Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Please Do Not Vote 71

Journal by pudge

I keep hearing people wanting others to go out and vote, with the implication (sometimes explicit) that it doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as you vote.

Pfui.

You should only vote if you know what you are voting for, and have an opinion about one side over the other. Otherwise, you are not contributing to society, you are harming it. Natalie Portman was on The Daily Show last night bemoaning the fact that so few young single women vote. Good! I am glad they don't vote, because they are ignorant and apathetic, and therefore are incapable of rendering a reasonable vote. The reason they don't vote is because they don't have a clue, and are therefore disinterested, which is how it should work.

Portman talked about how voting should be "sexier." I don't have any clue what she is talking about, and yet I feel strongly compelled to disagree. OK, not quite true, but it was fun to write that. What's she's saying is that she wants voting to be cool so people will want to do it even if they don't know what they are doing, and that is irresponsible. Voting should be harder. It should be LESS cool. You should have to register by carrier pigeon and vote by going to a Lion's Club. It should be done only by those people who take it seriously enough that they will seek it out and not be bothered by how "unsexy" it is.

The problem is not that people don't vote, it is that people don't care. I am all for getting people to care, getting them to learn. If they do that, they will want to vote, and you won't have to try to coerce them. And if they don't, then their vote is cast in ignorance and hurts, not helps. the process.

Of course, if you are a Democrat in an urban area, you'd probably prefer it if the ignorant people voted, because they would most likely vote for your guy. Same thing with a Republican in a rural area. But that doesn't make it respectable or useful to the democracy.

So while I realize that probably no one reading this journal is apathetic or ignorant, I will make the plea regardless: if you do not know or do not care, then stay home. Don't vote. You don't know what you're doing and no one cares what you think, unless it is to use you to get what they want.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Please Do Not Vote More

Please Do Not Vote

Comments Filter:
  • My wife was bemoaning how many of her friends like clinton. I told my wife the only reason clinton was elected was because women were allowed to vote and that we should repeal women's suffrage.

    She was not amused.
    However, without the female vote, clinton wouldn't have gotten more than 30% (I believe that's the number) of the vote.
  • I wonder why women voted in larger numbers for clinton with views like this on the other side...

    It is a pesky puzzle...

  • You were watching the Daily Show with hot grits in your pants, weren't you? ;-)

    Seriousness aside, I'd like to add party zealots shouldn't vote, either. My wife has relatives that are hard core democrats... I mean hard core democrats. If the democrats nominated satan, himself, to run for president, my wife's relatives would comment how people take his past as destructive when it was merely a misunderstanding.

    (Rant ahead)
    I love to poke at them from time to time. Her aunt was apalled at how much George
    • I'd like to add party zealots shouldn't vote, either.

      I wouldn't say that at all. I don't mind anyone voting, as long as they care about voting and take the time to be informed. I know a lot of looneys on both sides who make Simon look like Thomas (a little New Testament humor :-). But if they know what they believe and why they choose one side over the other, then more power to them.
    • Seriousness aside, I'd like to add party zealots shouldn't vote, either.
      Honestly? They cancel each other out. They're about even. Let them vote.
  • I cringe whenever I see some bumper sticker with an MTV logo on it that says 'rock the vote' or some other idiodic thing. I think voting without knowing what you are voting for is horribly bad. It would be like walking through a medeival torture chamber blindfolded, and whatever device you landed on is the device with which the populace at large is going to have to endure. Worse, is calling it "sexy".
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I'd rather that instead of encouraging people not to vote, you encouraged them to inform themselves of the relevent facts

      I did do the latter, and I did the former as a means to aid in the latter. Like I said, it is not like anyone apathetic or ignorant is reading anyway. :-)

      There's no reason why Paris Hilton has to have a view on the Aggricultural Subsidies and Terrorism Act 2007 (a law that doesn't exist yet, so nobody has a view on it.) But she should, at least, have an idea of whether John Kerry or

  • "Natalie Portman was on The Daily Show last night bemoaning the fact that so few young single women vote. Good! I am glad they don't vote, because

    they are ignorant and apathetic, and therefore are incapable of rendering a reasonable vote. The reason they don't vote is because they don't have a clue, and are therefore disinterested, which is how it should work."

