Re: the U.S. 2012 election campaign, I am:
Displaying poll results.25459 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6416 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
It's like watching a train wreck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard to ignore elections when you work in the public sector. It's real awkward when you have a political party that would like nothing more than see you out of work. So I have some morbid fascination in hopefully seeing the Tea Party implode.
Re:It's like watching a train wreck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> that would like nothing more than see you out of work.
So I take it you work for one of the useless parts of the government then? :)
Reality check time. The country is broke. The days of get a job for the government because it is a job for life are over, one way or another. We in the Tea Party want to do the cutting while we still have choices, you apparently want to keep your gravy train rolling until it goes over the cliff.
To close the budget gap we have now means everything gets cut some, some gets
Re:It's like watching a train wreck. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Useless" is completely subjective. What I happen to deal with is urban planning which some would consider unnecessary government regulations. I obviously disagree with that notion but I'll leave that for another time.
The issue I have is when Tea Party groups around the country are trying to shut down planning and building codes departments which happen to push for sustainability. Some rather vocal Tea Party folks feel that sustainability is a vast conspiracy put forth by the United Nations to establish a one world government. The Agenda 21 stuff they're spouting is utterly bizarre and they can't be talked out of it. I have no problem if they have issues with building codes or urban planning but please stick with conventional lines of attack such as property rights instead of adhering to some conspiracy bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure he approved all urban planning. BTW for the large part, Urban planning in the country is pretty damn good.
Go live someplace that doesn't have it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> that would like nothing more than see you out of work.
So I take it you work for one of the useless parts of the government then? :)
Reality check time. The country is broke. The days of get a job for the government because it is a job for life are over, one way or another. We in the Tea Party want to do the cutting while we still have choices, you apparently want to keep your gravy train rolling until it goes over the cliff.
To close the budget gap we have now means everything gets cut some, some gets cut all the way out. Raising taxes is simply madness in this environment, especially since the problem is too much spending, not too low taxes. Taxes as percentage of GDP are plenty high already, it is spending as percentage of GDP that is way beyond WWII levels. It is very doubtful that any tax increase in this environment would actually increase net revenue to the government. So cutting spending is the only game in town since under Obama economic growth is improbable.
But I'm looking for a candidate for POTUS that understands the right way out of this mess. We don't have any budget problems that a GDP 50% larger than we have now can't finance, especially since a growing economy means the govt's welfare state payments drop along with the rise in revenue from taxes. Getting to that happy place should be goal #1. Cuts in spending should be targeted to boosting economic growth. Regulations should be slashed in ways targeting growth. (#1, remove the EPA's ability to issue new regulations, #1 delete the entire NLRB as a warning to the rest of the regulatory morass of the risks of overreach) Create certainty in the regulatory environment to encourage investment.
Didn't really care for T-Paw until he busted loose with that basic idea in the last week or so. Still would rather Santorum or Cain but would take T-Paw over Romney any day. But I'd take any of the current field over the current socialist, Ron Paul included.
A real life Tea Party-ist? On Slashdot? You make a good argument, and there is an argument for the tea party. But seriously, read a book. Look at the history of American economic success and American rise from economic trouble, and see what economic policies were pursued at those times. (Hint: erasing the NLRB and hoping that the economy grows 50% in the next four years is not a good idea. Get a clue)
Re:It's like watching a train wreck. (Score:5, Informative)
Coolidge cut taxes boosted economic growth and increased tax revenue. Kennedy cut taxes boosted economic growth and tax revenues. Reagan cut taxes boosted economic growth and tax revenue. Clinton (forced by Newt) even had reasonable economic policies and saw economic growth and increasing revenue. Bush the younger cut taxes boosted economic growth and tax revenue.
I swear, I think I just read a /. post from an alternate universe.
Coolidge cut taxes on the poor. By the end of his administration, only the richest 2% paid any taxes at all. [1] [wikipedia.org] Kennedy cut taxes but also spent like mad; he created the first non-war deficit. [2] [wikipedia.org] Reagan raised taxes; he rejiggered the tax code but the net effect was increased revenue. [3] [cnn.com] And even that he pissed away on profligate spending.
Clinton presided over terrific economic growth largely because he and his predecessor raised taxes. Bush the younger cut taxes and mired the economy in eight years of doldrums followed by a monetary crisis not seen in 80 years.
