Election Day Discussion 1718
With the polls now already open in most of the country, this is the official on-topic place for all Slashdot readers to discuss the election itself. And get out and vote if you can. Also, if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election. I'm off to vote in a couple hours. Wonder if we'll have Diebolds in my district.
First Vote! (Score:5, Funny)
Kerry leading in early exit polls (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.
relevent links:
Salon War Room Report [salon.com]
Gallup Poll original data [gallup.com] (I think this is the correct data set)
USA Today story [usatoday.com]
All news stories merely mention this in passing.....
Re:Kerry leading in early exit polls (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/exit_
The source is well-informed and brings up many good points to consider. Take any exit poll with a grain of salt and be patient for the official tally. You can burn a lot of energy reading the tea leaves.
Vote Libertarian (Score:4, Informative)
Badnarik is not qualified to be President (Score:5, Insightful)
Badnarik has good credentials as a geek, and I'd probably hire him for a programming or systems administration job, but he has no political experience whatsoever. Hell, he wasn't even able to get himself elected to the TEXAS House of Representives. If he (and the Libertarian party in general) are serious about getting into the White House, they need to set their sights a little lower at first: GET PEOPLE INTO OFFICE. *ANY* OFFICE. Local level, state level, whatever. School boards, town/county council, state legislatures, judgeships, etc. This serves two purposes: it shows people that Libertarians actually *can* work with the system and it gives the office-holders actual EXPERIENCE to run for higher office.
Even more importantly, if and when they are actually able run a serious Gubenatorial or Presidential candidate, that person when elected will actually have a BASE OF SUPPORT in the legislative and judicial branches. You can't change the system from the top-down; you have to work from the bottom up.
IMHO the most effective place for the LP to start is getting some Libertarian Judges elected. Judgeships are usually not as highly disputed as Legislative or Executive offices, but they hold a LOT of power. A Libertarian-controlled judiciary would be in the position to check the worst execesses perpetrated by the Democrats and Republicans.
Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you supposed to vote for who you think will do a better overall job or who best represents your beliefs and opinions?
Personally, I was really torn by this very question for the last few weeks...
- Tony
Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President (Score:5, Interesting)
A third party President would likely unite the other two parties against him, allowing Congress to pass veto-proof legislation. It might be interesting, but since there's no viable 3rd party candidate, this isn't a serious option.
A Republican President will keep the House, Senate, and Presidency in the hands of one party. The Republican-controlled Congress has already proven itself to be Bush's lap-dog, giving him anything he asks for. [I'd be just as opposed to the Democrats controlling everything, BTW]. Another 4 years of total Republican control will kill the last vestiges of freedom we have left.
A Democratic president will unite the Democratic minority in Congress behind him. He'll have to struggle and COMPROMISE to get anything done, however, because the Republicans will likely retain control of both houses. This should cancel out the more extreme partisan agendas coming from either party. This will at least keep the far-right fundimentalist Christian wing of the Republican party in check, and they're the ones who really scare me.
The most important issue for me is the fact that potentially 3 supreme court justices are going to die or retire in the next 4 years. Right now the court is balanced between an arch-conservitive wing and a moderate liberal wing, with one swing justice who leans to the left. Another Bush presidency combined with a Republican-controlled House and Senate will allow them to stack the deck with more hard-right, anti-freedom justices like Scalia and Thomas. However, any Kerry appointee will still have to be confirmed by the same Republican Congress; therefore Kerry would have to chose someone moderate in order to get them past the Republicans. Scant as it is, this is the best hope we have to retain at least some of our freedoms and undo some of the worst excesses of the last 4 years.
Badnarik IS qualified to be President (Score:5, Insightful)
(Before I get into it, I agree with what you say about the whole base of support. In this election, there are over 1,000 other LP candidates running for local, state, and national offices around the country.)
According to the Constitution, Badnarik meets all the qualifications necessary:
Not having held office before has nothing to do with being a good president. Perhaps the reason nothing changes is because we keep electing people who are already acclimated to "the system." While Badnarik might lack political experience, he far exceeds both baBush and Kerry in constitutional scholarship. (I think you would agree that Bush doesn't know crap about the Constitution, and Kerry isn't much better, having voted for the PATRIOT Act.)
Qualified != Eligible (Score:5, Insightful)
Being ELIGIBLE for something does not automatically mean you are QUALIFIED to do it. I have a BS in Computer Engineering, therefore I'm ELIGIBLE for any job which requires that degree. However, there are a lot of jobs for which I'm ELIGIBLE that I'm not QUALIFIED to perform because my experience is in a different specialty.
If the candidate's degree of Constitutional scholarship is the only quality that matters when chosing a President, then I submit that Lawrence Lessig is an infinately more qualified choice for President than Badnarik.
There are probably over 100M US citizens who are eligible to hold the presidency, so by your argument ANY of them is qualified to do the job. I'm sure you could find a homeless illiterate paranoid schizophrenic with multiple felony convictions and substance abuse problems who still meets all the Constitutional eligiblity requirements for the Presidency. Would this person be qualified for the job? I think not.
Hell, *I* am over 35, have lived in the US all my life, and have never been charged with any crime more serious than driving 20mph over the speed limit. I'll wager a week's pay that my knowledge of the Constitution is at least as good as Badnarik's. Therefore, by your standards, I'm as qualified to be President as he is. Vote for Me!
Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President (Score:5, Interesting)
(aside: Jesus it's hard to post with all of these 503 errors, I can't even check to see if this is redundant)
Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want someone who has spent their entire professional career in politics, with no "real world" experience? Someone who doesn't know how much a gallon of gas or milk costs?
It's hard to relate to the very people you're supposed to be leading/representing when you've got no connection to them at all.
Re:Badnarik is not qualified to be President (Score:5, Informative)
1. Sure, experience in other offices helps, but a 3rd party candidate shooting for high offices will always lose in an entrenched 2 party system.
2. Badnarik may not have held an office with a little name sign on his door, but has been studying the US constitution for over 22 years now. In fact, he teaches an 8 hour class on the constitution, which is available online [archive.org] for your viewing pleasure. He's been teaching it now for at least 4 years, but possibly more. I bet senator Kerry and presient Bush couldn't even tell you what article of the US constitution describes their position, much less what it actually says their powers are.
I could go on, but it's not worth my time. Libertarians actually go after a lot of this country's problems from the fundamental root, rather than using broad sweeping generalizations like "a safer america is what we want".
Re:Vote Libertarian (Score:5, Funny)
I forget. Which one of these is the Badnarik/Campagna slogan, again?
Re: Vote Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?
Yes, indeed, which is why Badnarik is the only logical choice. Kerry certainly isn't a logical choice because:
So, again, for meaningful change, the only choice is Badnarik.
