Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 2) 251

As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win.

If people continue to vote strategically like you suggest, what incentive do the politicians have to reform our voting system? I can see it now.

"Mrs. Clinton, I am voting for you solely because your opponent is so terrible. But I warn you, if you don't push hard for some sort of ranked choice voting system in the next election I will....still vote for you because your opponent is still terrible."

Judging from their actions, the Democrats and Republicans would rather lose an election than give people the ability to vote their conscience and case a non-spoiler vote minor parties. In 1992 and 1996 Perot split the vote giving Clinton a win. In 2000, Nader's absence would have likely produced a Gore victory. So both parties have been burned by this, but they aren't exactly lining up to change the system. The duopoly has more benefits for them long-term. They aren't going to do it.

The only way to get it done would be by citizen initiative in the states that allow for it. And even then, both the Democrats and Republicans will come out against it; the law will be easily defeated. We will never be rid of this voting system until it regularly spoils a victory for the same party multiple times and the determine they're better off with it than without it.

Comment Re:The Free World is in demographic decline (Score 1) 301

For me at least:

1) They're expensive as all fuck. I had to take out a ton of student loans and now have a lot of debt. I'm comfortable, but even on my and my wife's salary, having a kid would make us considerably less comfortable.

2) I don't want the responsibility. I like being able to go to a concert or sporting event on a snap decision instead of having to worry about who might watch my kid or having to take them with me.

Comment Re:That's nice (Score 2) 412

I live in a swing state (Ohio) and my vote is worthless too. The only way it truly matters is if my vote gives a candidate a plurality of the vote in my state AND my state's electoral votes are required for that candidate to win.

If I go out and vote for Hillary Clinton, the only thing that changes is that Hillary Clinton has one extra vote that she wouldn't have had if I did not vote for her.

Comment Re:Dogma Alert! (Score 1) 268

The Open Source folks are generally about it being a better development model. On a long enough timeline Open Source software will outperform proprietary software. It will become the best tool for the job.

Free Software advocates are more like what you describe. RMS has said on many occasions his goal is not technical superiority, but freedom (as he defines it). He screams bloody murder that proprietary software is morally and ethically wrong, but he's not really concerned if that retards its adoption. He's not interested in using or recommending proprietary software even if it "helps the cause" at the end of the day.

Comment Re:Yeah, so... (Score 5, Insightful) 655

Sure, but the main builder of roads is the government. And if we're going to build more roads, we'll need more spending on roads, which means more taxes. People do not like taxes.

I find that people would rather spend hundreds of dollars per year in wasted gas/time in traffic than see their taxes go up by half that amount.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of the Turing Tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.