Election Wrapping Up (Part 2) 904
Things shuffled a bit as CNN recalled Florida from Gore, and left
the electoral votes at 217 for Bush and 172 for the VP. Things have kind of lagged a bit as apparently the wires are being a little more careful about calling states. And I was hoping to get to bed on time *grin.* Update: 11pm EST by CT : polls on the west coast have closed, Gore inched up 230/217. Update: 11/08 5:45 AM EST by C :By now you all know that Florida, originally awarded to Gore, then later awarded to Bush, is now recounting the votes in a race that is way too close to call. Surprisingly enough, it appears that Gore has now won the popular vote. With the results split between the EC and the people, will this affect how the next president will be able to govern the U.S.?
And there went the miracle... (Score:2)
And it looks like Nader did play the role of the spoiler after all, in Florida at least. Well, Ralphie boy, hope you're proud of yourself; now you're going to have to live with the consequences of your actions. If someone doesn't run you over with a Corvair first :-).
I hope Bush remembers that he has no real "mandate" as a result of this election. If he tries to pull anything too radical, he may face a wholesale housecleaning of Congress, giving it to the Democrats. It happened to Clinton in '94 (after his "health care reform" proposal basically scared the piss out of everybody); it can happen to Bush in 2002 just as easily.
Now I think I'm going to go down a shot of something while my wife wonders if she should leave the country...
Eric
--
Re:Spin (Score:2)
I live 6 miles down the road from a state college where I can find people willing to engage in a rational, friendly, and openminded discourse regarding America and it's history of interaction with the world.
Americans are pretty good at telling each other how great their country is. They were equally good at doing that about slavery, racial discrimination, status of economy right before Great Depression, witch hunts and other darkest pages of their history -- I am sure, you can find a lot of very friendly supporters of propaganda about this one. But until you will talk to your opponents, research what really happened in WWII by something other than US propaganda, and try to make real arguments instead of slogans and insults, you will remain ignorant. Ignorance is, of course, bliss, and collective ignorance is even better, but hangover can be a bitch.
Little joke (Score:2)
Re:Voting for third parties (Score:2)
Mad props to all candidates and voters for making this the most entertaining, stimulating, and nerve-wracking election race not just in my life, but arguably, in the past century.
But with Nevada firmly in the Bush camp, and cnn.com [cnn.com] reporting a Florida margin of 50K with 98%, it's over. (Shit, it ended "officially" while I hit "Preview" on this post and "Reload" on CNN, how's that for down-to-the-wire predictions? ;-)
So now - the hard work:
Dubya - you preside over what is arguably the most divided America in a generation. 50/50 splits to within epsilon in the popular vote, the electoral vote, the Senate, and the House. Moreover, those "50/50 splits" mask serious racial, income, and geographical gaps among the various demographic and voting blocs. It appears that the campaign rhetoric that most matters tomorrow isn't gonna be about tax cuts, Social Security, Medicare, foreign policy. It's gonna be that fluffy stuff about "being a uniter, not a divider", and it's about to be put to the ultimate test.
That said - good luck, sir, and congratulations.
Good news for the loser... (Score:3)
Re:Voting for third parties (Score:2)
You guys need a two round election. If no-one gets 50% in the first round, the second round would be between the two who got most votes.
And cut this voting system involving electoral votes. Just vote on the person and count the votes. Or at least don't give the whole state to the winner.
It doesn't matter... (Score:2)
The fact that these big races are invariably 49/51 illustrates that there is no majority. It's a crap shoot. In fact, this nearly even split between parties is unnatural. Pick any issue that people care enough about to get their dander up on, and it will NEVER be a 50/50 split.
Re:WoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoHoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO! (Score:2)
--
Re:The hell with you having the last word. (Score:2)
I don't care how "balanced" your views on WWII are -- they are wrong, and historical facts, not spin demonstrate it. I have no idea how you can teach me about things that happened where I lived, with my relatives and neighbors, and call what you have picked at your school after decades of anti-soviet and anti-russian histeria in this country something other than propaganda. Saying "both sides were somehow right" is not the right way of discussing history, no matter how they teach you "tolerance" in this screwed up education system -- looking at facts, actions and their consequences is the only way to find out the truth. I would respect Americans much more if they will openly admit how wrong they are and teach their children it as an example that never should be repeated -- after all, Russians openly admitted how wrong/evil Stalin's rule was as early as in 50's (yes, I know, you Americans missed it), Germans denounced Nazi even earlier, and regarding US and WWII we are looking at a bit lesser kind of shame than either. Accept it -- at least stop hiding the facts from students that take your history classes -- and you will be respected more.
And I don't think, you should use counter-accusations of racism (or whatever else) toward me to change the subject -- again, you should leave your cheap discussion tricks for something else. First, racism was merely an example of dirty page in US history that was defended and distorted by "patriots" for centuries. Second, being of jewish/ukrainian origin (yes, "jewish" can be a nationality, and it's unrelated to judaism or any other religion) in Russia I was a target of enough hate and discrimination to feel nothing but disgust toward all kinds of racial/national discrimination, no matter who is the target.
Re:Detailed rebuttle as requested. (Score:2)
What the heck is that? And where is any kind of separators between quotes and your answers?
More important, where did I mention US "material support and sheer numbers that overwhelmed the German war machine"? US "supported" (traded) with countries at war, so what? So could everyone else, and Russia actually managed to keep its industry running even though it required relocating factories over thousands of miles to the east. US politicians _delayed_ invasion in Europe until it became absolutely clear than no matter what will follow, Germany will be defeated. This is the most cowardly action that US taken in WWII (maybe second most cowardly after using nuclear bombs in Japan), and Russians' huge losses in large part could be decreased if US did that earlier. US didn't, and millions of Russians died.
When Americans finally came to Europe, it was anything but liberation of Europe from Nazi -- it had no effect on the Nazi's destiny, as Nazi were already incapable of keeping Russians from advancing on the Eastern Front. Americans helped, but it was too little, too late -- by then war already went for five years, three of them on Russian territory. What Americans seen was severely beaten Nazi, who couldn't move anything from Eastern Front to fight them. What Americans encountered wasn't even comparable with force Nazi had at any moment against Russians.
US had more than enough opportunities to attack Nazi in Europe, yet they waited -- some Russians believe that it was done intentionally to weaken them, some think that it was an act of extreme selfishness, I believe that it was some degree of first and a lot of the second, but it really doesn't matter, as consequences are more important than details of the intent -- consequences happen to be that war in Europe lasted for more than five years, each day claiming thousands of lives, while Americans had an opportunity to help to end it much sooner while losing small fraction of that. When it would matter most -- in 1941-43 -- US was in a better position than Russia to fight with Germany (you are right about that -- sheer numbers, industry, etc...), the problem is, Russia had no other choice, and did, but US had a choice, and didn't. When US finally came they could just as well send those people to Antarctica, attack South Pole, and report losses due to cold -- Germans wouldn't notice the difference. Difference started later, when US became concerned first about the need of counteracting possible Russian influence in Europe, then about the need of Russian help in a war with Japan (where Russians came at the first possible opportunity despite their military and industry being seriously weakened by the war with Germany), then about Cold War, when Russians were painted as the enemy of everything, so it was really convenient to remove all references to Russians' role in the defeat of the Nazi, and claim to be the deciding force in WWII in Europe -- what US was anything but.
