Consider yourself lucky. You wouldn't believe the havoc security measures cause when one of the candidates stops by for visit. Highways are closed, city streets are shut down, its really quite a huge deal. Very disruptive.
You have a small voice now, would you have your state throw that away by proportioning the EC as the populous votes?
First, I am quite puzzled about the reactions I read here..., then Althrough [sic] I am not American
Well, the second explains the first, doesn't it?
The reason there is such a range in opinions is that slashdot is a worldwide forum, but almost no one outside the US posesses even a basic understanding of how our government works or how the Presidential Election process works. Don't feel bad, few in the US understand it either. Its not because its complex, but rather because there's a whole segment of our population that can't add 2 numbers less than 20 without a calculator, let alone fathom the 538 Electoral Votes in the Electoral College.
Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and they devised a simple system that elegantly provides a voice in the election process and in government to those states who are small in area and population.
The vast majority of folks who want this changed live in New York and California -- States that consistently get lots more federal money than they pay in federal taxes.
In 1800, Jefferson's opponent was the morally challenged Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, and later still was tried for "high crimes" when his plot was uncovered to take New Orleans by force and make it the capitol of his new western empire http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/b urr/burraccount.html
Burr was tried but acquitted (although its likely he was guilty). Jefferson was a fine President and stateman.
In 1824, there was no 'popular vote' in the United States (nor was there in 1800). See http://www.avagara.com/politics/ec_zine/1824/ for details -- no candidate appeared on the ballot in all states, and not all states allowed the people to vote for the President. Regardless of that, the rules set out in the constitution yielded a good President. Adams subsequently became President in 1828.
In 1876, you neglect to mention that massive fraud instigated by both political parties marred the election process over much of the country (Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon) http://www.rbhayes.org/dispute.htm and http://www.rbhayes.org/disputeFAQ.htm. Still, the process resulted in the selection of a President who proved worthy of praise. He was a forward thinker concerned with the rights of minorities and the poor long before that became popular. While we don't know what kind of president Tilden would've benn, he was (later) opposed to the Civil War... a huge error in judgement in my opinion.
The election of 1888 went exactly as it should have. There's no provision in our Presential Election process for the popular vote to select the president. Other than that, Harrison was a much better President than Grover Cleveland, having the vision and fortitude to accomplish great things during his term. http://www.americanpresident.org/history/benjaminh arrison/
Do we even need to discuss the 2000 Election? Gore absolutely fell apart after the defeat -- he would not have been able to stand up to the pressure of the worst terrorist attack in history. On the other hand, President Bush is a doer that has a long list of accomplishments during his first term.
the system as it stands now has serious deficiencies.
It may have some discussion points, but it certainly does not have 'serious deficiencies.' All the examples you presented are examples of our election process *WORKING*, not examples of it not working.
Part of the animosity in politics today can be partly attributed, at least in my opinion, to the fact that Bush was constitutionally, but not popularily, elected.
I don't accept that for a minute, but that's fodder for another time.
To suggest we change the Constitution because part of a part of the animosity might be reduced is kinda ridiculous. Throughout history there have been losers not happy with the outcome, and will continue to be. Some will hold a grudge. That's how some people work.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they devised the Electoral College and our system of selecting a President. We just need to tweak the voting registration requirements a little.
Before sounding off, why not read and learn a little about why the Electoral College was created in the first place. About how the EC allows states with lower populations to still have a say in government at the federal level. Much of the Founding Father's basic reasoning still holds true today.
... because individual states that apply it to only themselves instantly *dis*advantage themselves...
So, you think all states should be equally disadvantaged. For most states, that's *THE* argument to keep the EC.
Un-original political stunt -- move along please, there's nothing to see here.
The current system has served the country well for 230 years - although there may be room for improvement, there's certainly no reason to change it radically.
I'd hope those that put JJ Jr in Congress are duly embarassed, and won't make that mistake again.
... you can say... that the average american is more ignorant than the average european
Cheap trick -- don't put words in my mouth. I do know the average United States citizen knows more about the US election process than 99% of Europeans.
... the american winner takes all election system...
We don't have a 'winner takes all' system. You must be in that 99%!
One could also come to the conclusion that the US Election process works so well, that a significant number of people are satisfied with the outcome, even though they don't participate. Or, they abstain from voting because they're smart enough to realize they don't know enough about the candidates and the issues to cast an intelligent vote.
