This is topic Now that the nominations are in... in forum Rants, Raves, Rumors! at The Geek Culture Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=19;t=000610

Posted by Groggle (Member # 2360) on September 06, 2004, 09:00:
 
Does anyone actually feel comfortable with the electronic voting machines that are being bandied about as a solution to the 'hanging chad' debate in 2000?

As a software person myself, I don't trust any such machine - it's far too easy to write software that is "crooked". (Not to mention, incredibly easy to bury in miles of code)

I know that versions of these machines have been in use for a while, but I have not seen anything that describes the scrutiny that the machines themselves are subjected to.
 
Posted by ZorroTheFox (Member # 917) on September 06, 2004, 09:21:
 
It really doesn't matter who wins anyway. Democrats and Republicans are both sides of the same coin. As for bills and initiatives, Safeco Field is prime example that the only way the voters win is if they vote the same way that the government wanted the vote to go. We did not pass the bill, but they decided we were wrong and built the stadium anyway charging us more taxes then if the bill had passed. The government is too corrupt and no one is going to make a difference as long as the money keeps rolling in. I used to like it better when they hid the fact theat they were screwing us over. But now that they know we can't do anything about it, they proudly screw us for all to see. Just for the record, I vote Libertarian these days.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on September 06, 2004, 14:31:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ZorroTheFox:
It really doesn't matter who wins anyway. Democrats and Republicans are both sides of the same coin.

Sorry Zorro, your posts are usually a quite impressive and show original thinking, but that last one sounded as though it was written by a clever dick whiny teenage prat!

Yes it does matter who wins, and no, they are not remotely the same. Even if they were identical, and in the past that has been a lot more true than today, democracy is still a good way of limiting the amount of corruption in politics. There is no percentage in being cynical about Christmas or elections at the best of times, and these certainly are not the best of times. But to get back to my original point, I would argue that this may well be the most important presidential election in my lifetime, and there is a very clear cut choice.

Don't throw your vote away.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on September 06, 2004, 14:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Don't throw your vote away.

As long as you actually go to the polls and make your voice heard I don't think that you can "throw your vote away". the major reason that third parties do not flourish in the US the way they do in Canada or other countries is that people believe that voting for them will do no good. If people had the guts to vote for the person they think would do the best job instead of the person they think other people will vote for I suspect that elections would have very different outcomes.

Most of the time there is little difference between Republican and Democrat policy in the people that make it to office--however different the ideology might be. But for this particular election (2004 Presidential race) I do have to agree with Callipygous that the candidates are very different people. GWB has shown that there isn't an end in sight to his list of "terrorist" nations. I don't intend to go to war with the world if I can help it, so I will be voting for Kerry this November.

As to the actual topic of this thread, I have heard several debates about electronic voting machines on public radio. A lot of people share your concerns about hacking or dirty code. I don't know how far I can really trust the machines, but if my choice is between using them and not voting, I'll use them. It's bad enough that people have their rights taken away without me disenfranchising myself.
 
Posted by unclefungus (Member # 2118) on September 06, 2004, 16:19:
 
Keeping this thread OT, I would rather use the "fill your party's spittoon the fastest" method than one of those machines. I dont think that the machines, the people, or the government are ready for it, and right now we should focus on making sure the bean counters get it right the first time.
 
Posted by Groggle (Member # 2360) on September 06, 2004, 16:40:
 
Not voting is a non-option IMO - all that does is let people that really _shouldn't_ get into power in. (Nor would I advocate not using the voting machines - I merely hold a certain mistrust of such devices, especially when there is no open review of the implementation of these systems.)

The intensity with which people seem to respond to GWB - both positively and negatively - is fascinating. (If somewhat disturbing) From outside the fishbowl, I can't tell just how divided the American public is. (Anybody with insights here, or am I not alone in my bafflement?)

If things are substantially polarized with regards to GWB and his behaviour these past few years, will that result in a substantial mobilization of the voters on both sides? (E.g. will we start seeing people aligning behind Kerry that would ordinarily vote "other", simply to ensure that GWB doesn't get re-elected)
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on September 07, 2004, 06:00:
 
When I first started voting, my local polling place used a really cool lever system. How it worked behind scenes, I don't know, but I did like flipping the levers Yes/No or between two candidates. I had to use the punch cards when I moved away to school. They were just annoying and not user-friendly at all.
 
Posted by ZorroTheFox (Member # 917) on September 07, 2004, 18:47:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
quote:
Originally posted by ZorroTheFox:
It really doesn't matter who wins anyway. Democrats and Republicans are both sides of the same coin.