Re: Vote Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. The more votes third parties get, the more exposure they will get, and eventually meaningful change will happen.
Thank you, Watson. Of course, since Kerry's own voting record says he voted for the war, I will trust that instead.
If Kerry didn't want the president to go to war, then he shouldn't have voted to give the president unilateral power to make war. Kerry's argument that he voted "only for war as a last resort" is like saying he cut a branch off a tree, but he didn't make it fall to the ground.
Good argument: "Everybody else did it too!" And so what if the GOP labeled people as "unpatriotic"? Do you really want somebody voting for an unnecessary war because they were taunted?!?!
Re: Vote Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry that you feel you have to throw away your principles because the race is close. Voting for evil is still evil.
Re: Vote Libertarian (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sorry that you feel you have to throw away your principles because the race is close. Voting for evil is still evil.
Don't be ridiculous. If one candidate has been shown to be reckless, destructive and absolutely uninterested in his own citizens, voting him out is not "voting for evil". Your vote is a tool that you have decided not to use, kind of like buying a Hummer to drive your kids to school. Sure it works, but you aren't using it to it's full potential.
Just because you want the 3rd party to succeed doesn't mean that you have to ignore the fact that your incumbent president is a destructive nutjob and refuse to do anything about it. It's your vote; you can shoot yourself and your fellow citizens in the foot/feet with it if you like.
Re: Vote Libertarian (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, Kerry doesn't say the word "draft." He calls it "national service," and it can be either civilian or military variety. It's not a new idea. The Democratic Leadership Council (of which Kerry is a member) proposed it back in 1988. A re-worked version [ppionline.org] [pdf] of the proposal was published last year by the Progressive Policy Institute (the think tank lapdog of the DLC). Kerry's published plan [kerry.com] incorporates steps 1 and 2 of the DLC/PPI proposal by tying government-funded privileges, such as student loans, to service in the military, AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, etc. The third step, which undoubtedly will be passed once the first 2 are completed (and which won't be announced until Kerry is in office), will make national service mandatory using the current Selective Service system.
National Service != Draft (Re: Vote Libertarian) (Score:4, Informative)
Our own Corporation for National and Commmunity Service [cns.gov] "provides opportunities for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to serve their communities and country through three programs: Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America. Members and volunteers serve with national and community nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, schools, and local agencies to help meet community needs in education, the environment, public safety, homeland security, and other critical areas."
And is not another name for the draft. Anyway, back to the page you linked to, if you read just a little further down you would have seen this:
Re: Vote Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
If the war was really about putting an end to a threat, than we have failed at that as well. Iraq is being a terrorist training ground and numerous caches of weapons remain ungaurded by US troops. The truth of the facts you laid out is that Iraq was no more than one threat out of many, and any direct threat to the US mainland was far smaller than other countries.
I would urge you to look at what you have written and ask yourself if the war in Iraq has helped counter your points, or if it has made them worse. I think a truly honest look will show you that we are worse off for actions.
One final note is that, as Bin Laden himself said in the most recent videotape, one of Al-Qaeda's goals is to suck resources from the US. Bush's policies have furthered that aim far better than Al-Qaeda could have dreamed. The constantly changing terror alerts and efforts to protect every nook and cranny are draining State, Local, and Federal coffers at a prodigious rate. That coupled with the constant fear mongering has also led to a hampered economy.
Even if you believe starting the war was justified, surely you would agree that we ought to start fighting it smarter?
Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... (Score:5, Informative)
Read more about it in this Indimedia article: The truth about "thetruthaboutiraq.org" [indymedia.org].
Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'd like to hear what Iraqis think about this. But the link you provided does NOT point to what Iraqis think; it points to a partisan outfit that is interested in peddling its own "truth" (somewhat like the "Swift Boat veterans for truth"). You want to know the "truth about Iraq"? How about you look at Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War. The children that Jim Hake cites were "killed under Saddam" ? They were killed by the UN sanctions. Before GW-1, Iraq was a pretty decent country. The Iran-Iraq war sent it on a downward spiral, but the GW-1 and sanctions prevented it from ever coming back up.
I'm sure none of this will make any difference to you because your colored glasses won't make you see any different. But remember this: Iraq was the only secular regime in that region! Today, the muslim mullahs run the place.
It was a place where women and minorities had equal rights. Women could fucking DRIVE in IRAQ! Something they cannot do even today in Saudi Arabia, your "ally". Women held high positions of power. Remember Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi PM? He was a Christian! Imagine, that: a Christian PM in a 95% Muslim country! Let me know if you find such a thing ever again in the Middle East.
Regarding your "good reasons" for invading Iraq: your cherry-picking of the facts leaves much to be desired. In isolation: yes, Saddam was a bad man. But, why not apply the same reasoning to states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Just because their leaders were shrewd enough to hoodwink Bush into thinking they're his "allies"?? While you point to the passports, etc. as evidence of Iraqi hand in terrorism, you conveniently ignore the fact that countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been openly funding and training terrorists for decades! Almost every single terrorist of the past decade got training and support in Pakistan.
There are a dozen countries out there that have been international pariahs for decades (while Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam), but the US never chose to invade them. Countries like Syria have given shelter for terrorists since the 60s; and yet Colin Powell prefers to talk to them.
Your "good reasons" are nothing more than a poor attempt at justification after the fact.
It reminds me of the old fable of the wolf and the lamb. Both are drinking from a stream. The lamb is downstream from the wolf, but the wolf has designs on it. The wolf accuses him of polluting the water he's drinking. "But, I'm downstream", bleats the lamb. "How could I be polluting your water?". The wolf thinks about this for a second, and then says "Your mother insulted me the other day" and promptly proceeds to eat him.
It is quite surprising that you claim to be a follower of Christ, and yet you look away when innocents are being slaughtered. Where's your religion? Where are your teachings? Oh right! They don't apply to Muslims! That must be it.
Re:Bush has brought meaningful change... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what makes you think this? Have you ever seen how many Americans (and 100x that many innocent Iraqis) have been killed since "Mission Accomplished" ?
You have to start somewhere..... The hope is that after Iraq becomes stable, in 15-30 years it will help stabilize the whole region. That might not be true, but forgive me if I have a little hope for the world.
Just 'hoping' without some common sense is sheer idiocy. Have you read the history of this region? Do you know that while you are preaching "democracy" right now, for decades the US has gone out of its way to prop up totalitarian and brutal regimes? Even today, who is the biggest supporter of the Saudis? Yeah, you got it right: the US. The same Saudis who refuse to shut down the pipeline of funding for "charities" (which are a front for terrorists). Where 100s of little schoolgirls were allowed to burn to death in a shool fire because they weren't suitably covered up when trying to escape from the flames! And don't forget: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.
