At Long Last, Election Day 641
In 1996, a website called the Fray asked their readers to post election day experiences. Did they vote? Didn't they? How did they feel about it all at the end of another eternal campaign? The response was one of the better early interactive Web exercises, producing some real political thoughts, not the kind you get on TV pundit panels. Thousands of you have posted here recently about whether you should vote this time, or why you do or don't think politics is important. So here's our chance to happily close out our election coverage, and your chance -- all day long -- to by-pass the talking heads.
Re:Election Day Choices (do we still have any?) (Score:2)
Finally... (Score:2)
Anyway, for the Presidential race, I voted for Nader. I was surprised to find his checkbox at the bottom. I thought that the ballot was supposed to go in alphabetical order by party name, but I guess it must have been the order in which the people registered to be in the running.
For my state House representative, I voted for Ficus.. There were two choices on the ballot -- Democratic incumbent or a young Republican college student. I'm not a Republican, and the incumbent has been there for many years.
I'm not sure if the line was longer than normal or anything, but I waited for a good while before getting to the ballot box. I expect voter turnout to be up this year, but I also expect Nader to get a better showing than he's been getting in polls lately. I could easily be wrong on both counts.
There has been a lot of worry about GWB on my campus. However, if this story [mndaily.com] is even remotely true, my companion students have overreacted to the threat. So many people said, ``I can't vote for Nader because of the Supreme Court.'' If it turns out that 90% of the vote went to Gore around here, then they need to re-examine their reasons, I think. (Obviously, 20 people is an insanely small sample)
The machine at my voting location was broken. Apparently it was brand-new (and apparently untested). Anyway, I just hope they can count everything up okay.
--
Relief from the ads (Score:2)
I think a skeptical attitude towards government is healthy. Government can't legislate morality, and certainly can't solve every problem (or even most problems).
But you have to wonder how much of that apathy and lack of faith stems from the total barrage of negative ads that run for a solid month prior to every election.
From any evidence that is presented over the last two weeks, all major candidates for all major offices are lying scoundrels who want to steal food out of the mouths of every senior citizen. The elections are clearly going to be won by the candidates who scare the geezers harder. And we wonder why genxers are not interested in voting?
Every election year I can't imagine it getting worse, and every election year it does. And even the "positive" ads are smarmy and insulting to anyone with any intelligence whatsoever.
It gets to the point where I'm so tired of the lying politicos that I'd rather return to the lying corporations. I believe that my local Tri-State Area Ford Dealer cares more about me than my US Senator. At least the local Tri-State Area Chevy Dealer doesn't run ads telling me how much the Ford dealers want to kill my mother.
--
Bull. (Score:2)
Which was not often.
We did have a television for most of my childhood, but mostly inherited from wealthier relatives ("wealthier" in relative terms -- as in, "you know you're a redneck if you help your wealthiest relative take the wheels off his house."). I thought it was the greatest thing in the world when my grandfather moved a few houses down. He had actual running hot water in his house, as well as air conditioning. (We had neither in our house, this being in Louisiana, where air conditioning is quite appreciated).
I went to college because the student loans were being guaranteed by the government. I did get grants for the first couple of years, but then Ronald Reagan phased the grants almost out of existence to the point where they didn't even pay for my textbooks. No big deal, I have no problem with paying back the money I borrowed, it was a wise investment. I went to the cheapest public university in my state, since I knew I was going to have to pay every cent back. But without the government guarantee for the loan (which amounts to a government subsidy), I couldn't have gone to college. And this country would have been without at least one damn good engineer (I was chief architect and project lead for EST's upcoming enterprise product). In other words, that investment in people was a good investment on the part of this society too.
The suckiest thing about being poor is a combination of the dirt (no hot water, remember?), the smell (no air conditioning, in Louisiana, remember?), and the cockroaches. And getting sick. I was lucky to live in Louisiana. We had state-run hospitals and clinics for the indigent, unlike states such as Texas (where if you got sick, you either got well by yourself or died, my brother lost his eyesight because of Texas), but it was still an all-day wait in dirty, overcrowded facilities to be treated by young medical students who were only barely supervised by real doctors. It sucked. Especially for people with serious illnesses -- if, for example you needed some sort of serious surgery, the best they could do was ask a neighboring private hospital if they could "borrow" an operating room and equipment, otherwise you died. I'm lucky. I lived, though I'm missing a chunk out of my left foot that would be there if I'd had the luck to be born to rich parents. My brother wasn't so lucky. Between the Texas doctors refusing to treat him, traipsing home to his home town, then the wait to borrow an operating arena from a neighboring Catholic hospital, he lost his eyesight.
Being poor sucks. The fact that you think it doesn't tells me that you have never been poor. Yes, America's poor have it better than those in Mogadishu. But that doesn't mean it sucks any less.
Oh -- my father ran a shop during the day, then worked as a hotel maintenance man at night. My mother sold cosmetics and cookingware door-to-door. Just in case you were wondering if they were some kind of welfare whores (In Louisiana? Yeah, right!). Family finances finally took a turn for the better when my mother managed to get a Kiwanis scholarship to nursing school thanks to the help of one of her customers. That happy result, however, did not happen until I was nearly out of high school.
-E
I SEE YOU'VE NEVER BEEN POOR (Score:2)
What's this BULLSHIT about the poor having 52" color tv's? We were lucky to have a 12" black and white when I was growing up.
What's this BULLSHIT about how I should have paid my way through college on a $3.35 an hour job at Pizza Hut (let's see, I would have had to work *ONLY* 90 hours a week to pay the tuition, room, and board at the rather inexpensive public university that I attended), rather than relying upon student loans and the occasional grant? I'm still paying off those student loans, BTW, but I don't mind because it was a worthwhile investment... but without the government guarantee for those loans, *NOBODY* would have loaned me the money up-front for that investment.
Anybody who believes that being poor means being lazy has never been poor. It's a pain in the butt, usually involving 60 hour weeks sunk deep into the mud in a driving rain digging trenches to lay conduit or other such manual labor for a grand total of $3.50 an hour (what I made in that job in 1985). Later, when I taught in an inner city school, I had trouble getting parents to come to my class not because they were lazy, but because most of them were working two or three jobs trying to pay the rent on the tar-paper hovels that they lived in.
You are ignorant. The problem is, you don't even know it, and think you know it all. I knew it all too, when I was 13 years old. I grew up.
I may now be in the top income tax bracket, but you better believe I damn sure don't forget being poor. It sucked. Too bad I can't make sure you get a taste of what it's like.
-E
Re:Well... (Score:2)
My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that most of the world wishes the US would go away and shut the hell up. Certainly I wish we would. That's why I didn't vote for either of the candidates you mentioned. Both would, in my mind, continue to infringe on other nations' sovereignty, in Europe and elsewhere. Instead I voted for Harry Browne [harrybrowne2000.org], who has vowed to end our meddling in other nations' affairs. Note that this differs from Mr. Buchanan's isolationist policies in that diplomacy and trade relations would be considered beneficial and continued as freely as is possible.
All that aside, quite frankly I don't care what Europeans think about our President. Lord knows I don't care who you elect either. I certainly wouldn't want to live under socialism, but if you do, you have every right to choose whatever parties and politicians you like regardless of what I think. We retain the same rights. That's why there are independent, sovereign nations, so that we don't have to put up with your idiotic policies, nor you with ours. It's my sincere hope that the latter will be a reality in the near future.
Re:Al Gore (Score:2)
Despite the fact that I'm an american citizen, I like the fact that our actions are judged and often condemed by other nations. As soon as the President is choosen by, and hence reports *to* the rest of the world, this sentiment would quickly faide into partisan politics....which is what gets us in our messes in the first place.
