I did not say that you, yourself could not spend your money into organizing a debate.
You said (and say again later in this message) that there is no need for private funding. Spending money myself is private funding. So are you for or against privately funded campaigns?
If you give every candidate enough money so that they can share their idea's, goals,... with the voters, then there is no need for private funding.
The only problem with public funding is that it's immoral. You are taking money from me, by force (as I have no choice), and giving it to people I would otherwise not choose to support. I will support the raw mechanics of the process (voting equipment, etc), but will not support viewpoints I oppose. Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical", and I agree with him. That's what public campaign funding amounts to. It doesn't matter that my candidate is getting just as much as the others, all that means is that the gang of robbers is one larger. I, and only I, should get to choose how my money gets spent. If a candidate's platform isn't interesting enough to get me to donate voluntarily, then I don't want any of my money given to it at all.
I agree that campaigns should be more than popularity contests. But the problem isn't "unequal funding" or "fatcat contributors". The problem is that's there's no real substantive dialogue when there are only two parties who both seek the middle. We need to change the electoral process itself, not the campaign process, to open it up to third parties. We need to level the playing field so every party can compete on its own merits, and those merits may be unequal - some parties simply have stupid ideas. The people must decide whether the various platforms have any merit, not government. Government's only job is to guarantee your train equal access to the track, you have to provide your own steam.
Taking control of politics out of the hands of the people and giving it to government is one of the most anti-freedom ideas I can imagine. I really can't fathom how Americans can support the notion. You'd basically end up with government controlling it's own direction, rather than the people controlling the government's direction. Is that what you really want? Don't you see the risk of incumbents twisting this to their own advantage to maintain power?
If you take all the people killed in the name of Christianity over the past 20 centuries (inquisitions, witch trials, and crusades too), you will find there were more people killed in the name of atheistic government in the 20th century alone. (I won't even mention those that were killed in the name of non-Christian religions.) Does this excuse the acts of those "Christians" who killed others? Absolutely not. But it does prove my point that Christian governments are better than non-Christian ones. Atheists believe they have no one to answer to after this life; most Christians remember that they do.
I heartily recommend reading What if Jesus had never been born for a history of the contributions of Christianity as well as its crimes.
Christian governments protect the rights of those who disagree and dissent. You would prefer an Islamic government (like Saudi Arabia, where Christians are routinely jailed and/or beaten for defaming Mohammed) or an atheist one (like Stalin's Russia, where anyone not disavowing their faith was sent to a Siberian gulag)? Virtually every country that has a significant measure of religious freedom today has historically had significant Christian impact. Where Christianity has had less impact, there is less religious freedom. Coincidence? I think not.
Don't confuse neo-conservatives like GWB for true conservatives. Leftists want big government to push their agenda. Neo-conservatives want big government to push a different agenda. Real conservatives want smaller government that cannot push agendas. Real conservatives don't want gov't telling us how to worship, and we realize we can't tell others how to worship either. That's a Christian principle, and we need that in government.
The money would be going to run the election process in general. Your tax dollars already go to pay for the voting machines and everything else to handle votes for people you oppose. It just makes distributing the candidacy announcement and message/positions part of the election process. Elections no longer become contribution contest.
I don't mind money being spent on the mechanics of the process itself: voting machines and the like. That is a legitimate function of government. However, whenever gov't is responsible for setting requirements on the candidates/views involved, i.e. who gets on the ballot or who gets the money, we are looking at massive potential for abuse. In essence, gov't is taking a hand in its own future. Those in charge of gov't, being human, are always going to face the temptation of rigging it to protect their personal interests: protecting incumbents. In a free country, gov't should in no way be influencing political views - that taints the freedom. If I believe strongly in a political view, I am going to promote it with my time, effort, and money - that's freedom. You telling me I cannot do so, that political viewpoints should only be distributed through the appropriate gov't channels - that's anti-freedom.
Obviously it would be a criminal act to use the money for anything other than running a campaign.
Even if the "campaign" is a publicity stunt? But who's to say what is a stunt and what is merely a flamboyant campaign? (Government, you say? I've already said that lawmakers will make laws to protect incumbents.) It's nigh impossible to draw a line. The best line to draw is for gov't to provide no funding at all for campaigns, and let individuals contribute as much as they freely wish to give. The best line to draw is for debates to include all candidates that could potentially win - i.e. on the ballot in enough localities to win the amount needed. (FYI, there were 7 in the last presidential race, not 2.) Let candidates compete honestly in the marketplace of ideas. No arbitrary regulations, limitations, or qualifications. The people make the decisions.