Of course, if you disagreed w/ Saddam, he'd cut off your hands
ROTFLMAO... you dimwit. The same system of "justice" is practiced in many Islamic countries. Look at the number of beheadings that are done in Saudi Arabia.
No, they were killed because Saddam didn't use Oil-for-Food to get food, he used it to bribe leaders, support Al-Qaeda, and other things.
Ha.. I knew you'd trot out the Party line. Your critical thinking skills are as close to zero as I've ever seen anywhere. The 9/11 commission itself said there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
Just to show how ignorant you are, let me tell you one more thing. Did you know that the head of Pakistani Intelligence wired $100K to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, a few weeks before 9/11 ?? Here's a fucking smoking gun proof that points to Pakistani state sponsorship of the 9/11 hijackers. And what does your messiah W do?? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Please don't think I'm angry at you. I feel pity for you: for, one should pity the fool that knows not, and knows not that he knows not. And you are one big fool who knows not.
Re:huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly my point. This is nowhere near 100,000.
Sorry, but that's not entirely true. The numbers on IraqBodyCount.net are fully-backed media documented numbers about specific incidents with specific casualties. That means that, out of the thousands of civillians killed during the war in Iraq, we have hard and fast proof about that many, right now, with zero additional time spent gathering information.
The 100,000+ number is a reasonable guesss about the actual numbers of casualties, inclulding those who didn't specifically make the fscking international news.
Sheesh.
I don't know if a 6:1 ratio of casualties to media-reported specific casualties is correct, but it seems reasonable. It seems a whole lot more reasonable than a 1:1 ratio which is, I believe, what you're choosing to go with.
Yay for rabidness! (Score:4, Insightful)
And no one will change their mind, regardless.
WHAT FUN!
I've been waiting at work all morning for this (Score:5, Funny)
While the Poll is obvious... (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, I'm all for Kerry to win. But I live in a pretty red state. Though while standing in line to feed my paper ballot marked with a pen into some thing I saw that the few people in front of me had all voted for Kerry/Edwards which I found interesting, considering how little either party has paid attention to North Carolina this year.
Re:While the Poll is obvious... (Score:5, Interesting)
I take that to mean a Republican state. That's interesting, because in Britain, red represents Labour, which is more left wing. The Conservatives use blue. Red has long been associated with communisim and by extension, socialism. So why do the US Republicans use red? Was blue already taken?
A better solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
() Bush
() Kerry
() Other
() Would vote Bush if I could
() Would vote Kerry if I could
() Would vote Other if I could
That way everyone could have voiced their opinions properly. The results would have been much more interesting too...
Re:While the Poll is obvious... (Score:4, Funny)
Hopefully that "thing" was not a shredder...
Re:While the Poll is obvious... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:While the Poll is obvious... (Score:4, Funny)
When my wife remarked that there were much more people for Kerry than Bush, a random woman near us said, "Lord I hope so!" in perfect southern drawl.
I don't care what the analysts say, NC was a swing state this election and I believe it's swinging blue this year.
Re:While the Poll is obvious... (Score:4, Informative)
I think that's really what this whole election is going to come down to... so many of my american friends are voting "against bush" rather than "for kerry"
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
It can't be said enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It can't be said enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Look at it closely.
The only reasons they cannot deny you the right to vote are
1. due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude (Article XV) - Hmmmm and felons can't vote (look at Article XIII which seems to equate your sentence with involuntary servitude).
2. due to gender (Article XIX). Yay women can vote.
3. Failure to pay your taxes (Amendment XXIV)
and 4. Due to age, as long as your are oder then 18 (Amendment XXVI).
So except for those reasons you can lose your right to vote.
Use it while you've got it, it's the only way to keep it.
Re:It can't be said enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're reading on Slashdot. Statistically, you're more likely to be young, liberal, non-religious. All areas where Kerry's leading. So if 100 people vote because of him, say 60/40, he's just gained 20 votes for Kerry. Here on
But, if he told you to get out there and vote for Kerry, you'd take it as political advocacy. Whereas just saying "get out and vote!" only to people who statistically agree with him is more likely to work.
It's the basic principle behind Rock the Vote!, minority voter empowerment drives, and bible thumping preachers.
Thank God! (Score:5, Funny)
And, to her, no, I still won't watch F.9/11, thank you very much. I don't need any extra propoganda in my life.
if you choose to not vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: if you choose to not vote (Score:5, Funny)
> don't bitch about the president during the next 4 years
Corollary 1: If they one you vote for loses, bitch continually for the next four years.
Re:if you choose to not vote (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bitch about the president all I want -- I'll just refrain from saying, "If only (Bush|Kerry|Nader|Whoever) had won,..." That's because the problem isn't the dude in the suit, the problem is the fact of the president. And when it's the system I oppose, not the person, I reserve full rights to a) refuse to lend my consent to the system by voting; and b) bitch all I want about it.
This mantra is just one of many aspects of a culture that refuses to see the conscientious refusal to vote as valid. It ultimately reinforces the system and blinds us to change. The "Vote or die," "I don't care who you vote for, just vote," etc., slogans that we hear repeated are, plain and simple, pro-government.
Another de-voted anarchist refusing to vote.
Re:if you choose to not vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo! The whole problem with democracy is that we should not have the power to make so many decisions for each other. Democracy is a "one-size-fits-all" solution in a world where we are all shaped differently. I would never dare to claim the rights over other people that our government of "we the people" claims to have over its subjects^Wcitizens.
This is the first election where I have been aware of and understood your point of view. I find it extremely admirable and I commend you. For my part I am still voting but I see your point of view and am longing for the day when the truly important things in life are not subject to a vote, as they should never have been subject to the will of either a sovereign monarchy or a sovereign voting populace. For my part as long as I continue to vote, I will vote for our government to exert less and less authority over you. If I had my way, you could opt out of all of our government, not just voting.
Thank you for holding to your conscience. It is a supreme act of maturity and responsibility to stand up and say, "I do not have the right to make decisions on your behalf, and I will not even try." I hope that you can hold your head up high even if all those around who do not understand you cast stones at you.
Democratic responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a member of a democracy you should always make your opinion heard.
Tell your President, Prime minister, governor premier mayor, MP, MEP, MPP, senator congressman, alderman, councillor etc what you want.
Their job is to represent you, and work in the best interest of their consitiuents and the area as a whole.
To do this they MUST know your opinions.
If you were them and lots of people write/tell you what they want, don't you think that might influence your stance on issues?
