Should You Vote? 751
George Bush's suggestion last week that the Net can turn a child's heart dark and murderous sparked a ton of comments and e-mail, much of it about whether people will vote in the presidential election or stay home. Frankly, I was surprised at the level of interest from the tech world -- including the many passionate pleas to vote. This is one of those conversations that ought to move beyond e-mail and into the open. A number said statements like Bush's -- and other Luddite, exploit-parental-fears posturing by Gore, Cheney and Lieberman about violence, "cultural pollution" and other dangers emanating from TV, Hollywood, the Net, and gaming -- were inspiring them to participate. Others said they would sit out the election to protest a process that seems irrelevant. So far, I haven't found my candidate. But if you've decided to vote and care to say why, here's your chance. People are definitely listening.
Re:American's should vote (Score:2)
Nader is the son of Lebanese immigrants. Last I heard, Lebanon was not in northern Europe.
And while it is true that he is Ivy-league educated, he sought a law degree so that he could fight against percieved injustices, not because his parents (and their political party) told him that he couldn't be president unless he did.
His attacks on the safety record of the automobile industry began the year after he graduated from Harvard Law School. Three years prior to that, he graduated magna cum laude from Princeton.
In the future, please do a little research before you go lumping Gore, Bush, and Nader in the same class. Not even close.
Finally, I implore people, PLEASE, go out and vote for ANYONE BUT BUSH OR GORE!!! That's the only way your vote will mean ANYTHING. Vote for Nader, Brown, Hagelin, or that Nazi Buchanan if you want to, but JUST VOTE!
Newsflash for you, buddy (Score:2)
Hate to point this out, but the US has regularly killed innocent civilians for decades, except that most Americans wouldn't know coz they are semi-literate about foreign policy.
Do you think anybody gives a shit about carnivore and the US govt. reading someone's email? The US was one of the few countries (including libya and iraq) that opposed the landmine ban. It had death squads killing civilians in Guatemala, which has been well documented.
Recently, there was a proposal to close down the School of the Americas [soaw.org], a US military academy that has trained south american dictactorships, including skills such as torture.
You yanks lap up the propaganda fodder your govt. feeds you, which isn't that difficult, since half of you can't spot countries on the world map. Go USA!
Re:electorial college ruins it for me (Score:2)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:The electoral college sucks! (Score:2)
When it comes to the socialist programs such as Social Security and health coverage for all, I guess I probably can't defend my position on that to you. I think it's important to have these programs, though their importance may go down if the minimum wage is increased to a livable wage.
I bet I believe in many of the personal liberties that you do. However, I think we must go through a transition period, where we build up the health and wealth of the population, while reducing the overarching impact of corporate interests. Once we find a good balance in the incomes of our citizens and reduce the levels of poverty in this country, I think we will find that the social programs can be taken away. It may take 50 years, which is one of those things that pisses people off.
I heard Winona LaDuke speak last month. She says that her tribe has an old saying about making decisions. ``Do not think of the impact on yourself, but of the impact on people seven generations from now.''
Okay, so 50 years isn't seven generations, but you get the idea. (or maybe I should be getting your idea.. I dunno..)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:Borda Count (Score:2)
It might be a worthwhile exercise to grab some of your friends or coworkers and run a small poll. Get a list of the candidates running in your state, and try a few different methods. Have the people you gathered voice their opinions about how they felt about each method (after seeing who won).
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:This is really too bad ... (Score:2)
Just curious..
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:This is really too bad ... (Score:4)
Well, you can always write in somebody that you think would do a good job. I wonder how many votes Ventura will get
Anyway, in addition to the top seven candidates that are on the ballot in enough states to possibly win, there are two more people running in Minnesota. IIRC, there's somebody from the Socialist Workers party, and another person that probably just filled out the paperwork on a lark (an `official' write-in candidate, as he/she didn't get enough signatures to actually be on the ballot).
Not that I think I'd vote for either of them, but hey...
I really got interested in the alternative voting methods as well. It would be interesting too see what would happen if a state somewhere voted for it's Electoral College members in that fashion.
Of the two alternatives I saw, approval vote and Borda count, I think I like Borda count the best. I find it hard to believe that approval voting would be a whole lot different than what we already have, but that's just my opinion.
As the article said, all voting methods can fail in some way. Borda appears to be the most fault-tolerant (though it does carry the requirement that you have to actually have some moderately well-formed opinions of each of the candidates, which would require much more even media coverage).
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Why I'm voting- (Score:2)
Democracy doesn't work. It was tried throughout history, most notably in Greece, and it doesn't work- it's 'bread and circuses' and the dominant faction stomps all over everyone else, making it not much different from fascism. Read Federalist #10- this is hardly news.
America is not a democracy- it is a republic. THAT is why I'm voting for Nader.
I happen to be so extremely concerned with corporatism issues that choosing Nader is completely obvious- whatever his other concerns, it's plain that he entirely shares my distrust and alarm with what corporations are doing. That is reason enough to vote for him a thousand times over, since the Dems and Reps are both entirely bought, and Harry Browne is wildly in favor of turning over _all_ power to corporations and dropping any and all government counterbalances (something I find absolutely shocking. Ever heard of fiduciary duty, Harry? Why is it these huge powerful entities do not fall under your definition of 'government' themselves? They control what we do, utterly- more than the regular government.)
But that's as may be- my point is that the USA is a republic by design. The electoral college is the way it is for a reason- a state can back a different candidate and not merely be submerged in a nationwide counting of the votes- at that point politics has to deal with the different guy. In addition, a high turnout (like 5-10%?) for a third party candidate _proves it's a republic- anyone in politics must contend with what that means, it is an open admission that there's a really big voting bloc that are so concerned with some issue or other that they will act on it and be identified as a strong faction of their own.
I think people _should_ vote for Harry Browne (God help us if he wins! Linux can kiss its ass goodbye in the face of 'Halloween Document 2K- Since No Law Exists') if the guy seriously echoes their prime concerns- "Make government smaller!" is a perfectly legitimate agenda. By the same token people _should_ vote for Nader if they are even half concerned about corporatism- that's probably the one area where he'd have a significant effect, as the President is not King and doesn't make all the rules himself. People need to not vote for Gore _or_ Bush unless they are really, seriously, intelligently voting _for_ those people: I personally don't see why anybody would do this but then I'm a Nader guy and if I thought Gore or Bush were any sort of sensible choice I'd _vote_ for them instead of noisily joining an anticorporate faction too large to ignore.
As a final note, I am stunned that Katz is not already beating the drum for Nader. Read your own articles, Jon, then read some Nader interviews. Don't you realise this guy is the spearhead for your own pet issue? It's astonishing that you wouldn't know this already. Read what he has to say. If you wanted action against corporate abuses you only have one choice (plus, at least in Vermont, the Progressive party on a local level) You don't _have_ any other choices and not voting is not a choice because it is a vote for 'either Gore or Bush will be fine', and that's not true from the progressive perspective.
Re:Why I'm voting- (Score:2)
What gives you the notion that word scares me like it scares you? ;)
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi (Score:2)
Have you actually read his stance on this issue? I don't think you have. Mr. Browne acknowledges that the federal government has no say in what you may do with your body. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion, therefore it is a state or local issue, to be decided by individuals much more accessible to you than himself or anyone else in Washington. Likewise, the federal government is not authorized to fund any non-military medical facility. So, yes, he would fight for elimination of such funding, regardless of whether the facility provides abortions.
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess
Thank God. It's nothing but a pyramid scheme anyway.
when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay.
Then I suppose that, with lower overhead, the social security scheme must be paying out a lot more than a private investment account would for the same investment. Oops, wrong. By about an order of magnitude. 500 bucks a month isn't enough for even a poor person to live on. It's half the poverty level. It's chicken feed. And for this, we bankrupt our nation's productive citizens? Yeesh.
He is competely against universal healthcare, which most wealthy nations are handing out like flyers
The Constitution doesn't authorize a scheme like this. If that doesn't interest you, just look at the waiting lists for medical care in such nations, and how many of their wealthier citizens end up just going to the US for health care.
I hope no one voting for Browne is getting federal grants and loans for college, cause it ain't going to be there much longer.