There already are. Generally there is a filing fee and you need a certain number of signatures. I certianly agree you need a balance to weed out frivilous "candidates" and to avoid discriminating against legitimate third party candidates, but compared to other election issues that is a relatively easy one.
Obviously there has to be some process to register candidates. The problem is when the standards are unevenly applied. For example, when parties that achieved x% of the vote last time get back on automatically, but others have to collect (often an unreasonably large amount of) signatures. This discriminates against minor parties, who have legitimate views that are not represented. Make the major parties jump through the same hoops...if they're as good as they claim to be it should be no problem. The very fact that there is a major/minor party distinction comes from Duverger's Law, and indicates that plurality voting has got to go.
Either you misunderstand either the Constitution Party's position, or what freedom of religion means. It is precisely because most of the Founders were Christian that we have religious freedom, as it is immoral by God's standards to impose (by governmental force) one's beliefs on another. The CP does promote government according to these Christian principles, as these principles are best for protecting the rights of all, Christian and non-Christian alike. History proves that non-Christians fare better under Christian governments than vice versa. Completely secular/atheist governments are often the worst of all.
And you obviously do not understand the Christian doctrines of sin and atonement. Here I am, a Christian believing that Christ forgives sins, promoting personal responsibility. I am liable for the wrongs I do, but the party wronged can choose to pardon the offense. Responsibility and forgiveness are not contradictory at all. Indeed, if there is no responsibility, what is there to forgive?
I'm not saying that the moderate view should always win. My example was merely to show an inherent weakness of IRV.
In the case of warfare, I would say that a "limited war" would always be seen (by rational people - politicians don't count) as the worst option. Obviously you should either fight to win, or stay completely out. "Dinking around just to get some of our soldiers killed" is not an attractive option, but that's what LBJ chose trying to appease both camps, and satisfied neither. It was a political, not principled, move on his part.
If every candidate gets THE SAME amount of money, how could the gov. favor anyone?
The problem is the principle of it. Why should I be forced to support candidates I don't agree with? If I feel like supporting anyone at all, I will give my whole dollar to the one guy I support - I'm not going to give him 25 cents, as well as 25 cents to the three guys I don't like. I should decide where my money goes.
And what happens when "joke" candidates file, just to get some money? Are you going to try to stop that by passing minimum requirement laws? You can be sure those laws will be written to discourage challenges to the incumbents and status quo. Effectively the D's and R's will give themselves your money (at least a majority of it), and make sure no one else gets any (or very little). It's already happening in various ways. The council for presidential debates (whatever it's called) is controlled by 3 D's and 3 R's. They never invite third parties, or set the bar so high that they don't qualify.
We need to fix the voting system to give challengers an honest chance. We need to replace plurality voting with Condorcet's method.
But if I've got the means to finance a debate, or a radio commercial, or a whistle stop campaign, I am being more effective (reaching more people) by doing that than I am by approaching people 1-on-1 myself. And isn't that the appeal of having money - being more productive with finite resources? I see nothing wrong with "putting my money where my mouth is" in the political arena as I would in any other.
Thank you for saying that. I've been posting it all over this thread. Hopefully Georgy is just ignorant of Condorcet and will see it's merits far outweigh IRV's.
Second, support GOA instead of NRA. The NRA's support of Constitutional government is sadly lacking. It seems they have a greater desire to perpetuate their organization than to uphold the 2nd Amendment.
See my other posts on this story. IRV is harmful, despite claims to the contrary.
Also, from what I've heard, only half the industry was deregulated. (Wish I still had the reference, but I'm not from CA so don't keep track of those things so well.) It's not a free market if gov't is still controlling half of it. Really deregulate and things will improve.
Another example that is easy to grasp is the three-way race between two popular extremists and a moderate. The moderate is obviously the best "compromise" candidate since, besides his own small group of supporters, extremists of both types would rather have him than the opposite extremist. Yet he'll be the first to be eliminated because he is ranked first by the fewest people. OTOH, Condorcet would see that this moderate would win in virtually all head-to-head votes against either of the others.
The point is that if the system fumbles a hypothetical, it should be changed, even if the chances of that situation happening seem remote. The system is demonstrably broken, so fix it!
If the voting system were fair, we'd have stronger third parties. Everyone deserves a voice. Do you really think there are only two voices of consequence?