If the politicians really thought they wouldn't get re-elected if they voted for the invasion of Iraq, they wouldn't have authorized it.
With recall legislation becoming more popular this is even more important.
Even Bush would get a little nervous if people started recalling their Republican Governors to replace them with Democrats.
FWIW I emailed my MP (Federal representative) about a do not call registry, his assistant emailed back the letter my MP had previously sent requesting such legislation.
Ukraine (Score:5, Funny)
The most important thing to keep in mind.... (Score:5, Funny)
I got my vote on in Virginia (Score:5, Interesting)
On a side note, I don't remember seeing voter turnout like this before, but the only elections I was involved with in this state were strictly senatorial or congressional. Those times I was in line for a good 10 minutes, this morning was a little over an hour. There was a great turnout and just about everyone in line seemed pretty excited. The folks at the polls who weren't election officials (people from the different parties) did a good job of helping people out without bugging the hell out of us (handing out copies of the ballots, walking the old people to the building and through the line - BUT not to the voting machines).
All in all it was a good experience, and I hope it works like this across the whole country.
Wait... What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Party representatives are allowed to touch the Ballots???
Here in Canada, the only people allowed to touch the Ballots are the Deputy Returning Officer (who is sworn to be non-partisan) and the Voter. The DRO isn't allowed to touch the voter list, that's the Poll Clerk's job.
The scrutineers and the candidate's representative (who oversees the scrutineers for their party) aren't allowed to touch anything. They also aren't allowed to talk about politics or have any signs or material which might identify their party etc. asside from their scrutineer badge (which has their name and party).
The election before last, I went up to the table to vote and the Poll Clerk, DRO, and scrutineer were telling me who to vote for. They turned absolutely white when right after putting my ballot in the box I walked over to the candidate's rep (for a different party) handed him my paperwork and got my scrutineer badge. They stopped telling people how to vote after that (I was assigned to their table).
accuracy and precision (Score:5, Insightful)
We have an election system here in the US that attempts to count every vote. At some point they stop counting and announce the final results.
Anyway, we learned 4 years ago (and are learning this time too) that the vote is not accurate. It is error prone and sometimes subjective. But I haven't seen anyone attempt to quantify the level of error in the voting process? Why hasn't there been some academic or impartial attempt to measure the margin of error in our polling.
Why is this important? Because if you don't know the margin of error, then you don't know what the outcome is. Period. If Bush reports 51% to Kerry 49% and the margin of error is 5%, then we don't know who won the election. It's a statistical tie and anyone who announces a winner is at best foolish.
Revelation (Score:5, Funny)
If some insidious government officials were to approve the installation an easily-corruptible voting system in order to co-opt the election according to their agenda, and if the mass media then convinced the masses that the election is really close and could go either way, then it wouldn't be quite so transparent when the election was rigged in favor of one candidate!
Holy crap!
Level of error: effectively zero (Score:5, Informative)
(Deep breath. I'm about to do something totally insane--try to present a rational, factual explanation of a political subject on SlashDot. Maybe its because I've been eating nothing but red M&Ms all day....)
IAMPAEO--BIHBO
I Am Not Presently An Election Official--But I Have Been One. And I can promise you, with all sincerity, that the margin of error is effectively zero. We count every single ballot, whether on the voting machines or in absentee ballots, regardless of how late we have to stay up to do it. The people in your county registrar's office total up all of the ballots from the polling places, and keep checking and re-checking until they have it right. The math is done in front of representatives from all political parties, as well as any candidate-appointed watchers that are present as well. When the election results are certified, the results are correct--with an error rate of zero.
Oh, c'mon. What about...
I have been an election official for more than fifteen years--and I have been involved in counting votes on Election night in heavily Democratic wards, and in heavily Republican wards. It does not matter--we get the vote total correct, and we turn it in to the county. Then the county re-checks our work--and they carefully preserve the voting machines until they're convinced we have done the work correctly. (One year, back in the 1980s, the county had questions about one of our voting machines and called the officials back in later in the week to make sure they understood what we'd done.)
Don't confuse the results announced on TV with the certified election
I have also done consulting work with the Elections Unit of a major TV network [go.com]. They have an entirely different agenda: their goal is to "call" the election for one candidate or the other before any other media outlet. They are basing their "calls" on exit-polling data ("pardon me, ma'am, but could you tell me who you voted for?") in a handful of selected precincts across a state. They will report preliminary totals ("And we now see Governor Bloviate leading with 1,424,325 votes with 21% of precincts reporting...") without explaining the context (are those Bloviate's strong precincts? Who says the numbers are correct?) They're out to report fast, accuracy be damned. (Sorry, Charlie, but that's the way it really is.)
The real story, the real vote total, comes when the election is certified. And the "chaos" that we all saw in Florida was the actual process of certifying an election. There were flaws (the biggest: they hadn't defined any rules for how to count votes)--but they eventually arrived at a standard, and used that standard to count votes. They ended up with a total. That's the final number.
All that said....
The total vote count will be determined with a level of error of zero. What will not be determined--and what I fear will be rampant in this election, on both sides--is how many votes were fraudulent, due to duplicate registrations, absentee ballot fraud, etc.
Re:accuracy and precision (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think the best bet is to have a touch-screen machine that spits out a punched card (pre-punched) for you to inspect, feed into the checking machine (which also provides the results, unless a manual recount is called for) and if you're satisfied that the second machine verifies the results of the first, it spits the card out into a locked box, or back into your hands if there's an error.
That way you get the theoretical benefits of a touch-screen. (I work doing UI design - I'm sure the first few generations of machines will be a huge step back.) You also get a paper ballot (recountable if needed) and you get to run it through the counting machine yourself and make sure it reads the same settings you put into the first machine, as well as make sure it's obvious for a visual recount.
Voting (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't follow in all counties, just in those that are very very strongly Bush or Kerry, and you are voting the other way. 'Cos if you vote the other way, you vote will more or less be lost.
Finally, no matter which way you are thinking of voting, go out and vote. If you don't know who to vote for, then vote for a 3rd party. But cast your vote!
T.
Re:Voting (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a genuine preference for a third party candidate, vote third party. Don't vote for a third party candidate simply because you're undecided on which candidate you prefer. Sadly, there's more to this election than simply winning 270 electoral votes...
fairfax county va (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Stand in line to get your id checked. If you are registered you get a blue index card.
2) Stand in a different line with your card and wait for a winvote [enfocom.com] machine to open up.
3) When it is your turn you present your card to the election worker that supervises the terminal that just opened up. She takes your blue card and unlocks the machine.
4) You vote.