I'm sure some reasonable plan will be put in place for the existing loans to be repaid under the same terms they were made. Don't think the feds will just call in the entire amount. And, although I'm sounding like a broken record, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to make such loans.
I'm going for Nader because he want's the federal government to work especially with publically funding elections
Not in the Constitution.
establishing a living wage
Not in the Constitution.
providing universal healthcare to 80-100 mil uninsured Americans
Not in the Constitution. And so, I suppose, those who have worked to get themselves into a position where they do have insurance will just have to eat that $10k a year, huh? "Too bad for you, you're successful. Not only will you have to pay for your own insurance, but you'll also have to pay for those who couldn't be bothered to provide it for themselves. Ain't America great?"
He also plans to establish a 'none of the above' options in elections so people like Katz and company don't sit out but voice their protest and force another election if no one gets a decent majority.
This is a state issue. My state already has such an option. Why doesn't Mr. Nader's?
Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there
Well, that's not me by a long shot. I would change that a little: "Browne is great if you'd like a chance to be wealthy at some point in your life."
Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Yes, I can clearly see on Mr. Browne's web site [harrybrowne2000.org] that he is in favor of maintaining the income tax on the poor and abolishing it for the rich. Oh wait, that's wrong; he actually argues for abolishing it for everyone. Sorry, it looks like you're wrong. Sure, the rich wouldn't pay any federal income or sales taxes, but neither would anyone else. A scam? Hardly. That honor goes to social security, the most successful scam in recorded history.
If Mr. Browne's plans were implemented, you could still be 100% satisfied with government. Any or all of the following could happen:
Regardless, you can still have what you want. The key is that I can too. Nice how that works out, isn't it?
No, thinking American's should vote. (Score:2)
If you don't feel you have time to understand the canidates and what they stand for, then please don't vote. Those who vote without thinking about the issues are risking that they vote for someone who would do a bad job in office. Those who understand the issues (Not nessicarly all, but enough that understanding more/others wouldn't change their choice) should vote.
Remember the goal is for the best canidate to win. If you don't know who the best canidate is why vote. If you think you do, then you should help out those who can't be bothered to vote by voting for the right person.
In other words, I've spent a lot of time looking over various canidates, and I know who will get my Presidental vote (Howard Phillips), but am still considering senate and represenitives on national and state levels. Please get out of my way if you havn't put as much thought into the process lest you vote for the wrong person.
If you disagree with me politically and vote for someone else, that is fine with me. If you don't know anything about the canidates and vote for someone else, I have a problem with that.
Re:Uphold the Constitiution (Score:2)
I for one am convinced that crime and antisocial behaviour in general can in very many cases be led back to the way the parents raised the person in question. And crime affects us all in some way.
I've seen many different ways to raise children. I've seen Some rotten parents, and some good ones. I've seen rotten kids, and I've seen good kids. However the corolation is not as strong as you lead us to think. There is some mind you, but I've seen wonderful parents turn out rotten kids, and I've seen rotten parents turn out good kids. I can't think of a reason for either, but I've seen it.
Yes parents should take responsibility for their children and raise them right, but there are very few who are doing such a bad job of raising their kids that I would advocate taking their kids away.
OTOH, there are many parents who are raising their kids in a way I disagree with. Thing like religion, Spanking, other punishment, family activities, day care, allowances, TV, curfews, dating, etc. are all things I've seen parents handle in a way different from me. Some are too strict, others are not strict enough, but then I turn to the next point, and suddently the positions have changed. I know that if I ever have kids people will say exactly the same thing about me.
So yes parents have a role in keeping kids out of trouble. But how much goverment should impose... I'm not willing to commit to that.
You can't vote blank in MN (Score:2)
Tried in in the primaries, if there are no marks on the voting card the machine won't accept the ballot.
Note that you don't have to vote for all open positions, and I presume you could vote for a write in canidate.
Phillips for smaller goverment (Score:2)
Granted the Libratarians are for smaller less intrusive goverment, but the constitution party is also for similear things. There are major diffeences, but they are differences allowed (They would say required in some cases) by the constitution.
The constitution party (if it has a majority in congress and the presidency, otherwise they just end up having to compromise like everyone else) would make goverment smaller then it is.
The major partys lie about their opponants all the time, please keep third partys clean of this - at least as much as we can.
Re:There are other races (Score:2)
However, at least here, they are treated as secondary by the local media that I've yet to see them mentioned in the paper which I read daily. I know from NPR that there's a congressional seat up, but that's in a different county than I'm in.
It could be that there aren't that many issues up vote here, and since I recently moved, I can't say much on the local politic scene beyond the strong republican bent. So hopefully, the papers will have local issue sections or I'll get something in the mail so that I'm better informed.
Re:Don't Waste Your Vote (Score:3)
--
Spoilt Ballots (Score:5)
Spoilt ballots get counted, and they are included in the announcement after the count.
I always vote, and I always find a canditate to vote for (usually the Labour candidate, although I was once strongly tempted to vote for Plaid Cymru's Cynog Davis, since he is an excellent constituency MP).
However, I have spoken to several UK citizens (*cough* - subjects) who never vote because they feel the whole thing is a sham / all politicians are as bad as each other / etc.
My feeling is that if you really have moral objections to all candidates, you *should* get up and spoil your ballot. Sure, your protest vote will get lumped in with the illiterates and idiots who just couldn't figure out how to draw an X in a box, but a high number of spoilt ballots *will* send out a message. It's better than being lumped in statistically with those too bone-idle to get off their arse and walk to the polling station.
--
Re:Vote, stupid (Score:2)
If you don't have the intelligence to realize that failing to vote is the stupidest form of protest ever, then please don't vote.
On the other hand, Mr. Katz seems to think that the whole electoral process would be improved dramatically if a larger percent of the population voted, and that is simply not the case. Everyone votes in Peru (or pays a fine), and it doesn't stop them from electing some amazingly inept and corrupt politicians. At the very least our current system weeds out the most politically incompetent citizens. It takes a modicum of dedication and intelligence to register to vote, to know where the polls are, and to know when the election is. If voting were any easier we would get more completely uninformed people voting, and that would be bad. Right now even the voters that I disagree with politically at least had the good sense to realize that their vote counts. That counts for something.
The media machine, of which Mr. Katz is a part, doesn't see it that way, however. Theywould like to have more control over elections, and the easiest people to sway are the types of people that don't currently vote. Media people would love it if more sheeple got out and voted.
Re:There are other races (Score:2)
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
Heck the Pill and fertility clinics kill countless embryos.
Nevertheless I applaud your libertarian commitment to supporting a right you find distasteful.
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
The girlfriend wished to have a child. The man invaded her body to prevent this.
This is assault, and damage to property.
There are other races (Score:5)
All across the country, many other things will be on the ballot. Members of your local school board, your city council, township board, county commission, etc. Statewide offices such as state senators, governors, secretaries of state, and governors are also on the ballot many places.
Perhaps you do think that the Presidential race doesn't involve you. Maybe you're right; maybe not. Your local race does involve you. Will your roads be will paved? Will your city be kept clean? Will your children (or YOU) be well educated? Will your water be kept clean and your environment healthy? These are important questions and are decided in a large part on a local or a state level. There are also races for the US Senate all over, which are also quite important.
I am frequently annoyed that people ignore these important local races and focus solely on the Presidency. This year's Presidential race is important; but it's also important that your local drinking water is clean and local students have access to excellent education.
There was this SF story that showed that... (Score:2)
The Demarchy was a true democracy- more appropriately a mobocracy. It was quite nasty to deal with. Unless we're all sensible, mature, individuals without any of the BS we seem to drag about through our lives, we can't be trusted with a true democracy. The majority will invariably opress the minority- it's happened time and time again throughout history. Why, in the name of God, would you think that it'd be different now?
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
He's honest allright. [freeyellow.com] And he's the man who states there ought to be limits to freedoms. Good luck!
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi (Score:2)
They called it Communism.
You can call it any word you like. I agree with Nader and will vote my conscience. I can't stomach the Democrat and Republican parties corruption any longer. You want to vote Browne? I commend you for making a choice based on philosophy and principle. I do the same and choose Nader.