P.S. Vote for Nader.
Re:What makes Gore _any_ smarter? (Score:2)
You can't escape US media, even if you're not in the US, so everyone in the world gets US election coverage. And one thing which has been stunningly clear has been the block-headed and hostile attitude which the Washington press corps has shown towards Gore.
Let's look at examples: During the first debate, when Bush was making it abundantly clear to anyone with a brain that he didn't understand his own health care policy, Gore demolished him, and all he could say in return was that Gore was using bogus figures. Did the press check to see whether that was true? Of course not, they swallowed the accusation lock stock and barrel and started dissembling about Gore's honesty!
If the press had performed its duty and actually investigated the controversy, they'd have found out that Gore's figures were true, and Bush was ignorant about his own policy's effects.
Then there are other cases where the press has absolutely slammed Gore for his honesty: He's been criticized for saying he was a role model for Love Story. Guess what? The book's author backs that up, but the press still, to this very day, uses that anecdote as an example of Gore's dishonesty.
Gore said he grew up on a farm, performing back-breaking farm labor. Another lie? The press would say, "Of course!" because he went to a Washington private school... but his parents lived on a farm, he spent summers there, and neighbors recount stories of the unbelievably hard chores his father would set for him to "harden him up." Does the press investigate that? No, they're too busy hooting about dishonesty.
The lullaby scandal? It was a joke, guys -- You can't watch the videotape of the speech he made without knowing that, but when it's reduced to dry print, the press has a field day with it, using it as another example of dishonesty.
The "invented the Internet" crap is the best one: When Gore says he "... took the initiative in Congress in creating the Internet..." luminaries of the 'net like Vint Cerf come out in support and confirm that the Internet would never have got to where it is today without Gore's work in congress. Does the press report that? Of course not, it's much more fun to have a good laugh at the things Gore never said, but which have been attributed to him anyway.
And throughout all this, Bush has had an easy ride: It doesn't matter that he doesn't know his own policies, it doesn't matter that he makes wild accusations about his opponent's honesty which are patently false, it doesn't matter that he "embellished" his military service record, it doesn't matter that he comes across as a bumbling illiterate fool -- It's almost as if those things are expected of Bush, because everyone knows he's stupid.
The first question I saw a Washington journalist ask of the local journo who uncovered Bush's DUI conviction was something along the lines of, "With all the controversy it's caused, do you wish you'd never found out about this?" OF COURSE SHE DOESN'T WISH THAT -- It's the biggest story of her life, she's a local journalist nobody has ever heard of who is having a noticible effect on the presidential campaign, why should she possibly feel guilty about doing her job?
Because the Washington press corps isn't doing theirs, I suppose, and they assume others should follow their example.
So -- Any claim of liberal bias from the press during this campaign is bullshit. They haven't had liberal bias, they've just had an attack of laziness and dishonesty. They've pigeonholed Bush as being "stupid", and Gore as being "dishonest", and they don't bother investigating or reporting any stories which might contradict the scripts they've already worked out for the candidates.
There's a web site which has lots of really breathtaking examples of press dishonesty during this campaign: www.dailyhowler.com [dailyhowler.com]. There are examples of press irresponsibility which benefit Bush and Gore, but the unavoidable conclusion is that the press has been overwhelmingly pro-Bush in an effort to create a close contest instead of the landslide for Gore people were predicting two years ago.
This is a distortion of democracy: People make their voting decisions based on what the press says, but the press is being outrageously dishonest. If I was actually living in the US, I'd be extremely concerned about the way the Fourth Estate has manipulated the result of this election.
-----
the despair of a libertarian (Score:2)
Gore - rampant gov't growth, a tendency for lying that puts Clinton to shame, off the wall environmental policy, and a running mate you'd swear was a Republican
Bush - a bit less gov't growth, kinda stupid, did some drugs (like *I* care), and his running mate's ideas on energy policy would make any socialist proud
Not much of a choice, if you ask me. My own electoral choice for chief executive, Mr. Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party, likes to quip that you shouldn't vote for the candidate you feel will take you to hell the slowest. And yet, that's how most of the American voters view their choice. They see the other candidates:
Buchanan - a fervent nationalist, wants to close our borders to immigrants AND trade, and impose his religion on us
Nader - getting most of his support from his semi-celebrity status, I fear many of his erstwhile supporters have failed to read the Green Party platform, which reads like the agenda of a turn-of-the-century socialist party, plus a bunch of enviro-fascism
Browne - the only candidate really committed to the ideals on which this country was founded: individual liberty and responsibility. But considering how far we have strayed from liberty in the 20th century, the century of socialism, hardly anyone is ready for a return to a properly Constitutionally limted gov't
And so, at the ballot box, libertarians like me are left with a bitter choice: vote for Browne, express our ideals,
Or, simply not vote (the argument here is that by not voting you remove your sanction from the outcome, we'll get to that in a bit).
And whom you choose comes down to a simple dichotomy of principle. What is the purpose of the vote you cast? If you believe, as I do, that your vote is an expression of your principles, whether you believe they can win or not, you MUST vote your conscience. However if you believe that the point of the vote is to adjust your priorities until you can be on the winning side, or that you should influence the outcome in the most powerful way you can, or indeed any pragmatism-based argument, then by all means, vote the lesser of two evils (as I can't imagine what type of mind would actually
Allow an analogy. You are the catcher in a baseball game. A runner is headed for home. The 3rd baseman throws you the ball. You stick out your glove, to the spot where you'd
But back to my despair.
At the end of the day, when pragmatism does indeed rule, it IS a two-man race. Nader will get his media coverage from the liberal media monopoly, and probably end up with federal matching funds next time around, Browne's numbers will get reported on Fox News but will be otherwise ignored, and hopefully we can all forget about Buchanan and the "Reform" Party. Either Bush or Gore is going to take (and subsequently break) the Presidential Oath in January, like it or not. And when I think of that, my enthusiasm ebbs. Yes, I wore my Browne In '96 t-shirt today. Yes, I got quite excited yesterday when I saw an Elect Dr. Glazer (a libertarian candidate for state legislature) van drive by near my neighborhood (but sadly outside my district). Yes, I'm writing this post. But tonight after work and school I'll sit down on the bed and watch on television as Jefferson's tyrranny of the majority votes to steal my liberty and yours. Can you imagine that? In the Revolutionary War, thousands of colonists fought and died for the cause of liberty, so that they could be free from the arbitrary power of the British crown. The men of that era might be shocked that Americans today are so willing to surrender their liberty, but they would be absolutely appalled that the vast majority of those who
Oh, how we have forgotten our triumph! Did they tell you in school, as they did me, that the great treasure of America was DEMOCRACY? Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. What if 51% of Americans decided it would be good for the economy to summarily execute the other 49%? If the measure passed, it would be uncontestable! It's the will of the people! To reject it is to reject democracy! "But surely such a measure is unconstitutional," you say. Of course it would be! But so is every gun control law. So are the bans on various drugs such as marijuana, heroin, LSD, and Mescaline. So are no-knock warrants and civil asset forfeiture. And so are all the other laws - I would wager at least 90% of federal laws - in violation of the forgotten 9th and 10th Amendments. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court piss on the Constitution every day, so what's to stop our hypothetical Summary Execution Act? Nothing. And that's democracy.
And although it may seem like a long jump from the gas tax hike that Al Gore will surely advocate, or the erosion of abortion and religious rights George Bush will push for, to the murder of a hundred million Americans, the principle is identical: they are all acts of violence by the government against its citizens. And at the end of the day, that's what I'm left with. That my gov't attacks me every day of my life, and that my fellow men, rather than come to my aid, assist my attackers with their compliance, their inaction, and their VOTES.