    You know, a wise man once said [slashdot.org]:

    "It's also exceptionally rude to say to me that I think something I don't think, or that I will or would think i

    • There's certainly truth to what you're saying, although the political orientation of most protests and demonstrations suggests that Republicans don't exactly have a monopoly on leisure time. But at the risk of "ascribing ideas" to Natalie Portman, I'm quite certain that the "young single women" she has in mind have nothing to do with the ones you speak of, except for having their windows cleaned or their groceries bagged by them. Otherwise, she wouldn't propose "sexiness" as a solution.

      Incidentally, every t

    • I don't suppose you stopped to think that many times young single women do not vote because they are living hand-to-mouth, don't get the day off work, can't coordinate with daycare, don't have a car, their friends or family have similar problems and need help, the baby was fussing that day, or they just plain are too tired?

      Every thing you mention could be solved by signing up for absentee voting, which gives you many months to register for, and usually weeks to vote, and takes much less effort when it com
      • I figured you would respond by pointing out the really good reason why you are smart enough to read the minds of people you've never met. Nice.
        • Whatever. If you don't take the time to prepare yourself for voting, then you necessarily don't care that much about voting. It's not a difficult equation.
          • Voting takes finite time, however it's done. Rich people like you and me have more "discretionary time" than everyone else. Some poor people aren't even able to write blog entries in the middle of the workday, if you can believe that!

            Anyway, I guess it takes a really big man to look down on those whose lives might not afford them as much, and declare how simple the time equation is.

            • Voting takes finite time, however it's done.

              Sure. But one has a lot of time in which to take the very little time required. We're talking a few minutes to vote here, at any time of day or night, over a period of weeks. Everyone has that kind of time. Do it on the toilet if you have to. You're spouting flummery.

              Now, if you wanted to talk to me about how they don't have time to get educated, that I will readily agree with, and will also readily concede for those people, the problem is difficult to sol
            • Dude, we're talking about voting. It takes only a few minutes. No matter how many kids you have, you will have time to complete the forms. It only takes a few minutes to fill out the form and mail it. You could fill it out while you're in the bathroom. It takes more time to prepare income tax forms. If you can't handle the time it takes to vote, then you have some serious time-management issues.

              P.S. Some fathers take care of the children's needs which the mother works (as my dad did). He still found

    • I don't suppose you stopped to think that many times young single women do not vote because they are living hand-to-mouth, don't get the day off work, can't coordinate with daycare, don't have a car, their friends or family have similar problems and need help, the baby was fussing that day, or they just plain are too tired?

      Hmmm... whats that thing called again? Oh yeah, an absentee ballot. [state.ma.us] Bad planning is no exuce to be unable to vote. Besides, you completely missed (or ignored) pudges point -- tha

      • "Besides, you completely missed (or ignored) pudges point -- that the uninformed shouldn't vote (something of which I completely agree)."

        Pudge's only interesting point was the converse -- that those who don't vote are uninformed:

        "Good! I am glad they don't vote, because they are ignorant and apathetic, and therefore are incapable of rendering a reasonable vote. The reason they don't vote is because they don't have a clue, and are therefore disinterested, which is how it should work."

        If you missed the

        • If you missed the logic there, re-read it. Pudge is claiming that (A) nonvoting implies ignorance, (B) nonvoting implies apathy, (C) nonvoting implies incapacity to vote, (D) nonvoting implies not having a clue, (E) nonvoting implies disinterest (a repeat of (B) I believe).

          Yes, nonvoting implies those things, and more.

          Later, he went on to explain that when he said "the reason they don't vote is because they don't have a clue," he was "speaking in generalities."

          That's a given, considering the form. Yo

        • If you missed the logic there, re-read it. Pudge is claiming that (A) nonvoting implies ignorance, (B) nonvoting implies apathy, (C) nonvoting implies incapacity to vote, (D) nonvoting implies not having a clue, (E) nonvoting implies disinterest (a repeat of (B) I believe).

          Thanks for suggesting I re-read it, but I'll pass. You summed up what you thought pudges 'logic' was quite nicely -- and correctly.

          Further, CAREFULLY re-read his post -- and you should also see his logic is sound. As a general rule,

          • "Should I be allowed to sit on a panel to choose 'best wine of napa valley' without any history of wine tasting -- AND to never even open up the bottle before casting my vote?"