Don't throw your vote away.
I'm not throwing it away, I'm voting for the candidate I feel most agrees with my line of thinking. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party is most in line with the way I think a president should be. Sure he has no chance of winning but I am still making my voice heard by voting for him. The Libertartians have been steadily gaining ground for years and they will eventually be a force to be reckoned with. Bush is too much of a Crusader for my tastes and Kerry flip flops more that a fish on dry land. If Kerry could at least pick a platform and stick with it I might have some respect for him. Bush may really suck but at least we where he stands. I feel both major candidates will hurt the US but Badnarik would make a positive difference. I do not believe in voting for the lesser of two evils when a third options is there. After the Ross Perot scare a few elections back the Republican and Democrat parties united in their efforts to deny the minor parties from ever becoming a threat to their stranglehold of the US government. They avoid getting into debates with them and even try to pretend they don't even exist at all. It was the Republicans that started the whole "voting for a third party will allow the wrong party to win" attitude in their effort to denounce the ill-fated Reform party. And now, it's the Democrats that are trying to use the same scare tactics to denounce voting for the Green party. I am tired of people saying they will vote for a candidate they don't like to prevent the one they hate from winning. Until the sheep in America break from the flock and realize that there is another option, we are all doomed to another 4 years of BS. The Democrats and Republicans have a deal that if one of them loses that they would rather have the other party win than to have a third party take the victory. I reassert my view that they are both sides of the same coin. Their policies may be different as heads is clearly different than tails, but they both share their policy of keeping the highest offices between them so they can keep that big business and special interest money rolling into their respective parties. No matter which of the big two wins, we are going to get thorougly screwed. The only difference is the Republican party will do it missionary style while the Democrats will have the decency to wear a condom and get you from behind so you don't have to see them laugh at you. But if my candidate doesn't win, I want to see Bush win just because he pisses everyone in the world off. Personally I can't stand the asswipe, but at least I know where that demon seed is coming from. I have no idea what will happen if Kerry wins, he has yet to stick with a platform. Getting Bush out of office is the only thing he is consistent on, and that just isn't enough. And what happens if Kerry wins and turns out to be a total jerkoff, are we supposed to put the Republicans back in office or give Kerry 4 more years of being a spineless party bitch. The insanity will never end as long as the only solution to ousting one major party is voting for the other major party. I'll stick to the Libertarians as long as they are the only party that can produce candidates I can vote for and sleep with a clear conscious. If you don't like that, well that's just too bad. I refuse to compromise my beliefs for the sake of changing one regime I don't like and putting in another regime I don't like. Where's the sanity in that logic. Vote Libertarian and really make a statement http://www.lp.org/ Bush needs to go, that is true, but I can never live with myself if I put Kerry into office as the solution to the problem.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 07, 2004, 20:24:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ZorroTheFox:
I'll stick to the Libertarians as long as they are the only party that can produce candidates I can vote for and sleep with a clear conscious.

See, I'd have trouble sleeping at night knowing I'd voted for a party that want to legalise child prostitution.

(is there any truth to the rumour that Michael Jackson is a major donor to the Libertarians? [evil] )
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on September 08, 2004, 03:13:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ZorroTheFox:
Kerry flip flops more that a fish on dry land.

If by flip flop, you mean he on occasion changed his mind (and while in opposition too), well great! Cast iron certainties belong only to visionaries or madmen, and they both usually do more harm than good in politics. You never know how a new man is going to take to the office of President. Some grow, whereas for others the job only highlights their weaknesses. It is always a gamble

quote:
I am tired of people saying they will vote for a candidate they don't like to prevent the one they hate from winning.

That has always been the way that the majority of the population votes, and the way democracy has always worked. You kid yourself if you think that the Libertariians will ever be anything more than a pressure group. If they attract a significant vote the only effect will be to ensure that the Republican Party stays in the hands of the extreme right who share some of their views, but whose Christian fundamentalist crusading zeal you seem to abhor.

You seem to have a backhanded respect for GWB, so why not bite the bullet and vote for him honestly rather than indirectly. I have to say that I think you are disastrously wrong in that judgement, but under a democracy you are entitled to your utterly wrong opinion.
 
Posted by Number 2608 (Member # 2608) on September 08, 2004, 04:58:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ZorroTheFox:
But if my candidate doesn't win, I want to see Bush win just because he pisses everyone in the world off.

And then some of the pissed off people in the world will take up arms and use them to attack America. Again. And America will step up its 'war on terror' (I'm sure that should be war on terror ism ). That will then piss off more people in the world. Who will take up arms. And attack America. And so it will go on, until someone is pissed off enough or organised enough to do something truely terrible, which will leave the world without an America, or even worse, without a planet.

Do the world a favour, make sure that whoever is the next president of the USA is not George W Bush. The man is teetering on being very dangerous to the good of mankind.
 