British documentaries weren't that much friendly to Russians because -- surprise -- there were no Russians (or Germans, unless you count stupid and inefficient attempts of bombing) in Britain. Eastern Front was far in the East, no one but Russians and Germans were there, no one was writing about it, and neither Russians nor Germans were trusted in the rest of the world.
I?ll not support military intervention that doesn?t involve defending our own borders or interests, because, it is either unappreciated or not necessary if I am to believe you. Tell me Alex, why should one American life, or one American dollar be spent helping people who have only hatred and bitterness with which to thank us?
Americans were allies of Russians, alliance in war means much more than marching together on some parade, making long speeches and visiting each other's wargames. It's an obligation to defend each other as much as their own people. Russians did that a year later for Americans in Pacific (of course, you haven't heard about that either, but my grandfather was there, so, please, don't try to prove me that he didn't exist).
Re:Detailed rebuttle as requested. (Score:2)
Your answer is as large as it's unreadable, so I have to answer in multiple messages
At what point do I say ?both sides are somehow right?? Putting words in my mouth is as dirty a conversational tactic as any you accuse me of, but I?ll get to that later.
You said that you will rather discuss that with friendly people at local college. I have explained, what kind of "balanced point of view" you will find there, as this is what is supposed to be "politically correct" at the moment -- it was "we are right, and everyone else is a servant of Satan!", now it is "we are still right, but other side has some minor point that we can acknowledge but can't mention because it's so nonessential to the fact that we are still right". Guess what -- in this case Americans are plain wrong, and could admit it if not ignorance and arrogance that they are so famous for in the rest of the world.
Educate me then, tell me, what part of American history even remotely compares to the genocide and atrocities committed by the Nazi?s or by the Russians under Stalin?s rule?
I would, but first, it's way far from the original topic of WWII, second, the amount of time and space don't allow me to explain why absolutely every occasion when US used its military (or semi-military) abroad was either a major screwup for everyone involved (ex: Vietnam, Iran, Chile, Kosovo), or ended up with negative results for everyone but american corporations, whose interests brought American military there in the first place (Kuwait). List and explanations are long, and most of sources are not in English, but if you care to look, it's easy to find information about them even here in US.
All of America?s ugly truths wouldn?t fit on the small toenail of Germany or Russia?s past misdeeds this century.
This is precisely what is wrong with Americans. They for some reason think that THEIR country is different from everyone else. That THEIR country has no bloody past, that THEIR government's atrocities don't compare with others. Guess what, ALL COUNTRIES that actively participated in world politics in last few centuries have approximately the same share order of magnitude in mass murder made over that time -- of course, applied compared to their size. US, Germany, Russia, France, Japan, China, Serbia, Turkey, Spain, UK,... -- all did it, some more, some less, no one significantly deviated from average, not even Hitler. The only countries that have cleaner record are ones that intentionally or because of their "lucky" locations removed themselves from the wars and conflicts, and even they occasionally shared part of that. In other countries at some point despite all the ties between governments and media, people become aware of what dark and dirty deeds their particular country has on its records, people acknowledge it and make conscious effort to prevent those things from happening again. Some succeed, some don't, but people understand the shame of their government's behavior.
Americans don't do that. So far they managed to admit only things that were done by their government toward them, inside of this country -- racism is the most prominent example. Nothing about anything that was done abroad. Inside the country there are some problems, but everything that was done TOWARD OTHERS was right, Americans are the leaders of "Free World", Americans rescued the rest of the world in WWII, Americans defeated Communism in Russia (despite the fact that "Communism" never was implemented anywhere, especially in Russia, and events in Russia in the end of 80's have little to do with Americans), Americans defeated Iraq's dictator (despite the fact that he is still im power, and embargo only strenghten his power while weakening the mostly innocent people), etc. Americans are still far from admitting that yes, their deeds are comparable with Russia and most of other countries -- and yes, some apology will be very appropriate, in the same way as Russians, Germans, and even Pope did for his church.
Do a mental exercise, say: "Nazi regime". Then "Communists' regime". Them "Hussain's regime". Then "Chinese regime". Now try to pronounce "American regime". See the difference? Can you pronounce it without a feeling of anger and protest toward anyone who could think of this expression? Don't you feel toward that phrase the same thing as black person feels when someone calls him "nigger", a feeling of undeserved, unfair and plain evil kind of insult? This is what differs a person who was fed on propaganda and not denounced it from person who understands that he lives in a country that has a lot of horrible things, that he, supporting that country keeps some, possibly small, piece of responsibility for, and that this responsibility is not to take punishment (as it won't help anyone) but just to make sure that it's not forgotten and never will be repeated. This is what must disappear in Americans before they will become able to jugde their own history rationally, something that other nations either managed at large extent or trying to, and Americans never did and show no desire for.
Gore-Nader Alliance not gonna happen. (Score:2)
Is this, then, a hallmark event signalling a challenge to the two-party system? Will the Democrats respond to this by working together with the Greens henceforth, or simply drowning them out by moving their agenda back to the left? Gee, let me guess...
No. Remember who Nader is.
Nader likes the spotlight, but doesn't really care how he gets it.
He's not the consumer-advocate man-of-the-people that everyone who got suckered in by him seems to think that he is. He's a *lawyer*. And a bad one at that, who used to be known for frivolous lawsuits, before he found fame with "Unsafe at any Speed" and the Chevrolet Corvair.
The Green Party was all about Nader, not about their platform. And a whole bunch of poor or unrealistic people who want to restrict your employer's freedom to pay you what you're worth. And to force you to ride public transit with the lice-infested hotel chambermaids and convenience store clerks of the world.
A Gore-Nader alliance is not going to happen. Probably Gore would welcome it for obvious reasons, but Nader has tried and been rejected several times from getting a Democratic nomination. This election was designed to be payback for Nader.
I do like the third and fourth party concepts, though, because like many people following this election, I was forced to think of Gore as being the lesser of the two (viable) evils. I still hope that Gore gets in.
The Reform Party, with Buchanan at the helm, is completely out to lunch. Want to see what his America would be like? Replace Iran's mosques with Baptist churches, and there ya go.
But Reform is pretty badly split. Note that Jesse Ventura, Reform governer of Minnesota, is a polar opposite to the Reform presence in this federal election. Ventura's version of the Reform Party appeals to me; Buchanan's terrifies me.
In the future, if the Reform Party eventually gets itself figured out and moves back towards its center-left position, and if the Libertarian party gets their act together, then the Democratic Party wouldn't be such a shoe-in for my vote.
Not that I'm an American citizen, so for the moment it's all an academic discussion. I'm watching this from the sidelines of Canada, with a huge number of American frieds calling and e-mailing me about the results. I love politics, and had 4 TV sets set up, watching the live coverage on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN.
But this was not the election for a protest vote like Nader, no matter how disillusioned the two-party system makes you. If Bush wins Florida (which, let's face facts, he probably will), he's going to be the President.
Philosophical disagreements with the Republicans aside, Bush is an idiot. I have no respect for the man. Not because I disagree with him - that's okay, I still respect lots of people I disagree with. But Bush commands no respect. He's an imbecile. Immature, unqualified, unprepared, and unaccomplished, he's not half the Presidential figure that his father was.
Gore may be boring and smug, but he at least understands international policy. He understands how to get things done. (The Texas record proves that Bush doesn't.) And, most importantly between two otherwise uninteresting candidates, Gore is at least someone who will uphold the honor and dignity of the most important office in the world.