It's very simple. If taxes are too high, cutting them will stimulate the economy and increase revenue. If taxes are too low, the only way to increase revenue is to raise them. Right now we are in an era of the lowest tax rates since the 1950s. [4] [politifact.com] I don't understand how anyone with half a brain can say that the solution to our current problems is to lower them further.
This is all a basic disagreement in worldview between the two parties. The Democrats favor the European style of government, with strong social programs, powerful worker unions, and high taxes to pay for those things. The Republicans favor the Asian/Indian style of government, with taxes as low as possible, but that also brings little or no social safety net, no ecological protections, and full tooth-and-claw capitalism with sweatshops and pauper's prisons and so on. Both of these economic models are viable; both Germany and Bangladesh are competitive in today's world in their own way. The US has straddled the gap between them for decades but we can't play either part very well, and we will have to specialize along one or the other model before long.
The problem with our politics is that neither party will be honest about it. Obama won't own up to the fact that raising taxes is the only way to make our current system work, and the Republicans won't let on that their vision for America is an anarcho-capitalist dystopia. Worst of all, neither of them will attack the other side about this, because that would expose the problems in their own vision. Politics in the US has turned into kabuki theater, while the stage is burning down around us.
Re: (Score:3)
It's very simple. If taxes are too high, cutting them will stimulate the economy and increase revenue. If taxes are too low, the only way to increase revenue is to raise them.
It's simple, but that's not the right simplification. You've overgeneralized 'too high' and 'too low' in an incompatible way. In reality, if the result of government spending would improve the economy by as much or more than where the money was taken from, then it will improve government revenue. The obvious example here are road-building (but details do matter: building a road that no one drives will have a negative effect).
So you have to look at where the money is coming from and where it is going. Empi
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, you seriously don't look into anything you talk about, do you?
"Reagan cut taxes boosted economic growth and tax revenue."
Reagan did NOT CUT TAXES. IT's right there, look it the fuck up. He made the appearnace of cutting taxes be cancelling some program(The primary reason we still us ethsi stupid emprial system).
He clearly raised taxes. It'
s shoudln't even be debatable. It's like having an arguement weather ot not Mt. St. Helens exploded. Just go fucking look.
He also created departments that employee of
Re: (Score:2)
Between the two of you, I don't think he's the one smoking, drinking or popping.
Re: (Score:2)
Your using the guy who was President just prior to the great depression (1923 -1929) as a positive example of conservative policies in action?!? What?!
Selective memory, huh? Or have the 'Roaring 20's' went down the memory hole in college history courses these days? Yes we had a stock market crash in '29 and the whole world suffered a recession/depression. But only in the US did FDR manage to make it a 'Great Depression.' For mostly the same reasons we will experience a lost decade should Obama be reelec
Re: (Score:2)
(eh.. forgot to log in..)
Selective memory, huh? Or have the 'Roaring 20's' went down the memory hole in college history courses these days?
The roaring twenties are much less impressive when looked at in the context of the great depression that follows. No, I'm not impressed by the roaring twenties and great depression that followed it enough to wish to repeat that chapter in our history.
But only in the US did FDR manage to make it a 'Great Depression.'
To add a bit more context.. spending cuts extended the length of the great depression, which is of course what Republicans want us to do right now. Lack of regulation of the markets that underpinned our financial system caused the rece
Re:It's like watching a train wreck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Raising taxes is simply madness in this environment, especially since the problem is too much spending, not too low taxes.
It's precisely the Bush era tax cuts, including the cuts to the capital gains tax that got us into this mess. We had a budget surplus going into the Bush years. While the middle class got $300 checks, Bush saved over $72k. Low capital gains tax means that the wealthy on Wallstreet pay the same tax rate as the poor. CEO's who get paid in stock options pay a lower percentage of their income in tax than their lower management. The entire problem is that the Republican Right pushed the middle class into the poor-house while unapologetically helping the rich get richer. It's the low capital gains tax thinking that causes all of the short sightedness in favor of short term gains in stock price.
If you want to fix medicare and social security, the answer is obvious. Entitlement taxes need to be applied to all income, not just the poor and middle classes incomes.
I'm looking for a new congressman in 2012, but keeping the POTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
His point was that repealing the Bush tax cuts and even raising tax rate beyond those levels would not get us out of this mess. Even if we assume your proposed changes had no negative effect on growth and revenue would still be spending more money than we have.
