An anonymous reader writes "Greg Palast, the journalist who first reported on the initial Florida voter scandal (Warning large PDF), thinks he's found a new threat for this election, reported here at the BBC. He did uncover some interesting shenanigans last time, is this significant, or is he just fishing this time?"

TolkiEinstein writes "The NY Times is running an article on The Nader Factor that details the threat level old Ralph represents to John Kerry. Nader has made it on the ballots of 30 states, and polls show he could influence the outcome of 9 states where the race is a dead heat. While Nader argues that he isn't a spoiler, a Zogby poll suggests that if he weren't on the ballot, 41 percent of his supporters would go to Kerry and 15 percent to Bush. Ironically, this is why some of the prime movers in getting him on the ballot have been Republicans. As per the article, Terry McAuliffe - the democratic party chairman - says he should 'end the charade' of a campaign being kept afloat by 'corporate backers.' Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph."

dpplgngr writes "According to this BBC article, Map redrawing angers U.S. Democrats, Republicans in Texas are making use of Census data and mapping software to redraw districts, signficantly altering the election process, and resulting in the lowest overturn of incumbents in history."

The House of Representatives voted on bill to reinstate the draft by Democrat Charles Rangel (NY), and defeated it soundly, 402-2. The bill, which languished in Congress with no real support since its introduction in January 2003, has often been used as evidence the Republicans favor a draft, despite the fact that a Democrat sponsored it, 14 other Democrats cosponsored it, and no Republicans supported it. The rumors reached urban legend status, leading the House Republicans to take the uncommon step of voting on a bill that was not under remotely serious consideration. The two voting in favor of the bill were Democrats John Murtha (PA) and Pete Stark (CA), who was one of the cosponsors. Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist said the Senate will not address the issue.

Last Thursday you got to Ask Questions of the Green Party's US Presidential nominee, David Cobb He answered 12 of the most highly rated comments. A thanks goes to Mr.Cobb for taking the time to explain some of his positions to us. Read on to see what he has to say.

linuxwrangler writes "Ex president Jimmy Carter is claiming that Florida has still not created conditions for a fair election. The Carter Center has monitored over 50 elections worldwide for fairness and says that the absence of uniformity in voting procedures and the lack of a non-partisan election commission sets the stage for a repeat of the 2000 election. That election, overseen by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (aka co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee), was officially decided by a margin of 537 votes. According to Carter, Florida governor Jeb Bush (aka brother of George W. Bush) has done little to correct the problems found in the 2000 election. In addition, Harris' successor Glenda Hood, (aka an elector for George W. Bush in 2000) recently attempted to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons."

Last monday, you were given the chance to Ask Questions of the Libertarian Party's US Presidential nominee, Michael Badnarik. Today we present to you 15 of the most highly rated comments, and the answers from the man himself. Thanks to Mr. Badnarik for taking the time to talk to us. His answers are yours with just a click of the mouse below...

expriest writes "In an attempt to confirm Bush's most conservative nominees to the federal bench, Senate Republican leaders are considering a nuclear option. Under this procedure, the person chairing the Senate rules that filibusters of judicial nominations are unconstitutional. Republicans claim a simple majority (51 senators) would be all that is necessary to uphold this ruling, and therefore give them the power to confirm judges. The problem with this procedure, however, is that the Supreme Court could still overrule the Senate, and the status of the then improperly confirmed judges would be unknown."

An anonymous reader submits "Not sure if this is for real or not, but for what it's worth, it seems like a Democratic PAC is letting people vote on where to spend US$10k of its money. Think Oregon is a more important swing state? Pennsylvania? Let' em know at ORvPA.org. What kind of issues does this raise? Think Republicans will try and game the vote? Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Is this a good example of trying to harness the wisdom of crowds?"

eLoco writes "From the NYTimes (reg. req.): The Political Brain -- "Why do Republicans and Democrats differ so emphatically? Perhaps it's all in the head." Researchers from UCLA have seem to have found that liberals have, on average, a more active amygdala than conservatives. According to the article, studies of stroke victims "have persuasively shown that the amygdala plays a key role in the creation of emotions like fear or empathy." So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly? [DISCLAIMER: this is not a troll; I am a liberal]. Regardless, this seems to have implications for more than just politics. Favorite quote: "Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function.""