Borda count wouldn't fix the problem. (Score:2)
The problem, of course, is that people don't vote their real feelings, they vote to maximize the chance of their vote "making a difference", to try and influence the outcome of the election. When everybody does this, the total outcome can be something completely undesired.
You still have that problem with Borda voting. If there are five candidates running, and you prefer A to B to C to D to E, but C and D are leading in the polls immediately before the election. Under our current system, you'd avoid "throwing away your vote" by voting for C instead of A. If we used Borda voting, then do you want to vote your conscience, A-B-C-D-E? No! You want to vote C-A-B-E-D, and put as large a spread between C and D as your vote will allow you.
Under approval voting, you would vote approval for A, B, and C, and disapproval for D and E. There aren't any funny game theory tricks that would let you increase your vote's effectiveness at the expense of the accuracy of it's ordering. Of course, the total accuracy of the vote is questionable; you might "approve" of D as president, just not as much as A, B, or C. But at least the rankings would be more accurate than today.
And of course, this is all based on the idea that people try to maximise the effectiveness of their vote, which isn't true. If that were the case, then we'd all be lying to the pollsters right up until the exit polls, so that third party candidates had a greater chance. The 10% of the population who might prefer Nader to Gore, but absolutely hate Bush, for instance, would tell pollsters they were voting for Nader, then vote for Gore anyway unless Nader had a higher poll standing on election day (in which case all the people who prefer Gore to Nader, but don't want Bush to be elected, would tell pollsters they were voting for Gore, but vote for Bush anyway).
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
Harry Browne is my man! (Score:2)
Instead I am voting for the only honest man in the race; Harry Browne.
Yeah (Score:2)
Re:Libertarian. (Score:2)
CORPORATIONS!
Replace Gov't censorship with corporate censorship. Do you really want Walmart decides what CDs should be widely available? They are the number 1 seller of CDs already. So now, the only way we can influence those that control our lives the most (corporations) is by being smart consumers.
Pretty much libertarianism replaces the vote as a mean of change with the almighty $$$Dollar$$$, which means the rich still will have the greatest say.
And this is why I'm voting for Nader [votenader.com]
Re:Vote -- or else. (Score:2)
Do you have the time or inclination to understand, in detail, every piece of IT-related legislation that goes before the legislature of the various jurisdictions you live in? I doubt it - and that's in an area of policy where you presumably have some interest and expertise. Now, consider the thousands of other pieces of legislation that pass before those bodies in the course of a year. Can you be expected to understand, even cursorily, more than a few of them without devoting your life to the job?
While direct democracy sounds appealing, it just wouldn't work. Citizen-initiated referenda, like that used in California, might be a reasonable compromise between your desire to directly influence policy and the impracticality of directly voting on *every* issue to come before a legislature.
Would some Californians care to comment on how well the citizen-initiated referenda have worked there? Has it produced better government? Has it resulted in stupid pieces of populism getting approved? Have Californians voted simultaneously for lower taxes, higher expenditure, and disallowing the government from borrowing money or other such idiocies?
of COURSE you should vote (Score:5)
--Jim
Voting: Yes! (Score:2)
Being an avid supporter of environmental causes [outdoors.org] as well as a geek, I have plenty of reasons [sierraclub.org] to both vote, and to vote for Gore/Liebermann. I do not like the anti-Hollywood/anti-'Net stance Gore and, in particular, Liebermann sometimes take. I am find Mr Liebermann's criticism of the Walt Disney Company [go.com] particularly distasteful. However, I find no evidence that Bush/Cheney are any better on these points.
While Bush says he can be trusted and will "get things done", clearly the former is an untestable claim and the latter could be achieved in the narrow sense by passing a lot of bad legislation. I also find Carl Pope and Paul Rauber's argument [sierraclub.org] that with Bush, Republicans could have a lock on three houses of government to be a compelling reason to work for some "diversity" in the branches.
As for folks who feel the process is compromised beyond participation, I believe the quote from Norman Mailer ( The Deer Park [americanlegends.com]) is appropriate to our national situation:
Re:A vote for Nader is a vote for.... NADER! (Score:2)
http://www.tompaine.com/opinio n/2 000/09/29/7.html [tompaine.com]
A vote for Nader is a vote for.... NADER! (Score:5)
-----
To make the numbers case is Steve Cobble, a Nader supporter but one who, as an advisor for Jesse Jackson and many others, has earned a reputation as one of the most acute analysts of voter patterns and the arcane machinations of the political system. Cobble broke down the numbers in an article for TomPaine.com, and came to this conclusion:
"Except for a very small number of states, progressives have a free vote. They can vote their conscience for Ralph Nader, and help him get the 5 percent he needs to build a new fourth party. In at least two-thirds of the country, and perhaps as many as nine states out of ten, a vote for Ralph Nader is not a vote for George Bush. It's really a vote for Ralph Nader."
Here is Cobble's run down, state by state:
(1) Safe for Bush (17 states): Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming.
In these states, every progressive can vote for Nader knowing that they are not endangering the Supreme Court in any way.
(2) Leaning toward Bush (7 states): Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire.
Same basic rule -- in these states, progressives can vote for Ralph safe in the knowledge that none of these states are absolutely necessary to build a winning electoral coalition for Gore.
(3) Safe for Gore (15 states): California, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia, Vermont.
In these states, progressives can not only vote safely for Nader, they can each recruit one or two other friends to vote for Ralph, secure in the knowledge that George Bush has given up (or will give up in early October) on winning these electoral votes.
(4) Leaning toward Gore (7 states): Delaware, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin.
These states are likely to end up in Gore's column, unless he badly blows the debates. If they do maintain his current lead, then progressives are secure in voting for Nader.
(5) Toss-up (5 states): Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio.
In these five swing states, the Ivins Rule applies most strongly -- check the state polls right before election day, then make your judgment.
Re:of COURSE you should vote (Score:2)
You still vote - just because you have a ballot doesn't mean you have to pick somebody in every race. Vote on your local questions, vote on your congressional candidates and local offices, and abstain on the presidential race. Do -not- write in None of the Above, as in many areas this will invalidate your ballot; abstaining is the official way of voting 'none of the above', and abstaining means casting a ballot with no choice in a particular race. Not voting is just not voting.
--Parity
Nader (Score:2)
http://www.votenader.org/issues.html
he is pro-privacy
"Our fundamental rights are threatened by new information technologies, and by the buying and selling of personal information," Nader wrote the Democratic and Republican candidates. "Personal information about Americans is routinely collected and abused by government agencies, and by corporations for private gain."
for more about his stand on this issuse
http://votenader.org/press/0001008privacy.html
he has come out against NSI calling it cooperate welfare
http://votenader.org/press/Corporate/corporate2
come on people
no comment on
Of course you should vote! (Score:2)
If you don't like the process, work within it to change it. People don't vote - ostensibly out of protest, but largely due to indifference. When the economy hits people in the wallet they become less apathetic and choose to take part. Since the economy is doing well, fewer people are motivated to vote. That is quite sad.
We are so affluent and self-centered as a society that we have forgotten our roots. People died for the right to establish a government of the people by the people, for the people. You might not like this organizational structure, but the beauty of it is that it can be changed, and without bloodshed.
It is awe inspiring to see the inaguration of a president from a different party than the incumbent. In most countries when an "opposing" leader is installed it comes when the head of the incumbnet is removed from his neck.
Our government has lots of problems. There's definitely a disconnect between the political process and the everyman. Warts and all, it's the best thing out there from an governmental organizational structure.
If you have the right to vote, exercise it! Don't make the sacrifices of previous generations be in vain.
It's up to you. Are you willing to take a stand?
Re:There are other races (Score:2)
Of course it is -- have fun. Get a few thousand freinds to do it and you might make a splash on the evening news...
---------------------------------------------
Re:A message (Score:2)
---------------------------------------------
Re:Votes Don't Matter (Score:2)
---------------------------------------------
Re:why suprised? (Score:3)
The european microsoft investigation, the AOL/Time-Warner merger, etc -- these are things that Europe could most definitely help with, but for some strange reason they keep saying "well, the US is looking into it, so we'll just follow them".
---------------------------------------------
Re:Don't Waste Your Vote (Score:2)
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html [self-gov.org]
It may help you decide.