With an idiot like Bush at the helm, all nature of bad things are going to happen. I hope the Florida recounts save the world from Bush.
Re:Detailed rebuttle as requested. (Score:2)
You can accuse America of clumsiness in it?s handling of foreign affairs, but not of outright malice. Ask a citizen of Kuwait what they think of America and our intervention in Iraq?s invasion of their country. Then ask a citizen of Iraq the same question. I have had the luxury of speaking to both, one a doctor, the other a student at the local school I mentioned earlier. It doesn?t take a genius to figure out who supported American involvement and who opposed it. Right and wrong are relative concepts, historical facts are historical facts, you can use the same facts or statistics to prove or disprove anything you want.
I happen to have the benefit of being born in the country that never was invaded by Americans, and right now I live in US. This makes it easier for me to make comparisons. The fact is, no country (at all!) in the Middle East is satisfied with what Americans did there -- some believe that Americans should get the hell out now, no matter what, as they screwed up a lot and can only screw up more, others believe that since Americans entered the region and destroyed the balance of power there, Americans should keep things from blowing up, but absolutely no one supports the idea that Americans' presence actually improved anything, or that anyone owes anything to US. Even Israeli -- and Israel became completely dependent on US in everything political by now.
American people have strange idea that when bad things happen in other country, US "couldn't take it anymore" and goes there to set things straight. No country ever does that -- internationsl politics simply can't work that way even if someone tried to. US threatens, economically enslaves, or even attacks other countries when it sees it being beneficial for US government or corporations -- excuses often sound noble and great, but they are just excuses, after all the result of Americans' interference never has anything to do with the "cause" that was announced. This is not clumsiness, this is plain undiluted selfishness at the expense of everyone else, this is what people call "blood for oil". Clumsiness is what Clinton did on Israel-Palestina peace talks, pushing both sides to the agreement that neither side was ready for -- and it still can be argued that if he thought more about Palestinians and Israeli interests than about his place in history books he would not try to reach an agreement before his term ends -- if talks are handled well, he personally can get out, and sides will still be able to decide the details, and if his presence is still necessary, damned will be a person who will start discussing anything that involve Jerusalem. But yes, I think, it's still can be called clumsiness. Kosovo and Iraq can't.
The rest of the world learned that the best way for powerful country to keep other from fighting is to STAY OUT. To make a policy, that no matter how many children are killed in a localized conflict, if countries involved are small, larger player shouldn't enter simply because everyone will start playing him and his interests, and damage will be huge. If country is powerful enough to threaten most of the world, it should stay out of everything that doesn't touch it directly -- even Russia managed to learn it pretty quickly. "Keeping the peace" by throwing around enormous force never works, and no one ever succeeded in doing that, this is something that US should never do and never pretend to do -- and if it ever tried to keep its hands out of everyone's pies, it would gain a respect of the people abroad, and I would not feel ashamed that I live in this country. Of course, I can dream about honest used car salesmen (anywhere in the world), too.
Re:Detailed rebuttle as requested. (Score:2)
Then I challenged your assertion that you were in any position to speak on the subject of racism and backed it up with my personal stake in the issue. The fact that you are Jewish and have been persecuted for it doesn?t prove to me that you are not a racist.
Am I supposed to "prove" that? I thought, declaring my position and following it consistently is more than enough for it to be true -- and my behavior in all my life is very consistent with the idea that I don't support any form of racism.
It?s not that I believe that you wouldn?t discriminate against someone due to any racial or ethnic factors. But how closely would you associate with someone who was different than you, would you be friends, marry, engage yourself in their culture? As close as I do, I doubt it, but I won?t assume that you would or would not, note that I do ask the question of you rather than assume anything about you.
So now it means that I should not just respect, consider people of all nations equal and accept their differences, but accept just everyone who can be "different than me" equally to be my personal friend or family member, and sincerely accept just any kind of culture that exists in the world? Of course, I won't differentiate people by nationality -- but no one has a "right" to be my friend, I can choose friends depending by my preferences, and nationality doesn't happen to be one of them, but compatibility with my cultural background does, and I expect the same from others. I wouldn't want, say, a wife that will be religious no matter what nationality she is, because that will be incompatible with my philisophy. Incompatible is incompatible, and I am not going to allow anyone whom I don't like to force his/her constant presence on me in my personal life, I am not going to force myself to like anything and anyone. Most of my friends are Russian not because I "discriminate" toward others but because we share the same pieces of memory, culture, philosophy -- things that I will be happy to accept in everyone else, but rarely find in people who haven't studied Russian culture and lived in Russia. I don't see Russians as being "better", and a lot of my friends are Americans, but I don't think that the fact that I have mostly Russian friends means that I "discriminate" others -- also most of my friends are Unix programmers, and sets of Russians and Unixoids among my friends only partially overlap.
Saying the same thing in more general way, only a person who has no culture can "closely associate" with everyone despite of differences, and I don't have to make excuse for not liking someone whose set of values is radically different from my own. Nationality has nothing to do with it.
Your last line about disgust at discrimination of any kind is kind of ironic, since it?s that same feeling about your prejudice against America that keeps me wasting my time replying to your posts. (Coincidentally, your assumptions about me without basis of fact would be a good example of prejudice as the word applies to an attitude, not just racism.)
Don't mix nation and culture. I can get American passport, but that won't automatically change my culture. What I oppose is American values and traditions -- values that include worshipping US as the best country in everything everywhere, without allowing any acknowledgement of seriouslu negative actions toward others, and traditions of teaching children whitewashed history and pride in things that are nothing to be proud of. There are other pieces of American culture that I dislike, but this one is relevant to this discussion. I have seen americans who were able to overcome those things, and I respect them more than if they lived in an environment more favorable to critical thought, but this doesn't change the fact that their achievement is not a part of American culture -- mass media, education, etc. still are heavy on propaganda, heavier than what I have seen in Russia in 70's-80's, and probably the same as in Russia in 30's-50's. Russians always had large piece of intellectual elite that opposed it, and the survival of this elite was THE reason for accepting thoughts that were contrary to government's propaganda in 80's and subsequent dismantling of Communist Party rule and USSR. The same elite now accepts the blame for doing a lot to destroy and little to build a better country, and this is a different story, but what is important, there always were people who understood misdeeds of the government, both in and outside the country, they protested not just to shock someone but to express this, and in the end people understood. American culture has no such thing. No one is keeping track of horrible actions and lies of the government, no one is thinking about it, and certainly no one makes an effort to give this knowledge to the masses in a form that will allow them to understand, get scared and disgusted, accept, grow morally and think about that every time when something similar can happen again. This is american culture, elite has the money to play with, others have shiny things and are too busy to care, kids are too lazy to read, so if they do it should be something simple to understand -- "we are great". Exceptions are not in a kind of movement, they are just that, exception, outsiders, no one cares for their ideas, no one publishes them, no one votes for them, and they don't see any point in communicating their ideas to the others -- even though Internet is the best place for "samizdat", no one uses it that way here.
Bush doesn't deny past abortion allegations. (Score:2)
Bush doesn't need to screw up in office - he has enough skeletons in his closet to keep the US in scandals for the next four years at least.
Here's one for you. The Howard Stern Radio Show got a hold of a rumor that, back in the early 1970s before abortion was legal - and right in the middle of Bush's party-boy days when he was drinking and doing lines of coke off the toilet tanks in bars - Bush managed to get a woman knocked up, and the baby was aborted.