Re:It's like watching a train wreck. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
" top 10% pay 90% of all taxes! "
Not that crock of shit.
That is patently WRONG.
Oh look, a fair tax moron who doesn't understand taxes.. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked~
Re: (Score:2)
To close the budget gap we have now means everything gets cut some, some gets cut all the way out. Raising taxes is simply madness in this environment, especially since the problem is too much spending, not too low taxes. Taxes as percentage of GDP are plenty high already, it is spending as percentage of GDP that is way beyond WWII levels.
I can understand where this is coming from - nobody likes paying taxes. But the last time taxes were as low (as a percentage of GDP) as they are now was in 1950 (see for yourself [taxpolicycenter.org]), so it's hard to argue that taxes are unusually high right now. For comparison, tax revenues and government were a larger share of the economy when Ronald Reagan agreed to raise taxes back in the 1980's.
On the spending side, to erase the existing deficit with only spending cuts you'd basically need to completely eliminate Social S
Re: (Score:3)
The country is not broke. Learn to recognize propaganda. They say that so they can impose 'austerity measures', which is another code word for cutting social programs and giving that money to the rich 'to create jobs.' The tea party are fools that fight in order to hand their wallets and paychecks to the richest people in the country. They complain that their taxes are too high, but they wouldn't seem so high if they were being paid fairly. But they'll never be paid fairly because they continue taking the a
Re: (Score:3)
Low tax rates. Check.
Minimal government except for an overweening security state. Check.
I think you'd love it in Pakistan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just an FYI for you: oil companies pay BILLIONS in taxes, it's renewable energy companies like GE that can get away with 0 income taxes. In my opinion, 5 departments can be severely cut or eliminated: Energy, education, agriculture, defense, and the federal reserve. Once those are gone we can work on whittling away at entitlements.
And if you want to end the wars, Ron Paul is your only hope.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a false dilemma. GE getting away with paying no taxes has no logical impact on the subsidies we give to big oil. We shouldn't be subsidizing oil (or coal for that matter) even as we are careening closer and closer to serious consequences from carbon emissions. We subsidizes oil and coal, then we have to subsidize other industries to reduce their emissions.
Whereas we could just cut the subsidies to oil and coal companies and raise taxes on companies that emit more than their share.
Re: (Score:2)
> Do you really think that just slashing spending will fix the economy?
No. But it will help. Cut spending and you relieve pressure on the credit system, increase confidence that we aren't going to collapse like the PIIGS currently are and generally move in the right direction. If the cuts also relieve government meddling in the economy so much the better.
> And only slashing those things that you don't like?
No. This situation is dire. We are going to have to cut everything. Of course I support cu
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. The surpluses were evaporating before Pres. Bush took office and completely disappeared when 9/11 disrupted the economy. The economy peaked in 2000 and headed downward through 2001 and into 2002. I'm not saying that the tax cuts were without effect but the surpluses would have disappeared anyway. The projections of surpluses throughout the 2000s were based on overly rosy predictions of the economy that turned out to be completely wrong
My candidate doesn't stand a chance. (Score:2, Funny)
"None of the Above" will get at most one vote.
Why is there no cowboy neal option? (Score:5, Insightful)
There never are cowboy neal options anymore :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was curious about this myself as I still look to the polls and expect to find the occasional Cowboy Neal option.
According to wikipedia, the option disappeared from polls when he stopped being in charge of the polls, which was apparently 2005.
Um... has it really been 6 years since we voted for Cowboy Neal?
-Steve
Re: (Score:2)
CowboyNeal stopped being in charge of the polls in 2005. It's been 6 years. Let it go.
As a Canadian (Score:3)
Frankly, the more I look at the GOP & the Dems, the less I can tell them apart. At least the Tea Party I know what they stand for. Up here we know who's way far right and who's way far left. They all spend like there's no tomorrow, but at least I know that much!
As an aside, while I'm a proponent of the Westminster parliamentary system in general, I really wish Canada had a senate like the U.S. - far too much waste in having it as 'a sober second thought'. I would also like to see preferential voting although I really don't see that coming to pass anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, the more I look at the GOP & the Dems, the less I can tell them apart.