MoNsTeR
Re:MONNET is a goddam FROG (Score:2)
Modded down more than up? Mah, wrong I'm still flying at 50. Thank you very much.
--
I did'nt go vote (Score:2)
--
Re:The gender of /. (Score:2)
And another good way to find female
obligatory on-topic part which is also sorta related to the parent:
I voted (via absentee ballot, since I have a math midterm today) for Gore, mostly becasue, for some odd reason, I have a great liking for women's rights. There is a huge, mostly unpublicised backlash against rights gained several decades ago that I personally think are simply logical. (I'm an engineering major. I like being an engineering major. I like being able to get a PhD. I also like being able to make my own choices about how/when I can have a family.) If Bush is elected, I really really do not want to see certain of the groups who are backing him (and miraculously keeping quiet about it -- think Christian Coalition) coming out of the woodwork. There are of course other reasons, but that is a main one -- and one that does not seem to be thought about by many people I know. Then again, most of the people I know are guys.
Oh yes, in answer to your question, I am of the female gender.
Lea
Re:Vote (Score:2)
Since I dont watch TV at all, and listen to NPR (and read CNN online) for news, I was amazed at the lack of phone contact and/or direct mailing to inform people like me about the candidates. If I didnt have an interest in the race, I dont know if I would actually have any kind of an opinon one way or the other. All I recieved in the mail was the Massachusetts package of what the ballot questions were about. Usually, I recieve a phonecall or two asking for support for the candidates, or some malings about the candidates and their issues.
-=Bob
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Seriously, get a majority of your fellow citizens in Botswana, or wherever, to petition the US for membership. We haven't had a new state in fifty years, Puerto Rico doesn't want to play, and you can be instant American citizens...
---
Re:Well... (Score:2)
In the olden days, you had to walk over to the Democrat's table to vote for Democrats, and to the Republican's table for vice versa. Your vote was open, and it gave a large incentive for people to vote. Voting for the "correct" candidate would get you political favors in small-town America. The Mayor knew for certain that you voted for him, and you knew for certain that he'd know if you didn't.
After the institution of the secret ballot, your incentive to vote for one candidate over another is lessened. You're no longer likely to get preferential treatment based on how you voted, or discriminated against for not voting. The end result is a smaller incentive to vote, and lessened penalties for not voting.
Factor in things like the Voting Rights Act which (justly!) made more people eligible voters, regardless of whether or not they actually do vote, and you get the reasons why voter turnout has been dropping steadily for the last century.
---
Re:Well... (Score:2)
That'd hurt you (Europe in general, not the Czech Republic in specific) more than it would hurt us.
Wanna rely on Russia and South Africa for all your strategic metals? Think they're more sane to deal with?
That may work for CZ, with a GDP the size of our 5th largest corporation's yearly income, but the powers in Europe would have a harder time getting along without us than we would without them.
The US may have horrible flaws, and you can certainly find individual things that one country or another does better, but the fact is that where there were once two superpowers, now there is only one.
It doesn't mean we get to dictate terms to the rest of the world, nor should it; but it damn sure means you don't get to dictate terms to us.
-
Re:The FEC is out of control (Score:2)
We're talking about voter registration here.
According to Title IX, Chapter 101, section 101.45, subsection 2, paragraph e, the simple act of putting your college address as where you want your absentee ballot sent to constitutes notification that you've changed your address for registration purposes.
In other words, if you have it sent to Mom and Dad's house and they forward it to you, you're a legal resident of Mom and Dad's precinct; if you have it sent directly to your dorm room, you're a legal resident of *THAT* precinct, and they are required to send you a ballot for your new precinct.
Florida has all sorts of weird differing residency laws for different purposes. A Maitland cop tried to give me a ticket once because my car was in the parking lot for more than 10 days without suddenly sprouting a Florida license plate. I was a temporary contract employee with a permanent residence in Oklahoma at the time.
And I wasn't even in Maitland; he just thought I was.
-
Re:The FEC is out of control (Score:2)
The laws I read are unclear. I have no idea what the precedents are.
The law would seem to indicate that if you request a Florida absentee ballot be sent to a non-Florida location, the request should be denied. Either that, or a ballot for your home precinct sent. It's not clear.
-
The FEC is out of control (Score:2)
My tax dollars go to pay for the printing of signs placed on every polling place in Florida that state that voting in the wrong precinct is a felony, punishable by a $5,000 fine and 5 years in prison.
How many people have voted in their old precinct after moving and forgetting to change their registration?
How many have moved during the "blackout period" when they couldn't change their registration if they wanted to, and still voted?
How many have voted absentee in their home city for four years while away at college?
Are these folks really as dangerous as other crimes with the same 5 year maximum penalty:
Assault with a weapon.
Battery on a police officer.
Battery of child by throwing, tossing, projecting, or expelling certain fluids or materials. (blood, urine, feces, seminal fluid)
Burglary of an unoccupied vehicle or dwelling.
Purse snatching (if you don't have a weapon on you.)
Child abuse that doesn't cause permanent injury.
Possession of child pornography.
Voting in the wrong precinct is considered to be as serious a crime as all of those in Florida. Does that strike anybody as just a tad irrational?
-
Re:The FEC is out of control (Score:2)
Yes, but still, is that really as serious as child pornography? Child abuse? Assault with a weapon?
-
Re:The FEC is out of control (Score:2)
Residence is defined as 10 consecutive days in Florida.
So unless you drop out of school in 9 days, your "place of residence" is where you live September through May, not where you live in the Summer.
Just because something is widespread and encouraged on College campuses doesn't mean it's necessarily legal.
-
Re:conspiracy theory (Score:2)
Re:What makes Gore _any_ smarter? (Score:2)
Re:What makes Gore _any_ smarter? (Score:2)
Ask yourself, what will happen when the election is over? The press will no longer feel the need to promote the Dem. candidate, especially if he's unpopular with the people. On the flip side of the coin, the press will likely lose much of their negative/alarmist _bias_ against Bush. Bush has a real chance to deal with them and Congress, no matter how it shapes up. If you don't believe those adversities can be over come, if you don't believe it can be done, look no further than Reagan (whatever your opinion on his policies is). Reagan managed to push a great deal of significant bills through a less than perfect Congress (not too much unlike Bush's record in Texas).
I really do believe that if, god forbid, Gore gets elected, he'll be utterly paralyzed by Congress and the press. Nothing would get done on his end. He'd probably go down as one of our worst Presidents in history....
Other countries want continuity (Score:2)
Personality versus platform (Score:2)
one percent of the national point in the past 20 years- Anderson, Perot, and Nader- have all been personality driven. The parties themselves wane without a demagog. I suspect, however, we may be hearing more from the Greens, because they capture progressivism even without Nader.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seperation of Church and State? (Score:2)
Of course I'm sure that it also makes it easier to find old ladies to run the election as well.
Poor=Shafted? Please.... (Score:2)
The poor in the United States pay no taxes and get a humongous chunk of social support through federal and state governments along with the charity organizations that haven't closed up shop because of the lack of donations that result from a consficatory tax system.
The way the US is built and still is today, though not to the extent that it should be, a person is in control of their own destiny. The few times that they are forced to loose control are the times that the judicial system steps in. There is little to prevent a poor person in America to take control of his life and finances. The one condition is that he must be willing to work and earn his living, which people have been doing since the days of the caveman. If he doesn't want to work, then his parents screwed up in rasing him.