Again, this is Bush. The Republican ?candidate? ?President-elect?, and he's in the right rear pocket of the Right to Life campaign. Further, abortion was *illegal* back then.
Howard Stern called the Bush campaign headquarters several times throughout the week leading up to the election, seeking a confirmation or a denial.
Finally, yesterday, on election day, came the news from the Bush people: "We do not make statements to the tabloid news.", or something to that effect.
Not a confirmation, but certainly not the "you've-gotta-be-kidding" adament denial that one would have expected.
I would suggest that this bears further scrutiny.
As a sidenote, the Bush campaign should have considered using the tabloid media that they so eschew. It strikes me that Star, Globe and the National Enquirer are probably the best media outlets with which to address his strongest states.
If there's any hope, it lies with the proles [NOT] (Score:2)
Well, unfortunately who would you have suggested we vote for? Bush was the republican nominee (don't blame me, I voted for McCain in the primaries).
Oh, absolutely. McCain would have made a far better President than Bush. I don't agree much with the Republican philosophy, but at least Gore would have had a worthy opponent, and the US would still have had a great statesman as President, whether Gore or McCain won.
McCain is a statesman. Bush is a bumbling fool that I wouldn't even hire as a tractor salesman.
That Bush got the nomination proves, of late, there is something very seriously wrong with the Republican party.
I'm sure as hell not going to vote for ol' baby-killing tax-and-spend Al Gore and his band of merry liberal pot-head cronies.No. It's a much better idea to have an alcoholic admitted cocaine-user in the White House, especially since he's got 20 years of his life unaccounted for.
Try getting a job with even six months unaccounted on your resume.
Geez. I say deal with it America. We (Republicans) had to live through years of torture when democrats controlled the congress and the executive branch so I hope you guys get to have a taste of what that's like.If it were just about the fact that the Republicans won, that'd be fine. The country has spoken, that's the direction that people want.
But the fact that the Republicans appear to have won with George W. Bush at the helm, to my way of thinking, very seriously calls into question whether the people are intelligent enough to be allowed to determine their own fate.
Re:We're boned. (Score:2)
Add the (at least) two rightists he will put in the supreme court, squandering the SSN funds to his investment pals on wall street...
The way his dad ignored the pleas from the DOJ that the S&Ls/Insurance companies were ripping off america...and kept it all under wraps til america got totally screwed and it was too late to fix.
Finally, the house, senate and president are all republicans...Bill Gates just got his reprieve.
CNN to the world: (Score:3)
ABC to the world: We have shifted our projection back to "Too Close to Call"
Bush (Score:2)
They Called Florida (Score:2)
Re:Enough is enough (Score:2)
Also, you again assume that I am ignoring Russia's role in World War Two. That's not true, just for the sake of time and space I lump Russia together with the rest of the Allied powers, and atrocities committed in Russia with those in Germany. I won't even go into the rest of the distortions you make to my position's, because I am tired of debating you.
Huh? You "lump together" Russia and other Allies when it's convenient, and when it allows you to ignore the fact that Russia's role in WWII is quite different from one of US (or from anyone else if it matters).
It doesn't surprise me that you live in America yet have not one good thing to say about the country that allows you freedom from the discrimination you faced in your home land.
I owe NOTHING to this country, and I suffer from more discrimination and humiliation here than I did in Russia. I came here because I couldn't find a job in Russia after its economy was foolishly dismantled along with its political system, and being a programmer I came to a country where my chances to get a job are the best. I don't assign any political/ideological value to my choice whatsoever, and find it the most honest way of making this kind of choice.
Actions speak louder than words, so why don't you use that American passport of your's and move to a country where the people and the politics match your views and principals?
I don't have an American passport, and at best I will have to wait six more years before government will consider me to be "good enough" to become a citizen. I lived here for six years already on H-1B visa (plus a year before that on B-2 visa), and was unable even to change employers without long and humiliating procedure (that seems to be changed few months ago, right after my H-1B expired, thanks for nothing), so I had less "freedom" than what I had under Communists. I paid taxes to the government that I couldn't even vote for, my work supported US economy, so I definitely owe nothing to you, your government and your corporations.
The act of staying here alone is to support the corporations, individuals and the government's present and future foriegn policy mistakes.
I feel no obligation toward this country -- it exploits me, I have all rights to exploit it, but having rather strict moral rules, I believe, everything that I did here only helped others in the end. "Staying here" is not an approval or disapproval of what this country did or does, blind "patriotism" may be a part of American culture, but it has no place in my head.
Especially if ALL Americans are ignorant and complacent about our government's activities as you claim so often. You know that you can't make a difference and you are fooling yourself if you claim to be here for any other reason than your own personal gain. You are entitled to your opinions under America's political system, you are even entitled to hate America while reaping the benefits of living here. That's ok, I am entitled to think that you are an ingrate who needs to show the country you choose to live in some respect or else pack up your bags and leave.
Again -- I didn't come here to improve America, I probably do that just by being there, but this is an unintended side effect, not in any way my goal. If my expression of this will help -- fine, if not -- sucks, but I didn't choose this place because I love its government. I don't see why "personal gain" is less respected reason for choosing a country than ideology -- I am not a politician but engineer, so I live like an engineer and where I can apply my knowledge, skills and abilities better without doing something that is radically contrary to my beliefs. My work improves the technology in the direction that not only makes people's life better, but even makes them less dependent on overblown corporations -- if there is something political about my work here, it's this.
I also completely disagree that the fact that I was born abroad makes me "ingrate" for living here. Again, this country takes from me more than from others and gives less, so if someone should be ashamed, it's government and INS that discriminate against me just because I was born somewhere else. In this country discriminating against someone of different race is not "politically correct" (since recently) but discriminating against foreigner who moved here and leads productive, beneficial for others, life for many years is ok, and not only government feels no shame about it, people like you dare to tell me that I am "ingrate" and that I should not express any protest against it. This is the ultimate expression of hypocrisy and selective thinking -- the same one that supported rampant racism in this country in the first place.
what about Microsoft? (Score:2)
What is more interesting than whether Nader cost Gore the election, or whether the U.S. is headed to hell in a handbasket as our fuzzy foreigner friends seem to agree on, is how this affects the Microsoft ruling.
I'm torn. I agree with Judge Jackson's findings of fact. But I don't trust the gov't to make things right and rosy.
With Bush president elect we are probably heading for an amicable solution. That is, the gov't won't be delegated to solve all MS problems, yet Microsoft will still have to change their ways.
I guess I just figure we'll beat Microsoft even if the fight isn't fair. And if not us, some game console will.
p.s. No disrespect to non-U.S. residents, but I'm allways rather reassured when you dislike our choices.
Re:A Little Secret (Score:2)
--
you must amputate to email me
To paraphrase Bill Hicks... (Score:2)
"Tell me when, lord, tell me when..."
Re:DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN! (Score:2)
Kevin Fox
Re:Libertarians doing poorly; Browne doing terribl (Score:2)
And the Greens' total is much larger than it was in 1996.
Green voters could have voted held their nose and ended up with Gore as President. But it appears that libertarians did hold their nose and got the candidate that prefers smaller government, lower taxes, and partial privatization of Social Security.
In comparison to Greens, I'd say Browne voters and sympathizers have nothing to complain about.
2004 won't be such a close race. (I mean, let's get real, how could it be any closer? ;-)
And then, third parties on the right and the left will probably improve their numbers. Make no mistake, enough voters are interested in alternatives to the Demipublicans that both parties will have to take notice.
