a bearing on the election if many people see it. Recall the problems in Florida in 2000 when Fox called the state for Gore. I believe the McLauglin Group said that quite a few western Floridians (a strongly Republican area) did not vote because of the news.
If the news is supposed to be unbiased, and allowing polling information is to bias the electorate, then perhaps they should just sit on the information until that state is closed.
Can't we impatient Americans wait until tomorrow to find out who won?
It certainly makes sense from a business standpoint.
Indeed, why try to make a cure for the common cold when there is so much money in covering up the symptoms. Why just recently Dick Cheney said something to the effect of:
"The problem with vaccines is that they are hard to make profitable."
Please correct the quote (it may sound out of context) if possible.
I've always said that someone needs to hack a machine in a trivial state that won't affect the outcome of an election and change the votes to 100% for a minor candidate.
The downside is that the hacker will spend some time in a federal prison, but the voting machine craze may end there.
I agree 100%... and I'm a proud liberal. Personally, I do think Bush is an evil warmonger and the worst president in the history of the country, but I don't think Kerry is much better.
I think this comes from our politics as of late. You are either "pro-Bush" or "anti-Bush". I don't know too many people who are "pro-Kerry".
You have to vote on your own beliefs not how popular or unpopular the belief is.
I agree 100%. I wasn't trying to insinuate that all people who vote for Kerry, Bush, etc. are sheep (even though I did say "my generation is a bunch of sheep").
I was just commenting on the fact that, in my experiences, many of my peers seem to want to vote for Kerry because its the "in" thing to do.
I also know of a few friends who are voting for their candidate of choice for good, sound reasons.
A low turnout... but higher than usual, which could make a difference in a close race.
In my experiences on campus, it seems to be popular to vote for Kerry. You know, all the cool people are doing it.
Furthermore, it is considered cool if you are voting for Kerry even though you hate him due to the fact that Bush is so incredibly bad. Its like the popular thing to do is pretend Bush is the anti-christ and then vote for Kerry based on that alone.
This reminds me of when FDR won his first election. Traditional Democratic voters in the south did not have phones like the Republican base in the north (yes, it has switched over time).
Therefore, the polls were biased for the Republican and was generally thought to be a close election. Of course, FDR won in a landslide.
I don't have any problem with some friendly advice from those that live in the Old Country. I'm not really likely to take any of it, but they have the right to free speech just like the rest of us.
If you don't like what you're hearing, turn the channel.
Few people seem to understand Osama bin Laden is an educated and well-spoken man. He's not just some fundie psychopath that "hates us for our freedom". In his opinion, international terrorism is the only means to get to the end of percieved US imperalism. While I strongly disagree with his methods, he does have a well articulated position.
I'm not a betting man, but I bet if we took an even handed approach to the Israel/Palestine problem as well as let the middle east be the middle east, we'd see a drastic decrease in worldwide terrorism.
Of course, the mainstream would denounce such a change in policy as "letting the terrorists win". Here's a newsflash, kids... just because the position is held by terrorists, doesn't mean that the position is false.
Jill: "The terrorists say 2 + 2 = 4! What are they crazy?" Bob: "I've consulted my calculator, and it says 2 + 2 = 4 as well." Jill: "Quit siding with the terrorists, Bob. Why do you hate America?"
This conversation is similar to any conversation I try to have with someone who is sure that America is Always Right.
In the short term I'm guessing more lives have been lost because of the war, but in the long term, will it have been worth it?
Carefully. If you invoke utilitarianism, an entire can of worms gets opened up. Based on that, what if we think that invading Iran would save more lives in the long term? N. Korea? Canada?
That is the problem with utilitarian thought, you can never know if you were right until after the fact.
Does anyone know if Democrats are statistically more or less likely to actually go out and vote than Republicans.
I do know that there are, nationwide, more registered Democrats than Republicans (39% to 35%, IIRC). I also know that registered Democrats are more likely to cross party lines and vote for Republicans. For example, 11% of Democrats voted for Bush in 2000, while 8% of Republicans voted for Gore.
Slashdot Mirror
It would take many hours to tally votes for many positions as I assume is done in the USA.
So? We can hire more people to count the ballots. If I'm not mistaken, Canada has a lot more people counting the ballots (and smaller precincts).
I don't see why my countrymen have this fixation on knowing the exact results yesterday. We already have exit polling which tends to be reliable, so we can still project candidates' victories overnight.
I don't see how knowing the results ASAP is more important than having an accurate count. If poll workers get tired, have them work in shifts around the clock. I, for one, would surely wait a few extra days until all the paper ballots are counted. Speed needs to defer to accuracy when it comes to something this important.
The elites in the Democratic party are openly hostile to Christianity.
You're getting way off track.
I'm a proud independent agnostic liberal. I do not hate Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I don't even distinguish between them. I see people, not religions.
What gets my goat is when the fundamentalists in the said religions use their religion as a justification for their political beliefs. When you invoke God(s), you are effectively saying that if you are not for my policies, you are against God(s).
See, its okay if I strap a bomb on to myself and kill civilians; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT. Its okay if I deny good people rights based on their sexual orientation; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT. Its okay if I kill doctors who perform abortions; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT.
When you invoke the supposed creator of the universe, its hard to argue against that viewpoint. Religion can make people do insane things, which is why it isn't a good idea to base one's politics on it.
If there is a God(s), I highly doubt he (they) wants to be basis of American politics.
So what you're saying is that the Republicans thought of the idea and the Democrats went along with it. Not to mention Clinton failed to veto it.
Are Republicans worse than Democrats? Sure, the same way Microsoft is worse than SCO.