High voter turnout doesn't guarantee a good election result. Why is it prized so much? Voting is generally a waste of time, and it uses valuable resources. As a citizen of the US, I look upon it more as a duty than a right. Still, its generally a waste of time. I'd much rather be at work...
The voting system we use in the US has worked well for 230 years -- that's not gonna change any time soon. Not sure what country you're from, but when your country is the size of a postage stamp with a population to match, its easy to say you've got a good election system, even if you're using engraved personalized invitations as ballots.
I will say this, the last thing any country needs is an election system and system of government based on a European model of democracy -- some democracies in Europe couldn't find their arse with both hands in the dark, even though they've got their head on backwards!
You're not living in any utopian election-paradise. Take the European Union -- the EU is on a scale with the US (population and land-wise), and they can't hardly agree on what to disagree on.
Our Democratic Republic works just fine, thank you. A little adjustment to the voter registration process can only make it better.
Right, I know the history of which you speak. I also understood the point being made. Quite simply this is not racism. No mention of discriminating on the basis of color is made, intended, or even subliminally suggested.
Blacks... were prohibited from being taught to read or write.
Not sure how old you are, but today minorities and poor people are *NOT PROHIBITED* from learning to read or write. Quite the contrary, they are encouraged throughout their childhood to learn to read and write. Their parents should also be working with them to make sure they learn to read and write...
... so that we can have informed voters, not a bunch of ignorant illiterate imbecils showing up at the polls because they think they'll get rich by winning the lottery.
Let me re-iterate: Equating this suggestion with racism is a pretty big step...
You can tell the posters who are not going to get to vote under such a system -- they have very strange reasons as to why this would not be a good idea, none of them hold water.
Of all the people who say its a bad idea, not one of them saw the obvious: Educate people to a level of comprehension that would allow them to vote. Have adult education classes for those that need them to educate on the correct answers to the possible questions. What a novel idea, have the people more informed about thier electoral system and the issues facing the country as a whole.
Discrimination on account of intelligence is just a wrong and illegal...
WRONG!
Why does this keep coming up? Why are there so many hug-me-today goody-two-shoes right-wing-nut-job liberals posting to/.?
Let me break this to you gently: *ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL*. Discrimination based on ability is completely legal, ethical, moral, widespread and forms the basis of any society.
All people are *CREATED* equal, but all people *ARE NOT EQUAL*. All people should have equal opportunity, but all people should not have equal responsibilities.
Fools might need representation under the US government, but it doesn't take a fool to represent a fool's best interests, and we really don't need any more elected fools in government.
First, all state lotteries should be outlawed. They are a terrible way to collect tax dollars, offering both the state, the media (advertising) and the lottery game creators the chance to become as rich as the winners themselves, while the majority of the burden is placed on people at or near the poverty level. Terrible terrible idea -- should all be abolished.
No doubt, someone will respond this would be a free lottery -- to that I say it would use existing lottery infrastructure, and the prize money has got to come from somewhere... especially because the government is picking up the tab its *NOT FREE*.
Second, It would not encourage turnout that much, look at the number of people that actually play lottery in any state. It's not going to have much of an effect. Turnout is always greatest when important issues are on the ballot -- the lottery won't matter one way or the other.
Third, Why encourage 100% turnout? Many people vote their choice *BY NOT VOTING*. By not voting, you are saying that you're going to let other people who care about the issues decide it. There's nothing wrong with that in a free country. Why use an artificial chance drawing to coerce someone into voting if they wouldn't normally otherwise?
Just quit adding all this crap to the process. Quit adding to government, quit adding to my tax burden, and let me do as I would like to do.
Well, now we're on to a completely different issue... no wonder I missed it in your first post, it wasn't there!
What happens when someone just like me gets to change the I.Q. guidelines? Or someone, who in your opinion, is very much worse. Are you prepared to face being banished to a political wasteland based on somebody else's qualification of your I.Q.?
Absolutely! What a relief it would be to not have to worry about who I should be voting for. Of course you realize that setting the IQ requirement too high is going to attract the attention of quite a few organizations with powerful lawyers...
There are a myriad ways to implement a scheme as I proposed, and a further myriad of ways to administer it. I see both sides of the argument, its your side that comes up weak...