I was poor once. After being sick for 3 weeks, I was in debt, had to leave college which I was paying for myself, and had to find a full time job to catch up. I was broke off and on for 2 months, but I made it without the government's help and am doing fine.
Don't believe FOR A SECOND that the poor in America are really poor. If you do, you are also likely to believe that Columbus was evil, that no child being left behind means to lower standards of American students (otherwise you'll be discriminating against one minority or another), and that the only way to solve problems in society is through federal legistlation. Take your average American bum and throw him into the soviet union, and he will beg to come back. The only way to get by over there is if you have a job, quite possibly one you *gasp* might not like! And it'll be *gasp* a fraction of what minimum wage pays! *boo hoo*
I have little sympathy for those who faced that situation while raising children. I call them irresponsible, there is nothing more ridiculous than concieving a child (by this, I am not talking about those who have suffered rape) without planning ahead.
Both the Democratic party and the Green party seem convinced that prosperity is granted, not earned. They believe that redistributing wealth will save the poor and not hurt anyone else. They are foolish. Our corporations are loosing fast ground to corporations in other countries fast, and eventually we will see more layoffs and joblessness as a result. Sony is based in Japan for a reason. Who will pay the taxes once all the economic power gets sucked out of America?
Do you really want to help the poor? Point them to the nearest help wanted sign. America has worked hard to get the type of economy it has, don't hand the control of it from the people to liberals in the government. Teach our poor how to fish, quit handing fish out.
-RH
Re:I SEE YOU'VE NEVER BEEN POOR (Score:2)
And who will be there to catch the Austrailian government once they can't hold up their own saftey net anymore. Lord knows America spends WAY too much money on foreign aide, and I would have no problem redirecting all of that money to social programs here. Tons of that money has gone to failed formerly socialist governments.
"In Australia you are guaranteed a good life even if you never earn a cent, as the Government will support you." And this is a good thing? Oh, please. Birds don't learn how to fly if they aren't kicked out on a 10 foot fall, and people don't learn how to fish if you give them fish for free that you possibly can't fiscally afford if your finances hit trouble. Survival is an incentive, and the fear of death, failure, and hunger was put here in the world so that people could better themselves. This is no time for a socialist utopia.
Re:Bull. (Score:2)
#1, that social ills are rarely solvable by the government. The U.S. government can create social problems and must do its best to treat everyone as equals. I don't believe that the US government can solve poverty right now. The efforts to do so right now take away the purchasing power of the american public and buisnesses, and will hurt the government to the point where the social programs overreach to the point that we will see the government breaking legs to hand out crutches.
Quite simply, why would the poor learn how to make money if they receive enough money from the government to live off of? Answer this and you get a gold star.
#2 Hospitals in Texas can not turn a patient away. Period. That is bullshit. Since you talked about Texas in present tense, thats how I address it. Also, no offense, but death and illness happens, and the doctors that walk this earth are, IMO, a gift from God, not an entitlement. There is no basic human right to health care, money, or a job. The general public in good times seem to forget this.
I'll wait for my points to be proven when the government starts splitting paychecks with 33% to the worker and %66 to two baby boomer social security recipients....
Try calling a spade a spade. (Score:2)
And I see you have had lifelong TV access.... (Score:2)
You don't seem to realize that the government should not be in the buisness of MAINTAIN A STANDARD OF LIVING. When they do, TV's and sofas become entitlements. People will use the government as a frikkin suckle, and learn how NOT to live and survive on their own. One day, if this government shall fall or be unable to support any more handout, we will have a bunch of people that natural selection didn't beat the firts time around starving in the streets, having forgotten the fine arts of begging and working. Charity can identify the cases worth saving. These are characterzied by the grateful and those who want to work.
Poverty will never go away. Poverty is a RELATIVE state. If you really think you were poor, then think god you are AMERICAN. Palestinian toddler would call you a frikkin wuss.
I don't believe that being poor means being lazy, but I believe here in America that there is one HELL of a correlation. If what you said was relevant, then we would see people who want to make a living wage and support their family would join the military. Yeah right. Too many hippies are out there that believe in being poor, excuse me, "immaterial", that the government owes them a free lunch every day, and that happiness is derived from fighting capitalism and pissing on the steps of wal mart. And my taxes foot their bills.
Oh, and why is the cost of higher education so high? Imagine if you had a buisness in a sector where you never had to worry about competition for tution costs, because most of your money came from the rich of the government-funded clients. Scholarships have taken a back seat to government funding and grants. Middle class people who pay their own way are also a dying breed. Without the government, there would be a decent chance that getting education at our PUBLICLY FUNDED UNIVERSITIES would actually be an affordable investment, and ridiculous ammounts of money wouldn't be wasted on multi-million dollar football coaches, whose year salary could fund the education of hundreds of individual students.
My tax dollars pay for schools that I could hardly f*cking afford. I'm pissed.
Disclaimer: Ignore the typos, been a long day ;) (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, that makes sense (Score:2)
Interesting that you don't seem to be saying anything about voting fraud in specific, but rather the electoral system in general. I'm the last person to try to defend the archaic system we've got now, but just for the sake of argument: if you're living in Flordia (as the original poster in this thread does), with a twelve hundred vote difference between the two front-runners, it damn well would have mattered to someone. Just not who you might like.
Re:Get informed! (Score:2)
The legality has nothing to do with liking or disliking firemen
No, I mean literally killing a fireman in the line of duty -- shooting him while he's fighting a fire. Its a capital offense, with possible death penalty in many states. But if I get killed at work, you can't get the death penalty because it's just murder.
In other words, the penalty is greater depending on WHO you are killing -- the why doesn't even matter. So if hate crime legislation is just a step on the road to thought crime (because it matters WHO you kill, if they are black or gay, etc) then so is any other "special class" of crime.
So by your logic (that the hate crime laws are just a precursor to thought crime laws), we will eventually outlaw disliking firemen, because they, too, are a special, protected class of victim...
---------------------------------------------
Re:The FEC is out of control (Score:2)
Well, it is voting fraud.
Yes, you paint many innocent or accidental reasons it can happen, but the laws were made because there are also sinister reasons -- to deliberately have a bloc vote so a House member would be elected/defeated, or so a school board would be stacked with ideological candidates, etc.
If you live in a republican district, but are a democrat, you might know you can't elect a democrat to the House. So you go across the street to the more split district, along with a bunch of friends, and elect a democrat there, even though the people who actually live there would have otherwise elected a republican.
That's what the law is for, not people who moved too recently...
---------------------------------------------
Re:If You Don't Vote .... (Score:2)
The closeness of this race may very well give us a good turnout -- it would be great. Show politicians that we DO care, it's just that generally the populace is apathetic if the winner is already ordained before they ever show up...
---------------------------------------------
Re:Get informed! (Score:2)
Is that why we have stricter penalties for killing a fireman in the line of duty than a random guy on the street?
Because we want to make it illegal for people to dislike firemen?
---------------------------------------------
Re:Voting Gore w/ Nader trading (Score:2)
Re:Seperation of Church and State... in Utah (Score:2)
Here's why they don't use churches. As most of you know, the dominant religion in Utah is Mormon (LDS). Curiously enough, the LDS Church doesn't let anyone use their churches for voting. The official line, in fact, is that the buildings can't be used for any politcal purpose, period (they already get enough flak about controlling politics in the state, I figure, so they have to draw a line).
There are other churches in Utah, but the majority of church buildings are LDS owned, so ecclesiastical meeting houses are out.
So they use public schools.
Man, fraud's easy. (Score:2)
me: Oops, I left my Voter Registration card and my Social Security Card at school. I hope a driver's license will do!
lady: Ok. What's your name.
me: my-name. What kind of ID do I need?
lady: none.
me: Not even a driver's license?!
lady: Nope.
me: In that case I'll take two.