My father is a MN state employee of over 30 years. He's been kept down by management, so we had many years of barely eking by when I was growing up. (The new manager has a college degree, but is always asking my dad and his co-workers how to actually get things done. Stupid bureaucratic policies.) He's looking at a pay cut, reduced medical insurance (now that he's nearing the age where it would have been really beneficial), and spousal benefits are getting axed (so my mother will not have insurance). So I'm not too sympathetic to this guy, either. Are people in education elitists?
Personal responsibility. Don't leave home without it.
It is not government's job to step in and run your life even if you're incompetent. You and I may agree it is a moral obligation to take care of those less fortunate, but not everyone agrees, and it is immoral for us to force them. I suggest you and I start a private charity that people can voluntarily contribute to.
Basically I agree with you that there are people that need assistance, through no fault of their own. But I disagree that government is the one who should provide it. Gov't is inefficient - it kills competition. Gov't is inflexible - it has to make blanket regulations instead of adapting to individual circumstances. Gov't is uncompassionate - putting a heartless entity in charge of charity is fundamentally stupid.
I agree that IRV is a bad choice, but I don't understand what you mean by "maximizing individual power". If everyone's vote is equal...what's the difference?
I do agree with you that we should be able to spend our money the way we want, whether it's politics or not. The problem isn't money, it's the voting system. (See the link above for explanation.) The existing system promotes the "winability" of the candidate, which requires him to build a public image, which requires money. Alternate votings systems that give all candidates a fair shot would promote voters becoming informed on the issues and the platforms of the candidates. That's a good thing.
On the last point, I would submit that government's job isn't "to make the world a better place" it is to protect our liberties. We as individuals are responsible for improving the world around us. Government cannot do it, because everyone has a different idea of what those improvements should be, and it's immoral for force others to support something they don't agree with. Government should always do the minimum necessary.
I'm opposed to recall for a very different reason: it's a kludge to "fix" a broken voting system. The possibility of being elected with less than 50% support is bad, but recall is not the best way to fix it. If he's really doing that bad, there should be an impeachment process. The problem there is that the legislature is also elected with the same broken system. There's nothing wrong with proposing a new voting system to fix California's ills. What really needs to be done though, is to address the fact that plurality voting is a broken system by replacing it with a better one!
However, IRV is not the method that should replace plurality voting. Condorcet trounces IRV in every way that matters - even plurality is demonstrably better than IRV! IRV is deceptive because it gives voters a false sense that they've got a real choice, but in reality it's just as bad as the current plurality system. Run-offs need to be done simultaneously (Condorcet) not sequentially (IRV) to be fair.
Implementing Condorcet would encourage third party involvement. We need more voices in government, not fewer. After all, two choices is only one more than they had in communist Russia, and both options of the "Duopoly" gravitate toward the middle to get votes. That's not real choice! If you look at voter turnout in presidential races from 1960 on, it was a steady downward decline...with one exception: 1992. What happened in 1992? Ross Perot ran a strong third party campaign. It's clear that people want choice in politics.
Vote third party. Vote your conscience regardless of what the pundits and "strategists" say. The only strategy you should need in the booth is honesty to your ideals! The only way we're likely to see voting reform is if we get a third party into office, but we're going to have to do it with the current broken system.
I'm a native Minnesotan, and I couldn't agree less. Virtually every state in the nation greatly increased spending on social programs during the 90's, as if the tech boom was going to expand forever. Obviously it can't, and it didn't. So what's wrong with rolling back to, say, the 1990 budget? If the current budget is 50% higher (pulling that number out of the air) I sure don't see that I'm getting 50% better value from state services than I was in 1990.
I'm completely in support of cutting those services that were expanded in the last decade. We were getting by without them before, and we can do so again. Many of those things ought not be provided by government anyway. I feel higher education is one of them. If you want to get educated, pay the tuition. Why should you expect everyone else to pay for you?
I've always wondered when the state "shuts down" non-essential offices when the budget is stalled in the legislature, why aren't all those offices closed permanently? If they're non-essential, why are we paying for them? Let the more efficient private sector provide them on a competitive basis.
I didn't vote for Pawlenty, but I'm glad to see he's holding the line on this.
Agreed. That is the cheaper (and probably more sensible in the first place) alternative. I was saying that if we have to have e-voting, then they must provide a paper backup. But you're right, it would be easier and cheaper to just have scantron-able paper in the first place. You can use them like paper ballots for manual recounts, or you can run them through the machine to get done faster.