Already there are restrictions on who votes (In Ohio, 18 years or older, registered voters who are not currently in prison), where they vote (you can only vote on local issues where you live), and what they vote on (you can only vote on issues that are actually on the ballot). Those issues are all handled by various laws, regulations, elected officials, and citizens who oversee the process at various levels. With the media and organizations like the ACLU to keep everyone mostly honest and everything mostly above board.
Are any or all of those restrictions facist to you? If so, you might want to put your tinhat back on... none of these threaten me or my right to vote at all. In fact they make perfect, complete sense.
As would a lower limit on intelligence. There's nothing to say some rudimentary intelligence requirements couldn't be added to the system, fairly and honestly and without malice.
You're only seeing one side of the issue, that people are going to be excluded from the voting process. My side of the issue is that society as a whole would be better served if those people were removed from the process, as there's a very good chance that they don't understand the consequences of the vote they cast.
You contend that The problems are not at all related to intelligence..., then go on to deliver examples of 'confusion' that arise out of a lack of intelligence:
Senior citizens who have voted in the same schoolhouse for 20 years are finding themselves re-routed...
Assuming this is true, which is a big step, this change of polling place would've been detailed on their voter registration card that arrived in the mail. If they were intelligent senior citizens, they would've made note of the new voting location.
some folks may have some very strong opinions about being forced to vote in a place of worship not of their religious preference...
Religious intolerance is almost always a symptom of a lack of intellegence.
Ballets [sic] are redesigned... Touchscreens replace scanners, which replace pull-levers, which replace pencil and paper.
Intelligent people can adapt to changes, even if they are unwanted. Intelligent people can read instructions, and know to ask poll workers about the process and get assistance with the process. These poll workers are there to oversee the process and answer questions about how to vote.
Requirements for driver's licenses or no driver's licenses are different from state to state, and, in some instances county to county...
All intelligent voters only vote at one polling place each election -- they only need to know one polling location's requirements. But, let me ask you: Is it a smart thing to do to leave one's residence without their State or Federal picture ID? Is it beyond one's cognitive skills to decide to take a few minutes to run home and get it?
... not everyone living here speaks your particular brand of English...
The test for voters could be provided in other languages, just as ballots are multi-lingual. Most of the campaigning and media coverage is in English though... so maybe a requirement regarding English comprehesion is something to consider...
... by making ALL ballots and all procedures, nationwide, identical...
This is a foolish statement. I think under the proposed guidelines regarding IQ that you might not get to have your vote counted...
Honestly, this is not 'Insightful' nor 'Extra Insightful'... I wouldn't have replied but for the excessive modding...
The judge's ruling still requires you to be properly registered in order for your vote to be counted -- this does nothing to prevent, discourage or otherwise thwart the deliberate removal of your name from the list of registered voters.
The story referenced is about a disgruntled ex-employee of a company called 'Voters Outreach of America'. They were in Nevada to accept voter registration forms. We don't know the whole story, but the key witness, Eric Russell, has discredited himself; He admits that if he had been paid, he probably wouldn't have talked. Not only that, but he took the documents to the FBI, and then left before actually filing a complaint. He's also been described as a disgruntled employee who was fired and displayed a violent temper.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Russell was pissed that he got fired, so he stashed a few Dem registration forms in his jacket, and walked out. Now, he tears them up, and concocts a brilliant story about how the forms were in the trash, systematically torn up by someone who works for 'Voters Outreach of America.' Then, at the FBI office, he's cooled off enough to realized that he could get in serious trouble, and beats it out of there. Like I said, we really don't know what happened here.
Furthermore, intellegence is a factor here too. Why would anyone trust their voter registration to an organization that's moving through the state, and hiring legions of temporary workers? Why not just register with the local government, as most people do? At least then you'll know who you're dealing with.
I live in Ohio too, and I didn't have to worry about not getting to vote this year, or last year, or the year before, or the year before... no problems... no worries.
I strongly believe there ought to be some kind of IQ test and lower IQ limit to the voting process. There are plenty of people in society who can't, for instance, add or subtract 2 numbers under 20 without a calculator. I'm quite generous in the standard, say anyone scoring a 69 IQ or below would not be allowed to cast a vote.
In the past, requiring pre-registration and requiring people to vote only at their assigned polling place served that purpose to a limited degree. This ruling is going to help those in society who are cognitively challenged vote, and I'm not convinced that's such a good thing.
I wouldn't waste time with Dell - they're so far in M$ pocket they'd need a lifeline to crawl out.