Re:Americans in WWII (Score:2)
Oh please Alex, you make it sound like I said America singlehandedly won World war Two. Granted, America entered the war late, but you can't dismis out of hand the many lives American soldiers lost because they are less in number than the 20 million Europeans who died.
20 millions _Russians_ only. Other european nations had more losses. Guess what, Americans die all the time, just like anyone else, but the point is, they did near to nothing to help Europeans when they needed help most.Especially if it is as you say and we were "beating a dead horse". If that was the case, why should we have wasted a single American life or materiel resource to help Europe beat the Axis powers?
To keep Russians out, and to establish military and political presence (what became NATO) and economical ties in Europe, of course.
What did or does America owe any country in Europe?
Americans insist that everyone owes them their lives.
Not that there would be a Europe free of Soviet influence if not for our substantial and expensive military presence in Europe after the war.
Soviet and American influence would be worth each other -- no matter what propaganda of each country's government was telling for decades about the other. And if US got into Europe earlier Soviets wouldn't have much opportunity for expansion there either -- as they would be more busy repairing their own country anyway. However it worth to be noticed that after WWII Soviets quickly learned to limit military involvement abroad to situations that were seriously threatening them or their direct allies (for right or wrong reason). OTOH, US started (and continues) to throw its military weight around while being completely unprovoked.
Oh, and a belated congratulations to France for getting America mired in Vietnam and then pulling out.
France got beaten in Vietnam with heavy losses and got out. Americans went there, got basically the same with less losses but while pissing off more people, and pulled out. Result: a lot of people killed.
While I'm at it, thanks for helping out in the Persian Gulf war too, we appreciate the token show of support on Europes part in stopping Iraqs naked territorial aggression against Kuwait.
US behavior in Kuwait was a great example of doing everything to piss off Iraq people, destroying economy of Iraq, thus leaving no chance for recovery with or without Saddam, then extorting oil for worthless food while maintaining embargo (as sending food to starving person can help that person, but sending food to starving country can only harm its economy further). Yeah, a lot of reasons to help.
Europe having no strategic or economic interest and all of that, in what goes on in the Middle East or Northern Africa. I won't even go into Serbia, and Europe's lack of interest in doing anything about Milosovichs Hitler-esque atrocities without American backing. Go ahead and shed your tears, they aren't America's fault or problem.
American aggression in Kosovo is one of the most blatant examples of US sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. The only result of this was strenghtening Milosevich's position in Serbia and weakening of opposition precisely at the time when he needed it most. "Atrocities" mostly started after US attacked Serbia/Kosovo, basically fighting at the side of Kosovo rebels that even now are neither a legitimate organization, nor a positive force in Kosovo politics. Don't believe all the propaganda, especially when it comes from CNN.
Well, at least with Bush in office... (Score:2)
ahem... (Score:2)
Having exclusively used the public transit system during my first years as a programmer (quite happily, mind you), I'll kindly ask you to go suck an egg for posting such narrow-minded stereotypical crap. I actually agree with just about everything else you said, but that kind of garbage only serves to undermine your message.
This is a very good point... (Score:2)
In this crowd it's a dangerous allusion, but I am reminded of the words of the olden days 'Wobbly' labor organiser Joe Hill, shot to death by the cops. (You think this stuff is _modern?_)
"Don't mourn, boys. Organise."
Re:Voting for third parties (Score:2)
There is a definite problem to this system, and that comes in with the write-in vote. How do you rank it? Do you limit the amount of people that you can vote for in order of preference? Do you come up with some scale for the amount of people that you ranked -- and can you assure that in that situation that the person who ranked more candidates votes are counted the same as the person who only voted for one person?
With these situations in mind, I think that the only way to do this, is through the "vote for all whom you would like" method (I can't remember the technical name"... in this situation you can write in as many names as you want and give them each one vote!!! I think if this were the case, Ralph Nader would have gotten a great deal more votes than he did, as I can personally think of a good number of my friends who were holding out to the bitter end, in hopes that they wouldn't have to vote the hate vote (that they hated George Bush more than they liked Ralph Nader), myself being one of them.
I think with a system like that, you would open up the system to 3rd parties and get a much bigger variety of people in the government. Something which I personally think needs to happen!!
"Anybody must be better than Gore!" (Score:2)
1. Bush
2. Some guy I vaguely recognize who isn't Gore.
3. I dunno who he is, but he's not Gore.
4. I think this guy's a fascist, but he doesn't really have a snowball's chance in Hell, and he's not Gore.
5. Gore.
I really think that in that system, people would have this issue pointed out to them, and they'd bother to learn who all the candidates on the ticket are (or at least the majority would vote strongly against all the ones who they don't recognize).
--------
BUSH DID NOT WIN (Score:2)
Re:The race is over. (Score:2)
Nader wasn't the spoiler-- Gore was (Score:2)
Granted, i didn't vote for him in a swing state, nor did i encourage anyone to, but i didn't discourage it, either. I let people make up their own minds on whether they want to vote out of fear or vote their conscience. Frankly, i see both sides.
Anyway, in those swing states, everyone seems to say, "oh, if you had just added Nader's totals to Gore's totals, Gore would've won." It'd be nice if the world worked like that. However, Nader supporters are OFTEN not Gore supporters. Some of us are, but many of us would have voted for other third party candidates. A lot of us wouldn't have voted at all, and some of us-- a significant portion of us, actually-- would've voted for Bush. You can't blame Nader, just 'cause we didn't vote for Gore. Why not blame the +100k people who didn't vote for ANYONE? How about the people who actually voted for Bush? How about blaming Gore for not addressing issues that a segment of the left obviously cares about?
You'll see a lot of polls that try to break down the Nader vote into Gore, Bush, and not voting segments, but this is a definite manipulation of the polls. A very large portion of Greens would, if given the choise between those three, pick Gore, but if Nader had dropped out, then voted for another third party instead.
Don't try to blame the Greens when the Democrats fail.
Here come the flames.
-benc
STOP THE PRESSES! (Score:2)
Florida by county [cnn.com]
Broward County. 600,000 votes, 94% reported. That leaves 36,000 votes uncounted in Broward.
With Broward going 70% Gore and 30% Bush, that's a spread of 15000 votes.
That's within the margin of error for Florida as of 0351 EST.
I don't fuckin' believe it, this thing ain't over yet, recount in Florida or not.
UN - FUCKING - BELIEVABLE.
Re:A vote for Nader WAS a vote for Bush (Score:2)
Anybody who voted Nader because of what he HAD TO SAY will be totally immune from this sort of blackmail. He was and is RIGHT. Both the main parties are so completely corrupt they are indistiguishable. Hell, they are so indistinguishable they produced probably the closest Presidential election in history. It's time for the Demopublicratians to get out of the way. They are _slime_ and their candidates are slime too.
And your question, 'what good has it done you?'?
I didn't vote for slime. I voted based on issues and a platform that backed my personal concerns and beliefs. Try it sometime if you have the guts.
Re:Why voting Green ain't great (Score:2)
Couple that with virtual dictatorship power for a majority government, and you have effectively no representation in Ottawa at all for the country west of Winnipeg.
The CA was an attempt to stop splitting the right wing vote, but the eastern Conservatives refused to play ball. Instead they dig up old Joe Clark, the west's last major PC player, other than perhaps Mazankowski, supposedly appealing to western regional interests and the eastern red Tories.
