Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Discuss the US Presidential Election

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the end-of-the-road dept.

United States 1912

We made it. It's election day. Tomorrow we'll know. So for today's election discussion story, I'm throwing it wide open: let's discuss the election itself. Who are your picks and why. And also what about your actual experience voting today? Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?

cancel ×

1912 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm only going to say (4, Insightful)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625581)

... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.

Re:I'm only going to say (5, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625605)

Psh. You know as well as I do that Palin's gonna start her 2012 bid tomorrow.

Shhhh... (5, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625923)

She kicked it off last Saturday [google.com] .

Re:I'm only going to say (4, Insightful)

The Assistant (1162547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625929)

MidTerm elections would be in 2010!

Midterms in college are probably being given right now, or maybe they're already over.

Can't we have a break from campaigning for at least a year? I think we deserve it after having to deal with this for the past 2 years!!! Wouldn't it be nice if the news could actually contain some news? It's been a while since that has happened!

VOTE, VOTE Quickly, and lets get on with the rest of our lives!!!!!

Re:I'm only going to say (1)

Theolojin (102108) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625617)

... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but..."midterms" and "2012." It will never be over...

Re:I'm only going to say (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625621)

When Barack Obama is president, Slashdotters will finaly have girlfriends [typepad.com] !

Re:I'm only going to say (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625669)

What will be over? Have people been making a fuss about this election thing?

FiveThirtyEight (5, Interesting)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625585)

FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%

I like those odds.

Re:FiveThirtyEight (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625709)

Monday night is a Freemasons Meeting night. we all decided last night who was going to win. they just took what they learned last night and used it.

Come on, you guys think your votes count? how cute :)

Re:FiveThirtyEight (5, Funny)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625757)

While I don't want Obama to be president.

The internet would be so annoying if he lost. All the people whining about it.

McCain FTW (0)

mrgrey (319015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625591)

McCain FTW

Re:McCain FTW (5, Funny)

qengho (54305) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625759)

McCain FTW

"Fails To Win"?

Re:McCain FTW (1)

mrgrey (319015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625865)

more than likely yes.... but I see McCain as the less sucky choice.

Re:McCain FTW (4, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625799)

I find your intolerance intolerable.

It's outstanding how in an election where I didn't start off hating either candidate, McCain's choice of talking points (and running mate) brought me to the point of incoherent spitting fury...I had to read the transcripts of the last few debates because I couldn't stand to actually listen.

I just refuse to vote for someone who ran a filthy campaign whose only issue was "the other guy sucks." That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.

McCain was a guy I'd have voted for in 2000...Hell, I did vote for him in the primary. And I think this country wouldn't be worse off if he'd been president for the last 8 years. But he sold his soul for the brass ring this time around, and that level of intellectual whoredom I cannot abide.

Re:McCain FTW (2, Interesting)

bsane (148894) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625897)

I was thinking the exact same thing- thanks for typing it out and saving me the trouble.

I wanted McCain in 2000 as well- hes been nothing but a disappointment this season.

obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625595)

he behaved more presidential despite all the mud flinging at him

switfboat (2, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625601)

I am actually surprised McCain didn't try to switfboat this election. He ran a very negative campaign, no doubt, but it seems he at least had the decency not to blast his fellow Senator with inflammatory false accusations in the final hours.

Re:switfboat (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625635)

He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts.. dunno about you, but that's an outright lie.

Re:switfboat (4, Insightful)

Theolojin (102108) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625775)

He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts.. dunno about you, but that's an outright lie.

Er...I think he called Senator Obama a Marxist for his statements to "Joe the Plumber" regarding taking money from the wealthy and "spreading it around." I don't think it has anything to do with the Bush tax cuts. The concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is from Karl Marx. He wrote that in his critique of the ``Gotha program.'' (Search for that exact phrase on wikipedia.) I am not sure how anyone could argue that Senator Obama's statement was anything but Marxist. He did everything but quote Marx.

Re:switfboat (1, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625779)

He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts

No, he called him one for wanting to increase taxes on people who do pay taxes and then write checks to people who don't. And he properly identified calling such a maneuver a "rebate" as being a deceitful bit of lying spin.

Re:switfboat (1, Flamebait)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625867)

Well,

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody". Obama [google.com]

Everyone is free to spread their wealth around all they want. If the government is going to spread YOUR wealth, it can only be done if the government owns your wealth. If the government owns your wealth, that's Marxism in a nutshell.