You're gonna have to push this from the user end of things. Businesses are a great target, because people tend to use at home what they use in the workplace, and because the business benefits of Mozilla are obvious and real: spyware/adware/worm/virus resistance.
As people use Mozilla more, two things are gonna happen: 1) M$ is gonna burn resources trying to fix IE, and 2) OEMs are gonna start shipping Mozilla/Firefox pre-installed as a feature.
As other posters have said, I suspect that the crash is a better result than to happily continue executing code, which is where IE gets into trouble. Even though IE burps, nothing's there to stop execution when it should be stopped, resulting in regurgitation and the execution of worm code.
Admittedly, crashing isn't supposed to happen either, but I'd like to see one of these turned into an exploit before its declared an exploit. The argument that IE Buffer Overflow exploits are found and exploited in this manner doesn't mean that all program crashes are potential Buffer Overflow exploits - that's just does not follow.
It appears from other posters that the behavior depends on the OS you're running, which leads me to guess it might be an issue involving both the OS and the browser rather than just a browser issue.
Along those same lines, the security issue is going to be vastly different depending on the OS you're running the browser under. Mozilla may not provide the same security exploit under your OS as it does under Windows. Example: This bug fix (http://www.mozilla.org/security/shell.html) directed at fixing a *Windows Exploit*.
Finally, you'll not convince me Internet Explorer is a browser to use until its no longer a wide-open-gate for adware/spyware, virus and worms. Even then, I'm gonna have reservations based on IE's history.
Wanna be safe on the Internet? Use anything but IE.
Hold on now, I think what Anonymous Coward meant to say was that the GPL wasn't software-monopoly steal-someone-else's-software then-release-buggy-software charge-arm-and-a-leg screw-the-consumer then-coerce-upgrades friendly.
All Dells are delivered with a full compliment of 'Crapware' pre-installed. Most of it can be uninstalled, and that's highly recommended before doing anything with the PC. Some of it is spyware, and will be detected as such. Some of it is spyware that Dell put on there, and you agreed to when you clicked on 'I Agree' during the first boot of the PC. That may not be detected as spyware, but it is. Most of this software is just crap, plain and simple.
Better still, pay the extra cash to get a PC that doesn't come with all that 'Crapware' pre-installed.
Contact http://www.indigocomputer.com/ for a high quality custom built PC with Windows XP Professional 'Optimized' and 'Locked Down' for Internet access right out of the box.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider yourself lucky. You wouldn't believe the havoc security measures cause when one of the candidates stops by for visit. Highways are closed, city streets are shut down, its really quite a huge deal. Very disruptive.
You have a small voice now, would you have your state throw that away by proportioning the EC as the populous votes?
Well, the second explains the first, doesn't it?
The reason there is such a range in opinions is that slashdot is a worldwide forum, but almost no one outside the US posesses even a basic understanding of how our government works or how the Presidential Election process works. Don't feel bad, few in the US understand it either. Its not because its complex, but rather because there's a whole segment of our population that can't add 2 numbers less than 20 without a calculator, let alone fathom the 538 Electoral Votes in the Electoral College.
Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and they devised a simple system that elegantly provides a voice in the election process and in government to those states who are small in area and population.
The vast majority of folks who want this changed live in New York and California -- States that consistently get lots more federal money than they pay in federal taxes.
I like the idea, minus all the crap people posted in response.
I work to try to avoid redundantly repeating myself.
In 1800, Jefferson's opponent was the morally challenged Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, and later still was tried for "high crimes" when his plot was uncovered to take New Orleans by force and make it the capitol of his new western empire http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/b urr/burraccount.html
Burr was tried but acquitted (although its likely he was guilty). Jefferson was a fine President and stateman.
In 1824, there was no 'popular vote' in the United States (nor was there in 1800). See http://www.avagara.com/politics/ec_zine/1824/ for details -- no candidate appeared on the ballot in all states, and not all states allowed the people to vote for the President. Regardless of that, the rules set out in the constitution yielded a good President. Adams subsequently became President in 1828.
In 1876, you neglect to mention that massive fraud instigated by both political parties marred the election process over much of the country (Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon) http://www.rbhayes.org/dispute.htm and http://www.rbhayes.org/disputeFAQ.htm. Still, the process resulted in the selection of a President who proved worthy of praise. He was a forward thinker concerned with the rights of minorities and the poor long before that became popular. While we don't know what kind of president Tilden would've benn, he was (later) opposed to the Civil War ... a huge error in judgement in my opinion.