Re:Vote, stupid (Score:2)
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
Re:I'm voting for Bush (Score:2)
Really? Then explain the recession of the 80s. Explain the rapid growth on Wall St. in the past decade. Explain why interest rates for mortgages are about half what they were in the early 80s. (OK, these last two are tied together... but still important.)
I have to argue with *always* done right.
Eric
Re:But (Score:2)
I hardly call that "most of the century."
And really, how much do you think the success/failure of the US has to do with the President? The US Congress has FAR more domestic power than a single figurehead. As commander-in-chief, the Pres has power over the military, but we haven't had a civil war in 135 years, so that hasn't been a domestic concern lately.
IMO, it doesn't matter which bobbing-head-doll we elect President. I'm far more concerned about Congressional (Senate and HoRep) elections.
Eric
Re:Jeez (Score:2)
If one of the third-party candidates gets 15% of the vote, they'll get Federal funding for the next election. Then they can advertise more effectively and get more of the votes in 4 years. Of course neither of the 3rd party candidates will win this time, but the more votes they get this time the better they'll do next time.
That said... VOTE HARRY BROWNE [harrybrowne.org]!
--
I'm not voting (Score:2)
Re:There are other races (Score:2)
Democracy isn't about fun, or being able to get your pet issues front and center. It's about doing the best you can to get the policies you want implemented. The only confused, undecided person should be someone with political views in between Bush and Gore. (which, actually, is a lot of people)
I also like how Dan Savage has pointed out that if Gore loses this election, and Nader picks up 2 or 3 %, the Democratic Party isn't going to go LEFT. It's going to go right, to compete for the bulk of votes, not the fringe votes. Nothing other than a Democratic victory could make the party head left. And if the Green Party gets funding- so what? Funding sure hasn't helped the Reform Party get anywhere. The problem is that parties like the Greens aren't serious. They aren't willing to compromise and moderate their positions to the point where they appeal to the wide swath of Americans. The are extremely poorly thought out- anti-corporatism, for instance, will win you many blue-collar worker's hearts, but promising to raise gas taxes will lose them again.
Show me some statistics! (Score:2)
I'd like to see some statistics showing that the "crime rate shot through the roof" after gun control laws were tightened considerably here. Until then, I'm going to continue to ignore anyone who uses that as an argument in favour of resisting gun control.
But before I wander off to ignore you completely, I'll point you at an interesting little piece of data: the rates of death due to firearms in various countries show a strong correlation between the strength of gun control laws in a country. The UK, for example, has some of the strongest gun control laws around, and they also have one of the lowest rates of death from firearms. Australia (prior to the Port Arthur massacre that prompted the strengthening of gun control laws) had significantly weaker laws than the UK, and had, suprisingly enough, a higher rate of firearms deaths. As far as I know (I can't say for certain, because I haven't seen any hard statistics) since the laws were tightened here, we've seen less firearms related deaths. The same correlation is seen throughout Europe, and in Canada.
And take a little guess at which country has the _highest_ rates of firearms related deaths? Yup, it's the good ol' U.S of A . . .
Personally, I don't really care if you think gun ownership is a right: I _know_ that I have a right to _not_ be at risk of getting shot, and that's what gun control laws are aimed at. I don't want to have to own a gun to stop people from shooting me.
himi
--
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi (Score:2)
> This sounds like turning people out on the street to me.
It sounds to me like people getting tax money back with which to donate to charities and removing a system that encourages dependence on the state. Clinton's welfare reform helped, but really only scratched the surface - while the number of caseloads have dropped, money going to welfare has increased.
Elimination of the welfare system will put money back into the hands of the people, and they will put it into charity. Every time taxes have been cut in recent memory, charitable spending has increased.
If you want to help the poor, where would you rather put your money? In a charity of your choice, or a government welfare system? Who would do a better job at managing it?
Besides, the constitution does not give the fed any authority to even create a welfare system like it has. It's too bad the Supreme Court has been stacked to not see it this way.
On Families:
> It seems to me that people will work long and hard for more money anyway. Greed is deep-rooted in the American psyche and I can't see how repealing the income tax has anything to do with people spending more time with their families.
It's simple. By removing the 15% tax I pay (not to say the social security and higher tax brackets), I'm bringing home more money. More money means less of a chance that mom will need to get a job to help support the family. Or maybe she can just get a part time job.
On Military Service:
Browne> "I spent three years in the Army, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to be in the Army."
> From the man who would like to become our commander in chief.
He's making the point that the primary purpose of the army is to ward off attack, and serving that purpose will probably put you in harm's way. Why would anybody want to put theirselves in harm's way if they don't have to? Our army is so hopelessly advanced, any justification of further spending, expansion, or duties would hard to come by.
On Selling off the Environment:
> I am assuming this includes National Forest lands, BLM lands, perhapes even National Wilderness Areas. This is almost as bad as Bush wanting to drill in the ANWR. Selling these lands in auction essentially to the highest corporate bidder could possibly close many of them to public use.
This has nothing to do with Bush wanting to drill in the ANWR. You assume that the government is doing a good job of maintaing its land now and that any purchaser will seek to destroy it or not let anybody onto it. Should I point out the horrible wildlife management that occurs in many national forests, or the lack of land management in the government's wilderness areas that exacerbated the recent wildires that consumed vast stretches of land in the west? How about the large quantities of land the government leases out to ranchers who subsequently trash it because it's not their own. Who takes better care of land? Renters or owners? Most of the surface polution in the US occurs on govnerment owned property. And you think that private owners would do worse? Please explain.
On closing down federal programs:
> Say goodbye to federal loans for education, research grants for science, national forests and parks, etc. Say hello to corporate control of the environment, massive unchecked monopolies, and an increase in federal crime becuase without federal law enforcement, who will enforce the laws of the US constitiution?
Somebody else responded to the loans and grants, and I've already responded to the parks and corporate control of environment. Massive unchecked monopolies are only bad if they harm the consumer. If a company achieves true monopoly status it will only retain it if it out-competes its competitors. Otherwise, competitors will slowly begin to chip away at it until it does not have monopoly status any more.
As far as federal crime goes, how relevant is that now? States have more than enough power to rid crime from theirselves and can easily share databases of crime information. Federal law enforcement does hardly anything while consuming vast amounts of taxpayer money and threatening our civil liberties. The only reason for federal law enforcement is to keep local corruption in check, and that is only there because of the stupid drug war.
People keep claiming that a Libertarian way of life will result in people dying in the streets, and I challenge anybody to prove it. At the same time, I challenge them to show a single government program that has succeeded in its purpose.
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
Lee Reynolds
Re:Don't Waste Your Vote (Score:2)
I like what they do in VA (or so I've heard). If a candidate doesn't receive more than 50% of the vote, they have a run-off between the top two vote getters. Between doing away with the electoral college and doing the run-off, I think you'd see a lot more 3rd party votes. But then, I also thought it would be neat if VP was an elected office rather than a chosen one (even if it were done in the primaries within each party). A Gore-Bradley ticket is much more attractive to me than the current Democratic ticket.
-Jennifer
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
WHAT?!! You've got to be kidding! This is the person who said that he would be making decisions based on principle, not polls. I like leaders with principle, but I don't trust any leader who says that he will not listen to his constituents. How does he know that his "principles" are 1) right or 2) reflective of mine?
Add to that his LOUSY track record here in Texas, and I have to say that I feel the opposite of you, and I'm going to do anything I can to keep Bush out of office. I consider myself to have conservative, Republican values, but I normally vote Democratic because they seem to listen more to the average person and focus a little less on the needs of the upper 1%.
Do political moderates constitute a faction? (Score:2)
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It would seem that with the introduction of instant, global, pervasive, saturating media coverage of the election process the so-called "viscious arts" may indeed be practiced with wanton abandon. Witness Nixon and his "dirty tricks" and, as a more modern example, the allegations on both sides of this election of smear campaigns levied against them by their opponents. It would seem that, for better or worse, politics is changing as a consequence of the infusion of communications and information technology into the voting public. (Katz would argue that this is the end of politics, but I see it, rather, as a subtle change).