Maybe you need an O'Reilly book. Liberals mean liberty about as much as Conservatives mean conservation.

ha ha ha (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625671)

Yeah, right. No false accusations at all.

Good one.

Re:switfboat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625831)

WTF are you talking about? He did try to swiftboat.

The big ones:

Socialist?
Ayers (paling around with terrorists)?
Rev. Wright?

Re:switfboat (5, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625887)

"I am actually surprised McCain didn't try to switfboat this election."

Are you kidding? They've been running Jeremiah Wright saying "Goddamn America" steadily on DirectTV the last couple days.

Did you get the Republican party robocall about Ayers, that basically said Obama was a bomb throwing terrorist who would bomb the Pentagon.

Did you see Sarah Palin saying Obama "pal'ed around with terrorists".

As soon as McCain fired his old advisors and replaced them with people who ran Bush's campaign they adopted all the same Swift Boat tactics and it completely turned Independents, like me, against McCain, that and picking a right wing nut like Palin.

So they did try to Swift boat Obama it just didn't gain any traction because people are sick of the tactics and recognize them for what they are, fear mongering for power. The country and the media are also sick of Republicans. Bush has one great accomplishment in eight years, something I predicted when he won in 2004, that by the end of this second term we would completely turn the country against the New Republican party, an intolerant, far right party, dominated by evangelicals. A party pandering to the rich and manipulating a bunch of not so bright middle class supporters in to voting for them using abortion, homophobia and fear, manipulating not to bright middle class people in to voting for a party that is completely screwing them economically. Let's hope its finally over. Now we just have to worry about all the stupidity the Democrats will perpetrate when they are in control.

Re:switfboat (1)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625917)

A swift-boat styled advertisement appeared on both the Sunday Night and Monday Night Football games telecast nationally. It was sponsored by the "National Republican Trust" and pressed hard on Obama's ties to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, closing with the slogan "Obama: Too Radical, Too Risky."

"The National Republican Trust has made enormous advertising buys to put the ad on several national television networks in the final days of the campaign. The group spent $1.2 million on Thursday and $2.5 million more on Friday." (Boston Globe [boston.com] )

A McCain spokeman said that McCain would not try to stop the Pennsylvania GOP and the National Republican Trust political action committee from airing the Wright ads. He added that McCain "is not going to be the traffic cop for every independent organization, state party, or state-level candidate that chooses to use these in advertising."

McCain himself chose not to raise the Wright issue despite constant pressure from Republican advisors and Sarah Palin.

John Galt (2, Interesting)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625607)

Galt's Gulch: those who know, know. Discuss.

Irrelevant. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625661)

Okay, um, let's see...satellite and aerial photography combined with shrinking wilderness make Galt's Gulch impossible...NEXT TOPIC!

Re:John Galt (5, Interesting)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625667)

Yeah. no matter who wins I'm afraid we are on the verge of: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You had better get it straight that it is not a bunch of boy scouts that you are up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We are after power and we mean it. You fellows are pikers, but we know the real trick, and you had better get wise to it. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power that any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ...just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that is the system Mr. Reardon, that is the game, and once you understand it, you will be much easier to deal with."

Re:John Galt (1)

codemaster2b (901536) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625921)

If I had mod points, you'd get all of them. When I read that passage for the first time myself, I saw that today's society does exactly this with laws.

Re:John Galt (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625733)

Once we all belong to each other individualism will be outlawed.

Personally I'll be taking the Ragnar Danskjold path.

Re:John Galt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625839)

It's been my plan for some time to bail to Mexico and become a drug lord if things get too bad here. Maybe I'll join you instead.

Re:John Galt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625735)

I don't give a shit who wins, either one will bring us closer to having the lights go out in New York City.

have fun (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625749)

You won't really be missed.

Re:John Galt (1)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625907)

Lets go to the frontier [seasteading.org] !!! :-)

Obama (5, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625609)

Obama- He's my pick. He might seem socialist- but I don't think anybody can top ol' G.W. these days. I personally want what's good for society. After the past 8 years of crapping on society, killing the economy, and ruining our constitution- it's time for a change. I don't see that change in McCain.