Note that thing differentiating a random person that walked up to the machine and a registered, approved voter is posession of the blue card. Multiple people left after receiving their blue cards, saying they couldn't wait another hour and that they would return later. There is nothing stopping these people from reproducing the cards and returning multiple times. The voting places are an absolute packed madhouse, NO ONE would notice if someone just walked up to the second line with a blue card.
Did anyone else see any other glaring holes in their election procedures?
Mark voters thumbs with an ink pen (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mark voters thumbs with an ink pen (Score:4, Informative)
The ink does not come off for about a week, no matter what you apply to it.
Publishing results while voting continues (Score:4, Interesting)
In the rest of the democratic world, as far as I know, this is illegal. It seems to us that it goes against having a fair election. And yet in America it is normal practice. Why?
Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" (Score:5, Interesting)
I leaned in and looked at the book (breaking every rule in the book by looking at the book) and saw my name and pointed to it. The attendant looked at my name and stated, "but your drivers license says 2950 Ridge Rd, but in my book it says 2951 Ridge Rd" (an address which does not exist)
She spent 20 minutes on the phone with the board of elections trying to figure out what it is she was supposed to do.
Despite having a drivers license with 2950, a voter registration card with 2950, she was bound and determined not to let me vote because her book said 2951. I asked what paperwork I would need to fill out if I wanted to claim that I had moved. She explained that I could fill out the paperwork, but my vote would not be counted until the paperwork cleared. Figuring that would mean my vote would only be counted in a disputed recount situation (if even then) this wasn't acceptable to me either.
Finally another attendant called the Board of Elections (because I was starting to get very agitated) and discovered I could fill out the change of address forms with me, vote, and then turn the forms into the board of elections today.
I'm still not convinced my vote will get counted. I was given an "I Voted" sticker, and wondered if I did or not.
Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" (Score:5, Insightful)
While I am by no means accusing your of any wrongdoing, I understand how even what seems like such a minor detail or error on someones part (transcribing a 0 to a 1) may be used for vote fraud:
Consider an unscrupulous individual who wishes commit fraud. That person could register to vote using 10 differnt permutations on his legitimate address. Thus to anyone cross-checking the registration rolls, it might slip by in that the names are the same but the addresses are all different. On election day, this idividual might be able to go to each of the different precincts that he registered in, pull out a perfectly form of ID and and in each case make the argument that there must have been a mistake. I don't think this would be easy to pull-off, and it isn't exactly what you describe (your address was correct on your voter registration card) but it is at least conceivable...
Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" (Score:4, Interesting)
This very tradeoff has been playing in the courts in Ohio (see any national newspaper), with Republicans wanting 'election monitors' at many polling stations to challenge possible fraud, and Democrats claiming it's voter suppression. A federal appeals court *today* reversed two Ohio court decisions *yesterday*, and monitors will be allowed.
There's a balance to be struck here. Guarding against every "conceivable" fraud will have a cost in legitimate vote suppression.
There's an analogy to a tradeoff between computer security and usability, but I've rambled long enough
Re:Wonder if I was a "Caged Voter" (Score:4, Informative)
Your friends are watching you (Score:5, Interesting)
Please, give us back the America we admire and believe in. Don't turn yourselves into a religious state. Don't turn your back on the UN and the other peoples of the world - in the end we are people first, American or French or Iraqi or Chinese second. Give us back the America that went to the moon and carried out the Berlin airlift and brought us the IT revolution. Give us back the America of Kennedy's vision and MLK's dream.
And please, don't let the world's most successful democracy be reduced to a joke with a repeat of last election's Floridan antics.
Re:Your friends are watching you (Score:4, Informative)
There is a big difference between the two forms of government. A democracy gives power directly to the people. A republic gives electoral power to the people, and the decision making power to the elected officials.
Re:Your friends are watching you (Score:4, Informative)
Um, most people in the world use the word "democracy" to mean "representative democracy"
A republic run by representative democracy is not an oxymoron. (A republic can be democratic or non-democratic).
Democratic* republics: USA, Ireland, France
Non-democratic republics: Syria, Belorussia
In turn a democracy can be a republic or not a republic.
(*By "democratic" I mean a representative democratic government - people drop the representative because it is a pain to write it out when every serious non-pedantic person knows what they are talking about already).
Re:Your friends are watching you (Score:4, Insightful)
You think you're scared? I feel like I've been strapped into the back seat of an out of control taxi driven by a madman, helplessly watching him mow down people on the sidewalk.
Re:Your friends are watching you (Score:4, Insightful)
And watch, everyone, as he quickly sets up his straw man... very deft!
Yeah...like France...and Saddam's Iraq. Great.
And look! Look how he knocks it down! Excellent form!
Nice work putting words in the mouth of the grandparent. Did he say "secular state"? No. He only said the US is, in effect, becoming a theocracy, and in this, I'm not sure I disagree. The government is working very hard to insinuate Christian values into it's workings, from it's policies on abortion and stem cell research (even to the point of releasing disinformation), "faith based initiatives" in place of proper social services, supporting the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, attempting to codify that marriage is between a man and a woman *in the constitution*... I could go on.
The separation of church and state is paramount. As you say, this means the goverment should be completely indifferent on the topic. And in case you didn't realize it, things like "under God" being in the pledge of allegiance fly straight in the face of this doctrine.
The U.N. has proven itself pointless.
Only because the US (and other major powers on the security council) veto anything useful.
We are alot like the America who went after the Nazi's actually. That was unpopular in alot of areas too...for awhile.
Holy shit! This is simply outrageous! Revisionist history, anyone? The US went into WWII only AFTER Hitler started driving his war machine across Europe. This is in absolutely NO WAY at all similar to the US's approach to Iraq, which involved attacking, unilaterally, a country which posed absolutely no threat to anyone!
Sure...Florida sucked last time around, but you people overseas need to understand that you really don't get to decide what happens in someone else's democracy.
Unless, of course, you're the US, in which case you can stomp around the world installing dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders all you like.
Voting machines (Score:5, Funny)
I was disenfranchised. (Score:5, Interesting)
A year ago, my wife and I moved from an apartment to our house.
A week later, we went and got our drivers licenses changed, and both registered.
I registered Green, she registered Republican.
A few months later, we both received our registration cards.
She voted this morning.
When I tried to vote, after waiting for two hours I was told that I wasn't on the rolls. 20 minutes later of me refusing to leave, especially since I had my voter registeration card, they told me that I was registered at my old address.
Which is garbage, because I _never_ registered to vote at my old address.
Evidently, this is pretty common. Now i'm expected to say "Gosh, i'm not going to wait another two hours to vote. I have to get to work."
Well fuck them, i'm voting after work today. I don't care if i'm there for 6 hours.
I'm still disenfranchised, as I cannot vote for my local representatives.