The question I have follows from the observation that the two political parties' platforms tend to asymptote toward one another as election day approaches in a strategic attempt to snag the vote of the undecided voter who is, generally speaking, a political moderate. With current technology we can categorize and poll these voters down to the minutiae. We know their age and income demographics. We know where they live. We know how many children they have, how frequently they watch television or listen to the radio, whether they work for big or small business. In the waning hours of the election we craft political platforms in a manner that captures their vote, and we see this pandering mirrored in the bills brought before Congress. Can we call a spade a spade and view these moderates as a faction?
I would argue that we may. They certainly receive a disproportionate amount of attention from both of the major parties, and their sometimes ill-informed concerns have surfaced in eleventh-hour Congressional resolutions, particularly appropriations bills. This year we have many such stingers, including appropriations bills laden with pork, a much-expanded polygraph program to "make our nuclear secrets safe again" by harrassing DOE scientists into resigning from their posts, and the inclusion of censorware on public computers "for the sake of children." Anything to keep the focus groups employed, safe, and keep salaciousness away from their children's eyes--at considerable cost to the good of the public. Even if no campaign promises are kept they have affected public policy in a manner incommensurate with their representation in the populace. The greatest potential tyrrany, according to Madison, was from factions who find themselves in the majority. No matter what the Fates decide for this election, these groups will indeed be members of the majority with public policy initiatives specifically crafted to appeal to their interests.
It is too bad that Gen-X chooses not to vote. We might otherwise use this to our advantage.
Non-voters are a**holes. (Score:2)
During the 88 election she said to me "Just for once in my life, I wish I could vote!"
Every time I hear some idiot whining that they aren't going to vote because they don't like the choices, I remember what the vote means to people who don't have it and I want to kick those their teeth in. Don't they realize they're volunteering to be a second class citizen? I wouldn't mind that so much, but they're going to drag the rest of the middle class down the political tube along with themselves.
Knee-jerk cynicism, like any unthinking emotional state, can and is manipulated by anti-democracy forces for their own selfish ends. The character assasination, and the myth that there is no difference between the major party candidates, this swill is fostered by people who are interested in getting you to opt out of the election so they can keep the political process to themselves. You don't think they are staying home, do you? What's worse is that it is spread by the fools they've turned into apathetic zombies.
You might argue there should be more difference between the candidates, and I'd agree, but who gets elected will affect a lot of people's lives one way or the other. Even if there were no important differences between them, there are third party candidates that offer radically different and sometimes better positions; and there is alway the option of protest by abstaining. As long as you are in the voting booth, you are a factor to be reckoned with.
This is what will happen when enough people stop voting: First, you become a non-voter. Next you become a non-citizen. Then, you become a non-entity.
direct democracy = bad... (Score:2)
and with how easily manipuated the general public is, and with the relatively low education of the populace in general, this would just be a horror story.
so ... keep the representative democracy, but get rid of the duopoly.
tagline
Inaccuracy! (Score:3)
If you wonder what I'm talking about, go back and read the debate again - this time objectively. Bush's point was not that the Internet turns children's hearts black, but that America has gone far from values that are virtuous, and the current values portrayed by the Internet - necrophilia, anyone? how about bomb making information? - are not things that young people should be subjected to.
Granted, you say "those are stupid arguements, that doesn't mean the kids will do it." Kids ARE stupid. How many kids do you know that are smart enough to do things behind their parents back? Lots. How many do you know that have any common sence? Not many. They find something on the Internet that says "How to blow things up," and they foolishly think, "Oh cool! Roadrunner type stuff!" because that's all that they've been subjected to, as far as blowing things up is concerned. That, or movies where the action hero gets blown out of the 3rd story of a building by a large atomic fireball, falls to the ground landing on a large spike, gets up, pulls the spike out, and then kills the villian with it.
American media has made senceless kids who don't have common sence; that, paired with a knowledge of computers has the potential for danger.
I personally get sick of Katz endless stream of croud-pleasing articles that conform to the Slashdot Way. It gets so bad, you don't even have to read what he says to know what he says.
I know I'll probably get moderated down for this one, but at this point I don't care. I miss the unbiased slashdot, the one that was open minded and allowed for more views. They political views on slashdot this election have been horrid - very much 'AntiBush', even though they claim to be against both Bush and Gore...
Don't let people tell you what they're saying, read what they're saying for yourselves.
#include "aspestos.h"
-------
CAIMLAS
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi (Score:2)
No. I have *never* heard *anyone* say "Oh, I wish I weren't rich so I didn't have to pay so much in taxes" or "I'm not going to work hard because I'll just have to pay too much in taxes."
Now, Nader's "maximum wage" = 100% tax over a certain amount *would* make some people say that, which is why I don't support it. But I support Nader anyhow, since even were he to be elected, that particular measure would never pass. IOW, his madness is safer than Browne's (or Gore's or Bush's).
Not for GreensForGore.org ... (Score:2)
Plus, it's a lot closer in the Leaning To states you mentioned, such as Washington and Oregon. Trust me on this.
However, the basic strategy is a sound one, as proposed at Greens For Gore [greensforgore.org], and would work fairly well to maximize vote counts for any party it's used for.
If you're Libertarian or Green, this might allow you to get over the 5 percent threshold, qualify for federal matching funds, acheive majority party status in the affected status, and still stick it to Bush.
The Problem with American Voters & Candidates (Score:2)
Their friend only votes for whomever their friend votes, and so on and so on.
Eventually you reach a point where the Alpha-Voter actually has a reason to vote for that person... they are that person.
The second problem is the candidates. They have turned their public service into a career. We have lawyers becoming congresspersons, senators, and presidents. Does anyone see the problem with this? They're making laws in which they will be prosecuting in court. Talk about a conflict of interest. Also, as you have career politicians, they start voting in order to *STAY* in office... not for the *BEST* of their community. Most likely for the *BEST* of their biggest supporters. With *CASH* they can *BUY* their votes. Joe Sixpack doesn't *SUPPLY* the *CASH* necessary to win.
If a qualified candidate came down the pike who has swatched a path of change in their wake, America might finally wake up.
But what am I saying. I'm actually thinking the populous is smart. I'm actually thinking someone qualified who actually cares and shows it will step forward with a giant silver sword and destroy the old codgers currently getting off on being popular and constantly winning the popularity contest, boosting their egos.
...and don't even get me started on the idiocy called the Electoral College...
One vote make a difference? Hardly... but you can get the good feeling that you voted for whomever you wish -- not for whomever your friend wished.
-m
Re:This should not even be a choice! (Score:2)
Given the choice between someone who thinks he is intelligent enough to run my life better than I can and a dimwit, I will choose the dimwit.
Since the actual choices are more extensive, I'm voting for the one fairly close to my views, namely Harry Browne.
/.
Re:no candidate seems right... (Score:2)
They've already qualified for some election funds, but refuse to accept them. Presumably, they would also refuse to accept the extra funding for getting to 5% of the Presidential vote.
That said, voting for them to raise their support level to the point where it shows up on the political radar (and forces the larger parties to address the issues of government overreach and abuse) is a worthwhile decision if those are the issues you care about most.
/.
*DO* Vote (Score:2)
Did you ever notice how many times each side says this election is about "issues" and "real differences". Imagine that! Unlike all other previous elections, right? Doesn't it make you curious as to why they feel they have to repeat this over and over to you? Well, it's because they *know* there aren't real differences. They *know* they agree on NAFTA/WTO "free" trade, propping up corrupt foreign governments because it is in our "national interest", prohibiting gay unions, gun laws, the environment, the most militarized democracy in history. Of course they will beat the drum of the Supreme Court and abortion to get you running scared and voting for them, despite the fact that in recent history conservative adminstrations appointed more liberal justices, while liberal administrations appointed more conservative ones. No wonder the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, you guessed it, is run by a Republican/Democrat duopoly, doesn't want third parties debating and bringing up real issues.
If you vote for Bush or Gore you are really voting for the same thing. Despite any superficial or character differences between them, either way you are voting for further corporatization and corruption of our political process.
The fact is, while many of us may seem very comfortable, this election is about a *lot* more than the Supreme Court, or whatever crisis-du-jour the Republicrats want to pull out of their hat. This election is about deciding whether you are going to hold government accountable to the people, or whether you will allow faceless powers pull the wool over your eyes. This is your chance to take a stand.