Re:Obama (5, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625739)

I personally hope he is a socialist. It would be nice to see my friends and family back in the US brought up to the quality of life I've found after moving to the Nordic countries.

Re:Obama (5, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625849)

Obama only seems socialist if you ignore the 700 billion dollar bailout we handed to businesses - easily the largest act of socialism ever in US history. Oh, it was penned by republicans, too.

Obama - A template for future US politics? (5, Insightful)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625623)

I'm voting for Obama and proud of it. How often do you get a chance to support a candidate that not only uses technology to its fullest potential, but also runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?

Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (3, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625797)

FWIW, the reason Obama wasn't that directly critical of the Republicans was because their failures are so manifest after 8 years of a Bush presidency. If things were as bad as they are, Obama like any merely human politician would probably have done a fair amount of mudslinging himself to rally people to his side.

Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (3, Insightful)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625893)

Put down the kool-aid. While I agree that Obama ran a better campaign than McCain.. "technology to its' fullest".. Ok, he embraced the internet and txt messaging.. hardly taking it to the limit.

From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.

REAL platform? That statement is rediculous. His platform is no more real or fake than any other candidate. Just because you agree with it more than McCains doesn't make it more real. In fact I think Obama's platform of "change" can be a bit vague at times and I think he's biting off more than he can chew.

I was going to vote for Obama, but the scores of mindless drones has really turned me off. I'm off to vote in about 20 minutes, I think I'll throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate.

Re:Obama - A template for future US politics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625899)

A real platform of what? All I've ever heard him talk about is abstract "change" with no specific plans, and his voting record is generally not what I'd agree with. I haven't voted yet--what change, exactly, can I expect from him?

No problem (4, Informative)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625627)

Voted in western IL about 20 minutes ago. No lines (but lots of people), 8 polling booths, paper ballots filled out with a marker. A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.

All in all I hope everyone's voting experience was as painless as mine.

I am just glad that it is over! (1)

Mortiss (812218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625629)

... now cue the flames.

Vote for CowboyNeal. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625633)

Went fine and no I'm not telling.

Anyway regardless of whom we get in, I'm more concerned for the after. [csmonitor.com]

My Opinion (From an Anabaptist Perspective) (3, Interesting)

Fished (574624) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625641)

I wrote the following for the blog I recently started ... I come at Politics from an Anabaptist (radical Christian from the 16th century) perspective, so I spend more time justifying the decision to vote in the first place than justifying who I vote for. The blog's at <a href="http://digitalscriptorium.info/">http://digitalscriptorium.info/</a> if you're interested.

--

So, here we are two days short of the election, and I suppose it's finally time for me to make up my mind. I often waver between three choices rather than the usual two:

      1. I can not vote at all.
      2. I can vote for Obama.
      3. I can vote for McCain.

Let me state at the outset that my natural predisposition is not to vote at all. That is the choice that I've taken in the last 3 elections, and a goodly part of me wants to continue the tradition.

Now that I've offended all right-minded and morally straight Christians, in Ameirca and beyond, I hope you'll stick with me long enough to hear why, because my reasoning on this subject will inform my ultimate decision in this election. I believe that, as a Christian, I owe my primary allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and that that allegiance is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of secular government. As Philippians 3.20 says: "our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." I believe that it is no accident that here (as elsewhere) Paul borrows political imagery to describe the church--the church is, in fact, an alternative power structure that should fundamentally subvert traditional power relationships.

Now, I can already see some who will read this jumping up and down, raising their hands, and dying to say, "but we can be citizens of the kingdom of God and citizens of the United States!" Any second now, someone will bring up Romans 13 and think that they've proved me wrong. The problem with this sort of interpretation is that it reads back the political situation of the 4th century into the first, by assuming that Christian participation in government was a real possibility that Paul envisioned in the first century. Let's be clear here: first century Christians were not the rulers, they were the ruled. The issue at hand in the first century was whether Christians should submit to secular government, not whether they should join it. Paul's admonition to make prayers for kings (1Timothy 2.2) is not given so that they may be successful in their secular purposes, but so that the church may live at peace.