Thankfully she didn't hear that last part. Voter fraud would be REALLY easy. As long as I gave her a registered voter's name, I could vote!
Re:I went to vote (Score:2)
I don't understand why people feel it's their civic duty (and right) to vote but they don't feel the responsibility to be informed. I heard guys on the radio this morning urging everyone to go out and vote, but IMHO anyone who is undecided at this point has not been paying attention and should not be participating. It's important to vote, but only if you follow the issues. It makes me absolutely livid to realize that this election--with the future of the Supreme Court in the hands of whoever wins--may be decided by apathetic undecideds who don't have an opinion of the issues, lazy voters who don't care enough to read the newspapers, and airheads who'll vote for whoever has the best haircut and the funniest speechwriters.
I'm not trying to flame you here, just frustrated with the whole situation. Like I said, I give you credit for knowing you shouldn't just flip a coin.
Re:Where have all the Browne supporters been? (Score:2)
minnesota & digital voting (Score:2)
I get within a quarter mile and there are cars everywhere. I park and walk a long distance to get there and when I get inside there are maybe 300+ people in line. mind you I also have to wait in a 50+ person line to register to vote, and then another huge line to actually vote? I don't have 3 hours to kill like that!
So I walked out. the old lady by the door said "you're not going to wait?" with an incredulous tone. I told her that I didn't have that kind of time to waste, since I work for a living.
I'd like to know why we can't work towards having digital/electonic voting. I personally feel that enough security measures could be taken to ensure the viability of this, and I personally can attest that it would make it so much easier to vote! I know there are so many arguments about this, about how it hurts the poor who don't have computer access etc. but tell me this- how many poor people who get paid hourly have the time to leave work and drive home just to wait 2 hours to vote? very few, I'll bet.
Whereas if they mailed out some kind of single-use key to all elible voters... you could use it either at a traditional voting booth, or use it via some kind of heavily encrypted/hardened site over the internet. I'm not sure how it would work but I know we'd see a MUCH larger percentage of 18-24 year olds vote! we're talking 80% non voters here, and falling into that age group I think I understand why they don't- it's just too much of a pain in the ass!
That's just my two cents- I'm going to try and go vote when I get off work, but since I'm putting in another 12 hour day today (like all of you other tech slave labourers out there) I don't know if it will happen.
Attempted Civic Responsibility = Pain in the butt, and a longer work day... bah!
Browne.. (Score:2)
I only wish I had heard about him earlier and more, but I guess I can thank the media partially for that. I feel so strongly about his stands that I would have become an avid supporter/activist, but now it's too late.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Bush is the rural man's hero. He doesn't talk down to people, he is respectful, religious, and sincere. Instead of endless proposals to appease every voting block, he wants to govern by principles.
Europe is one big city. Of course they're going to prefer the city-slicker. Recently I was reading magazine staff votes, i.e. which candidate different writers for the magazine would vote for. They were almost all Al Gore. Again, magazine writers are all highly educated city-slickers. But not everyone in America wants a brainiac for a president. In fact, the smart presidents have actually been the worse presidents (with some exceptions).
Re:Get informed! (Score:2)
Don't forget:
Orwell wasn't wrong, we're jus a little behind schedule..
As If It Matters (Score:2)
Bleagh.
Sure I'll vote, but it's like balancing your checkbook during church - no sense of power where there should be. No issues have been brought up (by anyone except Nader) during the campaign that I honestly care about. Social Security? I'm 19 - that'll be long gone by the time I get there. Perscriptions for seniors? Fuck the old people! My county has a shortage of housing for ppl who make less than $30k a year, and 6 new retirement plazas are being built. School vouchers? It's not college they're talking about, that's for sure.
The only thing worse than listening to campaign rhetoric is listening to people with opinions put them forth (x is best, blah blah blah). Bleagh.
If only there was a reboot switch for America. Consider me marginalized.
Re:Well... [ Historical perspective about voting] (Score:2)
This was pre civil war.
1) Check out the math on Bush's tax cut. The newest newsweek has a good breakdown.
1) Make less then 25k year a year? Your takes go from ~2,500 to ~700. That's pretty damn good for a tax cut that is a "gift to the rich".
2) The top 10% in america pay 1/3 of the taxes. Their take of the cut is about 1/5. This is 1/3 of the surplus.
Please don't quote Rhetoric.
Re:Voted for Nader (better formatting) (Score:2)
Where have all the Browne supporters been? (Score:2)
I thought that
Non-americans looking in... (Score:2)
Anyway, the media around here has a definite pro-Gore outlook on the american election while the government has an apparent pro-Bush outlook, I for one would like Nader, Bush is a dumbass and Gore is a dope, both of them will rape the internet in favor of corporations. Both of them will take away the little liberty that's left online for the americans which - like it or not - will touch the whole world, not just John and Jane Redneck.
Frankly - despite cheering for Nader, Bush will win and I have a good reason: Will Farrel does a wicked drunk prez "Dublya" and Dana Carvey could always do a guest spot as "Dad".
--
--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Re:If You Don't Vote .... (Score:2)
It really pisses me off to see yet another person spewing that same BS. You only have the right to complain if you vote? Is it some kind of magic process that gives you complaining rights??
What if you were shot and hospitalized on your way to vote and missed your chance? Would that mean that for the next 4 years you would not be allowed to complain about politics?
"Man this medical equipment is shoddy! The stupid government should sure put more money into..."
"I'm sorry Jim, but did you vote? No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!"
Or does this guy get a special "complaint dispensation" because he really meant to vote but couldn't?
Just because you vote doesn't mean that your vote makes a difference. Sometimes you can make a much bigger difference by refusing to vote. When people indignantly ask you "Why not?" you explain to them what you feel about the candidates, the issues, the governmental system, etc.
Let's make a slashdot-user-acceptable analogy. Which makes a bigger statement. A person who bitches about closed-source software and sends out newsletters using his Linux system, or someone who does the same but uses Microsoft Outlook, because with its wonderful automation features it's easy to send out the newsletter?
If you have huge misgivings about the way government works, the failings of democracy, etc. it is pretty hypocritical to go vote. But according to StormyMonday and so many others such a person must become a hypocrite to earn the right to complain. Riiiight.
Re:Protest non-vote (I hereby nominate Jon Katz... (Score:2)
Ya know what really annoyed me? I saw on CNN today that some places were using these fancy touch-screen voting machines, and the lady was really proud to say:
"And with this machine you can't spoil your ballot, it checks to make sure that the choices you've made are legitimate and only then does it accept your vote"
I say, vote, or don't vote. It doesn't make that much difference anyhow. What does make a difference is talking about why you did what you did. One single vote, even in a "swing state" really won't make a big difference, but one single voice can make all the difference.
Re:A foreigner's comment: Second Mod This Up! (Score:2)
That's just flawed reasoning. I'm sorry but I've seen this too many times not to say something. I know many people will disagree with me but that's just the way it is. Just please keep it civil.
Here are some of the flawed arguments I've heard on why you should vote:
People died so that you have the right to vote. People also died for the right to keep slaves. Religious fanatics die for their religion. Just because someone else believed strongly enough in something to die for it doesn't make them right.
Black people were intimidated, or otherwise blocked from voting. Just because someone blocks you from doing something doesn't make that thing important. If I block you from picking your nose in my restaurant, does your nose-picking somehow become important? No. The you were blocked from doing something may be important, but the act being blocked isn't necessarily important. In this case, the racists blocking the black people from voting might have been doing it just because they didn't want black people getting in the way. But if the racists did because they thought voting was important it doesn't necessarily make the racists right. Afterall, they are known to be way wrong on some of their beliefs anyhow.