So once again, we face a split right wing, a disenfranchised west, and an unchecked Liberal party. Sigh...
Re:Holy shnikies! (Score:2)
1200 votes out of 1.2 million.
Granted, the election's over with Bush taking FL. So this is all hypothetical. But given the closeness of the races, consider...
1200 votes. Six hundred people changing their minds in a two-party race, or one non-voter in a thousand getting off his or her ass and voting, could have changed WI's 11 electoral votes one way or the other.
In a parallel universe not too different from our own, the Presidency was won by WI's "scanning-tunnelling-electron-microscope-sharp" 600-voter margin, rather than FL's "merely razor-sharp" 50,000-voter margin.
Back to our universe, let that be a lesson to anyone who said "one vote doesn't count". (And for that matter, the guy who said "voter fraud shouldn't be a felony")
Re:UPDATE: Bush back in the lead (Score:2)
I admit defeat. Nader did indeed cost Gore the election
Perhaps. Keep in mind that if it weren't for Ross Perot costing George Bush the 1992 election, we might not have Al Gore running in this election.
It's obvious that we need to use a different method of voting, and we need to cripple the two-party duopoly that the Dems and Repubs have put in place to keep themselves in power. I think we'd be well off using a Borda count (see the November 2000 issue of Discover Magazine for a discussion of alternative methods).
Like a large segment, possible most, of the population, I am tired of the president being either a guy that the Republicans want to be president or a guy that the Democrats want to be president. It's highly doubtful that a person who fits either of those descriptions will ever be someone that I want to be president. There are a lot of us who feel that way. At its worst, we end up choosing between the lesser of two evils. But, almost by definition, the person who wins isn't the person that most people would have wanted.
A Borda vote can change that. Until then, I did the smart thing and voted for Harry Browne.
Michael
NOT OVER YET! (3AM central time) (Score:2)
Bush was declared the winner a while ago, but further Florida counts have shown Bush beating Gore by only 1310 votes. 13-hundred-and-fucking-ten. More votes than that are not yet counted. Furthermore, such a small margin will certainly warrent a recount.
Bush will probably win, but it is still possible for Gore to pull through. Amazing. Simply amazing.
------
Re:We're boned. (Score:2)
Re:BUSH Wins, Nader's fault (Score:2)
Kindly don't jump to the conclusion that all Nader voters are racked with guilt. I think Gore is scum _too_. I refuse to consider him a better option than Bush. If I had to choose between the two I'd have refused to vote, same as last election.
Bush Wins. [sigh] Thanks, Ralph. (Score:2)
Bush appears to have won Florida, giving him 271 votes in the Electoral College.
The difference between whether Gore or Bush won Florida, the last deciding state, was the wasted votes directed at Ralph Nader.
As punishment to Florida and to the Green Party, I'm yanking half the spark plugs leads off my truck tomorrow morning before I drive to work. I hope my small contribution to the cause of global warming gives Nader lung cancer, and melts the polar ice-caps to drown the wasteland that is Florida.
Troll this all you want, I've got more karma than you have.
Re:Bush Wins (Score:2)
Voter.com [voter.com] has projected Bush the winner of Nevada, which is appropriate considering he has almost 20,000 more votes. So, even if Gore wins Florida, Bush will still win with Oregon (where he leads by 30,000 votes) and Wisconsin (where he leads by over 7,000 votes).
Yes, the election is close, and I can understand the Gore Campaign's reluctance to concede at this stage (I would do the same I think). But it's extremely likely that Bush will either carry Florida or will carry both Oregon and Wisconsin. For absentee votes to turn around all three of those states would be quite amazing.
So I'm going to sleep very confident that a Republican has been elected to the Presidency.
Of course, the real winner in this election, if I might say so, is the United States, who turned out in amazing numbers to cast their votes. I'm so proud of the turnout in this election, and I hope people will gain a new appreciation of the importance of everybody's participation.
I can say with a straight face, "God Bless America". Cheers, John
Florida Results (Score:2)
Re:Supreme Court (Score:2)
IANAL, but my California Bar Exam results come out on November 17th.
But, read Marbury v. Madison (actually don't read it, it's dense). Essentially, if the Supreme Court cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law or government act, then there's absolutely no point to having a constitution. Ergo, the constitution implies that the Supreme Court has the power of constitutional review.
A bit of a circular argument, but it's the basis of the power of the Supreme Court, and it ain't going to be changed until the revolution.
Holy Sh*t! Look how close! (Score:2)
That's the closest race I've ever heard of in politics.
Re:Voting for third parties (Score:2)
BTW. You better start getting your bids together to buy oil drilling rights in Alaskan protected land; You wouldn't want to miss out on that.
MSNBC saying it might not be over, only 11000 diff (Score:2)
Florida site says 100% votes are in... (Score:2)
And the final results state:
Bush: 2,904,198
Gore: 2,902,988
Nader: 94,368
But this is without recounts. Which is what they're doing in Dade County as we speak.
International perspective - Taiwan (Score:2)
PS-Gore has decided not to address the Dems personally - probably worried he might not be able to keep both fingers AND toes crossed L:)
Actually, I Think I'm Wrong (Score:2)
That means that it really does come down to Florida, as all the network kept saying, and as I kept wondering why they kept saying. Turns out it was I who was wrong all the time, since I completely missed Gore's win in Washington state.
Fortunately, I'm still very confident that Bush will win Florida, primarily because of the absentee vote. The ones that have yet to be counted (or even received) are the overseas military votes, which should easily have a Bush majority. So if I was a betting man, my money is still on Bush. Sorry about my mixup. John
No one has mentioned (Score:2)
(Electoral College not withstanding)
Oh get off it... (Score:2)
What if you don't beleive in Nader??
Yes, this election has been a choice between two very similar candidates. Yes, both candidates have ties to various business interests. That doesn't mean I should vote for Nader who is probably further from my own views than D "Dubyah" I is...
I voted for Gore not because I was voting for the status quo, or even because I hold the Democratic party in high regard. I voted for Gore because his platform was closest to my own beliefs.
I won't vote for a party if they don't reflect my beliefs, no matter how much we need "change"...
good entertainment for a long night of coding (Score:4)
Second, Florida (and Michigan and California) are declared Gore instantly when the polls close. Bush leads in all, with a respectable margin, for some time. Gore comes back in Michigan and California, but eventually Florida is declared undecided. Then it turns Bush! That's when it gets interesting.
Third, Bush is declared winner. Gore congratulates him on victory. And then takes it back! No one can accuse him of dishonesty this time; Florida is declared undecided again.
Fourth, no one knows who won. Bush leads by almost a thousand votes in Florida, the deciding state, as I write this. Slim margin, maybe, but that's up from 500 earlier in the evening. Unfortunately, the margin is just too small, and we won't know until most of the absentee ballots are received by mail.
So finally, the dilemma: obviously I can't wait up for the results, since they probably won't be known for several days. So, do I go to bed now, or do I start coding in earnest? Bed, yeah, it's just an assignment that isn't due until tomorrow.
First War the States participates with new governo (Score:2)
So let's play a little guessing game.
What will be the first target Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore attacks and when will this happen?
If (and when, unfortunately it looks like that at the moment :( ) Bush is elected, I'd say it'll be sooner rather than later but it's hard to speculate about the target. Though I'd guess Middle East since if we're talking about Middle East, we're always talking about oil either directly or not so directly, but oil is always related to Middle East issues somehow and Bush sure knows something about oil.