Re:I was disenfranchised. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I was disenfranchised. (Score:5, Informative)
That's it.
And if that isn't right or you don't pay taxes (like University students), you simply show up to the polling station in your riding with some documentation as to your identity and proof that you live in the riding - like a lease agreement, a phone, cable, sewer bill etc (even a Visa statment is acceptable, as long as it has you name and adress on it and you have another form of picture ID that proves you are the person on the bill).
Very simple and verey effective.
We also mark an X on a paper ballot, which is then scanned so we get both electronic counting and paper ballots in the event of a recount. And we usually know the winner of the Election the night of the election (In 2000, our government called an election, had a 36 day campaign, voted and declared the winner and started back to business between the time of your election and the date the Supreme Court appointed GWB).
Just an FYI that Canada is not some draconian place. We have a pretty effective democracy up here.
Voter Ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
Ignorance is rampant and I would rather have an intelligent informed nation choosing their leader based on facts, logic, and rationale rather than emotional responses, self-interest, and personality marketing/propoganda.
The Cato Institute published a report which is here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-525es.html [Cato.org] and it details its findings on the study of voter ignorance. Here is an excerpt:
"Overall, close to one-third of Americans can be categorized as 'know-nothings' almost completely ignorant of relevant political information," writes Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, in "When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy."
"Most of the time," Somin notes," only bare majorities know which party has control of the Senate, some 70 percent cannot name either of their state's senators and the vast majority cannot name any congressional candidate in their district at the height of a campaign."
Overall, voters tend to be "abysmally ignorant of even very basic political information... the sheer depth of most individual voters' ignorance is shocking to observers not familiar with the research."
A few examples from many in the report:
* The Patriot Act? What's that? Three-fourths of Americans say they know little or nothing about it. 58 percent say they've heard "nothing" or "not much" about it.
* Seventy percent don't know about the $500 billion new drug benefit added this year to Medicare, which Somin describes as "probably the most significant domestic legislation passed during the Bush administration."
* A majority cannot make even a rough estimate of how many Americans soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
* 61 percent believe that there has been a net loss of U.S. jobs in 2004.
* Over 60 per cent don't know that, during President Bush's term, there has been an explosion in domestic spending (about 25 percent above previous levels) that has enormously increased the national debt.
* Last year, 58 percent of Americans could not name a single federal Cabinet department.
And such voter ignorance is, alas, nothing new:
* In 1964, at the height of Cold War tensions, only 38 percent of the public knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO.
* In 1994, after Republicans took control of Congress under the highly-publicized leadership of Rep. Newt Gingrich, 57 percent of Americans said they'd never heard of Gingrich, despite the avalanche of press coverage.
* In 1996, 67 percent couldn't name their congressman, and only 26 percent knew that senators serve six-year terms.
* In the 2002 elections, only 32 percent of voters knew that the Republican Party controlled the House.
In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Mass ignorance is easy to exploit and sway opinions based on nothing more than emotions.
And in conclusion I say that if you do not truly understand the issues, have a good concept of how the government and the world works, and grasp the ideals and principles of what this government was founded on and it's history - then stay the hell out of the voting booth!
Re:Voter Ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like it, I think there are a few countries where you might fit in a little better.
Re:Voter Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
You're putting words into the original author's mouth. The parent never said anything about an intelligence test or that foolish people should be legally prevented from making a vote. That's something I absolutely agree with. I think you make a terrible decision as a human being to participate in a process that you really don't understand, but I definately don't think anyone should legally prevent people from voting on account of 'intelligence.' His statement wasn't a call for legal action to prevent people who don't know what's going on from voting, it was a call to people to stop encouraging everyone to go out and vote. That's something I totally agree with.
That being said, I really don't understand how anyone can possibly claim that getting a bunch of ignorant people to participate in the political process helps anything. I firmly beleive that this world would be a lot better if fewer people voted.
Consider all of the stupid aggravating crap that politicans say and do. Consider all of those stupid attack ads and assinine twisting of records and the way they embellish what they've accomplished while trying to make it look like the other guy is worse than a murderer/rapist. You've got to realize why they do that - it's becuase there are so many people voting who don't pay attention to the issues and are persuaded to vote based on the assinine messages that the politicans send out. If we would stop encouraging mouth breathing morons to vote, the politicans wouldn't have any reason to do all of that bullshit.
Consider this hypothetical situation - there's about 30% of the population that pays close attention to what goes on in politics. And those two groups are more or less evenly divided between two sides. If you're a political candidate in that situation, you're never going to win anything by appealing to the small percentage of the population that actually votes. The only way you can win is by crafting a policy platform that sounds good to people who never bother to vote. You also need to reach out to those people and get your message to them, which means you need a lot of money. So the fact that there are large numbers of uninformed people weilding a lot of power immediately leads to the monetary corrpution of politics, and the creation political policies that are designed not to make sense or work but to appeal to individuals who, by their very nature, don't understand the workings of government.
I am not calling for intelligence tests or restrictions on voting, because I'm no fool myself and I realize how those would easily be abused. I just think If we'd get rid of this idiotic national idea that nonparticipation is bad, and instead everybody agreed that it was better for uniformed people not to vote, that things would work out better for our great country.
Best online interactive electorial US map (Score:4, Informative)
As of now, I believe after reading this [bloomberg.com] that the states are going to be voting almost exactly as the did in 2000, and it will come down to Florida making the call, yet again!
Write-In Trouble in Illinois (Score:5, Interesting)
I tried to write-in a vote for Nader in Illinois and was told by my precinct captain that my balot would not be "signed" and counted.
Apparantly, we actually do not have the right to vote for whomever we choose. It is actually up to the states to decide for whom we are allowed to vote.
It really sucks to be told for whom you are allowed to vote.
Vote Badnarik! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...Badnairk [badnarik.org] is badass...
Hour-by-hour preview of election coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
Diebold - oddness. (Score:5, Informative)
They handed me a smart card, and I put card in and made my selections.
When came to the end I went to select the "cast ballot" button it returned a message "Are you sure you want to proceed, you haven't made all the selections you are entitled to."
OK?? So I went back and double checked everything. I definatly had voted on everything there was to vote on. Spent about 10 Minutes in all checking and rechecking.
I had to hit the "Cast Ballot" to finish and return my card.
So when I finished I complain to the manager there, and they said it's seems to happen every so often, we don't know what's the reason.
They really didn't know anything about these system, or what they could do about errors or problems.
So I walked away wondering if some of my votes were just dropped or something.
I mean as a programmer this system really made me feel incredably unconfortable as to it's reliablity, accuracy and security.