Posted by greycat (Member # 945) on September 08, 2004, 05:21:
 
I voted Libertarian in 2000. But I can't do it in 2004 -- not because of anything that's wrong with the Libertarian platform or Mr. Badnarik, but because George W. Bush must go.

If we used approval voting, I could vote for Badnarik and Nader (and I'd probably look at more of the third parties to see whether any of them are acceptable candidates).

If we used a Borda count, I'd vote Badnarik first, Nader second, Kerry third, Bush last.

But because we use a plurality vote, I'm forced to vote for Kerry.

Druid: nice troll.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on September 08, 2004, 05:55:
 
I will still be voting Libertarian this year. Mainly to aggravate TFD [Wink] . But also for the simple fact they are more aligned to my beliefs than anyone else.

Though I probably would vote Kerry if I had only 2 choices.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 08, 2004, 06:18:
 
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
I will still be voting Libertarian this year. Mainly to aggravate TFD [Wink]

Well, as long as you have a good reason [Wink]
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on September 08, 2004, 06:34:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
I will still be voting Libertarian this year. Mainly to aggravate TFD [Wink]

Well, as long as you have a good reason [Wink]
Excellent, now we can have WWTFDND (What would TFD not do), to go with WWCVD [Big Grin]
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on September 08, 2004, 06:43:
 
Groggle -----I have seen the machines but an older version, here in Genesee County Mi. The touch screen machines were used in some voting areas with quite good sucsess the program was well written, if you voted straight ticket then changed one candidates vote it did that correctly with no spoiled ballots, it also handled the cases where you were to vote for two or more of many candidates. Then when a National Election came up the FEDS said no because there were not enough spoiled ballots(NONE).

We wonder why this place is fscked up
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on September 08, 2004, 13:14:
 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
I will still be voting Libertarian this year. Mainly to aggravate TFD [Wink]

Well, as long as you have a good reason [Wink]
Excellent, now we can have WWTFDND (What would TFD not do), to go with WWCVD [Big Grin]
Which reminds me of the bumper sticker that used to be on a friend of mine's door: WWJD? JWRTFM!
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on September 08, 2004, 14:01:
 
HAHA.. JWRTFM. That's great. That should be on thinkgeek. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by ZorroTheFox (Member # 917) on September 08, 2004, 19:10:
 
ahhhh, sometimes it's just too easy to work people up [evil] , but seriously I am voting Libertarian. It's not as if the Republicans have much chance of winning the electoral votes here in Washington state anyway, this state is almost religeously Democrat. Oh that reminds me, does anyone else have money riding on this election. I bet an entire case of Mountain Dew that Kerry loses by no less than 20 electoral votes. It's going to be a close race but I'm not sure if I'll be able to cover the spread.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on September 08, 2004, 19:11:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
HAHA.. JWRTFM. That's great. That should be on thinkgeek. [Big Grin]

Or thinkgreek, even [Wink]

/me braces for hordes of "But Jesus wasn't actually Greek" replies.
 
Posted by ZorroTheFox (Member # 917) on September 08, 2004, 19:14:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by ZorroTheFox:
I'll stick to the Libertarians as long as they are the only party that can produce candidates I can vote for and sleep with a clear conscious.

See, I'd have trouble sleeping at night knowing I'd voted for a party that want to legalise child prostitution.

(is there any truth to the rumour that Michael Jackson is a major donor to the Libertarians? [evil] )

LOL, I hear he has a minor role in the movement, but I'm sure they were only kidding [Big Grin]
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 08, 2004, 21:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ZorroTheFox:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
See, I'd have trouble sleeping at night knowing I'd voted for a party that want to legalise child prostitution.

(is there any truth to the rumour that Michael Jackson is a major donor to the Libertarians? [evil] )

LOL, I hear he has a minor role in the movement, but I'm sure they were only kidding [Big Grin]
Oh boy !
Another child-ish pun-fest.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on September 08, 2004, 21:54:
 
Crimminy, TFD - are you trying to be a pain in the ass? Oh wait...o_O...
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 08, 2004, 22:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
Crimminy, TFD - are you trying to be a pain in the ass? Oh wait...o_O...

Nah, I'm just a cheeky bugger.
 
Posted by SimpleMan (Member # 2860) on September 10, 2004, 07:05:
 
http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/download/663296~808121ebce1410277b1726873e4a2454/Florida2004.jpg

This should help the voting process out a bit. LOL You gotta love it. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on September 10, 2004, 10:17:
 
/me is confused [Confused]

Clicking on that link only took me to this picture of Barney.
 -
 
Posted by Too Cool To Quit (Member # 2217) on September 10, 2004, 12:18:
 
Peebs: That's just their anti-bandwidth-leeching device. Copy the link and paste it into your address bar. It works then.
 


© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0