If you don't vote you have no right to complain. Sorry, but voting doesn't magically give you the right to complain. If you pay taxes then you have the right to complain about how they're used, whether you're a US citizen who voted, a US citizen who didn't vote, or a landed immigrant who didn't (and couldn't) vote. Even if you don't pay taxes you have the right to complain. What about Mexicans? They have no vote, they don't pay taxes, but they're hugely affected by US policies. They have every right to complain.
Voting is the only way to make a difference. Voting rarely makes any difference. From a mathematical standpoint, the vote of one person, even a person in a swing state, will only make a difference if he/she is the deciding vote in the state. In some ways it matters whether a candidate got 51% or 99% of the vote in a state, but it doesn't affect the final outcome. There are a lot of other, more effective ways of making a difference. Get out and protest, tell people why none of the candidates is any good. Tell them why the government is flawed. Write a book. Make a movie. Throw a Boston Tea Party. These are ways of getting a point across and most make a bigger difference than a small checkmark in a tiny box.
Voting may be important, but these are not reasons why. I personally don't feel voting is important. I think complaining loudly is much more important. One single voice has changed history a lot more often than one single vote.
Confusing questions... (Score:2)
Did vote for one Libertarian, against Ted Kennedy. I'm just so tired of that whole dynasty.
For the local offices where I didn't know anybody, I tended to vote for the person from my town or neighborhood. If I'm in a suburb of Boston, will somebody who lives down on Cape Cod be very accessible?
The turnout was good, I got there at about 8:15 or so and there were about 15 people waiting to get a ballot, and then 30 or so waiting to get out of there. My local polling station is at the old folks' home down the street, so I'm pretty sure that most of the people working the paperwork and the machines voted for Roosevelt -- Teddy, that is. And everything was in serial, not parallel. So when the guy in front of me screwed up his registration (he last voted in Boston and never registered specifically in Quincy) everything ground to a halt, no one else could seem to help me around him.
One of the reasons that I not only voted but am telling people at work to vote is that a number of people on my team are not citizens, and therefore don't get to be involved. I therefore think that part of my responsibility is to demonstrate to them that there are people that take it seriously.
d
Texas' weak governor's office (Score:2)
Re:Vote (Score:2)
There were more than six presidential choices on my ballot this morning, and you mentioned one of them. Make up your mind, is there a choice or not? Well, you'll be able to vote soon and you'll have to make up your mind for a few seconds in the booth.
How Slashdot Readers Vote (Score:2)
Election Day Choices (do we still have any?) (Score:2)
For a number of elections in my district (such as electing Judges, or in a few other cases I forget), i saw things like "Choose any two" and then the exact same two candidates are listed straight across the board (Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Family, etc). What sort of a choice is that !?!?
Why do they even bother to hold elections for these people when we don't have a choice? We vote for them or not but they are the only ones running. THAT is why people don't turn out for elections.
Show them how wrong they are and turn out for elections even if you believe your vote for President won't count. There are LOTS of other things being decided on the ballot (including referendums). Your vote most certainly WILL count on those!
Re:Election Day Choices (do we still have any?) (Score:2)
You can blame my Chaotic nature
Or you can blame the fact that I'm a Gemini...
Or the fact that I liked different people running for different offices, for different reasons. Voting the 'party line' is not the way to either, and sometimes different levels of government should be different. A balance of opinions can be a good thing.
I'm also registered as a Republican but grew up as a Democrat... long story involving a friend who was running for office and needed Republicans to help him.
Been there already... (Score:2)
I was fifteenth in line at my precinct this morning. I wanted to get there early so I could watch the returns tonight. It was remarkably painless. I was in and out in twenty minutes, which seems to be pretty good. The only peeve were the two people behind me who chattered on about all sorts of nothingness for twenty minutes.
Re:What makes Gore _any_ smarter? (Score:2)
The texas Governor is the constitutionally weakest governor in the US. He has no executive powers, but can basically veto legislation, call out the national guard and appoint judges. He is approximately the fifth most powerful officer in the state. Some Texas governors have actually been absentees; GW is one of the more active Texas governors in history: he puts in about half a day of work every day.
Re:My Election Day Experience (Score:2)
Social Concience (Score:2)
However, I can't help but feel that the most socially useful thing I did was buying a pastry from the Senior class bake sale on my way out.
I used to think this way (Score:2)
My motto used to be two fold:
Don't blame me, I don't vote.
Why should I pick either of two evils?
Reading the book, Hitler's Pope:m The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell completely changed my mind.
Cornwell's thesis is that Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) negotiated a concordat with Hitler. The concordat basically stated that the Church would remove Catholics from all political life (including voting, demonstrating, etc.). In exchange the Church received the assurance that the Nazi regime would not persecute the Church.
The effect was that the Center Party, the single largest opposition group to the National Socialists, fell apart. The Center Party was almost exclusively Catholic. Once the Church forbid the party, it fell over and the Nazi's had very little other serious opposition.
The conclusion I drew from reading this book is that my voice does matter. If for no other reason than preventing another catastrophe like the holocaust, I will go to the polls and vote.
have a day,
-l
A LONG day (Score:2)
Then I went to work - I work at one of the network "Decision Desks" - You know, they guys who project the winner?
It's going to be a LONG night - I don't get out till mid day tomorrow. Don't you love 24 hour work days?
Re:Global Capitalism (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
I can't even believe anyone would legitimately argue that foreign bodies should have any say in our domestic government. Even taking into account the influence that the US has on the rest of the world, only a retarded gorilla would see the US as a nation whose elected officials have to answer to anyone *but* it's citizens.
Besides, are these other nations going to abide by our laws? Are they going to pay our taxes? Of course not. Which is precisely why they have no say in our elections.
tadah. (Score:3)
After a little agonizing and hard thinking I ended up making no other votes- such as voting for people who 'sounded like' they were on the same page as the Progressive candidates, or voting for Libertarians simply because I like encouraging slashdot libertarians to get out there and vote their butts off :)
I think this was right- when I got right down to it, I looked at the Vermont ballot and was psyched to see all the Libertarian candidates all over it. I was like 'alright! good going!'. Then, when I thought about it, I realised that I did indeed wish them well but that they were about as far from what I was voting _for_ as I could possibly imagine- and the only one I'd heard word one from was Browne. I had no way of knowing if any of them had common sense or if they were all rabid randite fundamentalists- so I simply refrained from voting against them by picking the Democrat or whatever- essentially I only made a vote where I'd done my homework and knew what I was voting for.
The libertarian thing amuses me- I was thinking about being charitable and give them votes solely because I thought they as a third party deserved a respectable showing, even though they can be starkly opposed to my interests. Instead, I went with my self interest, and voted only the candidates that shared my concerns, and did _not_ vote Libertarian. Does this attention to my own interests, moderate selfishness, and refusal to support a contrasting view on principle, then make me more Libertarian? O_O so if I'd voted Libertarian against my interests I'd be proving I'm not one, but by withholding my vote I illustrate a self-interest streak that is more Libertarian. And now my head hurts :)
Seriously, good going guys- _lots_ of Libertarians all over the VT ballot. Keep up looking after your interests and I'll keep looking after mine...
Signs you might live in Massachusetts (Score:3)
- You wonder why someone's bothering to hold a sign for our US Representative (see above).
- The Libertarian candidate for US Senator is doing a lot better than the Republican candidate. Of course, they're both tilting at a giant windmill named Edward M. Kennedy, who didn't even bother to campaign this year.
