Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies

gracey1103 writes "Popular Mechanics has put together an easy-to-follow matrix of where the '08 presidential candidates stand on different science, tech and environment issues. Everything is cited and links back directly to each candidate's published policy pages so you can get more info."

5 IT questions going to the 08 candidates - help!

[apachetoolbox]

http://www.copyrightreform.us/2008-presidential-candidates [copyrightreform.us] has something much better going on. Help out by suggesting IT related questions to ask the candidates. Replies and scans of the letters they send back will be posted as they come in. Help us figure out some good questions.

Re:not easy to follow at all

[yali]

Has anyone actually come out against stem cell research?

Democrats all seem to favor stem cell research. But among Republicans it's mixed:

• Giuliani favors expanding stem cell research.
• McCain and Romney oppose research using cloned human embryos but not embryos left over from fertility treatments.
• Huckabee only favors continuing research with existing lines.
• Hunter, Keyes, Tancredo, and Thompson oppose embryonic stem cell research.
• Paul opposes funding stem cell research (but for econo-libertarian reasons rather than religious/moral ones. If you generalize from his stated position about stem cells [ronpaul2008.com], he apparently would oppose most federal funding for science and medicine).

Source: The Pew Forum [pewforum.org] (except the Ron Paul parenthetical).

Re:I voted....

[Curien]

Everyone running for office in this election is a cunt, and like bush, whoever wins will be a cunt when he/she is elected.

How true. Even Thomas Jefferson [trivia-library.com] turned into a cunt when he was sworn in.

Re:One of these things is not like the others

[treeves]

Here's how they're related:

Popular Mechanics compiled these links to make it easier to compare leading presidential candidates on several issues of interest to our readers, primarily in areas of science and technology.

The article does not limit to science and technology. That is a simplification made in the summary and the /. post's title.

Re:Not every candidate

[homer_s]

Consider this: the current amount of U.S. currency in circulation is $783 billion. Current estimates put the US's gold reserves at around $252 billion. So where does the extra $531 billion come from? The government buying massive amounts of gold; about $531 billion.

Or the price of gold will increase from $252 billion to $783 billion.
Don't know why otherwise intelligent people don't get this simple fact. Whether you use paper money or gold or diamonds or cigarettes or whatever, they can only stand-for or represent or reflect the true wealth in the economy. They are not wealth by themselves.

Not that I support the gold standard, but I think currency (and the value of currency) should be set by market forces and not by some unaccountable bureaucrats who create inflation while also pretending to 'fight' it.
Not that I'm complaining - I made (and continue to make) a lot of money courtesy of helicopter Ben and his clueless pals.

Re:I never said "Supreme Court"

[Kadin2048]

What you're reading came from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. It was overruled, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert and is scheduled to hear oral arguments in March.

Re:Not every candidate

[Mr Pippin]

Ahem, except that Congress cannot pass Amendments. That's the domain of the states. Congress can propose Amendments. In fact, Congress doesn't even HAVE to be involved in an Amendment, if the states so desire.

Re:Not every candidate

[kinabrew]

That's fine, but Kucinich has been given a rating of 100% by NARAL Pro-Choice America [prochoiceamerica.org] for four of the last six years.

Re:Not every candidate

[Alsee]

If there was ever an argument for instant runoff elections, that's it right there.

Nope.

There is precisely one argument for Instant Runoff Voting, and that is that it is easier to explain to voters how IRV votes are counted than it is to explain how Condorcet votes are counted. But based on that argument Approval Voting beats out IRV.

Our current Plurality Voting system is just about the worst of all known voting methods. IRV is better than our current system, but that just merely makes it less bad than out current system. If we are going to change our election system we really should change it to the best known system, and mathematicians have studied election methodology in depth and determined that that the best available system is Condorcet voting. Casting votes in Condorcet is identical to casting votes in IRV, and the behind the scenes election mechanics of handling those votes is much better than IRV, and the results of Condorcet are better than IRV (in some cases IRV can elect clearly the "wrong" person"), and in most cases explaining how Condorcet elected a candidate is dead simple (this candidate would clearly and simply beat any of the other candidates in a 1v1 race).

The only problem with Condorcet is that it is possible that none of candidates would beat each and every one of the others in 1v1 races. A situation like:
Adam would beat Betty by 60 million votes to 40 million votes in a 1v1 race,
Betty would beat Chuck by 58 million votes to 42 million votes in a 1v1 race,
and Chuck would beat Adam by 52 million votes to 48 million votes in a 1v1 race.

A sort of three way (or more) "tie" from that initial simple count. In that case you have to do math-type-stuff examining the numbers more closely to pin down the winner who most closely reflects the will of the voters. And unfortunately that final "tie breaker step" is not so simple to explain. Anyone comfortable with math or software can follow along with written "tie breaker" method to validate the election results, but typical Aunt Clueless is just going to say "Huh?" about the tie breaker method.

The math says Chuck has the weakest support so in the tie breaker Chuck gets eliminated first leaving Adam the winner. If it is a four of five or more way "tie" then solving the tie breaker will take extra steps.

Condorcet is not the simplest election method, but it is hands down the most accurate. Instant Runoff and other methods can run into oddball situations and oddball vote counts where they go haywire and clearly elect the wrong person.

An example comparing Condorcet to Instant Runoff. Imagine there's four candidates Adam Betty Chuck and Dave.
34 million people vote Adam as their first choice and Dave as second choice.
33 million people vote Betty as their first choice and Dave as second choice.
33 million people vote Chuck as their first choice and Dave as second choice.
No one votes Dave as their first choice.

In Instant Runoff Dave gets eliminated first (for having no first rank votes), and Adam wins.
Condorcet sees that Dave would beat each and every opponent by 2-to-1 in a head to head election. In particular Dave would beat Adam 66 million votes to 34 million. Dave is EVERYONE's second choice and has by far the broadest support. Dave is the centrist choice. Condorcet elects the most centrist candidate with the broadest support.

-

Re:Preperation for Huge natural disasters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the only candidate that is "aware" of a need for funding the space program is Clinton. And that my friend is probably the easiest, cheapest way to put your worries to bed. The ability to leave the planet and watch the meteor smash it while drinking a beer on observation deck of a spaceship/station.