Re:Election rigging already? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Election rigging already? (Score:5, Funny)
The Republican National Committee is charging that many of the votes present before the polls opened were from convicted felons and illegal immigrants, and wants those thrown out. They say the others should be kept - it's not the voters' fault their ballots wound up in a malfunctioning machine.
The DNC also filed suit, charging the RNC with trying to disenfranchise the alleged felons and immigrants, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic, according to Census data. They want a corresponding number of overseas absentee ballots to be thrown out, to make it fair.
Libertarian Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb protested outside the courthouse, asking why there were no ballots on the machine for either of them and demanding equal access to the machines before the polls opened next election.
Re:Election rigging already? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Ohio, the Republicans are trying to put white lawyers into predominately black areas to "make sure" their voter registrations are valid.
In many states, the Democrats were trying hard to get Ralph Nader off the ballots despite his signature collection.
All over, Republicans and Democrats are frantically trying to register indigents and get them to vote for their guy.
Republicans and Democrats are paying millions to air ads that come as close as possible to lying about the opposition without actually lying.
In some state, the Democrats went to court to say that a Catholic bishop was tampering with the election because he said "you're not a Catholic if you vote for Kerry". Dude may be a crackpot, but that's about it.
Lawyers on both sides are poised to rush into court to contest the aspects of the vote that they feel best help themselves.
Why can't we just have an open, honest election? If we are the shining example to the world, where's the shine? We complain every four years about low voter turnout, but system is disenfranchising people. Nobody makes me want to vote for them. They all make me want them to be removed from power, but I've nobody left to replace them with.
Re:Go Kerry! (Score:5, Funny)
My head just exploded.
You don't think Kerry is the better man, but you think he's better than the other man?
Are you sure you're not one of those undecided voter?
Re:Go Kerry! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what's wrong with undecided voters?
It's so easy to make that blanket statement and fail to properly identify the classifications of undecided voters (UVs).
You were probably referring to the Apathetic UV who couldn't care less about anything but simply fufilling their civic duty and pulling some levers. Some wouldn't even care if they decided their vote based on a coin toss, only to have discovered later that someone slipped them a double headed coin.
Then there's the UVs which listen to all the rhetoric coming from the candidates, looking for consistencies in their campaign speeches, in order to make the the most informed decision as they can under the circumstances. "The lesser of two evils" is their motto. Most of these UVs reject candidate statements more often than a Slashdot moderator does with submitted stories. The remaining statements are mulled over day and night until they arrive at the voting booth on election day between 7PM and 8PM.
The thing with UVs is that they aren't really counted on pre election polls. This makes party hardliners, or "decided" voters, a little wary of the outcome.
Let's Get Some Facts in This Biatch =) (formatted) (Score:5, Informative)
One half trillion dollars will be spent in Iraq according to the Congressional Budget Office. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimate we have 100,000 dead Iraqis on our hands. 16.7% of our soldiers will bare this incredible burden in psych wards according to The New England Journal of Medicine, assuming theyre not dead. And today, 1,122 Americans will not vote because they couldnt escape the American torture chamber that is Iraq. Tomorrow a few more will die and several more will be added to the 7,532 people that were serious injured in Iraq, so do not forget this when you vote.
Kerry's not my favorite, but today he represents everything the republican party would offer traditionally and more!
(1) He's fiscally conservative
(2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!)
(3) He's environmentally friendly
(4) His foreign policy acknowledges the other
(5) He's actually aware of national security
Now, let the flame war begin!
Lowest Common Denominator Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Partisan politics aside, how can such an inane comment get modded +5? Once you're able to actually decipher the grammar and spelling (hella?! Don't they make lights?), you realize that absolutely nothing was said.
2. Why is it that 90 percent of people who "support" Kerry cite their primary reason for their support as "I don't like Bush"? Whatever happened to a candidate running on their OWN record? What is it about KERRY that you DO support? Do you even know? Bush isn't above reproach here either, by any means. Thanks to Cheney, I'd be scared to vote for Kerry otherwise we could have terrorists overrunning our country. The whole thing just makes me sad and tired. If you're going to exercise your "right" to vote, please at least do so with some modicum of information beyond a vague yet undefined antipathy towards the current president. BTW Adian, this isn't all directed at you personally but more at the attitude in general so many people hold.
3. This, as I see it, is one of the fundamental flaws of Democracy, or at least Democracy as Americans define it. We have a bunch of people who know very little about the issues or the candidates making decisions about who will become the next president. As long as you're an American, 18+ and not a felon, you get to vote. That's great, but as I alluded above, if you're going to make the effort to vote, perhaps it's worth making the effort to place an INFORMED vote.
Disclaimer: As you may notice from my .sig, I'm a Canadian, yes. So I can't vote in this election. I've lived in the US now for 8+ years and I feel in many ways like this is "my" country. Which is why I feel so much frustration about what I see around me. Finally, for the record, between Bush & Kerry I'd vote for Bush every time. However, between all the options, I'm pretty sure if I could vote, I'd vote for neither. There has to be a better candidate on the ballot SOMEWHERE. However, since I can't vote anyway I haven't taken the time to look.
Re:Vote planting in Philly (Score:4, Informative)
Salon's.com [salon.com] election news column, War Room [salon.com] reports that early voters in New Mexico and Texas have already reported serious problems [salon.com] with electronic voting machines. Many computer scientists (aka Slashdot readers) have been very vocal about the potential pitfalls of electronic voting. A group of e-voting experts including Barbara Simons, perhaps the medium's biggest critic, has started a blog to interpret what potential problems might mean [evoting-experts.com] as the vote -- and mis-votes -- keep coming in. Are there any Slashdoters who may be interested in this virtual bug hunting/.interpretations?
Re:SouthPark (Score:5, Informative)
doosh? what is that? oh, you meant...
douche Pronunciation (dsh)
(Medicine)
n.
1.
a. A stream of water, often containing medicinal or cleansing agents, that is applied to a body part or cavity for hygienic or therapeutic purposes.
b. A stream of air applied in a similar way.
2. The application of a douche.
3. An instrument for applying a douche.
Noun 1. douche bag [thefreedictionary.com] - a small syringe with detachable nozzles; used for vaginal lavage and enemas
and also
Douche Bag http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do
Main Entry: douche bag
Pronunciation: 'düsh 'bAg
Function: noun
Date: circa 1963
slang : 1 One with an undescribeable fucked up-ness hence stupidity, poor idea of what's cool, possibly an arrogance about them. 2 One with an intolerable personality.
Other Forms: Douche, Douchey
Meat heads are douche bags.
Dude, stop being a douche bag.
Dude, stop being a douche.
Dude, that was a douchey move.