The problem is this assumes we keep the current single vote plurality system. I'm an advocate of voting reform (Condorcet'smethod, baby!) and I don't know if "fill in the bubble" would work there. Needing X bubbles besides each of the X candidates' names so that you can rank them all would be a little tedious. But if handwriting recognition is good enough to get most checks read correctly, it ought to be good enough here.
The only way I'll ever trust an electronic voting machine is if they provide a printout I can verify on the spot before dropping it in a box, so that it can be used for auditing purposes. Ideally, the source code should be open source. But even if it is not, providing a marked paper ballot that can be manually counted (if necessary) ought to be sufficient.
That's not government-backed compulsion, is it? Everyone has the freedom to speak, and if you don't like the message, you can tell them to leave your property. The restrictions that the 1st Amendment places on government do not apply to individuals. Those restrictions are there to protect individuals to do the very sorts of things you mention.
When I was in graduate school just a few years ago, only one prof ran a Linux desktop, and I here he's since gone to WinXP.
When we were putting a group project report on the web (using my student account, all of which were on a *nix box) the other two members of my group took copious notes of how file permissions worked and how to manipulate them with chmod. These were graduate students in CS who, AFAICT, had never seen *nix before. This was '97.
Our client/server lab was NT, and I got the distinct impression that the only thing most students knew was Windows.
I was also a TA for one term, teaching 3 of 15 labs. Three sections were on the Mac, the others on Windows. I wanted to volunteer for all three Mac sections (my undergrad made me a Mac-head) but couldn't arrange the schedule, and the other TA gave the impression that he was doing Macs only because he had no option.
So, even among budding computer professionals, Windows is entrenched. I was shocked to find out I was one of the few people comfortable in Mac, *nix, and Windows environments.
I am pretty sure that I've read that Lake Baikal is the largest by volume, which is arguably a more accurate way to measure the size of a body of water. It contains almost 25% of the world's fresh water.
Trivia: what is the claim to fame of Ryan Island? It's the largest island in the largest lake (Siskiwit) on the largest island (Isle Royale) in the largest lake (Superior) in the world. (Assuming you go by surface area and count only freshwater lakes, I guess.)
He only won because Wellstone and Mondale were both horrible alternatives, and Minnesotans were finally waking up to that. Also didn't hurt that organizations firmly in the pocket of the elephant party, like MCCL and NRA, backed him even when there were more conservative candidates on the ballot.
Slashdot Mirror
You said (and say again later in this message) that there is no need for private funding. Spending money myself is private funding. So are you for or against privately funded campaigns?
The only problem with public funding is that it's immoral. You are taking money from me, by force (as I have no choice), and giving it to people I would otherwise not choose to support. I will support the raw mechanics of the process (voting equipment, etc), but will not support viewpoints I oppose. Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical", and I agree with him. That's what public campaign funding amounts to. It doesn't matter that my candidate is getting just as much as the others, all that means is that the gang of robbers is one larger. I, and only I, should get to choose how my money gets spent. If a candidate's platform isn't interesting enough to get me to donate voluntarily, then I don't want any of my money given to it at all.
I agree that campaigns should be more than popularity contests. But the problem isn't "unequal funding" or "fatcat contributors". The problem is that's there's no real substantive dialogue when there are only two parties who both seek the middle. We need to change the electoral process itself, not the campaign process, to open it up to third parties. We need to level the playing field so every party can compete on its own merits, and those merits may be unequal - some parties simply have stupid ideas. The people must decide whether the various platforms have any merit, not government. Government's only job is to guarantee your train equal access to the track, you have to provide your own steam.
Taking control of politics out of the hands of the people and giving it to government is one of the most anti-freedom ideas I can imagine. I really can't fathom how Americans can support the notion. You'd basically end up with government controlling it's own direction, rather than the people controlling the government's direction. Is that what you really want? Don't you see the risk of incumbents twisting this to their own advantage to maintain power?
If you take all the people killed in the name of Christianity over the past 20 centuries (inquisitions, witch trials, and crusades too), you will find there were more people killed in the name of atheistic government in the 20th century alone. (I won't even mention those that were killed in the name of non-Christian religions.) Does this excuse the acts of those "Christians" who killed others? Absolutely not. But it does prove my point that Christian governments are better than non-Christian ones. Atheists believe they have no one to answer to after this life; most Christians remember that they do.