There is a reason to suppose that this sharp division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is necessary, which is scripturally attested both in secular political science and in scripture. Scripture first:

        Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." (John 18.36)

Notice the contrast: there are two sorts of kingdoms. One comes from this world, and (we might say by extension) depends on worldly methods, that is, violence. The other comes from somewhere else, and seems to render violence not so much unnecessary as irrelevant. That is scripture's description of the kingdom of God. Contrariwise, scripture describes the politics (or kingdom) of this world in Romans 13, where world rulers are described as the servants of God "to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13.4b) But these wrongdoers are, to Paul, outside the church. Paul elsewhere envisions the church as having its own judicial function, whose sole sanction is expulsion from the church--see 1Corinthians 5.9-6.8. The division in scripture between the kingdom of this world and the earthly kingdoms is wide, deep, and complete. Our sole relation to them is to "render unto Caesar" by paying taxes, which is the real "take-home point" of Romans 13 before we start misapplying it.

But, why must this be so? For a really strong answer to this, I think we must turn to secular Political Science for a precise definition of what a secular state is, at its very foundation. Specifically, a well-regarded contemporary theory of government holds that something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order."1 Attend to this closely. Every function of government, no matter how useful or benign, necessarily depends on its ability to use violence to enforce its decisions. Even something so laudable as social assistance programs or public education ultimately depends on the government's ability to raise taxes. Few people indeed would pay taxes if they were not compelled to do so under threat of imprisonment. (And, if you want to follow the logic, no one would accept imprisonment were they not forced to do so by threat of overwhelming deadly force.)

The division between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world is that simple. No one can be compelled to enter the kingdom of God, a fact that even Augustine recognized (even as he advocated forced conversions in hopes that the forced converts would later truly enter the City of God voluntarily. Just another reason I'm not a big fan of the Bard of Hippo.) The kingdom of God's only power is to exclude those who were never truly part of us in the first place, and we apply that only with the greatest hesitation. The kingdoms of this world, in contrast, week to enforce their will by force over people who in most cases never chose to be part of them. They are born, live, grow, and die in blood. This does not mean that they are not part of God's will, nor does it mean that we should seek to abolish them. It does mean that we should keep them in their place. "Our Citizenship is in heaven."

The two kingdoms are real, and separate, and irreconcilable. They differ in their scope, their methods, and their ruler. The kingdoms of this world deserve our compliance, even a sort of provisional obedience, and certainly our filthy lucre, but not our allegiance or our affection. And we can't serve both of them. "'No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.'" (Matthew 6.24) No more can you serve the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. You can't give your full allegiance to Christ--the word really means "King"--and have any allegiance left over for the kingdoms of this world. The most we can be is sojourners abroad, colonists living in a land not our own (which is indeed how the early church referred to itself. To borrow the wonderful phrase of Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, we are "Resident Aliens." Not citizens. Not members. Just house guests, waiting to go home.

Yet, tragically, Christians today rarely recognize this. All too often, we delude ourselves into thinking that there is a deep compatibility between our faith commitments and the political identity that contemporary society would impute to us. This should not be so.

Given this, I often choose not to vote as a way of protesting against the way that Christians, and American Christians especially, place more value in our identity as Americans than in our identity as Christians. And I usually arouse more moral outrage when I tell my fellow Christians that I don't vote than I would engender if I told them that I engaged in a thousand "stylish" sins--greed, lust, malice, you name it. I look on refusing to vote as a prophetic sign-act, and I like to think that maybe over the years I've caused a few people to think again about their commitment to secular politics as a Christian vocation.

Yet, this year, I choose to vote. Choosing to vote,however, let me say a few things about what that choice means to me.