More correct you could not be. And it's interesting to look back over time and note how often the two parties have swapped stances on many issues.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More Canadian Comments (Score:2)
I'm reminded of a comment in one of Arthur C. Clarke's books, that anybody who wants the job that badly is a priori suspect. The best candidate is somebody who has to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the White House but who will then do the best job they possibly can, so they'll get time off for good behaviour.
It sometimes seems like the U.S. is in perpetual election/campaigning mode. I like our setup, where there is less emphasis on individuals and more emphasis on the parties and what they stand f
Re: (Score:2)
Except, the president got all the publicity, and none of the decision making power.
The real decisions were made by a hermit on a little known planet, who was never told of the impact of the answers to the questions he was asked.
Re: (Score:3)
The real decisions were made by a hermit on a little known planet, who was never told of the impact of the answers to the questions he was asked.
Have you ever been to Ottawa?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying the Prime Minister of Canada has a cat named The Lord which may or may not exist, and may or may not want a can of tuna?
Damn. Too bad Canada is so hard to immigrate to. I could get behind a government like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This argument always angers me since it lazily assumes that anyone who wants to be a politician will only do for the basest of self-serving reasons. Personally I think that most people enter politics for the right reasons - they want to benefit the country and their fellow citizens. There are a few charlatans, but not the majority.
Re: (Score:2)
> Personally I think that most people enter politics for the right reasons -
> they want to benefit the country and their fellow citizens.
Agreed. Many enter politics for good reasons. Most become corrupted fairly quickly, see what happened to the class of '94 and what is going to happen to the class of '08. That was why I really wanted a primary challenger for Sen. Vitter. I like his policy positions and voting record, but his demonstrated personal moral weakness means I have serious doubts he wil
Re: (Score:2)
At this point it's probably true. Who else would be willing to put up with that sort of abuse? Get thoroughly investigated far beyond anything that could be relevant to the office. If you realize your wrong get run out of town for admitting it and changing your position. Have all sorts of libelous comments posted about you and your family everywhere. And don't forget about the people looking specifically for reasons why you should be forced to resign.
People with good intentions and purity of heart don't las
GAAAAAH! (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't take that long to have an election George Washington had to go town to town on horseback to campaign. It should be over sooner with all our modern electronic telecommunications fribfrab.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The country was 13 states all along the east coast, and the number of matters which the President needed to manage were significantly smaller and fewer. The US has 310m people right now in 50 states and a GDP that would have encompassed the entire world when George Washington was running, a huge number of them vote and all of them are supposed to be represented. A shorter election season would be fine if we were a much smaller nation, but as it is the process is if anything too brief considering the scope o
Mildly interested (Score:2)
Same 'ol same 'ol (Score:2)
If I thought it mattered, I'd be interested. (Score:2)
Concentrated Money = Political Power. The presidency has become irrelevant since Reagan was elected. That's when the financial sector completed their purchase of the executive branch. A nice complement to their ongoing rental of the legislative branch. Since then, the government ceased to have anything significant to do with the will of the people, who, to be honest, are largely poor, and of no interest to anyone with money/power.
Americans below the median income are the new Mexicans. They're kept just cont
European and mildly interested (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in the UK, we seem to be doing a good enough job of scuttling ourselves, thankyouverymuch, but if you Americans' ship goes down, we're definitely going with you. This should make me very interested in who wins... except that you appear to be equally boned either way.
No, my interest comes from running a forum where the Politics section is filled with Republicans, all bitching about Obama. If it's their guy screwing the pooch, maybe it'll go quiet. :)
As to the election itself, and elections in general, Alien v Predator had it right. Whoever wins, we lose.
Palin v. Bachmann Republican Primary (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when has that had any impact on how the US elections will affect you?
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Canadian, I really hate this reality.
People joke about British "control" over Canada.. but truth is that while British involvement in Canadian politics is mostly symbolic (no real power), US politics has an actual tangible effect on Canadian politics.
Re: (Score:3)
I know that in practice, the Royal Assent is taken for granted. However... what would happen if Canada goes "Mother may I" and Her Majesty says "No."?
(Yeah, I know, The Governor-General is where the Assent actually comes from... and of course, The Sovereign would never direct her Governor-General to withhold assent if the Prime Minister recommends it...)