... enough to run Longhorn ... ... compile Gentoo ... ... Beowulf cluster ...
Sorry to feed the trolls ...
I didn't vote for Kerry. I would never in a million years vote for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/sta tes/FL/P/00/county.001.html#12086
IIRC, they are using touch-screens there.
Miami-Dade was supposed to be incredibly Democratic and they only got a 54-46 margin.
Very suspect.
Thats just the thing. The basic idea of democracy is that you vote for the candidate that you think best represents your views.
Knowing who will win should not change your vote.
Yes, I didn't vote for either of the "big 2".
I'm not so sure this is ethically the right thing to do, as it may have a bearing on the election if many people see it. Recall the problems in Florida in 2000 when Fox called the state for Gore. I believe the McLauglin Group said that quite a few western Floridians (a strongly Republican area) did not vote because of the news.
If the news is supposed to be unbiased, and allowing polling information is to bias the electorate, then perhaps they should just sit on the information until that state is closed.
Can't we impatient Americans wait until tomorrow to find out who won?
It certainly makes sense from a business standpoint.
Indeed, why try to make a cure for the common cold when there is so much money in covering up the symptoms. Why just recently Dick Cheney said something to the effect of:
"The problem with vaccines is that they are hard to make profitable."
Please correct the quote (it may sound out of context) if possible.
I've always said that someone needs to hack a machine in a trivial state that won't affect the outcome of an election and change the votes to 100% for a minor candidate.
The downside is that the hacker will spend some time in a federal prison, but the voting machine craze may end there.
Illinois was called for Kerry around the time of the primaries. So its not like a Nader vote will make an electoral difference.
The only real wasted vote is voting for someone who you don't believe in.
Thats because bi-partisian and non-partisian are synonyms in this day and age.
Unfortunately, you were modded flamebait...
... and I'm a proud liberal. Personally, I do think Bush is an evil warmonger and the worst president in the history of the country, but I don't think Kerry is much better.
I agree 100%
I think this comes from our politics as of late. You are either "pro-Bush" or "anti-Bush". I don't know too many people who are "pro-Kerry".
Thank you.
I was in a hurry to get to class, and I didn't really have the time or motivation to look it up. I knew it was either FDR or the Truman/Dewey.
You have to vote on your own beliefs not how popular or unpopular the belief is.
I agree 100%. I wasn't trying to insinuate that all people who vote for Kerry, Bush, etc. are sheep (even though I did say "my generation is a bunch of sheep").
I was just commenting on the fact that, in my experiences, many of my peers seem to want to vote for Kerry because its the "in" thing to do.
I also know of a few friends who are voting for their candidate of choice for good, sound reasons.
A low turnout ... but higher than usual, which could make a difference in a close race.
In my experiences on campus, it seems to be popular to vote for Kerry. You know, all the cool people are doing it.
Furthermore, it is considered cool if you are voting for Kerry even though you hate him due to the fact that Bush is so incredibly bad. Its like the popular thing to do is pretend Bush is the anti-christ and then vote for Kerry based on that alone.
Yes, my generation is a bunch of sheep.
This reminds me of when FDR won his first election. Traditional Democratic voters in the south did not have phones like the Republican base in the north (yes, it has switched over time).
Therefore, the polls were biased for the Republican and was generally thought to be a close election. Of course, FDR won in a landslide.
I don't have any problem with some friendly advice from those that live in the Old Country. I'm not really likely to take any of it, but they have the right to free speech just like the rest of us.
If you don't like what you're hearing, turn the channel.
Few people seem to understand Osama bin Laden is an educated and well-spoken man. He's not just some fundie psychopath that "hates us for our freedom". In his opinion, international terrorism is the only means to get to the end of percieved US imperalism. While I strongly disagree with his methods, he does have a well articulated position.
... just because the position is held by terrorists, doesn't mean that the position is false.
I'm not a betting man, but I bet if we took an even handed approach to the Israel/Palestine problem as well as let the middle east be the middle east, we'd see a drastic decrease in worldwide terrorism.
Of course, the mainstream would denounce such a change in policy as "letting the terrorists win". Here's a newsflash, kids
Jill: "The terrorists say 2 + 2 = 4! What are they crazy?"
Bob: "I've consulted my calculator, and it says 2 + 2 = 4 as well."
Jill: "Quit siding with the terrorists, Bob. Why do you hate America?"
This conversation is similar to any conversation I try to have with someone who is sure that America is Always Right.
In the short term I'm guessing more lives have been lost because of the war, but in the long term, will it have been worth it?
Carefully. If you invoke utilitarianism, an entire can of worms gets opened up. Based on that, what if we think that invading Iran would save more lives in the long term? N. Korea? Canada?
That is the problem with utilitarian thought, you can never know if you were right until after the fact.
Take a look here.
It seems to be a rather objective resource. It basically says, there might be one, but don't buy into any fear-mongering.
I don't think Bush and Kerry equally suck, either. I just think that Kerry sucks too much to get my vote.
Badnarik it is (Nader isn't on in Ohio and Cobb is an asshat).
Does anyone know if Democrats are statistically more or less likely to actually go out and vote than Republicans.
I do know that there are, nationwide, more registered Democrats than Republicans (39% to 35%, IIRC). I also know that registered Democrats are more likely to cross party lines and vote for Republicans. For example, 11% of Democrats voted for Bush in 2000, while 8% of Republicans voted for Gore.
Source
Hehe.
I still maintain a Democratic bias because 7/11 coffee isn't exactly good. I mean, true patriots drink Folgers.
Don't use these numbers to do anything important.
Urban areas (where one would find more 7/11s) tend to go Democratic. Hence the inherent bias in the figures.