      1. In the first place, I do not think that either of the presidential candidates represents a "Christian" choice. I don't think that one can be a truly Biblical Christian and perform the duties entailed in the office of president.
      2. I do not suppose that, by voting, I make the state "my" state. By a happy circumstance, I have been given the opportunity to influence the state, and I believe that the issues are important enough that I will make my voice heard. This does not mean that I endorse or give my allegiance to the state. Nor do I particularly care what is good for the state. Instead, I vote out of compassion for the people who are under the state's authority--I am concerned for them alone.
      3. I do not vote on the basis of a single issue. Briefly, here are the issues that have shaped my decision:
                  1. Life Issues. I believe that abortion is murder. However, I also believe that the death penalty, as currently practiced in the United States, is murder, and that much of the current military adventurism of the United States is little better than murder. To be brutally frank, the Republican parties opposition to abortion is the only issue that recommends it in the current election. I truly wish the Democrats would realize the error of their ways and adopt a consistently pro-life position. As it stands, neither party is truly pro-life, making what should be an easy choice much more difficult than it ought to be.
                  2. Economic Issues. The United States is currently facing the worst economic crisis in decades. In my opinion, this current crisis is caused by what some have termed Market Fundamentalism. That is, the unfounded (and frankly silly) belief that the free market is always right. McCain is a self-avowed believer in "Free Markets", and I truly believe that four years of his stewardship would cause further economic collapse and untold suffering. In contrast, Obama seems to want to nominate Warren Buffet as his secretary of the Treasury, a man who has made billions by bucking the ideological underpinnings of Market Fundamentalism (i.e. the efficient market hypothesis. Let it be said that economic failure in the United States will cause great suffering to billions of people, both here and around the world.
                  3. Energy. The greatest cause of war at this time is the increased scarcity of petroleum. Obama is truly committed to seeking alternatives to petroleum. McCain, on the other hand, seems to be beholden to the oil lobbies, and his rhetoric doesn't reveal a real commitment to reducing US dependence on oil. The bottom line is this: we need to develop real alternatives to oil, and McCain is simply not going to get us there.
                  4. Character and integrity. As much as I hate to say it, I get the impression that the "Straight Talk Express" stopped sometime about a month before the convention. I used to like and trust John McCain, but no longer. While I don't find either candidate to be truly open or honest, I feel like Obama is at least sticking to one story long enough to believe that he actually means it.

So, I'll be voting for Obama tomorrow. And I'll be praying for the rulers of this country, that we may live quiet lives, in all peace and tranquility. And I will hope that time will reveal that I've made the right choice. Otherwise, nothing more can be said.

1 Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1964). p. 154

Lines (2, Funny)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625653)

As of this morning at 6:50 am there was a line of 2-300 people at our polling place. It makes me happy to see the high turnout, even at that time of day. Now bring on the free ben and jerrys, krispy kremes, and starbucks!

Re:Lines (4, Informative)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625801)

My question is this: Why are the lines so long? I voted in the Canadian federal election a few weeks ago, I stood in line for no more than 10 minutes and I'm in a very large riding in downtown Montreal..

If I was told I had to wait several hours to vote, I'd be very mad.

Re:Lines (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625881)

So there were 2-300=-298 people? Does that mean 298 votes will be missing?

Voted!! (4, Informative)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625657)

Small town in Iowa. Polls opened at 7am and I was there at 7:15. Polls were only 3 blocks away at local library, so walked. Seemed like everyone in line was excited to vote. Wait in line took about 15 minutes, voting took about 5. Used paper optically scanned ballot, though there was one electronic voting machine for people who felt like gambling.

We'll know tomorrow...? (1)

El Fantasmo (1057616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625659)

We won't know who won the election until the law suits are settled or the inauguration happens first. $0.02

Cthulhu! (5, Funny)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625673)

Why pick the lesser evil?

Re:Cthulhu! (2, Funny)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625911)

Not for president, but I did vote Cthulhu for one of the other (unopposed) races. Because somethimes, Cthulhu is the lesser evil.

Florida Checking In (1)

dudepigeon (558957) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625681)

OK - no dumb florida voter jokes! We use old fashion fill in the blob voting sheets. To insure I did not screw it up, I had my 10 yo son fill in my votes.

No secret ballot? (4, Interesting)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625695)

I voted today in New York State. The poll workers recorded each voter's name and the number the voting machine assigned to his vote. I asked them why and they replied that the board of elections told them to.

What is going on? The board of elections can now see who everybody voted for. I thought we had the right to a secret ballot.

Re:No secret ballot? (5, Informative)

felix9x (562120) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625769)

The fact that you voted is not secret. Only who you picked is.

Re:No secret ballot? (2, Informative)

unixwolf (1179025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625843)

Your votes mix with everybody elses.. Think about it.. If that machine craps out or there are any questions, they can call you back in to re-vote..

Re:No secret ballot? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625927)

I figured the machine printed a paper ballot with the number stamped on it. I should have checked the machine's make and model.

My predictions (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625699)

Obama wins the POTUS.

Linux fails to win the desktop.

Slashdot continues to suck.