If Gore is going to be the new president, he might wait a couple of years but someday he'll fight too. Clinton has shown that also Democrats can arrange nice little attacks. The place? Just a lucky guess... Some small Central American country where extreme left guerrillas have captured some important Americans (say, the senator of California and his family) but the commando operation to bring'em back fails and this is discovered by the media. So the president have to do something in order not to loose faces entirely and that something could be finish off those commies. Not entirely directly, though. Of course the operation would be led by corrupted local officials. But at least the Government of the USA would cry it loud they're involved with the instability in the area, unlike a few decades ago.
What's your bet?
And we have to figure out the prize, too... Slashdot ID below 1000?
Two stage election (Score:2)
If primaries were abolished, and instead all candidates participated in the first round, and only the two candidates with the highest national percentage of the votes participated in the second round, everyone could vote for the candidate they like most, instead of against the candidate they like least. The fear of wasting your vote wouldn't have to influence your choice.
In a system like that, McCain might even have won the elections, and in the first round too.
Re:Whoa but wait, is there hope still? (Score:2)
Re:Gore is more popular than Bush. (Score:2)
Sheesh- I'm _never_ going to get to sleep, and I don't even like either of these guys. But if I ever have grandchildren I'll be able to say I watched the 2000 election- on slashdot :)
Re:Florida site says 100% votes are in... (Score:2)
Or counting absentee ballots - like my vote for Bush (so there's at least 1 more for Bush). That means that the 1200 or so margin will be adjusted by the 5000 or so absentee ballots.
Possibly 10 more days until we have a result. I have this strong urge to drive around to local voting places and see what's going on.
Aieee!!! They just said on CNN that Broward county hasn't been counted. That's a big ass county, and mostly seniors... Gore supporters. (4:21pm)
Hehehehe... I like the CNN people stumbling over how to pronounce Okeechobee ( Oh - key - cho - bee ). --
Evan
Re:Will we even know in the morning? (Score:2)
At the moment - 0423 EST - we may not know for DAYS. Florida will be recounted with Bush leading by 1200 votes, and will determine the Presidency.
At a minimum, we won't have the recount in Florida done until Wednesday afternoon.
The allegations I've seen on the press are just weird - people claiming they voted for Buchanan "by accident", missing ballot boxes, and Lord only knows what else.
I really can't believe what I've seen tonight. But there it is. I'm stunned. And I'm calling it a night on the reasonable grounds that nobody's gonna know who will win the Presidency until sometime later today.
Unfuckingbelievable.
600 Votes! (Score:2)
The first one to say "Republican Revolution" gets smacked...
It's not over yet... (Score:2)
Re:CNN: BUSH hasn't won PRESIDENCY yet 5:19AM EST (Score:2)
Re:now CBS says... 55000 votes uncounted (Score:2)
The Florida election official on CNN said about 3000 was the number - which was pulled from the 1996 election.
--
Evan in Florida
Re:California votes against free speech (Score:2)
Re:Its just a crapshoot now... (Score:3)
Very close indeed.
Political Theory To Be Tested (Score:2)
One of the arguments brought to bear in favor of voting for "third" political party candidates is that, in hotly contested elections where the votes for a third party are greater than the difference between the two major parties, then the winning major party candidate must reconsider their platform.
The argument goes something like this: If X and Y are the major party candidates, with Z as a third party candidate, and the voting goes as follows:
- 48% X
- 47% Y
- 5% Z
Then the winner X is politically compelled to consider adopting some of the planks of Z's platform. Had X chosen to address the Z party's concerns, those 5% of votes may well have gone to X instead, and the outcome would have been more decisive. Likewise, in the next election, the Y party will also have to consider the Z party's platform to try and get some of those 5% for itself.Well, it looks like this election is going to give us exactly that situation. It's not going to be a popular or an electoral landslide. Anything but, in fact. The numbers so far show Bush and Gore within 100K popular votes of each other, with Nader picking up some 1M votes. So, if the theory is correct, both the Democrats and Republicans will pay lip service to, if not adopt, some of Nader's/the Green Party's platform.
Hands up, everyone who thinks that's actually going to happen. (Cynical Leo suspects that Bush, if he wins, will try to declare a, "geographical landslide.")
Schwab
Re:A Little Secret (Score:2)
In 1984, Walter Mondale got 85% of the vote in Washington, D.C., barely won in Minnesota, his home state, and lost every other state to Ronald Reagan.
Looking at the current election results, Gore got 85% of the vote in Washington, D.C., and Bush was a distant second at 9%.
Re:First War the States participates with new gove (Score:2)
For Bush, I don't predict an international war. I predict a civil uprising. Look at the WTO, IMF, etc. riots. Think about the policies Bush would institute. Now, think about the riots. Think about the overwhelming military force Bush would use. Close enough to a war for me.
For Gore, I predict the Middle East. After all, with the current Israeli situation, and a Jewish VP, don't you expect there'll be a bit of a US hammer descending?
down to 214 votes... (Score:2)
Re:What's going on? (Score:4)
They use a more sophisticated model than you might think. The retraction of Florida was a pretty rare event.
> Is it just me, or have they seemed really eager to get Gore elected?
If they particularly wanted Gore to win, they could have beat Bush to death over the last year. Instead, they are still accusing AG of claiming to have invented the internet (though we know that's not what he actually said, and that he does have legitimate grounds for what he did say), and are virtually ignoring GB's lies and faux pas.
Florida favors bush by 4% so far. (Score:3)
Perhaps by a freak of nature Harry Browne will take florida. Heh; there's always 04'
-- Greg
Re:Florida current results (Score:4)
Eh? It doesn't seem to make a difference from the numbers you posted. Bush would still be ahead of gore if ALL nader votes had gone to Gore.
It's hard enough getting people out to vote in the first place. Don't give people shit because they voted for the candidate they wanted to be president.
My dream scenario (Score:4)
If I had my way, Nader would take a single state worth 3 electoral votes. The other candidates would come in at 269 and 268.
I'd be able to giggle for the next two months, every time I thought about my government.
-C
A Little Secret (Score:5)
The idea is to generate as much drama as possible surrounding the election, and capitalize on the hype by targeting ads at the idiots who are sitting and biting their nails at the TV or foolishly refreshing some web page.
Sensationalism at its finest.
Re:Florida current results (Score:4)
A vote for a third party candidate is not a waste. It is the exactly opposite in a swing state. If your vote changes who wins you have just shown that your vote matters. Of course most americans don't seem to understand this because of decades of propaganda.
The following example is pretty extreme, but it does make a point.
If I told you to select one of the following three options:
1. You are to be executed with a gun
2. You are to be executed using hanging
3. You are allowed to live
I also told you that lots of other people had also voted and the third option would not do anything for you. Would you in that case not choose the third option?
close race = good tv ratings (Score:3)
-gerbik
Nader (and taking votes from Gore) (Score:5)
What I can't figure out here, while listening to people on CNN talk about Nader voters throwing their votes away, is why they keep talking about Nader voters like they're doing something wrong!
If Nader is causing the Dems to lose votes, then why the hell aren't the Dems thinking about taking on some Green platforms? Nader isn't getting votes just to piss Gore off; he's getting votes because he has issues that are really appealing to a segment of the population that feels neglected. Why aren't the pundits talking about how the Dems should react? Instead they are just complaining about him being a spoiler.