The election of 1888 went exactly as it should have. There's no provision in our Presential Election process for the popular vote to select the president. Other than that, Harrison was a much better President than Grover Cleveland, having the vision and fortitude to accomplish great things during his term. http://www.americanpresident.org/history/benjaminh arrison/
Do we even need to discuss the 2000 Election? Gore absolutely fell apart after the defeat -- he would not have been able to stand up to the pressure of the worst terrorist attack in history. On the other hand, President Bush is a doer that has a long list of accomplishments during his first term.
the system as it stands now has serious deficiencies.
It may have some discussion points, but it certainly does not have 'serious deficiencies.' All the examples you presented are examples of our election process *WORKING*, not examples of it not working.
Part of the animosity in politics today can be partly attributed, at least in my opinion, to the fact that Bush was constitutionally, but not popularily, elected.
I don't accept that for a minute, but that's fodder for another time.
To suggest we change the Constitution because part of a part of the animosity might be reduced is kinda ridiculous. Throughout history there have been losers not happy with the outcome, and will continue to be. Some will hold a grudge. That's how some people work.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they devised the Electoral College and our system of selecting a President. We just need to tweak the voting registration requirements a little.
So, you think all states should be equally disadvantaged. For most states, that's *THE* argument to keep the EC.
Un-original political stunt -- move along please, there's nothing to see here.
The current system has served the country well for 230 years - although there may be room for improvement, there's certainly no reason to change it radically.
I'd hope those that put JJ Jr in Congress are duly embarassed, and won't make that mistake again.
Cheap trick -- don't put words in my mouth. I do know the average United States citizen knows more about the US election process than 99% of Europeans.
We don't have a 'winner takes all' system. You must be in that 99%!
One could also come to the conclusion that the US Election process works so well, that a significant number of people are satisfied with the outcome, even though they don't participate. Or, they abstain from voting because they're smart enough to realize they don't know enough about the candidates and the issues to cast an intelligent vote.
High voter turnout doesn't guarantee a good election result. Why is it prized so much? Voting is generally a waste of time, and it uses valuable resources. As a citizen of the US, I look upon it more as a duty than a right. Still, its generally a waste of time. I'd much rather be at work ...
The voting system we use in the US has worked well for 230 years -- that's not gonna change any time soon. Not sure what country you're from, but when your country is the size of a postage stamp with a population to match, its easy to say you've got a good election system, even if you're using engraved personalized invitations as ballots.
I will say this, the last thing any country needs is an election system and system of government based on a European model of democracy -- some democracies in Europe couldn't find their arse with both hands in the dark, even though they've got their head on backwards!
You're not living in any utopian election-paradise. Take the European Union -- the EU is on a scale with the US (population and land-wise), and they can't hardly agree on what to disagree on.
Our Democratic Republic works just fine, thank you. A little adjustment to the voter registration process can only make it better.
Blacks ... were prohibited from being taught to read or write.
Not sure how old you are, but today minorities and poor people are *NOT PROHIBITED* from learning to read or write. Quite the contrary, they are encouraged throughout their childhood to learn to read and write. Their parents should also be working with them to make sure they learn to read and write ...
... so that we can have informed voters, not a bunch of ignorant illiterate imbecils showing up at the polls because they think they'll get rich by winning the lottery.
Let me re-iterate: Equating this suggestion with racism is a pretty big step ...
Equating this suggestion with racism is a pretty big step, and its flamebait
I very much like the idea.
You can tell the posters who are not going to get to vote under such a system -- they have very strange reasons as to why this would not be a good idea, none of them hold water.
Of all the people who say its a bad idea, not one of them saw the obvious: Educate people to a level of comprehension that would allow them to vote. Have adult education classes for those that need them to educate on the correct answers to the possible questions. What a novel idea, have the people more informed about thier electoral system and the issues facing the country as a whole.
Discrimination on account of intelligence is just a wrong and illegal ...
/.?
WRONG!
Why does this keep coming up? Why are there so many hug-me-today goody-two-shoes right-wing-nut-job liberals posting to
Let me break this to you gently: *ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL*. Discrimination based on ability is completely legal, ethical, moral, widespread and forms the basis of any society.
All people are *CREATED* equal, but all people *ARE NOT EQUAL*. All people should have equal opportunity, but all people should not have equal responsibilities.