Obama's sense of responsability (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625701)

One thing the democratic party has brought is a sense that the solutions to ou rproblems is something we have to bring forward as we accept responsability for our mistakes. You can't fix your problems until you accept they exist. All the while, a constant line from republican speeches has been to blame others for the problems. Blame the democrats, blame big foreign oil, blame Osama, blame Obama. Blame other republicans, too.

We're getting sick of the buck getting passed.

Re:Obama's sense of responsability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625809)

So Obama does not comment in every speech that all of our problems were caused by the last 8 years of the present administration? How is that taking responsiblity and not blaming others?

Re:Obama's sense of responsability (3, Insightful)

Flint Dragon (597473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625851)

What? I'm pretty darn sure the Democrats blamed Republicans, blamed Bush, blamed big domestic oil, etc... let's at least be objective here... sheesh.

Re:Obama's sense of responsability (2, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625873)

accept responsability for our mistakes

Name one stump speech in which Obama blamed his fellow Dems that are running both houses of congress for one shred of what's wrong. Name one stump speech in which he said that anything was wrong except for "eight years of failed Bush blah blah blah." Obama has been absolutely spineless about the major philosophical and practical wounds inflicted by his own party. That's "taking responsibility?"

Campaign Spending (1)

Diss Champ (934796) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625711)

I'm not even in a battleground state, and amoung the many messages on my answering machine were two offers of breakfast tacos from & one invite to a bar from the Democrats. Last night I got the a robocall at 10pm after getting back from a trip and going to sleep early- if I hadn't voted early, I probably would have let the call go long enough to figure out who they wanted me to vote for and made sure to vote the opposite.

Choice of paper or electronic (1)

AnonymousJackass (849899) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625719)

Voting in Virginia this morning I was pleased to discover that they offered the option of paper voting for those that did not want to use (or trust) the electronic machines. They were actually very encouraging of folks like me that wanted the paper. I'd say at least two-thirds chose paper (by-eye estimate).

Re:Choice of paper or electronic (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625803)

Indeed. We voted paper here in Arlington. In fact, the election officials were encouraging people to vote paper as it made the lines move faster.

We arrived at 6:20 (polls opened at 6) and it took us just under 2 hours to complete the process

No matter who wins... (-1, Troll)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625721)

...America loses.

Chicago Celebration (1)

nemo11 (413920) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625725)

There weren't that many more people downtown Chicago as I walked to work (just a few more policemen), but with a million people expected to be in town by the time I get off, all I'm really hoping for is a way to get back home this election day.

Is Dave Barry on the ballot? (1, Interesting)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625727)

I'm curious because he always has a "Dave Barry for President in ####" where "####" is the year of the next election.

I'm wondering how easy it is to get on the ballot.

myke

Does it Really Matter? (2, Informative)

alphasubzero949 (945598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625745)

I hate to be the victor of this election after Bush leaves (if he does). There is going to be a lot to mop up starting with what is left of our Constitution. Unfortunately if things take the turn for the worse, the opposition will have an easy scapegoat in 2012.

Re:Does it Really Matter? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625901)

You actually think the next in line cares about cleaning up the mess Bush & co made of the constitution? Or by "mop up" did you mean "finish off/Coup d'grace", because that outcome is more likely.

Ron Paul (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625751)

I am 57-years old and for all of my life my country has been at war. I voted for the only person that offers peace...Ron Paul

350+ EV (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625755)

For Obama of course. Who wants to bet?

Don't Blame Me (1)

Todd Fisher (680265) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625767)

I voted for Kodos.

Report from Buffalo. (1)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625771)

We still use the old-school mechanical voting machines here in the Empire State. I love those. A real kerthunk of Electoral Justice.

I showed up to my polling place at 8:15 this morning, and I was the 70th voter at my station. I usually show up at about that time, on my way to work, and I'm normally more like number 20. There's going to be a _lot_ of turnout today.

--saint

1 hour lines @ 7am (4, Interesting)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625773)

Who are your picks and why.

Third party, since I don't like either main candidate. This happened to be Barr, since I figured he probably has the best (but unfortunately still very small) chance of getting enough votes to scare some sense into the duopoly.

And also what about your actual experience voting today?

I got there at almost exactly 7am (when the polls opened), and the line was almost exactly 1 hour (I finished voting and left at 8:05). There were 10 Diebold voting machines lined up along one wall with no privacy screens, just little flaps on the sides.

Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?