The problem here is that many Gore voters aren't voting for Gore; they're voting against Bush. "I'm not him" is a really weak platform, and I think it's amazing that Gore's doing as well as he is. If the Repub candidate wasn't as distasteful as he is, I bet at least a third of the today's voters would have stayed home. Nader probably would be stronger, though, since his supporters are really supporting him (and not trying to deny someone else).
In fact, I think Gore is more guilty of stealing Nader's supporters. I really like Nader's anti-corporate stance, but I'm not exited about Gore at all. If I didn't live in Michigan (key swing state, for those not paying attention), I would definitely have voted for Nader, but I voted for Gore. I waffled over that until I voted, and I'm still wondering if I wished I'd voted otherwise.
-JimTheta
---
Gore supported Elian (Score:3)
Seth
Election Math (Score:5)
They also present several other voting schemes' pros and cons, but point out the difficulty in getting all of America to understand and switch to a new system.
Not what I saw... (Score:3)
Why don't we all wait a bit before trying to call this one?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Electoral College is too old (Score:5)
I think it is outdated for todays needs
It has nothing to do with the idea of "protecting" voters from themselves (despite what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe). We are a union of many individual states, not a country that happens to have subsections.
Our congress and our presidents are all elected by the states, and it's up to each state how to vote. If your state wants to hold a raffle for electoral college positions, there is nothing the federal government can legally do to stop it -- it's up to each state to execute the will of their own populations. This is to balance the power of the states against each other.
As it stands under a popular vote, the 5 largest states could single-handedly dictate to the rest of the states, which is unacceptable for obvious reasons. By using the electoral system (which grants 3 votes to even the smallest states) you ensure that the president has to have at least a three times that many, because it was considered unacceptable by the founding fathers that a president be elected without a significant minority of states voting for them...
---------------------------------------------
Why voting Green ain't great (Score:5)
Up north here, we've historically had two big parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. A few years ago, a new party to the right of the Conservatives started up, the Reform party. Since then, the Reform and the Conservative parties keep splitting the right-wing vote, letting the Liberals run away with majority governments despite receiving only 35-40% of the popular vote.
The only reason this stopped in Canada is because of a succession of completely inept leaders of the Conservatives (Mulroney, Campbell, and Clark -- though Charest wasn't bad). So the Conservatives collapsed, and now we're back to having two big parties.
My point is this: If you vote Green, and they DO get more popular, or even their 5%, you're contributing to a split among left-wing voters. Not just a split this election, but a split that will last in all the other elections until either the Greens or Dems collapse. Since neither is likely to happen, you'll be handing maybe up to 10 consecutive terms to the Republicans. So that's why I voted Gore even in safe Massachusetts (well, besides the fact that I don't like anything about the Green party beyond Nader himself).
Am I rambling? Or does this make a bit of sense?
vasi
Michigan too. (Score:4)
-- Greg
Re:Will we even know in the morning? (Score:4)
The Electoral College... (Score:3)
Before I start the explanation, please understand that I don't like any of the candidates, and chose to remain neutral this election.
Now, head over to CNN.com, ABCNews.com, or any other place with a map of how the electoral votes came out, and take a look. Gore has the popular vote, but look at the states he won. You'll notice they're concentrated in three major regions: the noetheast, the southwest (particualrly California), and the upper midwest.
Contrast this with the states Bush won: many smaller states, but generally spread out to cover the nation as a whole.
This, I think, is what the Framers were tryting to get at with the College: a system which takes not only sheer number of votes into account, but also the distribution of those votes. By winning more states, you prove that you not only represent many people, but people from many different regions of the nation. In the end, that truly is a fairer system. Not perfect by any means, but consider this: more people in the US live in urban areas than rural. Is it fair, then, that the urban votes could, at least in theory, control elections while rural voters, outnumbered by their urban counterparts, are never heard?
----------
UC Santa Cruz Knows Who Will Win (Score:3)
Voting for third parties (Score:4)
I'm all for third parties, but we need a new voting system where people can vote for Nader without effectively voting for Bush. Perhaps a system similar to Kuro5hin's comment moderation system?
------
California votes against free speech (Score:3)
Proposition 34 limits the amount that an individual can spend on campaigning. If you're not allowed to spend money on it, you're not free to do it.
Florida current results (Score:3)
Bush 2,111,170 51%
Gore 1,964,211 47%
Nader 67,503 2%
IIRC, Florida carries 25 electoral college votes, enough to give the winner the presidancy at this point. I just hope the 67,503 Nader voters feel smug about voting their concience while they're riding in this hand basket come January 20th.
For the record, I like Nader better than Gore, but I voted for Gore. I live in Michigan, a swing state, and couldn't vote for Nader.
--
Realism, here. (Score:3)
Under these circumstances (taking either a Gore or Bush victory as given, knowing that voting for any other party is effectively equivalent to not voting), a vote for Nader, from a person who would prefer Gore over Bush, really is equivalent to a half-vote for Bush. You can make the statement that you are willing to vote for a third party in other ways (especially in those pre-election polls; always say who you'd like to vote for when they ask for who you intend to vote for).
The election system is severely screwed up, creating this situation. If there was a simple candidate-ranking scheme (rate each from 0-10, highest average wins; unmarked counts as 5), you wouldn't have this problem. You could vote Bush=0, Nader=10, Gore=5, and actively oppose Bush without promoting Gore over Nader.
OTOH, true democracy can't work. However, the defacto system of influence auction seems to work fairly well. Don't get too worked up over who wins. They're pretty much the same, and either will keep the old system grinding along.
"Democracy can't work... Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group. But a democratic form of government is okay, as long as it doesn't work."
-Robert A. Heinlein
Glory Road
--------
Re:Voting for third parties (Score:5)
The Result (Score:3)
Bush wins the presidency by half a Nader.
vasi (suddenly feeling good about living in the True North)
Re:A Little Secret (Score:3)
(BTW is Hawaii still a state? I thought we traded it to the Japanese for more PS2's or something...)
Re:Why voting Green ain't great (Score:3)
Stupied question but...
If you're a Canadian, why are you voting in the AMerican election?
(For the record, I'm a Canadian too, and I wholeheatredly agree with you, although I've never agreed with the PC platform, and support Reform's much more strongly).
---There is no spoon....---
Re:Voting for third parties (Score:3)
The people who think that they shouldn't "waste" their vote on Nader because it might help Bush don't really understand what Nader represents.
Beowulf Clusters :-) (Score:3)
And, interestingly, the operation of vast quantities of voters and vote collectors represents a distributed "computing cluster."
(On the other hand, "Think of a Beowulf cluster of Politicians." Costs a lot and doesn't compute very well ;-[).
Dan Rather is a funny bastard (Score:3)
This much tension you can't cut with a saw, you need a blowtorch.
So close you can't put cigarette paper between 'em.
Heart pumpin' twist like a roller coaster ride.
The good book says the race is not always to the quick, nor the battle to the strong.
Counted those absentee ballots till the cows went to sleep.
The bandwangon is hmmmmmm... resting.
It's spandex tight.
Round and round it goes who gets the electoral vote win, and from where nobody knows.
The presindential race still hotter than a loreto parking lot.
This thing is as tight as the rusted lug nuts on a 55 ford.
He hasn't gone to bed, you can bet the rent money on that.
When it comes to reporting a race like this I'm a long distance runner and an all day hunter.