Fools might need representation under the US government, but it doesn't take a fool to represent a fool's best interests, and we really don't need any more elected fools in government.
First, all state lotteries should be outlawed. They are a terrible way to collect tax dollars, offering both the state, the media (advertising) and the lottery game creators the chance to become as rich as the winners themselves, while the majority of the burden is placed on people at or near the poverty level. Terrible terrible idea -- should all be abolished.
... especially because the government is picking up the tab its *NOT FREE*.
No doubt, someone will respond this would be a free lottery -- to that I say it would use existing lottery infrastructure, and the prize money has got to come from somewhere
Second, It would not encourage turnout that much, look at the number of people that actually play lottery in any state. It's not going to have much of an effect. Turnout is always greatest when important issues are on the ballot -- the lottery won't matter one way or the other.
Third, Why encourage 100% turnout? Many people vote their choice *BY NOT VOTING*. By not voting, you are saying that you're going to let other people who care about the issues decide it. There's nothing wrong with that in a free country. Why use an artificial chance drawing to coerce someone into voting if they wouldn't normally otherwise?
Just quit adding all this crap to the process. Quit adding to government, quit adding to my tax burden, and let me do as I would like to do.
Well, now we're on to a completely different issue ... no wonder I missed it in your first post, it wasn't there!
...
...
... none of these threaten me or my right to vote at all. In fact they make perfect, complete sense.
What happens when someone just like me gets to change the I.Q. guidelines? Or someone, who in your opinion, is very much worse. Are you prepared to face being banished to a political wasteland based on somebody else's qualification of your I.Q.?
Absolutely! What a relief it would be to not have to worry about who I should be voting for. Of course you realize that setting the IQ requirement too high is going to attract the attention of quite a few organizations with powerful lawyers
There are a myriad ways to implement a scheme as I proposed, and a further myriad of ways to administer it. I see both sides of the argument, its your side that comes up weak
Already there are restrictions on who votes (In Ohio, 18 years or older, registered voters who are not currently in prison), where they vote (you can only vote on local issues where you live), and what they vote on (you can only vote on issues that are actually on the ballot). Those issues are all handled by various laws, regulations, elected officials, and citizens who oversee the process at various levels. With the media and organizations like the ACLU to keep everyone mostly honest and everything mostly above board.
Are any or all of those restrictions facist to you? If so, you might want to put your tinhat back on
As would a lower limit on intelligence. There's nothing to say some rudimentary intelligence requirements couldn't be added to the system, fairly and honestly and without malice.
You're only seeing one side of the issue, that people are going to be excluded from the voting process. My side of the issue is that society as a whole would be better served if those people were removed from the process, as there's a very good chance that they don't understand the consequences of the vote they cast.
You contend that The problems are not at all related to intelligence ..., then go on to deliver examples of 'confusion' that arise out of a lack of intelligence:
Senior citizens who have voted in the same schoolhouse for 20 years are finding themselves re-routed ...
Assuming this is true, which is a big step, this change of polling place would've been detailed on their voter registration card that arrived in the mail. If they were intelligent senior citizens, they would've made note of the new voting location.
some folks may have some very strong opinions about being forced to vote in a place of worship not of their religious preference ...
Religious intolerance is almost always a symptom of a lack of intellegence.
Ballets [sic] are redesigned ... Touchscreens replace scanners, which replace pull-levers, which replace pencil and paper.
Intelligent people can adapt to changes, even if they are unwanted. Intelligent people can read instructions, and know to ask poll workers about the process and get assistance with the process. These poll workers are there to oversee the process and answer questions about how to vote.
Requirements for driver's licenses or no driver's licenses are different from state to state, and, in some instances county to county ...
All intelligent voters only vote at one polling place each election -- they only need to know one polling location's requirements. But, let me ask you: Is it a smart thing to do to leave one's residence without their State or Federal picture ID? Is it beyond one's cognitive skills to decide to take a few minutes to run home and get it?
The test for voters could be provided in other languages, just as ballots are multi-lingual. Most of the campaigning and media coverage is in English though ... so maybe a requirement regarding English comprehesion is something to consider ...
This is a foolish statement. I think under the proposed guidelines regarding IQ that you might not get to have your vote counted ...
Honestly, this is not 'Insightful' nor 'Extra Insightful' ... I wouldn't have replied but for the excessive modding ...