            Tell me more. Who should be "allowed" to vote, in your view? What kind of test would you conduct, to determine competence to vote?

            • Bad choice of words... it was a poorly constructed analogy. I should have said "would it be appropriate or custructive or useful". At least with the 'napa valley' thing.

              Everyone should be ALLOWED to vote -- and I'm quite happy that those who take neither the time or effort to be informed appear to choose not to vote. THAT is, in my opinion, as it should be.

              The point is that having someone or encouraging someone to vote for the sole purpose of VOTING is not constructive and counter intuitive without an

        • Pudge's only interesting point was the converse -- that those who don't vote are uninformed: "Good! I am glad they don't vote, because they are ignorant and apathetic, and therefore are incapable of rendering a reasonable vote. The reason they don't vote is because they don't have a clue, and are therefore disinterested, which is how it should work." If you missed the logic there, re-read it

          You missed the context. He wasn't referring to the entire set of those who do not vote. He was referring t

          • (For the record I am not in agreement that the uninformed should not vote. I fear this kind of sentiment because I fear people putting in tests to see which of us are properly informed.)

            That is why I was very clear that everyone has the RIGHT to vote, but that I wish more people would voluntarily choose not to exercise it, if they are not prepared to vote.

            • Right, and I understand your point. I'm just fearful that if the statement gets made too much those who think there should be a law for everything will decide there needs to be a law on this. (My brother already mutters something about basic competency tests for voters every so often.) I understand you are not calling for that; I just fear those who are unable to make the distinction.

    • Hi. I know this debate is long burnt out, but I surfed on by and got interested.

      I tried to find some facts. Here's some reports [yvoteonline.org] available online, and a book, Nonvoters [amazon.com] , by the same authors.

      From my reading of these reports I don't think Jamie or Pudge got it right. Your debate was conducted in stereotypes -- ignorant proles versus oppressed sharecroppers. If we believe these results, yeah, there are some people like that. However, the 44% of nonvoters are quite informed, and 30% are quite involved in civi
      • Wow -- facts! Amazing! Someone injected data into a journal discussion!!

        :)

        Seriously, this one discovery:

        29 percent of nonvoters are, in fact, not alienated from the system, but are relatively avid news consumers who follow politics and public affairs.

        blows away, and shows the invidiousness of, Pudge's main point:

        Natalie Portman was on The Daily Show last night bemoaning the fact that so few young single women vote. Good! I am glad they don't vote, because they are ignorant and apathetic, and

        • Actually I felt that results validated some of what Pudge was saying too -- although the truly ignorant and unplugged seem to be a minority. I mean, did you notice how many "emergencies" suddenly happened on voting day? Please.

          As a Canadian, I agree that the American registration system seems to be too much of a burden. In our last election, I had recently moved, but it wasn't a problem -- I registered right in the polling station.

          I agree overall with your point. Voting isn't a privilege that you earn by
          • I agree overall with your point. Voting isn't a privilege that you earn by jumping through hoops. The people aren't consulted because they are particularly intelligent or informed, but because it's their right as citizens.

            And I never implied anything whatsoever that contradicts that, and on the contrary, I explicitly stated that I am not in any way in favor of abridging anyone's right to vote.

            You can agree overall with that point of Jamie's, but it doesn't put you in any sort of disagreement whatsoever
        • Seriously, this one discovery blows away, and shows the invidiousness of, Pudge's main point

          No, it doesn't. Your statement here shows how stupid you're being about this whole thing. I was speaking in generalities, and the stat you present shows that less than 30% don't follow my generality, which means nothing more than that it is a generality, which I held to from the beginning.

          Making general claims like that, without any facts to back them up, is not a good idea.

          I guess it would look worse for me

          • Pudge:

            if you do not know or do not care, then stay home. Don't vote.

            Jamie:

            I am saddened by those who have such a Pollyanna vision of the voting process that they think voters who pay careful attention to the yelling-heads shows on Fox are less ignorant than those who understand the simple, historical truths about which party is going to screw whom.

            Pudge:

            Your own ignorant view of the history of the GOP aside: when did I defend such people you crucify here? In fact, you know precisely the opposite, t

            • Just to be totally, 100% clear here. To someone who watches nothing the Fox yelling-head "news" shows, you are saying they are "ignorant," and so your message to them is, quote, "stay home. Don't vote."

