Yes, straight-ticket voting is horrid. But again, in a multi-party system, things tend to balance out towards the center. In a first-past-the-post system, the two sides are encouraged to move to the extremes.

Actually, I'm a proud socialist of Canuckistan. And our system certainly has it's quirks and foibles (and outright stupidities) as well, don't get me wrong.

It's better principles, maybe, but it also guarantees that your vote is tossed away.

The system, as is, is designed to not allow third parties to win. Therefore, by voting third-party, you're implicitly not voting for a candidate that could actually win.

Like I said in another post, change the system. Somehow.

Well, America kinda half-asses it. One one hand, it's a republic, whereby you elect representatives. On the other hand, you vote directly on various propositions and what not. It's bloody weird.

No, see, that's the problem. You, as a voter, are presented with a choice. Do you vote for the candidate you actually want, knowing full well that the American system, as currently implemented, is specifically geared against third-party candidates? Or do you game the system, and aim for the best realistic outcome?

It's a democracy.

Given that the American government setup was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to avoid 'too much democracy,' I'd have to disagree with you, champ.

Nonsense. For example, if you voted for Ross Perot, you're directly responsible for the Republicans losing the White House. If you voted for Nader, you're directly responsible for the Democrats losing the White House.

Either go back to your government as intended; that is to say, without political parties, or accept the fact that there are, in fact, political parties, and change your government setup to work with that.

Microsoft isn't static. Take their utter dismissal, followed by 180 degree turn around and headlong rush into TCP/IP and the Internet. They're surprisingly agile, for such a large company. If they weren't, they'd have been eaten long ago.

The only reason Microsoft still has it's 'monopoly' is it's ability to change and refocus, thus preventing it's competition from disrupting them.

Were Microsoft static, it would have been supplanted long long ago. When is the last time, for example, you saw a piece of software which advertised, as a system requirement, "IBM PC or 100 percent compatible?"

Progress is what allows one to maintain a monopoly. History has demonstrated that static monopolies die quick, natural deaths.

As a monopolist you don't -want- any innovation.

Why do you say this?

After Wonder Woman is killed, a brave young man takes up the bracers, lasso and breastplate, becoming.....

I've had 'yum update' do things like change completely where data files for a service are stored, update the configuration, but not move, link or otherwise do anything with the existing data. I've also had 'yum update' introduce kernel level file system bugs that result in data corruption. Both on vanilla Centos installs with no extra repos.

Bring back my beloved Audigy line.

Don't forget, he was a noted political pundit/analyst as well. He just decided to put his money where his mouth was. Tell Ann Coulter to run for congress or the senate, and see what happens.