Ah, well, every government has had constitutional crises (or nearly so)... I guess this particular scenario is impossible unless something brings The United
Re: (Score:2)
High school social studies is a long time ago, but as I remember it, the queen's representative is actually bound by law to sign anything that has made it through our parliament.
In other words, even though all Canadian laws must be signed by the queens representative before they are official, I don't think said representative actually has the ability to say "no".
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm way off ;p
Re: (Score:3)
Just to explain why the dismissal of an unpopular prime minister would trigger republic calls, the answer is in your sentence.
He was "dismissed" not voted out. In a working democracy, an unelected woman who lives thousands of kilometres away, and has barely set foot in a country should not have the right to sack an elected prime minister.
Now it is true that it was Kerr, and not the Queen that made the decision, but either way, I can't imagine John Kerr would have got very far if he tried to get elected.
When
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Informative)
The Sovereign would never direct her Governor-General to withhold assent if the Prime Minister recommends it...
Aussie here. We had that little problem in 1975 [wikipedia.org] Long story short: the Governor General dismissed the government and appointed the leader of the opposition as the new Prime Minister.
Re: (Score:3)
If you really think the Australian people voting someone in for a three-year term, and then an unelected fruitloop with a penchant for ridiculous hats sacking him two years later on a whim is a "fantastic example of the system working" then you may as well go and live in North Korea, where they enjoy the vibrant style of democracy you endorse.
All governments go through mid-term slumps. The fact that Whitlam was voted out says nothing about the democratic system. A three-year term is a three-year term.
Re: (Score:3)
Well actually the ones who are the most brainwashed are the ones who are most willing to go out and vote. The ones who do not Vote may have at grasp on the concepts, but are often displeased with the candidates and don't vote, don't know where the polling place is, Having to be bothered to register to vote, Or live in a state where your vote doesn't count... Why bother voting democrat in a solid red state, they 1 the democrat doesn't care about your issues as you are consider a calculated loss, the republ
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it necessary to be an American to be interested in the American presidential elections?
Re: (Score:2)
This far away from the elections, you'd need some sort of reason to be interested. Like being from the USA, or having actual policy statements from candidates, as opposed to vague promises, and criticisms of rival candidates (or potential nominees, or whatever stage the Byzantine process is at now).
Is there anything concrete to base an opinion on, yet?
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most of the western world is watching in morbid fascination to see how far to the right the US will go (in its rhetoric at least). How crazy can it get? Tune in in 2012!
It's like watching cringe-worth reality TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Mind you, somebody will be bombed, it's just a question of who...
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you can't VOTE in US elections doesn't necessarily mean you should be completely disinterested. I have no influence on whether or not Iran develops a plutonium weapon, but that hardly means that I would be completely uninterested if that came to pass.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But, like China or Russia, it doesn't really matter who will be the next president (unless you're an American, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
But, like China or Russia, it doesn't really matter who will be the next president (unless you're an American, of course).
I take that as a glowing endorsement of the American political system. Did you intend it as such?
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
it doesn't really matter who will be the next president (unless you're an American, of course).
Considering that in modern times the president possesses the de facto ability to unilaterally declare war, I'd say the guy in the White House matters more if you're not an American.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you really don't understand why this is important even for non-Americans, ask any citizen of one of the countries the US military has gotten itself entangled in.
Re: (Score:2)
Or one of the countries that that is bound through alliances to follow the US into those military entanglements.
I, at the very least, am really interested in whether I think the next president will be a raving lunatic (cough, Palin) or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither am I, but I stick ticked 'Interrested'.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we think of "Canada" as a synonym for "The Buffalo NY Metropolitan area" :P
Re: (Score:2)
We don't think of Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
I think of Canada whenever I order pizza. We are talking about bacon varieties, right?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am not American either but I put down "Mildly interested". The US elections are a great spectacle. They serve to teach non-US people about US geography, at least. ("Where the hell is New Hampshire?", for example). For me the US elections are about as entertaining as the summer Olympics, but not as entertaining as the winter Olympics. Are there any plans to introduce a "special" election to follow the main one? I reckon that would be great. They could reuse the same facilities, but let the less capable pol
Re:Why does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
Because they're corrupted by different corporate interests. On the one side, you've got the defense contractors, oil companies, and wall street traders. On the other you've got the copyright trolls, insurance companies, and wall street traders (they have the money to buy out both sides apparently). Pick your poison... or vote third party to show your anger, knowing the whole time that your candidate will not win (at least, not this year, maybe in 20 years or so if you keep voting and convince others to do the same). Also, keep in mind that by the time your third party is powerful enough to stand a chance, the odds are it will be just as corrupt as the other two, but maybe who they're corrupted by will be more in line with your beliefs, you never know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a hint... Ron Paul is running as a Republican, but he's really a libertarian. He is corrupted by personal liberty.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, yes... According to the constitution, people have 3 rights: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. You notice healthcare, a house, a job, and retirement money are not included. As for that "states don't have rights" comment, I give you the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Hence, while the states do not have "rights" they do have powers. Specifically those po
Re: (Score:3)
It's true. Both sides are corrupt, albeit by different interests. Both are evil. The easy choice is to pick the lesser of the two evils. For those with money, it's the Republicans. For those without money, it's the Democrats.