              My actual message is a bit more complex: honestly evaluate your views and judge for yourself if you really know what you are voting for, rather than just flipping a coin. Of course, most people can't or won't do that, but that's all I've got, really.

              I'm not the one who titled a journal entry "Please Do N
      • Your debate was conducted in stereotypes -- ignorant proles versus oppressed sharecroppers

        No, it wasn't. You fell for Jamie's trap. I did not put things in those terms whatsoever, as I made quite clear when I included myself in the ignorant category for the election conducted a few months after I moved to a new state. It's not about classes of people for me, and I never framed it that way.

        However, the 44% of nonvoters are quite informed, and 30% are quite involved in civic life, but still *chose* not
        • I included myself in the ignorant category [...]

          Okay. You did seem to tar all young single women with that brush, but I'll accept that it's not what you meant.

          BTW, I share your irritation with the idea that voting should be made "sexier". I know you were just exagerrating with the "voting should be harder" thing -- my ideal remedy though, is that more people should be willing to do unsexy things.

          I think you mean 13%

          I got my 44% informed, 30% civically active numbers from their cluster analysis -- the
          • Okay. You did seem to tar all young single women with that brush, but I'll accept that it's not what you meant.

            No, at worst I appeared to tar young single women who don't vote and who might vote because voting is sexy. But in several other comments here, I was quite clear I was using that example only because that is the example someone else was using, and that my comments were not directed at or limited to any particular group.

            I know you were just exagerrating with the "voting should be harder" thing
          • OK, looking at the "Doers," it says they TEND to be more involved than other nonvoters, but only five percent of that 29 percent were involved in a political campaign. They also note later in the report, "Even so, nonvoters are also much less likely than voters to have volunteered their time [in their community]." But as Jhon noted, I was speaking about apathy and ignorance in regard to politics and voting in particular, not civic duty or community involvement in general.

            Anyway, this hyperfocus isn't too
      • Am I the only one who reads and understands polls? Did you read the methodology [yvoteonline.org]? Do you realize that this is a very small sample? Less than 2000? Over 1/4 of which are quite young (and statistically unlikely to vote anyway)?

        Some points:

        (1) This sample is too small to mean much without independant polls using the same methodology coming up with consistant and similar results.

        (2) The poll, does in fact, support pudges claims. READ the report [yvoteonline.org]. DO NOT find yourself, as you yourself have said, "reading
        • So the results are statistically insignificant, using flawed methods, and support your position?

          Well, anyway...

          You question the methodology. I am not a statistician nor a sociologist, so I can't speak to that. Maybe it's all bogus. I don't know.

          I am a geek, so I can plug numbers into formulas. They interviewed 2000 people. Let's assume the voting population of the US is 300 million, a wild overestimate. Online sample size calculators, like this one [raosoft.com] and this one too [surveysystem.com], give the same answer: the results are

          • So the results are statistically insignificant, using flawed methods, and support your position?

            Yes. Your "well anyway" remark is dismissive and appears to suggest you missed the point your 'link' doesn't represent what you suggest it represents. On several levels.

            You question the methodology. I am not a statistician nor a sociologist, so I can't speak to that. Maybe it's all bogus. I don't know.

            Perhaps it is... The methodology also fails to adequately
            define 'regions' and ignores Alaska and Hawaii co

  • Yes, since we do not have enough of an oligarchy to begin with...

    I am glad [young single women] don't vote, because they are ignorant and apathetic, and therefore are incapable of rendering a reasonable vote. The reason they don't vote is because they don't have a clue...

    Do you realize how sexist and bigoted that makes you sound?

    I can only hope you were attempting to exaggerate your view on some of the apathy found in younger voters to make a point.

    Like it or not, we (you and I, at least) live in a de
    • Do you realize how sexist and bigoted that makes you sound?

      To people who understand what I am talking about? Yes, I realize it makes me look not at all bigoted or sexist.

      None of my comments were directed at any specific group of people; she identified the group, and I just used them as an example. My comments are directed at any group of people who choose not to vote.