I heartily recommend reading What if Jesus had never been born for a history of the contributions of Christianity as well as its crimes.
Christian governments protect the rights of those who disagree and dissent. You would prefer an Islamic government (like Saudi Arabia, where Christians are routinely jailed and/or beaten for defaming Mohammed) or an atheist one (like Stalin's Russia, where anyone not disavowing their faith was sent to a Siberian gulag)? Virtually every country that has a significant measure of religious freedom today has historically had significant Christian impact. Where Christianity has had less impact, there is less religious freedom. Coincidence? I think not.
Don't confuse neo-conservatives like GWB for true conservatives. Leftists want big government to push their agenda. Neo-conservatives want big government to push a different agenda. Real conservatives want smaller government that cannot push agendas. Real conservatives don't want gov't telling us how to worship, and we realize we can't tell others how to worship either. That's a Christian principle, and we need that in government.
I don't mind money being spent on the mechanics of the process itself: voting machines and the like. That is a legitimate function of government. However, whenever gov't is responsible for setting requirements on the candidates/views involved, i.e. who gets on the ballot or who gets the money, we are looking at massive potential for abuse. In essence, gov't is taking a hand in its own future. Those in charge of gov't, being human, are always going to face the temptation of rigging it to protect their personal interests: protecting incumbents. In a free country, gov't should in no way be influencing political views - that taints the freedom. If I believe strongly in a political view, I am going to promote it with my time, effort, and money - that's freedom. You telling me I cannot do so, that political viewpoints should only be distributed through the appropriate gov't channels - that's anti-freedom.
Even if the "campaign" is a publicity stunt? But who's to say what is a stunt and what is merely a flamboyant campaign? (Government, you say? I've already said that lawmakers will make laws to protect incumbents.) It's nigh impossible to draw a line. The best line to draw is for gov't to provide no funding at all for campaigns, and let individuals contribute as much as they freely wish to give. The best line to draw is for debates to include all candidates that could potentially win - i.e. on the ballot in enough localities to win the amount needed. (FYI, there were 7 in the last presidential race, not 2.) Let candidates compete honestly in the marketplace of ideas. No arbitrary regulations, limitations, or qualifications. The people make the decisions.
Obviously there has to be some process to register candidates. The problem is when the standards are unevenly applied. For example, when parties that achieved x% of the vote last time get back on automatically, but others have to collect (often an unreasonably large amount of) signatures. This discriminates against minor parties, who have legitimate views that are not represented. Make the major parties jump through the same hoops...if they're as good as they claim to be it should be no problem. The very fact that there is a major/minor party distinction comes from Duverger's Law, and indicates that plurality voting has got to go.
Either you misunderstand either the Constitution Party's position, or what freedom of religion means. It is precisely because most of the Founders were Christian that we have religious freedom, as it is immoral by God's standards to impose (by governmental force) one's beliefs on another. The CP does promote government according to these Christian principles, as these principles are best for protecting the rights of all, Christian and non-Christian alike. History proves that non-Christians fare better under Christian governments than vice versa. Completely secular/atheist governments are often the worst of all.
And you obviously do not understand the Christian doctrines of sin and atonement. Here I am, a Christian believing that Christ forgives sins, promoting personal responsibility. I am liable for the wrongs I do, but the party wronged can choose to pardon the offense. Responsibility and forgiveness are not contradictory at all. Indeed, if there is no responsibility, what is there to forgive?
I'm not saying that the moderate view should always win. My example was merely to show an inherent weakness of IRV.
In the case of warfare, I would say that a "limited war" would always be seen (by rational people - politicians don't count) as the worst option. Obviously you should either fight to win, or stay completely out. "Dinking around just to get some of our soldiers killed" is not an attractive option, but that's what LBJ chose trying to appease both camps, and satisfied neither. It was a political, not principled, move on his part.
The problem is the principle of it. Why should I be forced to support candidates I don't agree with? If I feel like supporting anyone at all, I will give my whole dollar to the one guy I support - I'm not going to give him 25 cents, as well as 25 cents to the three guys I don't like. I should decide where my money goes.
And what happens when "joke" candidates file, just to get some money? Are you going to try to stop that by passing minimum requirement laws? You can be sure those laws will be written to discourage challenges to the incumbents and status quo. Effectively the D's and R's will give themselves your money (at least a majority of it), and make sure no one else gets any (or very little). It's already happening in various ways. The council for presidential debates (whatever it's called) is controlled by 3 D's and 3 R's. They never invite third parties, or set the bar so high that they don't qualify.