Well, that's kinda hard to know, isn't it? (Some might say that's kinda the point of buying from Diebold.)

In Illinois... (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625781)

...I had the option of either voting by electronic machine or paper ballot. As you might imagine, I chose paper ballot for the simple reason that it leaves unchangeable records. Electronic voting machines are far too easy to manipulate or are far too likely to have glitches. (Especially the Diebold machines based on Microsoft Access.)

The downside is that the Illinois ballots are *bleep*ing insane! First, there's no simple checkbox. Instead, you have these bizarre arrows you have to fill in. i.e.:

Bob &lt; D
Larry &lt; D

You are supposed to draw a line for the vote you want to cast. e.g.:

Bob &lt;----D
Larry &lt; D

Which is then complicated by a list of about a bazillion judges to vote in or out of office. No judge runs against another judge, so you simply fill out the arrow or you don't. Incumbent judges have a "Yes/No" option to possibly vote them out of office.

I got up pretty early this morning, so it ended up taking more time to fill out these super-ballots than it did to wait in line. I then went home and listened to WGN ponder why it was taking Obama so long to vote for himself. Perhaps someone should show them one of these ballots! :-P

Amen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625785)

I think the media and popular (prime-time) television has done more to sway the popular opinion than it should have. Ok, so because of the media (TV) Obama wins. Its a given. Hollywood and TV loves Obama. Plain and simple [Ellen, The View].

Sad to say that the American people are sheep to this degree of soft mind control.

Undecided voter? No, I'm an unimpressed voter.

Diebold (1)

FalseModesty (166253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625795)

Diebold doesn't eat "my" vote. Either it eats everybody's vote or nobody's. Either it steals the election or it doesn't.

(slightly OT) As a European, I'd like to say... (1, Interesting)

g253 (855070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625805)

...screw these elections of yours, I want to be able to watch the next episode of House MD, dammit!
;)

More seriously, I am watching this election closely and dearly hoping that USians will not be as disappointing as in the last two. It's looking good, but I'm wary... Last minute disappointments are not unheard of.

I hope Obama wins, because I'd like to see the US become a good example again, instead of the very bad exemple they've become.

...
Still, I'm a bit upset to have to wait one more week to know what happens between House and Cuddy.

paper ballots (1)

Raleel (30913) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625811)

In Washington, we have mail in paper ballots. I like it for a number of reasons, but the most important of those is that you can sit down and make decisions with a voter information pamphlet.

I didn't vote straight party line... I honestly believe that some mentalities are better suited to different positions. I believe that some contention should exist in government, just not enough to paralyze it. Differing viewpoints more often lead to the truth than one.

Tomorrow we'll know... (2, Funny)

Freeside1 (1140901) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625817)

I remember thinking this on election day 2000

Tomorrow we'll know??? O RLY??? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625825)

Current polls show 52% think we will know our next President by tomorrow, with a margin of error of +/- 3%.

I voted this morning in NH (1)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625827)

There were about 100 people there at 8am this morning when I got to the polls, but it took longer for me to find a place to park than to stand in line to vote. Apparently people started lining up at 7:30. The process was quick and well ordered, which is what paper ballots will do for you. If there's a controversy this year with votes, it's won't be from NH.

Let's hope! (2, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625829)

Tomorrow we'll know.

You must be new here.

Re:Let's hope! (1)

Flint Dragon (597473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625931)

Actually, haven't the news agencies decided that they will declare a winner before the West Coast polls closes if one candidate is projected to have 270 EVs?

Stood in line as polls opened (1)

Boone^ (151057) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625835)

Polls opened at 7:00 AM, I was in line at 6:40 AM. We use "complete the arrow using this marker" paper ballots which are optically scanned. Everything was smooth this morning here in Wisconsin.

The King Is Dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625855)

Long Live The King!

My vote doesn't count (-1, Flamebait)

genka (148122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625857)

I live in a "Deep Blue" state, so I know no matter who I will vote for, my vote will go for Obama bin Biden. I guess I'll go and vote for McPalin, just to bring my state closer to a center and draw more interest from future candidates.

Jay (1)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625861)

I voted for Jay. Not the ideal choice, but still the closest to my beliefs. I'm past the "lesser evil" compromise stage; I now vote only for candidates I like the most.