I am voting for Nader, among many other reasons, because he has a strong platform on social justice, and government accountability. He has a long history of fighting, and repairing the system. The Green platform addresses farmers, average working people. Those who have been "protesting" by not voting out of disgust, are the *real* majority. This is the real center.
Of course, many around this parts favor Browne and Libertarianism. I can live with that, I agree with some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, and I certainly respect their candidate above the two status-quo candidates.
Don't vote like you pick soda beverages. Vote your conscience, otherwise, greater or lesser, you will always get some sort of evil.
Don't be taken for granted. "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you in very unpleasant ways."
Ain't Fallin' for that One Again
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
Bush and Gore Make Me Want to Ralph
http://www.michaelmoore.com/07192000.html
Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)
http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com
Who Do You Trust?
http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000/story/0,7
Nader Campaign
http://www.votenader.org
And if they have you scared about wasting your vote: the election is determined by the electoral college, not popular opinion (see recent Slashdot article on how this system is fscked). That means, in all but a handful of battleground states, where the outcome has already pretty much been decided (e.g., in NY Gore has a large lead), you can turn the tables on the same mentality that says your one vote can't possibly affect the outcome - and vote for a third party.
And on the risk of getting too squishy here:
"A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble." -- Ghandi
Re:electorial college ruins it for me (Score:2)
Just because you don't hear about it through the mass media, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Mark Dunau, a farmer, is the Green party candidate for NY Senate. Yet I have not heard his name mentioned even once amid all the garbage about Hillary and Lazio.
So you New Yorkers who dislike both Hillary and Lazio and think there is no other choice - there is. Look up Mark Dunau. Vote for him if you agree with him.
http://www.ruralparty.com/
Bush scares me (Score:2)
Not only is Bush stupid, he's arrogant, childish, and evil. Texas has executed an ungodly number of people since he's been Governor. His views on everything important are completely wrong. Especially with all the turmoil in the Middle East, I don't want someone who has so little regard for life as president. World War III does not appeal to me. If he's elected I will probably move to Canada.
So I'm voting for Gore.
Vote /for/ and vote /against/ (Score:2)
That would be most cool, although I think (on a first pass) that I would give that up if I had the option to use my vote as a "for" or an "against," my choice.
I don't care for a single one of the candidates. It doesn't matter who wins, we still lose. But I would like to avoid losing to a couple people in particular, because they represent the worst-case outcome. So I wish I could vote against Bush or Gore. (Adjust the Constitution's voting rules and cutoffs as appropriate.)
Re:Vote For Bush (Score:2)
1. Politicians like to go after anything fun, not just video games. One of the big things about Communist countries is that just about anything fun was outlawed as Western decadence, misery was state mandated and seen as productive. In this country, the Christian Right represents the character of Thomas Gradgrind from Dickens' Hard Times who hated imagination:
There's no difference between a grim, gray-pajama dictatorship whether the people who run it claim to work for the people or for the Lord. It's still Hell on earth, either way. So, you see, I consider this to be a fight against the forces of evil.2. The Christian Right has demonstrated, over and over again, that anything which is frivolously entertaining will be hounded and attacked, through legislative means if possible. This, frankly, is social engineering. The same social engineering that Republicans claim only the Left wants to do, as they hypocritically engage in it themselves. Republicans have no problem driving someone out of business if their business doesn't fit into the realm of grim, joyless productivity, and the only way a business can survive this assault is through bribery (protection money!). The reason why Hollywood is not credibly threatened is, of course, because all their bribes are paid up. Of course, these bribes also allow them to engage in social engineering of their own, such as the DMCA.
Now, the Democrats are also social engineers, and more horribly than that, they've caught the Christian Right's "gray-pajama" dictatorship disease (at least the Gore ticket has). But at least they aren't liars, they admit they believe in social engineering..
You people act like the only part of the Bill of Rights anyone ever needs to worry about is the Right to Bear Arms. Well, since I don't own a gun and don't plan to in the near future, that Right is irrelevant to my personal life. Why should I care about such an abstract issue compared to something that is going to have a real, measurable impact on my life? I may never own a gun, but I've bought plenty of games in my 31 years.
Understand, though I am not far away from libertarian Republicans on many issues, I will never vote Republican again in my life, ever. The Republican party is evil as it is currently constituted, and I'll never trust it enough to believe it has changed.
When Henry Hyde proposed a law for the whole country similar to the one in Indiana (except for the fact that it covered more types of media) it was the Democrats in Congress who stood up to them.
The Republican party belongs on History's scrap heap, just like the Whigs.
Re:Libertarian. (Score:2)
There will be no power vaccuum filled by corporations.
________________________________________
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi (Score:2)
"fundamentalist Constitution talk"? The Consitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Pointing out that the government is in violation of the supreme law of the land isn't "fundamentalism." It's not hard to understand the meaning of words like "shall make no law," "shall not be abridged," and "reserved to the states and people". What good is a supreme law of the land if it's not actually followed?
Or those part of the evil empire also?
No, they're part of the system. The idea is that, when large changes are made to the supreme law of the land, there must be vast support for it. As opposed to simply issuing an executive order.
________________________________________
Re:This is not the election...... (Score:2)
... I have no idea what that means.
________________________________________
Re:Libertarian. (Score:2)
Not true. Libertarian government would kick coporations off of the public teat and make them accountable for fraud.
It would be cool if the corporate death penalty were revived as well.
________________________________________
Re:Libertarian. (Score:2)
Freedom and capitalism go hand in hand. You'd be better off saying "socialism or freedom; can't have it both ways"
The Libertarians would be telling you to vote for Nader if they weren't all rich.
Breathtakingly silly. Nader is much more of a socialist than a capitalist. He wants a nanny-state -- exactly what Libertarians don't want.
________________________________________
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi (Score:2)
Mmmm... welfare for the political class.
________________________________________
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi (Score:2)
Not true. All of the flat tax plans call for a flat tax on all income over a certain amount, and it's typically fairly high, like $60,000. Your $15k/year example guy would pay no taxes.
________________________________________
Re:Libertarian. (Score:2)
Our Anonymous Coward friend has, in fact, made it abundantly clear that he doesn't want freedom; he wants free stuff. AC For President! He will make us his slaves, but feed us.
________________________________________
Re:Libertarian. (Score:2)
________________________________________
"None of the above" (Score:3)
________________________________________
Libertarian. (Score:4)
Voting Libertarian is the best campaign finance reform possible, because they will reduce government back to its constitutional limits. One the federal government isn't all-powerful anymore, there will be much less to fight over. Without corporate and personal subsidies being handed out right and left, why bribe a politician to get the rules skewed in your favor?
________________________________________
Re:Vote -- or else. (Score:5)
Exactly. Not voting is giving your approval to ALL of the candidates - after all, if you had an opinion, you'd go make it known, right?
You DON'T have to vote for either of the two big parties. Heck, you don't have to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot. Or even go in to vote and just not select anyone.
If everyone who was going to not vote went in and voted for nobody, that would be a huge percentage, and would definately be noticed. If, when they counted up results, 25% of the people voted for essentially "none of the above", don't you think that would send a message? That all those people found nobody worth voting for?
---
Re:It's difficult. (Score:3)
//rdj
electorial college ruins it for me (Score:5)
One state( can't remember which) at least broke up their electorial votes based on percentage of votes). I like that idea, since it basically is within the rights of a state.
The problems I have with the electorial college are:
- My vote means nothing.. Except a margin of error for historical statistics in my state.
- It blocks non-mainstream party candidates. A candidate that gets 15% of the vote should have 15% of the final vote, which is not the case. A uniform 15% vote will get you zero electorial votes. The problem this causes is that the media AND organizations like the debate committee know this and so they completely discount 3'rd party candidates. If, for example, 3'rd party candidates could have gone to the debates, they could have mustered an enormous support (most people have never even heard of them). They could at least double their support (if nothign else than for people to vote against the main candidates with someone they _think_ looks trustworthy).