- The guy holding a sign for Nader (who turned out to be a friend of mine from college; hi Jamie!) says to a passerby "Vote for Nader; Gore's going to win Massachusetts anyway!"
What makes Gore _any_ smarter? (Score:3)
Experience: Though often quoted, Bush is the twice elected governor of the second biggest state in the country. That is an executive position and far more analogus to the responsibilities of the President than any of Gore's offices. Furthermore, if you hold that being governor of Texas is not qualification for the presidency than nor was Clinton and his governorship of Arkansas.
It is apparent to me that the only reason Gore is promoted as having any more stature than Bush is because: a) The press, being mostly liberal, is inclined to bash him as much as possible b) Gore has wankish mastery for quoting stats (this impresses many people, though god knows why) while Bush does not c) Bush has made a few _verbal_ slipups (but so did his father) that has made him look like he doesn't understand. d) Bush came from a wealthy background (though Gore wasn't much worse off) and he didn't achieve enough with his advantages for some people's mind (God forbid anyone not know what they want to do with themselves at the age of 10 on) e) Bush's Texan tendencies to avoid big words and the air of intellectuality
In other words, I think Bush is actually smarter than Gore. I find it really hard to believe that anyone that watched the debates was impressed by Gore's performance _any_ measure. Gore's use of long sentences and "big" words is not a demonstration of intelligence; if anything, it's a demonstration of poor communication skills. Bush may have lacked style and a certain polish in his speech, but he communicated his (somewhat hard to stomach) ideas across relatively well. [Part of Bush's problem is that much of the reasoning behind his policy doesn't take well to soundbites.] Most importantly, I think Bush has a pretty decent grasp on the issues and the ability to persuade people. People made similar accusations of Reagan, yet he had an undeniable ability to persuade Congress and the Press. I think Bush is quite similar to Reagan in that regard. Gore, on the other hand, would get eaten alive by both Congress and the Press if he were to be elected. Then, of course, there are the issues....
To make a long story short, a significant number of intelligent, educated, and politically knowledgable people are voting for Bush. I count myself amongst those numbers, thank you. Good bye
Re:The FEC is out of control (Score:3)
Warning: I'm by no means an expert on election law, which varies from state to state. However, I'm pretty sure that some of the "crimes" you're citing aren't actually illegal at all. For example, voting absentee while away at college is not only not illegal, but it was actually encouraged while I was in school. It merely depends on in which state/district you've declared residency.
Second, you have to remember that Florida has a really ugly history of absentee ballot fraud [herald.com]. A lot of the signs that you're seeing now are a reflection of the legislature and judiciary's efforts to combat this.
And finally: in instances where voting fraud is systematic and intentional, I absolutely believe that severe punishment is in order, comparable with that for battery of a police officer. Voting is serious business, and deliberately rigging an election is a crime in the same vein (although not as severe) as treason, in my view.
Vote? (Score:3)
Kaa
Re:Well... (Score:3)
These threads are severally begining to annoy me. NPR this morning had a german commentator ranting about how the "world" should vote for the US president. He argued that Europeans "care more" and are more cluefull. This is arrogant at best, eliteist at worst.
The President is ours. We are Americans, and the president is the symbolic American who makes sure that Congress does not over-reach. He is not a Prime Minister, something Europeans don't seem to grasp.
The President is not European, or Chinese, or Japanese, but American. We choose the president to govern us.
There are not Socialists in this country. Deal with it. The only reason Europe's economy didn't go to hell a couple of years ago, is because the US economy held. We are not Europe. American government was designed from the get-go to be as hands off as possible. Socialism and American doctrine rarely work.
By your logic (europe is socialist so Gore should be elected) we might as well elect Buchannen. After all, he will deal with the dictators in China/Iraq/Iran/etc better.
We are American's. Deal with it. Our political system is not yours, our views may not be yours. If we wanted to be European, thoose of us with European ancesstry would not have left.
Make It Matter (Score:3)
You want to know why the candidates keep courting the 'old' vote? Because they vote. Wether its because they see it as important, they want to fit in and have something to talk about, or because they don't really have anything else to do with their time, the elderly as a demographic group have a large voter turnout. You want the candidates to start careing about issues that might affect you? Great... go to the polls and vote... and drag all your friends and all their friends. If suddenly the 25 and under demographic was going to the polls in record numbers, then the candidates would be trying to sway your vote, and that means issues that effect you.
(Just out of the 25 and under category myself)
Learn to read. (Score:3)
The quote: by size, maybe. but hell, by that logic, Tony Knowles, governor of Alaska, is even more qualified for the job. demonstrates that this person believes Texas is the second largest State by size only. In reality it is the second largest State by both size and population.
The poster also states that the GOvernor of Alaska is more qualified, without regard to the fact that Alaska is one of the least populated States in the nation.
Now, please, pay more attention before you go calling names that would, in your case, best be shouted while standing in front of a mirror.
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re:What makes Gore _any_ smarter? (Score:3)
by size, maybe. but hell, by that logic, Tony Knowles, governor of Alaska, is even more qualified for the job.
Excuse me? Where are you getting your info?
Texas has a census bureau estimated 1999 population of 20,044,141 a greater population than NY 1999 census bureau est. at 18,196,601. When the Congressional districts are reapportioned TX will have more votes electoral votes and larger Congressional delegation than any other State besides California. In otherwords, NY voters currently are casting one more electoral vote than a State that has around 2 million more people than than NY.
California is by far the most populous State and currently casts 54 electoral votes.
See http://www.census.gov/ to brush up on current State population estimates.
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
A ballot initiative we can all agree with (Score:3)
dsplat, who is glad he doesn't live in a "battleground" state.
Voting times affecting the results (Score:3)
How does the time of day you vote affect the election. Say I have access to a large block of PARTY_X voters on the east coast. If I get them to vote en masse when the polling places open then early polls will show PARTY_X's candidate out in front.
The question is: Will this affect people who havn't voted yet? I would guess it would discourage people from voting against CANDIDATE_X, people who supported him (or were undecided) would run out to back a winner, and people who opposed him would be less likely to vote since they were already losing.
If I could find 30 libertarians and know where cnn was taking exit polls, bringing those libertarians to that voting place could drastically skew that poll.... Thus providing a net political benefit
The Real Issues... (Score:3)
In all seriousness, no matter who you support, just get out and vote. The fact that CNN is predicting that less than 50% of the eligible voters will get out and cast a ballot is pretty sad.
Bush abortion cover-up (Score:3)
Sources:
http://www.examiner.com/001030/10 30s orensen.html [examiner.com]
http://www. kgoam81 0.com/viewentry.asp?ID=73474&PT=programsummaries [kgoam810.com]
Get informed! (Score:4)
If I'm not informed, I don't vote.
Hear, hear. Now, get informed!
Someone suggested that you should visit the Dems and Reps for their shining wisdom on the issues. That's one solution, but it's like asking a salesperson if the product will cure all ills: they'll say pretty much anything to get your vote. Also, forget the titles of the initiatives: "Defense of Marriage Act" was also known by names like the "Defense of Homophobia Act." They'll pick whatever catchphrase will troll your emotions (and thus your vote).
Rather, get some less biased literature. Every place I've lived, I've been able to find a pamphlet by the National League of Women Voters, or some other non-partisan organization, that lists the Pros and Cons for every ballot initiative, right next to each other.
I agree, don't vote on what you're not informed about. However, I'd take it a step further and vote NO CHANGE on initiatives or propositions that you don't understand, even after reading them. Propositions are written by special-interests, not by legislators who even pretend to have the general public's welfare at heart. If you can't understand the proposed law, it doesn't deserve passage.
