poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (04/16/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 16 Apr 85 Volume 5 Number 13
Contents: Elections
Tariffs
Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 85 17:44:39 EST
From: Will Martin <wmartin@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
Subject: The Indiana Election Debacle
Sending this from another machine since my host is down right now;
real return address is "wmartin@almsa-1".
Anybody have any REAL information about what is going on with the
endless recounts in the Indiana congressional election that has resulted
in the non-representation of that district and all the foofaraw about
the contest?
I am bewildered as to how even marginally competent people can come
up with varying counts each time they recount the votes. Also, I have
never seen, in print or TV news stories about this issue, any details
on the methods used in this district for voting (and counting those votes).
Here in St. Louis (MO) city, we have moved from voting machines to punch-card
ballots during the past decade or so. Therefore, I find it hard to
visualize what makes so many of the ballots the Indiana people are counting
to be subject to "challenge" or some sort of verification or authentication
process. Are these actual "mark an X in the box" paper ballots? If so,
do large numbers of voters scrawl on them with crayons or otherwise
make them invalid? Here, the only thing I can imagine doing to "invalidate"
my ballot is to vote for more than one candidate for the same office
(or more than the number allowed if a slate is being elected). Even that
would probably invalidate my ballot only as regards the voting for that
particular office, not the whole election (I suppose this -- is this the
"standard" situation, or does one screw-up void the whole ballot?).
So what conditions exist in this disputed Indiana election that make
the recounts vary, and on what grounds are ballots being challenged?
I must say that this sort of situation supports my long-standing and
oft-expressed view that simple majorities are NOT sufficient to
elect a person or enact legislation -- I always thought that
much higher percentages should be required -- like 75 to 90% support.
But I don't expect this to ever happen...
Will Martin
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1985 11:28 EST
From: Dean Sutherland <Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Tariffs
This is impossible!! The ENTIRE readership of Poli-Sci must agree with me!
With such widespread agreement we can obviously expect the end of all tariffs
and import controls within the year. :-)
Dean F. Sutherland
sutherland@tartan
[I echo your sentiments--perhaps the Poli-sci readership should be made
the governing body of the nation. They couldn't do much worse a job
than the Congress... --JoSH]
[ps--re trade deficits: I never understood how it was considered a bad
thing for the country to be in a position where (say) the Japanese
send us loads of cars, appliances, clothes, etc, and we send them
pieces of green paper. Especially since, if you're so fond of green
paper (and who isn't?), we still seem to have more of it here than
when we started. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 4 Apr 85 10:55:02-PST
From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: 55 cellular phones
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
With cellular phones the time spent in a car can become as productive
as the time spent in an office (at least if one believes the ads). In
this view there can be no comparison of the "wasted" time to the
deaths.
Cellular phones by definition have a very limited range; I think the
maximum is 10 miles although it may be less. (The reason is that this
allows more efficient use of the radio spectrum while cutting the cost
of the mobile units.) It's not feasible to install the necessary
concentration of radio-telephone links outside urban centers.
The speed limit is not nearly as great a factor in determining traffic
speed in urban areas as it is in rural and suburban ones. Even if you
believe the ads, cellular phones only work for people who aren't
really affected by speed limits. The 700 lives worth of wasted time
are spent by people who won't have that option. They are spent by
people who don't really have other things to do during that time.
(How much time can a cellular phone save a long distance trucker?)
I don't want someone driving and talking on the phone; it's bad enough
that they read the paper, eat, and shave or put on makeup. What's
next, showers?
I find it hard to believe that beepers are really justified (apart
from ego reasons) in most cases. Cellular phones are overkill. I can
hardly wait for mobile video conferencing. After someone installs a
file cabinet, workstation and modem in a car, the only unique purpose
that the private office serves is adjacency to other offices. At that
point, why not have meetings and do business on the road?
sigh,
-andy
------------------------------
Date: Thu 4 Apr 85 21:33:51-PST
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: josh's technical solution
There is one other disadvantage to robots replacing people driving
cars: some people enjoy driving cars fast. For these people, maybe
it would help to keep around a few highways which they could visit
like ski resorts. I'm sure someone could make a profit doing this,
if an alternative transportation system like Josh's had replaced
cars. Since driving cars would then be a sport engaged in by people
who didn't mind the risk, there would be no need to worry about things
like roadblocks for those of us who do mind the risk. I don't know
enough about robots to know how good they are at driving cars, but
I like the idea if we could manage somehow to implement it.
Lynn
[Let me add a note here--I got a personal reply or two indicating
someone thought I was advocating a rail system with centralized
switching (or at least active elements in the rail system) like
railroads have. I wasn't, although perhaps that was a reasonable
interpretation of what I said. One can build switches in which
the roadway is completely passive--indeed I have a sketchy design
for a car-portion of the switchery that automatically shunts the
car off the road if its power fails. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 4 Apr 85 22:29:34-PST
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: statistics and drunk driving
I don't really care about the statistics, except insofar as they
can be used to evaluate various ways of trying to discourage
drunk driving. What I care about is that one of those people
who died was Brian, and that I can never again hear his laugh
or debate politics and religion with him or hold him in my arms.
I know that drunk driving has hurt me more than any of the
proposed solutions ever will, and I don't want to be hurt that
way again. If I ever see a man I love die again, I want it to
be after a full life, not run over at the age of 24 because some
moron had to have his fun drinking and playing tag with his girl
friend, and never thought of the consequences.
Lynn
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 85 11:13 MST
From: "James J. Lippard" <Lippard@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject: drinking age
Date: Tue 2 Apr 85 14:46:08-PST
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
...
statistics show fewer fatalities in
car accidents when the drinking age is 21 than when it is 18.
...
That depends on whose statistics you look at. A study "The Effect of
Minimum Drinking Age Legislation on Youthful Auto Fatalities, 1970-1977"
by Philip J. Cook of Duke University found that fatalities for those
between 18 and 20 were higher in areas with drinking ages of 21 than
areas with a drinking age of 18. "Death and the Legal Drinking Age: A
Tri-State Study" by Michael Birkley found that Wisonsin (drinking age
18) had considerably lower alcohol-related fatalities per capita than
neighboring states Illinois and Michigan (drinking age 21). (Source:
Reason Magazine, May 1984, "Prohibition for the Younger Set?" by Rex R.
Reed. The article also mentions other studies which have opposite
findings.)
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------