- The electorial process was deviced when we had state-loyalty. You were not an American, you were a Virginian. Today, people move from state to state will little concern - people identify with the US as a whole, we're more concerned with the Federal Gov. than the local ones. Back in the day, we trusted local Gov. more than the Fed., and so we united as a state to vote for a candidate. Today many don't even know who their local congressmen are.
Now, for the flip side. There are advantages to the electorial process that I can imagine. First of all, it is doing exactly what it was intended to do. Not least of which, it reduces the number of candidates. I have heard horror stories about politics in India (and I assume in other parts of the world), where there are hundreds of parties. You have a perfectly competative market, so you have to sell your self cheaper than your competitor - or more correctly, offer more apparent value, even if it means compromising good judgement. Incredibly, the US does not have a market-based executive branch. We don't see the same sort of free-wheeling, don't pay any attention to the detail of the man that is me, just see what I'm trying to give you if I'm elected to office. In other countries, they take a candidate like we take a McDonalds burger. They don't even want to KNOW what's inside, but it's cheap and it'll satisfy us for the short term. Political candidates are put through a lot of scrutiny, and if a candidate things something embarrasing has come out, they will tend to resign. There's more attention being paid to fewer candidates. The media will also be quick to spend enough air time on the flaws of candidates that people will generally discount unfavorables. You can't do this if you have hundreds of candidates. The likely hood that people will be well enough informed is slim.
The big issue we find today is that power corrupts, and our two main parties have been in power for a long while. A 3'rd party is not going to break through for a long while (if ever), especially when the main parties are catering to more and more of the other side. "Don't rock the boat", is too strong.
I don't know that things wouldn't go bad in time if we got rid of the electorial process, but I can't imagine that dividing state votes up based on their percentage isn't more "fair", and would at the very least provide enough scare into the main candidates to not dismiss the 15% or so that goes out.
In closing, I'll put my plug; a highly biased opinion. Though some don't like the social engineering that Gore proposes, I personally think it's a more intelligent approach than Bush's brute force approach (of giving away money to everyone). Neither really sticks to any philosophy. Bush claims support for regional independance, but then wants to use the purse strings for control. He claims to support the military, but doesn't fully fund it in his plan. He wants to give us rights to guns and says that "we know best", but wants to remove a woman's choice (actually it's consistent if you think of him as a sexist conservative male dominant character, but I doubt that's really true).
Gore is just a mixture of about everything (he's even taken a 180 from his earlier years on many issues). He's probably going to follow in Clinton's foot-steps and change opinion with what-ever is popular; just look at his new stance on Campain finance - especially after his fallings out. He's a green-peace person at heart, but he's trying to logically play the political game to accomplish as much as he can.. Thus, I'd label him an opportunist, which might not be the best for us. He's definately going to increase the size of government, and he'll only be successful if we don't hit a recession. To the credit of big government. If we hit a recession, then the large government could start cutting fat to alleviate the burden. If, in Bush's plan, we cut the fat now, while we're still at inflationary levels of prosperity, we'll over-heat the economy, and then have no monetary tools to adjust in the future (unless you believe the fed. reserve can accomplish this through trickle-down economics via interest rates)
Harry Brown was interesting for an intellectual thought game. Unfortunately, he basically assumes that people will know what's best, and we'll take proper care of our new-found responsibilities after our parental government goes away. Labeling him an anarchist isn't that far from the truth. Ideally, the government holds a monopoly on the use of force, then you let the people do just about anything they want from there-on-out. They obviously can't kill each other, so we don't have total social break-down. But then how do you enforce contractual obligations? Perhaps the Gov. stays in the business of en'forcing' contracts. But then where does it stop? Brown wants the federal court to not have any power on non-constitutional issues. At the very least, you would be hard pressed to support human rights when states seem biased. Most importantly on Brown, he doesn't seem like he'd mingle well with congress. You'd probably have a record number of executive decisions over-turned by congress with-in his term.
-Michael
Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evil (Score:4)
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?
He is competely against universal healthcare, which most wealthy nations are handing out like flyers, except we can't seem to get it right. I hope no one voting for Browne is getting federal grants and loans for college, cause it ain't going to be there much longer.
I'm going for Nader because he want's the federal government to work especially with publically funding elections, establishing a living wage, and providing universal healthcare to 80-100 mil uninsured Americans.
He also plans to establish a 'none of the above' options in elections so people like Katz and company don't sit out but voice their protest and force another election if no one gets a decent majority.
Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there and aren't living on the wrong side of the tracks or on hard times and simply don't care about the working poor. Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
why suprised? (Score:3)
why would you be? we send our kids to private and public schools, some of our kids might have been harmed in school violence, we pay taxes, might have to rely on unemployment checks one day soon if the market keeps on doing what it's doing, might need social security if our stock options don't pan out, might need to take care of our parents or grandparents, etc.
why should it suprise you that we care what goes on in the election? we're tax paying, freedom loving, US citizens.
Of course! (Score:3)
People, I cannot stress the importance of voting. If you don't vote, you don't allow your voice to be heard. I know, it looks like a lockup right now, it seems like the leader is going to just walk away with this one. That can't happen.
So please, take a little time out of your day to go and vote. It's not hard, you just move the mouse from the front page of ./ for once, and a bit to the right. You're nearly there.
Vote. Vote early, vote often. There may already be 31863 votes already, but yours can make a difference. Throw your support behind a third party candidate. Vote what you believe.
I can't stress it enough: Vote. The favored candidate may be in the lead, but I think we can all agree that with this election, there is one certainty:
We cannot allow /home to win!
Thank you.
Re:Vote -- or else. (Score:3)
What I would like to is to have a candidate to vote for, who explicitly states that his or her goal is to get rid of the elected representative system.
To replace with Direct Democracy. You know, the people voting directly on the issues; laws, taxes, spending etc.
Before it wasnt possible in practice in a large society, but now with the net and strong encryption it is possible. Bills could be presented on TV and voted on by the people every evening.
This would be True Democracy, not the oligocracy in disguise that we have now. But what is the probability of that ever happening without a revolution, with all the power that they stand to lose...
/Dervak
Here we go again (Score:3)
Jon, the internet is not without fault. The net can "turn a child's heart dark and murderous". The net is just another form of media, and it has the same disadvantages that other media has.
Television, newspapers, and even radio has the same ability to change a person, even motivate them to do something stupid. The thing with the internet, is that it's not as hard to become a broadcaster (all you need is some know-how and a net connection).
And what about the hypocrisy? When there is a story about net censoring using technology, everybody agrees that parents, not the government should be in the control seat. But god forbid a presidential candidate realize the potential impact the internet can have on a child, and suggest that parents get involved.
Personally, my choice is Bush. And this isn't because I like him, but to be honest, I will do anything to keep Gore from becoming president. I am a gun-carrying, voting citizen of the United States. I don't take my freedom for granted, and I volunteer in a lot of areas where I can help.
The issue of gun control, is more important to me then internet control. Wow, just pawned a new phrase. I can honestly see Gore pushing "Internet Control" laws. If you look at the big picture, the two issues are quite the same. Parents can teach their children safe gun practice, just as they can teach them safe internet use.
I just think Bush is most likely to fight for our freedoms,... complete, and unabridged.
Re:Normal countries (Score:3)
How about the town in Georgia, which required all residents to own a gun, and the crime rate hit zero. Now, I don't think mandatory gun ownership is right, but I do think that voluntary gun ownership is a right, and one which should be protected.
Re:why suprised? (Score:5)
No I'm not ;-)
OK, to raise this from the common internet != USA yadayada post:
What does scare me (being european) is the influence on *my* life the US president has. I don't get to vote in your election, still I'm affected by your DMCA, carnivore, lawyerism shit (granted, you guys have done a good thing or two too)
The "tech world" or the "internet community" or whatever Katzism you use is international. Any attempt by the US (or any other nation) to force it's views onto a non-national site is colonialism, pure and simple.
When the land of the free tries to enforce american laws here thei are nothing but red coats.
Vote -- or else. (Score:4)
If you want to make a bigger difference, work on someone's campaign. It'll not only affect the election more, it will give you access to the insides of the power structures that will be shaping our future in the years to come.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Re:Most likely Gore... (Score:4)
This is quite distinct from being a technical leader in the creation of the protocols, etc. of the internet. It also occurred after the internet already existed as a research/military network.