We need to fix the voting system to give challengers an honest chance. We need to replace plurality voting with Condorcet's method.
But if I've got the means to finance a debate, or a radio commercial, or a whistle stop campaign, I am being more effective (reaching more people) by doing that than I am by approaching people 1-on-1 myself. And isn't that the appeal of having money - being more productive with finite resources? I see nothing wrong with "putting my money where my mouth is" in the political arena as I would in any other.
Thank you for saying that. I've been posting it all over this thread. Hopefully Georgy is just ignorant of Condorcet and will see it's merits far outweigh IRV's.
Second, support GOA instead of NRA. The NRA's support of Constitutional government is sadly lacking. It seems they have a greater desire to perpetuate their organization than to uphold the 2nd Amendment.
See my other posts on this story. IRV is harmful, despite claims to the contrary.
Also, from what I've heard, only half the industry was deregulated. (Wish I still had the reference, but I'm not from CA so don't keep track of those things so well.) It's not a free market if gov't is still controlling half of it. Really deregulate and things will improve.
Good example. That's why we need Condorcet instead of IRV.
Another example that is easy to grasp is the three-way race between two popular extremists and a moderate. The moderate is obviously the best "compromise" candidate since, besides his own small group of supporters, extremists of both types would rather have him than the opposite extremist. Yet he'll be the first to be eliminated because he is ranked first by the fewest people. OTOH, Condorcet would see that this moderate would win in virtually all head-to-head votes against either of the others.
The point is that if the system fumbles a hypothetical, it should be changed, even if the chances of that situation happening seem remote. The system is demonstrably broken, so fix it!
If the voting system were fair, we'd have stronger third parties. Everyone deserves a voice. Do you really think there are only two voices of consequence?
My father is a MN state employee of over 30 years. He's been kept down by management, so we had many years of barely eking by when I was growing up. (The new manager has a college degree, but is always asking my dad and his co-workers how to actually get things done. Stupid bureaucratic policies.) He's looking at a pay cut, reduced medical insurance (now that he's nearing the age where it would have been really beneficial), and spousal benefits are getting axed (so my mother will not have insurance). So I'm not too sympathetic to this guy, either. Are people in education elitists?
Two words...
Personal responsibility. Don't leave home without it.
It is not government's job to step in and run your life even if you're incompetent. You and I may agree it is a moral obligation to take care of those less fortunate, but not everyone agrees, and it is immoral for us to force them. I suggest you and I start a private charity that people can voluntarily contribute to.
Basically I agree with you that there are people that need assistance, through no fault of their own. But I disagree that government is the one who should provide it. Gov't is inefficient - it kills competition. Gov't is inflexible - it has to make blanket regulations instead of adapting to individual circumstances. Gov't is uncompassionate - putting a heartless entity in charge of charity is fundamentally stupid.
I agree that IRV is a bad choice, but I don't understand what you mean by "maximizing individual power". If everyone's vote is equal...what's the difference?
I do agree with you that we should be able to spend our money the way we want, whether it's politics or not. The problem isn't money, it's the voting system. (See the link above for explanation.) The existing system promotes the "winability" of the candidate, which requires him to build a public image, which requires money. Alternate votings systems that give all candidates a fair shot would promote voters becoming informed on the issues and the platforms of the candidates. That's a good thing.
On the last point, I would submit that government's job isn't "to make the world a better place" it is to protect our liberties. We as individuals are responsible for improving the world around us. Government cannot do it, because everyone has a different idea of what those improvements should be, and it's immoral for force others to support something they don't agree with. Government should always do the minimum necessary.
I'm opposed to recall for a very different reason: it's a kludge to "fix" a broken voting system. The possibility of being elected with less than 50% support is bad, but recall is not the best way to fix it. If he's really doing that bad, there should be an impeachment process. The problem there is that the legislature is also elected with the same broken system. There's nothing wrong with proposing a new voting system to fix California's ills. What really needs to be done though, is to address the fact that plurality voting is a broken system by replacing it with a better one!
However, IRV is not the method that should replace plurality voting. Condorcet trounces IRV in every way that matters - even plurality is demonstrably better than IRV! IRV is deceptive because it gives voters a false sense that they've got a real choice, but in reality it's just as bad as the current plurality system. Run-offs need to be done simultaneously (Condorcet) not sequentially (IRV) to be fair.