What's more important are your local elections, which you also participate in when you vote for president. For those, you should begin looking into any third party candidates that might be on the ballot right about this time. In order for a third party to grow large enough for the natio
Re: (Score:2)
You could vote for a different party. That is allowed.
The US is one of very few countries with a rigid 2 party set up. If people didn't keep voting that way, it wouldn't be that way.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is when there's another party, it typically splits the vote of the party with the closest views (typically Democrat, but more recently Republican has been hit). Even getting 20% of the vote in every district will give you 0 representatives, and most likely will put in the a guy from the party with views farthest from your candidate.
There needs to be a multiple vote/runoff system where people can say "OK, I'll vote for the Tea Party, but if that candidate isn't one of the top two, then I'll vote
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of like the idea of Instant Runoff Voting [wikipedia.org], as one can mark primary, secondary, and possibly tertiary choices, so when tallying, if no one has 50%+1, the secondary portions are tallied, etc.
Couple them to an optical-scan ballot (sorry Diebold, I like paper trails) and one can probably avoid many of the problems that have plagued us in the past, and there is no added financial burden to run a runoff election if the first election doesn't decide everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, let's a have poll that finds out what percent of Slashdotters live in the U.S., other americas, europe, asia, africa, australia, antartica
I live in NZ, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3)
Why though, these polls are relevant to everyone in the world? Depending on who gets elected next your country (may,may not) be (invaded,liberated) to (assist,force) (you,us) in obtaining (freedom,oil,votes,daddy's approval). Plus just like all US citizens, your vote doesn't matter in the election. Ultimately it will be decided by the wealthiest corporations with the most congressional interest.
Re: (Score:2)
There IS an option for you.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There IS an option for you... Hint: It's the first one.
The first one totally fails to capture the intensity, the passion, the utter depths of my lack of interest. "Uninterested, or nearly so". The very wording smacks of meh!
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno.... I think there are plenty of people, worldwide, who, despite their inability to vote in the election, stil have good reason to pay attention to it and care about the outcome. I can think of 3 countries off the top of my head... say... Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Then again, I live here and I don't give a shit. I look at the options, Barak Obama, who I can't stand, or some republican who... I see as pretty much on par with Obama. So overall... they can elect a goat for all I care. I don't expect m
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we haven't even had the primaries yet. We still haven't figured out which GOP candidate is going to be losing to the President. If I were a Republican I would be very concerned that there aren't any candidates running that have any hope of success. The healthcare reform package is getting increasingly popular as portions phase in, and by the time the election is held, opposing it is going to be harmful to any GOP candidate that wants to be elected.
They can't run on national security like they used t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Submit some poll ideas! We love it.
(Also, even if you don't want to submit whole poll / response ideas, not liking is harder to build from than suggestions about what you'd rather see.)
Thanks!
timothy
Re: (Score:2)
I generally vote for the other guy. There is so little difference between the two parties as to not matter and with only a few exceptions most Republicans and Democrats vote the way their told to by their handlers. So unless there is a compelling reason I vote for the challenger, at least maybe he'll feel uncertain about his job and do what the voters want...
That's MY vision of Change.
Not bloody likely to help but a guy can Dream.
Re: (Score:2)
If you feel that apathetic then you really shouldn't be voting. In general people who don't know about the issues shouldn't be voting. It's not a matter of whether or not you disagree with me, people can disagree, that's how democracy works, but if you're not going to vote based on the issues then you probably shouldn't bother.