Florida voting smooth so far (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625869)

Called my dad this morning and he said they were in and out in an hour. About 35 people in line but it went fast. He said the poll workers were really helpful and seemed well organized. I'm sure it's not going that well everywhere but the news isn't all bad.

If the Republicans get crushed and lose Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, I wonder if they're going to clean house or keep on with same failed people and platform that put them in the tank? Or if they'll blame Palin and minority turn out?

Election? (5, Funny)

Subm (79417) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625875)

Election? What election?

I pride myself on keeping apprised of current events, but I wasn't aware of an election today.

Who is running and for what position?

Srsly, whoever this CmdrTaco is who posted the story should at least give us this basic information in the summary.

Voted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625889)

Voted for Obama, was in and out of the polling place in 5min.

Why not discuss religion too? (0, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625891)

Since this topic is essentially an open invitation to a giant flamewar, might as well go all the way.

well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625895)

I think that Muslim guy's gonna win, there's no way you can lose running on a platform of spare change

Obama should win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25625905)

Not that he's better than McCain, but he does have a better running mate.
If something were to happen to the president I'd be more comfortable if Joe Biden were to take over than that fucking loon that McCain chose.

Bias Language on Ballots (4, Informative)

armada (553343) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625909)

I was amazed by the wording of some of the proposed amendments to the Florida constitution. One example was the marriage "keep the gays from marrying" proposal. First off, I happen to believe that marriage is a personal issue and has no need for government intervention but that is not my point here. The language was worded very biased, in that it started by stating that passing this amendment would "Protect marriage". As if I voted not my wife would someone stop loving me tomorrow or something. Second, it was the only amendment that ended with an entire paragraph dedicated to informing us voters that if we pass this the economic effect on the budget is "unknown at this time but likely minimal". This was on no other initiative. Holy bias Batman!

dixville notch (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625919)

most of us know it as the tiny hamlet clser to montreal than anything else in far northern new hampshire that releases its election results shortly after midnight on election day (since there is only 21 people voting there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire#Midnight_voting_tradition [wikipedia.org]

quaint and pointless mostly. this year, they landslided for obama (15 for obama to 6 for mccain)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7707667.stm [bbc.co.uk]

why is that notable?

in all previous elections, back to 1968, they landslided republican

so that's an interesting changeup, north country new hampshire, solidly republican, giving us a glimpse of a new trend?

portent of things to come later this evening for the rest of us perhaps?

If Obama is NOT the next president (4, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#25625925)

The USA is simply doomed. I live outside the USA, and I can assure you, the rest of the world is }{ close to pulling the plug on the USA, economically, diplomatically, socially, the whole works.

If McCain is the next president, the world will say "Ya know what? We're done here. Game over. Thanks for playing" and it will hurt (a lot) in the short run, but once the American Empire's wings are clipped, the rest of the planet can set about building a future that works.

Economic? Send the dollars back home. How? Buy up the assets. Devalue the currency. Don't loan them money.

Diplomatic? The USA as a pariah state, sim. N Korea today or Libya back in the day. Turn off the WTO and IMF. Look elsewhere for partnership.

Socially? Don't let Americans out of America. Make travel difficult. Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES.

The Americans would bitch and moan and threaten and swagger, but since they're basically bankrupt and have dumped a substantial amount of their wealth into non-wealth generating assets (the military, first and foremost) the USA is really at the mercy of the rest of the planet and some. And if some swaggering third rate imperialist like McCain or, godferbid, his delusional retard of a VP, Palin, comes around acting like a dork, the simple and obvious reply is to shun them.

Now, before you think I'm some sort of Obama supporter, you're wrong. Obama is every bit the imperialist that McCain is - it's just that his focus is not on global domination, but on the much more realistic goal of regional domination. In other words, McCain is a unipolar imperialist and Obama is a multipolar imperialist. The multipolar option is the ONLY realistic option for the USA right now.

So, if the USA has ANY sense of self preservation, it will put Obama in as president. If it wants to drive itself off the cliff of history and explode on the rocks of self-inflicted stupidity, then it should vote for McCain.

The reality that is going to come crashing in is simple: energy. You either have it and use it wisely and with great thrift, or you act like Americans and permit atrocities like Las Vegas and the Cadillac Escalade to exist. Get with the program, or die off. It's a simple choice.

Now, go vote, and vote wisely.

RS

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>