      Last year I moved to a new state, and I did not vote in the first election (a few months into my residency) because I had no idea whatso
      • To people who understand what I am talking about? Yes, I realize it makes me look not at all bigoted or sexist.

        Yes, preaching to the converted often means that they overlook the massive generalisations.
        • Yes, how silly of me to use generalizations when I generalize. Next time when I generalize, I should be more specific!
          • It seems that, in the discussion so far, you've made little to no attempt to factually back up your (offensive) generalisation. Instead you're speaking ex cathedra, and 'those who understand you' will know that you're right. Anyone who disagrees with you just failed to understand you? No-one can possibly hold an opinion that differs from yours without being uneducated? You're right, I don't understand.
            • It seems that, in the discussion so far, you've made little to no attempt to factually back up your (offensive) generalisation.

              If you don't vote and can, unless something unforseen happened to come up preventing you, it is almost surely because you don't know or don't care. You give me one reason reason to believe this is not true. Just one. Uno.

              Anyone who disagrees with you just failed to understand you?

              When I said that I was referring to the comment that I was sounding sexist and bigoted, and yes
              • If you don't vote and can, unless something unforseen happened to come up preventing you, it is almost surely because you don't know or don't care.

                This is true for everyone, not just young single females, as you later acknowledge. Why single them out?

                young single women... don't vote, because they are ignorant and apathetic... because they don't have a clue

                This a massive and offensive generalisation, and one which is arguable at best. One might think you have something against all young single women, e

                • This is true for everyone, not just young single females, as you later acknowledge. Why single them out?

                  I don't think he did. I think Natalie Portman did.

                  Natalie Portman was on The Daily Show last night bemoaning the fact that so few young single women vote.

                  The way I read it, he was (A) commenting on Natalie Portman's complaint and (B) suggesting that nobody who is apathetic and/or ignorant should vote -- and as a general rule, they dont.

                  Don't you think you are being overly sensitive on this? I ca

                  • How does that help democracy?

                    Democracy doesn't get "better" if only subsets of people are involved. Democracy is the sum total of a population's political will, whether that involves engagement or disengagement in the political process. If that means people vote with a loose (or no) understanding of the issues, who are you to say that their vote is worth less than yours?

                    (I come from a country with compulsory voting, and on the whole I'm in favour of it. It means politicians need to tailor their policies
                    • Democracy doesn't get "better" if only subsets of people are involved. Democracy is the sum total of a population's political will, whether that involves engagement or disengagement in the political process.

                      You have hit a logical roadblock. If someone doesn't know what they are voting for, they cannot be expressing their political will, because they have no political will unless they know what they are voting for.

                      If that means people vote with a loose (or no) understanding of the issues, who are you to

                    • Democracy doesn't get "better" if only subsets of people are involved. Democracy is the sum total of a population's political will, whether that involves engagement or disengagement in the political process.

                      I don't buy it. This just doesn't make sense. How can someone -- for all reasonable observations -- 'randomly' vote for something represent any type of "will".

                      It's power exercised irresponsibly. Voting in ignorance is like driving a car without a stearing wheel. I would no more want to see a blind

                • This is true for everyone, not just young single females, as you later acknowledge. Why single them out?

                  Sigh. As I have said several times, I was just using the example that someone else presented, and I was speaking about any group of people, not just that one.

                  If you can't take the time to read what I write, please don't bother posting at all. I have been very patient as you have now, a few times, addressed something I've already commented on as though I hadn't. My patience will run out shortly.
  • I agree completely, apathy and ignorace are destructive to the democratic process. This is the first year that I'm able to vote in a presidential election, and I am certainly not apathetic. I believe that this election is more important than any other that I've witnessed, and I am determined to participate.

    I fear, however, that I am ignorant. Now, I do pay some attention to the information that both parties are spewing out, but most of it is just spin, partisan mudslinging, and rumors, all dumped out int

    • Use a litmus test. Pick three or four subjects that you know well - things you are an expert at. Then see which politians accuractly describe the issues in those subjects. Are they oversimplifying the issue? Whichever politian seems to understand those subjects best - and has an opinion in the same ballpark as your's - should be the one to vote for.

      I rarely vote for someone with whom I absolutely agree. This is because I my opinion may be wrong, and it most certainly isn't well thought out in subjects

    • If you are affilated with a party, they generally send you a little sample ballot booklet. Inside is a duplicate of the ballot you'll receive on election day. Usually the PARTY choice is 'bold' -- but all choices are listed. Not just candidates, but issues as well.