An anonymous reader writes "Wired reports-- Online protests targeting GOP websites could turn out to be more than symbolic during this month's Republican National Convention, possibly blocking a critical communications tool for the party... "We want to bombard (the Republican sites) with so much traffic that nobody can get in," said CrimethInc, a member of the so-called Black Hat Hackers Bloc. It's one of several groups planning to distribute software tools to reload Republican sites over and over again."

bettiwettiwoo writes "A New York Times article (free reg. req.) highlights a new trend in games, and political marketing: openly political games. Both Republicans and Democrats are developing games with political messages, albeit using slightly different strategies. A featured developer, Persuasive Games, is open about their not-so-objective objective: 'We design, build, and distribute electronic games for persuasion, instruction, and activism.' But would that be declared on the games so produced? And would it matter if it did? In such times of artful manipulation, it is actually quite a relief to find that not all politicos are sophisticated high tech geeks: the Long Island Political Network invites you to play... Tic Tac Toe."

finelinebob writes "Now we know why Bush wants broadband for everyone: The Republican National Committee plans on bringing the campaign to Internet pop-up ads. From the article: 'Internet experts said that Republicans have entered a new realm of campaigning. Pop-up and pop-under ads of any variety haven't been around long, and little data exist to suggest how voters might respond to uninvited interruptions.' Okay, folks -- get your pop-up blocking browsers now!" While you're waiting for your first pop-up, pop on over to a website that tracks campaign contributions: vVF4N writes "Fundrace 2004 lets you enter any street address and see what people at or near that location have contributed to a presidential candidate, along with their addresses and occupations. The data is based on reports that campaigns regularly file with the Federal Election Commission. You can also look up a name and get the same information. The Washington Post (registration required) has more. Find out who your friends and neighbors are contributing to."

earthworm2 writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee have spied on confidential Democratic files for a year, studying their strategies and passing on the juicy bits to the media."

jdedman4 writes "Declan McCullagh writes in c|net that the Congressional Republicans and Democrats are quibbling over proposed federal anti-spam legislation. The root of the disagreement is the class action, a specialized joinder rule in lawsuits which needs little or no introduction, and which is prohibited in one version of the legislation. The new anti-spam legislation in Texas, which is to take effect September 1, has a similar prohibition. (See here for an analysis of the new Texas anti-spam law.) It is certainly true that the class action joinder rule can take a relatively frivolous individual claim that an attorney would not pursue and transform it into a lucrative and dangerous claim with a potential for high recovery. However, the measure can be appropriate when large number of individuals' rights are violated by a defendant's course of conduct but the cost of vindicating those rights is too great. With spam, the latter situation seems to be the most logical, as recipients of unsolicited commercial email are harmed, but their economic damages are not severe enough to merit an individual lawsuit on their behalf. Even with relatively high statutory penalties against spammers, the cost of locating the offender and investigating its corporate structure, if any, might dissuade a plaintiff's attorney from pursuing the claim. Plus, it seems the problem with class actions in this context would be practical, not philosophical, as most spammers would be either judgment proof or out of the jurisdiction."

Mr.Intel writes "The NY Times is reporting that 'The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans sought today to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and terrorism operations.' Although the measure was beaten back in committee, it appears that the administration is not satisfied with Patriot or Patriot II type powers..."

955301 writes "As if it was unexpected, the New York Times (free reg...) has an article on attempts by our Congressional Republicans to eliminate the expiration of the Patriot Act. Everyone may thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah for getting this 9/11 snowball rolling, and the general population for our current leadership." There's another story in the SF Chronicle.

Maybe it's time to think about becoming an expatriate. Those who still harbor illusions about the accuracy of what pols and the popular media tell us about "geeks," gaming and cyber-culture ought to read one of the most interesting series of studies yet on computer games and the young, published this weekend in the Times of London. The government-funded study by the British Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), finds that computer games are giving a "young Britons a level of co-ordination and powers of concentration equivalent to those observed in top-level athletes." Beyond that, gamers are smarter, more likely to go to college, have more friends, read more, and get better-paying jobs than non-gamers.

David Carver writes: "I heard about this on a local news station this morning: The Financial Modernization Act, passed in 1999, allows financial institutions to share your personal financial information to other institutions without your explicit permission. They have been required by law to inform you of your rights by July 1st. The good news is that you can choose to opt out of this, but you must notify, in writing, any bank, credit card company, etc. with which you have an account. A sample opt-out letter, courtesy of Ralph Nader, is available at privacyrightsnow.com."

alphaparadigm writes: "Is Star Wars: A New Hope the most violent movie ever? What I mean is, does it have the highest body count of any movie ever? They blow up a planet full of people and then a death star full of people! I figured if anyone would know, it would be you guys." That's a very good point. If violence is measured by number of sentient beings killed, then Star Wars Episode IV is going to be first on the chopping block when the Republicans come to censor our movies. And censor they will. Also there's the one episode of Star Trek: Voyager in which not just planets but entire species are wiped out, but then they crash Voyager into the time ship and the timeline reverts to the way it was so nobody ever really died ... or did they? Anyway these are the films, ladies and gentlemen, the mass-murdering films and TV shows, that John Ashcroft will ban, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition. Anyone standing up for them will be tarred as defending mass murder. Mark my words.