(ah, the good old days -- pre spam, pre-adds, pre-slashdot ...
Aye, there's the rub).
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Don't Waste Your Vote (Score:5)
A lot of people tell you not to vote for a third party because it would "waste" your vote. But, really, the waste of your vote is to vote for a more "mainstream" candidate that you don't really believe in.
Bush and Gore both seem the same to me and they both sicken me. Did you see the debates? They were even wearing the same suit!
So, please, take a look at third parties and independents out there. These people aren't so politically entrenched as the major parties, and have some very insightful ideas about what to do with our country.
Don't waste your vote.
Ralph Nader, Green Party (also endorsed by the Reform Party) [votenader.org]
Harry Browne, Libertarian [http]
Pat Buchanan, Reform Party (sort of) [gopatgo2000.org]
John Hagelin, Natural Law Party (sort of) [hagelin.org]
Howard Phillips, Constitution Party [phillips2000.com]
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi (Score:3)
Browne has everything to do with freedom. Browne wants to get the government out of your life, in all aspects. He is completely right-wing. He is the most right-wing candidate out there. His stance on drugs is right-wing: "Get the government out of it. Quit spending your tax dollars fighting a war that puts hundreds of thousands of nonviolent people in jail." His stance on abortion is right-wing: "The government has no place to make these decisions - get it out of the way." Should the government fund hospitals and clinics? No! Let private industry compete to offer you the best hospital or clinic. Let you choose which one to go to.
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?
Social Security is a big mess. Why don't you read this study [socialsecurity.org] (take time to read the whole thing) and think about what it would mean for you to take all your social security taxes and invest them yourself, and make, say, 18% returns on your investment. Then, if you die at 66, guess what? Your family can inherit your savings. Under Social Security, you can work all your life, "saving" hundreds of thousands of dollars with the government, die at 66, and your wife and kids not see a penny. That's a bad investment, my friend. Read that link above. You'll be surprised at the numbers.
Furthermore, Browne is not going to dump people out on the street. If you're dependant on Social Security, you'll continue to get it until you die. Browne is not going to crap on these people - he's got a plan to take care of them.
Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there and aren't living on the wrong side of the tracks or on hard times and simply don't care about the working poor. Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Browne is great if you believe you can manage your life better than the government. If you prefer the government to be your nanny, protecting you from bad decisions and responsibility, vote for anyone else.
Browne is about people having freedom and taking responsibility for thier actions. And, by the way, if you read that article I linked to above, cutting things like Social Security will help the poor get richer.
Why don't you go read through Harry Browne's website [harrybrowne2000.org]. Read up on his ideas and his plans for implementing them before you spout off about things you aren't sure about.
wish
Vote for freedom! [harrybrowne2000.org]
---
Protesting the Process (Score:4)
I am one of those people who has consistently voted for third parties or chosen not to vote. But this year there happens to be two very large considerations. One - the Supreme Court may be losing up to 3 judges that will have to be replaced. While I'm not keen on 'legislation from the bench' I am very very interested in making sure abortion does not become illegal. It is more important for us to work on the social factors that create teen pregnancy than take away this very important medical procedure. I'll let the politicians pound out the details of parental consent and such, that isn't that important in the long run. But securing abortion as a legal medical operation is tremendously important.
The second important issue for me happens to be foreign policy. I understand that most American's couldn't care less about foreign policy unless there is a war. The American President, especially in this post-cold war era, needs to be able to perform Shuttle Diplomacy, going from one group to another to bring two opposing sides together on key issues. This requires a sharp mind and cannot be left to a skilled advisor in many cases because it is the power of the POTUS that makes these things happen. I cannot see Bush, a man who can cause an international incident in a debate, being able to carry out the subtle and delicate work of shuttle diplomacy. This is one area, that of all the candidates, I think Gore will be quite successful -- more successful than Reagan or Clinton. Reagan barely carried out shuttle diplomacy, abandoning Nixon's lead on the matter, perferring to be a cold warrior, but when he did do it, it was impressive.
Since this is more about keeping Bush out of the oval office than putting Gore in, my vote has to be strategically used to do the most damage to Bush, meaning I have to vote for Gore and give up my pursuit of supporting a third party. Besides, this year was a horrible election year for 3rd parties.
Vote Libertarian (Score:4)
/.ers are always screaming for the government to stop trying to legislate things it doesn't understand or has no business in, like the 'net, encryption, etc. Therefore, it's a wonder we don't all vote for the only party interested in removing government interference in our lives -- Libertarian.
I know they're pretty extreme in their desire to dismantle the government, but we need that extreme to counter the extreme of the two current big-government parties, especially to counter a possible Ralph (government control to the max) Nader-influenced government.
That violates what the founders intended (Score:5)
Re:why suprised? (Score:3)
Damn straight! We Americans are better at destroying native cultures than anyone else in the world, even the Brits!
Your Vote Is Already Wasted If You're Uninformed (Score:3)
"Your Vote" is already wasted and skews the election if you're uninformed. I'm going to define "informed" as making active efforts to gain an understanding of candidates -- passive receiving of ads, mailings, and any other major media outlet won't do. These are the places where politicians carefully polish their image and deliberately choose their words. You won't learn anything but what they (or maybe their opponents, who may be less credible) want you to know about them (and chances are you won't learn anything about a candidate who isn't a Democrat or Republican).
Lots of people vote on a vague feeling that someone is "a good man" or "would probably represent me well". I get these expressions when I talk to people every day.
We wonder why politicians pander and pontificate, rather than intelligently speaking about policy and justifying their positions with reason or actual scientific citation. It's not much wonder. Joe voter hasn't learned to do much other than go absorb what the mass media says by osmosis and show up at the polls.
If you're one of those people, take the time to do a little bit of research. Project Vote Smart [vote-smart.org] is a decent place to start; there's more to be done, though, if you really want to dig in. You have to learn something about policy.
Example: you know how many politicians are positioning themselves as champions of education. And the things they promise to do? Increase spending per pupil, decrease class sizes. Yet, there's a fair bit of data collected for which there is no correlation between spending and better test scores, or (down to the point of about 15 students) class size and better test scores. What does help? Smaller schools, apparently. The studies have been known to and distributed by the American Legislative Exchange Council [alec.org] for at least a year. Any policy maker sincerly interested in improving things should know things like that. If YOU know things like this, and your candidate trots out the same old tired solutions, that can tell you something about them.
A number of you, however, will just not take the time to do research before Nov 7. At that point in time, please do the rest of us a favor, and don't turn the election into a spin-based lottery. Keep your vote to yourself.
Re:There is NO maximum wage!!!! (Score:3)
Perhaps the reason why you got confused was you also failed to read the disclaimer on the beginning of the Greens website here [greenparty.org] that states "This platform is not binding for candidates on any level".
For more information on the Green party, check out this link [greens.org]. Notice on this website that it has a link to Ralph Nader's platform, as ratified at the Green Party National Convention, June 2000.
This is the platform [gp.org] Ralph Nader supports, don't believe the rumor mongers.
Civil Unions in Vermont (Score:4)
Right now there is a great deal of hate being spread around my state with people who don't agree with it. They started a campaign "Take Back Vermont", in order to, supposedly, take Vermont back to it's "roots". To me, this against what Vermont is about, once our own Union before joining the US, it's always been for equal rights, respect, and understanding.
I went to a local fair a few weeks ago, and just for showing my support for the civil unions law, I was continually harassed, told to "go back to California" (when I've lived in Vermont all my life), called a dyke and lesbian (though I am a heterosexual woman), purposely run into by "innocent" bystanders, all for wanting the same rights for gays that I will enjoy should I ever get married. I was also told that "shit is for spreading on fields, not for packing".
Pat Buchanan took it upon himself to come to Vermont this week and express his disgust for the Vermonters that support this bill, the ones that actually elected the officials and pushed for the bill, understanding that all Vermonters are equal, even in God's eyes. He was very demeaning and extremely anti-gay.
We that support the civil unions bill, we understand that not everyone has to accept gays, but what happened to RESPECT?
So yes, voting does matter, ESPECIALLY in the local elections, many things will get decided that will affect only your state and not the nation as a whole, one vote can make a difference.