Corrections on this guys facts (Score:4)
For the love of god, his quotes aren't even factual! Gore had HIGHER sat scores (1355 total for Gore, 1206 for Bush)... just see http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.htm l.... additionally gradewise, Gore's lowest was a (singular) D in Natural Science, and highest were A's/A+'s in English/French. Bushes lows were 70 and 71 (out of 100) in sociology and economics (more important to presidency then natural science), and his highest was a "pass" in history/japanese....
Anyway, Bush is dumber, but that doesn't necessarily matter. What matters is Bush will make a very conservative supreme court that will be very unfriendly to the net and such (DMCA, etc., also Roe Vs. Wade, Euthanasia....)..... neither are nice guys, and while Gore is smart and Bush is dumb, so what? We've had dumb presidents in the past and will have them again in the future.
That and Bush has the popular vote. Gore's only hope is getting Florida. Note that two good things would happen if Gore wins the election. 1) We wouldn't have Bush. 2) The Republican party would try to attack the electoral college, possibly dismantle it, due to the fact that Bush would have lost the electoral college yet won the popular vote. And regardless of who does it, at least the electoral college will be dismantled.
Please moderators moderate this guys post down. His facts are wrong wrong wrong. The fact he has a "5 informative" score is truly scary to me. /. is slipping...
If You Don't Vote .... (Score:4)
If you think that you can't make a difference, then get involved in local politics. Trying to get your second cousin elected County Recorder of Deeds will teach you more about politics than you will ever get from TV. Maybe in two years, the Libertarians or the Greens or whoever can put up some candidates for Congress, where they can make a real difference, instead of just gasbags who want to make speeches that nobody listens to. I'm not holding my breath.
BTW, one prediction from the pundit class has already been proven false -- light turnout. When I voted this morning (five minutes after the polls opened) I had to stand in the longest line I've seen in the fourteen years I've lived in this precinct.
--
My Election Day Experience (Score:5)
The voting went pretty smoothly. I voted for Prez/Veep, Senator, and US Rep, then proceeded to randomly fill in the bubbles for the rest of the candidates, sometimes chuckling to myself about what would happen if everyone voted like me. Then I stopped chuckling because I realized everyone really was voting like me.
On the way out, I picked up my 'I VOTED' sticker, proudly displaying the American flag. I'll probably use it to pick up chicks.
Election day's still an event, that's to be sure, but it definitely doesn't mean as much to someone of my age as to those of the generation or two ahead of me who fought for things like freedom and democracy. I hear people talk about how sick and tired they are of politics and how they don't have any choices. Think of what this country would be like if that were really true.
By the way, hot Slashdot females, I voted.
Seperation of Church and State? (Score:5)
Re:Well... (Score:5)
This is an interesting point that you're right, most people didn't ever ask.
I spend a lot of time overseas and have to say that I haven't met a single person outside the USA who believes GW Bush is even remotely qualified to be president.
The world is basically laughing at us because it's so obvious to them that this guy is a lightweight, but hey in the USA I guess as long as your dad was cool you can still play with the big boys, even if you can't remember their names.
But the US has never put a big premium on experience, which is why I think we don't see it as such a big deal here. We like the idea of an "outsider" stepping in and cleaning up (y'know, because Bush has NO ties to politics-as-usual, other than all his money, friends, and his own father).
---------------------------------------------
I'm sick... (Score:5)
But not of politics (or Katz) -- I really am literally sick and tired (I think it's the flu). So I didn't go to work today, but I'm getting in the shower in a minute to go vote.
I'll be sure to update you guys when I get back in case Jon wants us to post about lunch or something...
---------------------------------------------
People who don't vote (Score:5)
During the conversation, I announced that I looked up our senators voting record, and quoted a few "interesting" votes... the partisan voter's response was "I know where they all stand." Sure -- if you know their party, then you know their opinions, right? How naive...how frustrating...
Re:Well... (Score:5)
Although I have followed all the campaign carefully all along and I have to say that I was really disappointed that NO ONE during the whole process asked a question: "How will other countries view US and how will change their dealing with US in case Bush (Gore) will get elected?"
Oh, there's a very simple reason why no one asked that question. We don't care :)
---
Re:Seperation of Church and State? (Score:5)
If there's supposed to be seperation of Church and State, why did I have to go to a local church to cast my vote this morning?
I've wondered the same, but usually the churches have the best price and location for the space rental.
Local government's buildings aren't usually big enough to deal with the crowds and reorganization for a day, or are too centralized to deal with semi-rural populations.
Many high schools and hospitals give up the use of their gymnasium for the day, but most businesses charge too much for the inconvenience.
Church buildings are designed for this sort of need: easily accessible by the elderly, open spaces for the booths, parking available, centered in neighborhoods, not much else going on on Tuesdays, etc.
A foreigner's comment (Score:5)
I'm French, so of course I can't vote. I'm just watching as you Americans choose the man who will make peace or war in the Middle East, in Korea, in China, in the Balkans, and in several regions of Africa and Central Asia. The man who will negotiate all those issues with Vladimir Putin, Jiang Zemin et al. The man who will decide, incidentally, whether we Europeans can set up our own military force outside of NATO. Maybe you don't fully realize what "the President of the sole superpower" means, but believe me, we do.
The fact that millions among you (you = young, educated middle-class Americans) won't vote today - and that they're proud of it - upsets me.
Don't tell me that your vote wouldn't make a difference. At 50/50 every single vote counts, including yours. And you know that.
Don't tell us that the US election system is flawed. We know that already [? [everything2.com]]. That's no excuse. Not voting will only make things worse.
Don't, please don't tell us that there's absolutely no difference between the two candidates. There is. You may not care much about the IQ or the qualification of your president, but we definitely do, for the very reasons I mentioned above.
Thinking that just because you didn't take ten minutes of your precious time to drop a paper in a little box, the next President of the United States will probably be George Bush jr instead of Al Gore, that drives me crazy. In any democracy, not voting is a Bad Thing, the expression of a "spoilt child" attitude. But in the US, the responsibility is even bigger, because the man you're electing will influence the lives of millions of people around the world, much more than yours. And those people cannot decide who that man will be. And you can. And you won't.
Thomas Miconi
Well... (Score:5)
Although I have followed all the campaign carefully all along and I have to say that I was really disappointed that NO ONE during the whole process asked a question: "How will other countries view US and how will change their dealing with US in case Bush (Gore) will get elected?" I think that US is one of the most self-centric countries in the world and you should definitely start to look out of your borders. The world does not end there.
I personally think that experience of other countries with former president George Bush were not really the best ones and that a lot of countries is concerned about electing his son who will be surely under huge impact of his father. Its even told much more out of US borders, that its George Bush senior running for yet another presidential term. I would definitely expect international relations to cool down somewhat in case he will get elected.
On the other hand most of Europe is now ruled by Social democrats, and in case Gore will get elected, US will experience continuation of very good political relations with Europe region.
Also consider that Gore is not babbling with idiotic smile frozen on his face. Try to imagine yourself in a skin of foreign president who would need to talk some serious business with Bush... I would comfort such person in advance.
I personally don't like social democrats in europe and democrats in US are the same sort, but I have to say that considering what are US republicans, then my choice would be clear.
Not voting (Score:5)
One thing that galls me when I talk to people about getting out and voting is when they say "I'm just one person. To me, there's no real difference between Bush and Gore anyway, so why bother?"
I'll tell you why: Because there is MORE on the ballot than just those two people. There are local referendums, laws and such to vote on, not to mention your state and congressional representatives, so you need to get out there and vote if for no other reason than to try and make your own state a better place to be.