Implementing Condorcet would encourage third party involvement. We need more voices in government, not fewer. After all, two choices is only one more than they had in communist Russia, and both options of the "Duopoly" gravitate toward the middle to get votes. That's not real choice! If you look at voter turnout in presidential races from 1960 on, it was a steady downward decline...with one exception: 1992. What happened in 1992? Ross Perot ran a strong third party campaign. It's clear that people want choice in politics.
Vote third party. Vote your conscience regardless of what the pundits and "strategists" say. The only strategy you should need in the booth is honesty to your ideals! The only way we're likely to see voting reform is if we get a third party into office, but we're going to have to do it with the current broken system.
I'm a native Minnesotan, and I couldn't agree less. Virtually every state in the nation greatly increased spending on social programs during the 90's, as if the tech boom was going to expand forever. Obviously it can't, and it didn't. So what's wrong with rolling back to, say, the 1990 budget? If the current budget is 50% higher (pulling that number out of the air) I sure don't see that I'm getting 50% better value from state services than I was in 1990.
I'm completely in support of cutting those services that were expanded in the last decade. We were getting by without them before, and we can do so again. Many of those things ought not be provided by government anyway. I feel higher education is one of them. If you want to get educated, pay the tuition. Why should you expect everyone else to pay for you?
I've always wondered when the state "shuts down" non-essential offices when the budget is stalled in the legislature, why aren't all those offices closed permanently? If they're non-essential, why are we paying for them? Let the more efficient private sector provide them on a competitive basis.
I didn't vote for Pawlenty, but I'm glad to see he's holding the line on this.
Agreed. That is the cheaper (and probably more sensible in the first place) alternative. I was saying that if we have to have e-voting, then they must provide a paper backup. But you're right, it would be easier and cheaper to just have scantron-able paper in the first place. You can use them like paper ballots for manual recounts, or you can run them through the machine to get done faster.
The problem is this assumes we keep the current single vote plurality system. I'm an advocate of voting reform (Condorcet's method, baby!) and I don't know if "fill in the bubble" would work there. Needing X bubbles besides each of the X candidates' names so that you can rank them all would be a little tedious. But if handwriting recognition is good enough to get most checks read correctly, it ought to be good enough here.
The only way I'll ever trust an electronic voting machine is if they provide a printout I can verify on the spot before dropping it in a box, so that it can be used for auditing purposes. Ideally, the source code should be open source. But even if it is not, providing a marked paper ballot that can be manually counted (if necessary) ought to be sufficient.
That's not government-backed compulsion, is it? Everyone has the freedom to speak, and if you don't like the message, you can tell them to leave your property. The restrictions that the 1st Amendment places on government do not apply to individuals. Those restrictions are there to protect individuals to do the very sorts of things you mention.
My experience was different.
When I was in graduate school just a few years ago, only one prof ran a Linux desktop, and I here he's since gone to WinXP.
When we were putting a group project report on the web (using my student account, all of which were on a *nix box) the other two members of my group took copious notes of how file permissions worked and how to manipulate them with chmod. These were graduate students in CS who, AFAICT, had never seen *nix before. This was '97.
Our client/server lab was NT, and I got the distinct impression that the only thing most students knew was Windows.
I was also a TA for one term, teaching 3 of 15 labs. Three sections were on the Mac, the others on Windows. I wanted to volunteer for all three Mac sections (my undergrad made me a Mac-head) but couldn't arrange the schedule, and the other TA gave the impression that he was doing Macs only because he had no option.
So, even among budding computer professionals, Windows is entrenched. I was shocked to find out I was one of the few people comfortable in Mac, *nix, and Windows environments.
I am pretty sure that I've read that Lake Baikal is the largest by volume, which is arguably a more accurate way to measure the size of a body of water. It contains almost 25% of the world's fresh water.
Trivia: what is the claim to fame of Ryan Island? It's the largest island in the largest lake (Siskiwit) on the largest island (Isle Royale) in the largest lake (Superior) in the world. (Assuming you go by surface area and count only freshwater lakes, I guess.)
He only won because Wellstone and Mondale were both horrible alternatives, and Minnesotans were finally waking up to that. Also didn't hurt that organizations firmly in the pocket of the elephant party, like MCCL and NRA, backed him even when there were more conservative candidates on the ballot.
Maybe if you have a button-fly. Zippers would scare me in that situation.
You are advocating thongs, then?