* why yes, I have nothing better to do today having already voted for the doosh bag
Re:SouthPark (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SouthPark (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SouthPark (Score:4, Interesting)
Meaning Bush has some sense of reality, unlike Kerry the career politician and money-marrier.
What evidence do you have that Bush is a "puppet"? Further, the idea that the President is solely responsible for his entire policy is a joke...he has experts in various narrow fields to advise him. Being President is a management job, and delegation is key.
Bush has done a good job in several respects. His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11. Two million new jobs this year. No attacks on mainland America since 9/11. Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.
Granted Iraq is not an ideal situation right now. However, it is also ridiculous to call it a failure. We had a valid reason to go to war - Saddam's failure to account for his WMDs. We've accomplished far more than we ever did in Vietnam, at the cost of around 1,100 American lives - as opposed to 50,000 lost in Vietnam. (Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.) There is a good chance (if Kerry doesn't win) that Iraq will be transformed into a stable democracy, which would be a tremendous achievement. It could be the start of major, positive change in the Middle East. There is also something to be said for the idea of fighting terror over there rather than here in the streets of America.
I think the majority of Americans are smart enough to sort all this out, and we'll see the result tonight - a solid Bush win.
Now, let's consider the downsides of Kerry.
First of all, we have no idea what he'll do if by some mischance he's elected. His positions have changed constantly during the campaign, no one knows what he'd ultimately decide to do. It's easy to claim you have a "better plan" when you don't actually have to produce any results.
His track record is weak on defense, high on taxation - a classic New England liberal. His behavior in the Vietnam era was inexcusable. He is disliked by the military, and morale will suffer terribly if he's elected. He is ultra-rich yet claiming to speak for the common man. (The Kerry's paid around 15% taxes on $5 million income last year, the Bush's paid around 30% on their income.) Kerry will do nothing differently than Bush on the issue of offshoring, they are both globalists. In fact, he is probably more likely to bump the number of H1-B visas, just as Clinton did when President.
I don't believe Bush is perfect, I don't like the USAPA as currently implemented, and I detest Ashcroft. However, Kerry is such a poor excuse for a candidate, and has such a poor public record, that I have no choice but to support Bush. Sometimes in life we have to make tough decisions. Kerry is simply unacceptable as President.
It boggles my mind that the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate. The two party system seems a bad idea about now...
Re:SouthPark (Score:5, Insightful)
You display your bias by calling it the Clinton recession. At any rate, that tax cut resulted in breaking all the records for debt spending. Bush has plunged the USA deeper in debt than was thought imaginable.
Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.
No, two new hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. Period. Afghanstan is now ruled by drug-pushing warlords and former Taliban rulers, and Iraq has converted a neutral populace (with an anti-American dictator) into a vehemently anti-American populace (with an American-backed dictator). He's done the same thing with Terrorism that he did with taxes - he postponed them in such a way that it will be a hundred times worse for your children.
(Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.)
Funny, I don't hear you using this justification when discussing the psychotic and aimless reaction to Terrorism. I mean, was it _only_ [idrewthis.org] 3000 people who died in 9/11? Death is death, and whether it was 10 000 or 100 000 Iraqis who're dead for some bad judgement [idrewthis.org], it still sucks.
And frankly, the Military can "get behind the president" in times of war, whether he's Kerry or Bush, just like they told the civilians to do during the run-up. Their behaviour under Clinton was inexcusable (such as public threats on his life).
His behaviour in Vietnam was far more excusable than his opponents - he went, he fought, and he found out how horribly it sucked so he did whatever he could to get home (the three-purple-heart-loophole). Then, once home, he informed the people of how badly it sucked. Some people couldn't handle the truth, so they go apeshit on him.
Kerry has shown far more interest in protecting American jobs than Bush (who does not seem to have shown any) so I don't see where you're getting that H1B note. Kerry has actually campaigned on that platform.
high on taxation
Frankly, the US cannot afford the current levels of taxes and spending. Its like running a million dollars of credit because you don't want to make your car payments.
And he said what is plan is - more international support. And he'll get it too, all he has to do is give the UN some measure of control of their troops Iraq (after all, after this mess do you really expect French troops to take American orders?) and open up the reconstruction contracts to supporting countries.
I notice you dodge actually listing what Bush's income is. Bush is also very rich, and also claim s to be the common man. How many cowboys own sports teams and oil companies in their carreers (which they run into the ground and fail to see any reprocussions from)?
Kerry's not stupid. Hey has made a major point that he will finish the job in Iraq. If being "strong on defense" means invading a few more coutnries while still holed up on Afghanistan and Iraq, I dare say that the US needs someone a little less "Strong on defense" or it'll just spread itself too thin.
Re:Relevant sites? (Score:4, Interesting)
Want to find out how states voted in the past? Or read potted summaries of previous candidates and so on? I've learned quite a lot already.
How to avoid electing chickenhawks: (Score:5, Insightful)
They know the true costs of war. And they realize when it's really neccessary.
Re:Here in VA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Voter fraud! (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought you all would be interested to know what just happened in the past 30 minutes (It is 9:20AM here).
My wife went to the polls. I voted at the same precinct early this morning with no problems. However, when she went to vote, she was not allowed because they said a) she had changed her address one month ago and b) she had voted absentee. Obviously, neither is true.
She is now standing in line at the County Election office who told her they had the absentee records on file for her to review once she shows proof of ID.
It will be fascinating to find out "who" filed a change of address and absentee ballot "in her name". It was obviously intentional (fraudulent) and obviously targeted at a registered Republican.
Get ready for a rocky ride folks.
---
Anyone hear about anything like this happening before?
Re:Voter fraud! (Score:5, Interesting)
After an hour in the county election office, my wife was allowed to vote. They confirmed to her that someone fraudulently switched her address and voted absentee for her. They obviously don't know who it is, but they do know the address of where they are located (where the absentee ballot was mailed). All they could promise her was that the county sherriff would be investigating immediately and that the duplicate absentee ballot would be invalid.
Re:Voter fraud! (Score:5, Informative)
The GOP are the ones who are trying to get these machines replaced -- not the Democrats.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Funny)
I agree with the sentiment about everyone voting, but I'm finding rather difficult to vote for the US presidency this side of the Atlantic.
Anyone got any recommendations as to how I can do so?
Re:Do you welcome your Islamist overlord? (Score:5, Informative)
That's very interesting considering the lists released by the Clinton administration don't even show Arafat as ever having stayed at the White House. For reference:
First term list of guests [washingtonpost.com]
Guests from 1999 through August 2000 [cnn.com] (you'll have to click the link in the article to see the list)
Your source to back your claim?
Re:Bush administration censored Bin Laden Tape (Score:5, Informative)