      These should also be available at your local republican/democrat headquarters -- I've seen them at post offices, too.

      Ignore the BOLDED choices -- spend a few mins a day looking up what you can about each candidate or issue. You'll have a fe
    • Assuming you're interested in the House/Senate races as well, which I consider nearly as important as the presidential one, if you've got the time visit THOMAS [loc.gov] and have a look at the Congressional Record. It's largely a transcript of the House and Senate proceedings that C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 play all day, although things are occasionally stricken from the record and members can ask to later revise and extend their remarks so it's not exact.

      You can search the full text to see what your particular represent

  • Moo (Score:2)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) *
    In one sense i agree with you completely. Though, i'd go so far as instituting tests for literacy, knowledge of the candidates and their platforms, and be a tax payer.

    Once that isn't allowed. i see two good reassons to get out the vote. One, if the entire electorate would execute their rights, perhaps the focus could then be on making it an intelligent vote. But right now, we just need the people to voite in the first place! Two, as much as i want to run the world my way, i feel it must be run as a represe
  • I am a 22 year old unmarried female (who, unlike the confusing characterization given by someone before, admittedly is not living paycheck-to-paycheck and does not have--nor want at the moment--children, so I can't comment for that interest group, although I suggest they follow pudge's suggestion and absentee vote) who finds the idea of making voting "sexier" deplorable. Politically, I am a salad bar voter, picking a few to my left, a few to my right. I agree with your assertion that the ignorant probabl
    • It is the rare person who cares and knows what is going on and who makes the decision to not vote. I was speaking in generalities, and you're an exception.
      • I figured, but wanted to clarify. :)

        It is true. In some ways, though, it is a good thing that the more-informed people don't choose to not vote. Although it would send a powerful message, it would at the same time put the vote in the hands of people who doesn't care who they vote for so long as they vote.

        That said, I wish that people like P.Diddy and Miss Portman who, although they certainly have good intentions, are paving the way for a dumbed-down legal system where people aren't voting for someone be
  • Oh yeah, something that someone on my campus posted that I thought you would find amusing:

    ------------
    P. Diddy: We are here with the legendary Hillary Clinton, from my home state of New York. Thank you for talking to us.

    Hillary Clinton: I am delighted and I am delighted by what you're doing.

    Diddy: Thank you. We're not going to get into sophisticated politics, we're gonna get into a problem that we have in young America, and that is young Americans being disenfranchised. Only 36 percent of us have vote
  • 'OK, not quite true, but it was fun to write that.' Still laughing.

    Here in Australia, voting is mandatory.* It is not at all clear to me that this creates better informed or more interested voters, or 'better' politicians or politics either for that matter (whatever that might mean).

    This year is expected+ to be an election year. And what we have had so far is an endless range of 'gesture politics': various pronouncements of various politicians that plays well in and to the media and often too, but seem to have very little actual content. See, for instance, this analysis [news.com.au] of the political brouhaha surrounding the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.

    It is obviously impossible to say whether the situation would have been different without the mandatory component, but judging by this year's (?) campaigning it certainly hasn't yielded much in terms of quality to policies and politics. And that makes it really hard to understand what is actually achieved by forcing a lot of un- or disinterested voters to the polling booth, either by fiat or by naff MTV ads or ditto bumperstickers. More than making the politicians themselves feel better about themselves and their chosen profession. (People care! I am loved!)

    * I should perhaps point out that since I don't qualify for for citizenship yet, this obviously doesn't apply to me personally ... yet.

    + The system is very similar to that in Britain: the prime minister can call an election when he sees fit, as long as it is within a four year period of the last election.
  • http://international.loc.gov/service/rbc/lchtml/l c 001/0027.jpg [loc.gov]

    Lewis Carroll pasted this (apparent) newspaper commentary in his Scrapbook [loc.gov].

    "No man can know precisely on the day of election the value of his own vote to the cause, and no man, therefore, is justified, upon any consideration whatever, in neglecting to record it. There are many instances in our parliamentary history showing the important results which have attended the gain or the loss of a single vote. We will give the story of one such cas

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close