The judge's ruling still requires you to be properly registered in order for your vote to be counted -- this does nothing to prevent, discourage or otherwise thwart the deliberate removal of your name from the list of registered voters.
The story referenced is about a disgruntled ex-employee of a company called 'Voters Outreach of America'. They were in Nevada to accept voter registration forms. We don't know the whole story, but the key witness, Eric Russell, has discredited himself; He admits that if he had been paid, he probably wouldn't have talked. Not only that, but he took the documents to the FBI, and then left before actually filing a complaint. He's also been described as a disgruntled employee who was fired and displayed a violent temper.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Russell was pissed that he got fired, so he stashed a few Dem registration forms in his jacket, and walked out. Now, he tears them up, and concocts a brilliant story about how the forms were in the trash, systematically torn up by someone who works for 'Voters Outreach of America.' Then, at the FBI office, he's cooled off enough to realized that he could get in serious trouble, and beats it out of there. Like I said, we really don't know what happened here.
Furthermore, intellegence is a factor here too. Why would anyone trust their voter registration to an organization that's moving through the state, and hiring legions of temporary workers? Why not just register with the local government, as most people do? At least then you'll know who you're dealing with.
I'd prefer an easier test.
Something along the lines of
1) What is your name ______________
2) What is your quest ______________
3) What is your favorite color __________
That's just the synopsis -- PG's got lots of work to do before it gets /.ed ...
I can hardly wait!
I live in Ohio too, and I didn't have to worry about not getting to vote this year, or last year, or the year before, or the year before ... no problems ... no worries.
I strongly believe there ought to be some kind of IQ test and lower IQ limit to the voting process. There are plenty of people in society who can't, for instance, add or subtract 2 numbers under 20 without a calculator. I'm quite generous in the standard, say anyone scoring a 69 IQ or below would not be allowed to cast a vote.
In the past, requiring pre-registration and requiring people to vote only at their assigned polling place served that purpose to a limited degree. This ruling is going to help those in society who are cognitively challenged vote, and I'm not convinced that's such a good thing.
Oh so very, very funny ... thanks for taking the time to post that AC.
I wouldn't waste time with Dell - they're so far in M$ pocket they'd need a lifeline to crawl out.
You're gonna have to push this from the user end of things. Businesses are a great target, because people tend to use at home what they use in the workplace, and because the business benefits of Mozilla are obvious and real: spyware/adware/worm/virus resistance.
As people use Mozilla more, two things are gonna happen: 1) M$ is gonna burn resources trying to fix IE, and 2) OEMs are gonna start shipping Mozilla/Firefox pre-installed as a feature.
Admittedly, crashing isn't supposed to happen either, but I'd like to see one of these turned into an exploit before its declared an exploit. The argument that IE Buffer Overflow exploits are found and exploited in this manner doesn't mean that all program crashes are potential Buffer Overflow exploits - that's just does not follow.
It appears from other posters that the behavior depends on the OS you're running, which leads me to guess it might be an issue involving both the OS and the browser rather than just a browser issue.
Along those same lines, the security issue is going to be vastly different depending on the OS you're running the browser under. Mozilla may not provide the same security exploit under your OS as it does under Windows. Example: This bug fix (http://www.mozilla.org/security/shell.html) directed at fixing a *Windows Exploit*.
Finally, you'll not convince me Internet Explorer is a browser to use until its no longer a wide-open-gate for adware/spyware, virus and worms. Even then, I'm gonna have reservations based on IE's history.
Wanna be safe on the Internet? Use anything but IE.
Hold on now, I think what Anonymous Coward meant to say was that the GPL wasn't software-monopoly steal-someone-else's-software then-release-buggy-software charge-arm-and-a-leg screw-the-consumer then-coerce-upgrades friendly.
You're a computer expert like the Pope's agnostic. Like
All Dells are delivered with a full compliment of 'Crapware' pre-installed. Most of it can be uninstalled, and that's highly recommended before doing anything with the PC. Some of it is spyware, and will be detected as such. Some of it is spyware that Dell put on there, and you agreed to when you clicked on 'I Agree' during the first boot of the PC. That may not be detected as spyware, but it is. Most of this software is just crap, plain and simple.
Better still, pay the extra cash to get a PC that doesn't come with all that 'Crapware' pre-installed.
Contact http://www.indigocomputer.com/ for a high quality custom built PC with Windows XP Professional 'Optimized' and 'Locked Down' for Internet access right out of the box.