Voting Matters 2000 Final Debate

The following is a transcript from the Voting Matters 2000 Final Debate.

CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Sunday, October 29, 2000
Time: 07:00 PM Central Standard Time
Place: Vanderbilt High School Auditorium, Chicago, IL USA
Re: Voting Matters 2000 Final Debate
Attendants: Carl Otis Winslow, Laura Lee Winslow, Edward James Winslow, Steven Quincy Urkel

Moderator
Welcome, everyone, to the final debate for Voting Matters 2000. At our podiums, ready to debate, are the following four presidential candidates: from the House Party, Carl O. Winslow, from the Slumber Party, Laura L. Winslow, from the Bachelor Party, Edward J. Winslow, and from the Geek Party, Steven Q. Urkel. Welcome, candidates.

All
Thank you.

Moderator
The first question is for Laura Winslow, and then open to the other candidates. When elected in office, what do you plan to do with the upcoming vote for the Anti-Geek Trust Act? (see Week 3)

Laura
Good question. Now in the past, I have been very gung-ho about making sure the Anti-Geek Trust Act gets renewed this year. But I have learned that the Anti-Geek Trust Act could have prevented the creation of my boyfriend and first gentleman, Stefan Urquelle. However, it could have prevented the numerous damage made to our Winslow home due to inventions by candidate Urkel. There probably should be some alterations made to this law, and then passed.

Steve
With all due respect, Laura is making no sense with her statement. She was completely for this law being passed until she was questioned about her own morally unethical relationship. All it sounds like she wants to do is use the law when it is not to her benefit, and I find that to be completely wrong. If her relationship with Stefan did not go right, would she still be saying the things she is saying now? I doubt that. I personally feel that the law is shameful and definitely should be banned from future consideration, no exceptions to the rule.

Carl
I agree with Steve on some counts. I do believe that the law is pretty cut and dry, that no inventions should be made without permission. But after seeing the constant destruction of economy, property, and lives with lamebrain inventions, there should be no exceptions that some government regulations should be made.

Eddie
Well, I agree that the law should pass, but I don't think that is a bad thing, or that it would cause things like Stefan being created to not exist. All the law states is that an invention needs to be approved by government before made. I am seriously doubtful that inventions meant to make the world better, or even bring true love to another candidate, would be turned down.

Steve
How can you speak for all of Congress? You have no idea what they will vote for or against. By allowing government regulation, they basically have the power of where technology will head.

Moderator
Okay, we will close that discussion and open up a new question. Carl Winslow will have first at this, followed by the other candidates. What are your feelings towards spouses or loved ones also running for office? (see Week 4)

Carl
I have been one to have to deal with loved ones running throughout this campaign. First, my two children decide to run for president, and later, my wife decided to run for senate. It is a difficult situation on both counts. I feel that coming from the same family, we sometimes have a lot of the same issues, and think a lot on the same things, so sometimes it may be hard for the people to understand who originates an idea. But on the other hand, if the opportunity is available, by means go for it, I say.

Laura
I totally disagree with that statement. Just because we all live in the same household does not mean we agree on the issues. The Anti-Geek Trust Act is one example. Carl thinks it should go through as is, I think it needs to be changed. Harriette Winslow running for senate is another. I am in total support of Harriette, a woman, running for office. Carl's first reaction was of sheer upset. Sure, he apologized for it later, but his first reaction spoke for itself.

Eddie
I, too, do not agree with Carl's statement. Growing up in our household, we have several times of not agreeing. I think that a lot of our platforms are different.

Steve
Except of course that Eddie's platform looks remarkably a lot like Carl. Have multiple family members running for office can be good, but it can also lead to danger. Think about this logically, Carl as president, his wife's a senate, his mother's vice president, and his children get some cushy positions like speaker of the house or a governor or something. How would it sound if I put all Urkels in office? It could lead to a lot of biased, one-sided decisions that support the people in power, not to the public.