poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (10/23/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA> Poli-Sci Digest Tue 23 Oct 84 Volume 4 Number 95 There are some intelligent people in Washington. More of 'em in Kansas. --Alf Landon Contents: None of the Above New Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday, 18 October 1984 00:01:38 EDT From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa Subject: Re: they all suck An election year does not go by without much handwringing over voter apathy. The standard reason given is that all the candidates a) suck, b) are all the same, or c) it doesn't matter who gets elected anyway. A "None of the Above" voting option is currently available. It's called voting for someone else. In most states there is a spectrum of candidates to choose from. And you can always write in Gus Hall or Lyndon LaRouche. If a voter really feels strongly about the suckiness of the candidate choice, then he will get off his butt and do something about it, like get active in politics. If not, then he obviously doesn't care very much about it, and so politicians correctly ignore these concerns. [If everyone who thinks the choices suck (ie who doesn't vote at all now) took your advice, Gus Hall or Lyndon LaRouche would be president, and God help us then... --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 16:14:17-PDT From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Subject: re: none-of-the-above voting Since I was one of the people complaining about my vote being meaningless, I want to answer Jerry. Yes, it would help me to be able to vote for 'none of the above'. I was seriously considering a write-in, so disillusioned am I with my choices, but friends convinced me that my voice would not be heard if I write in. My valiant protest would be lost, meaningless, as it is if I simply don't vote. So given my choices, I will vote *against* the candidate I like least. This reminds me of an idea a friend of mine had for reforming our method of elections. We were remarking what a high percentage of people seem to vote, as I do, against a candidate rather than for one. My friend's proposal may not be practical, but it sure sounded appealing to me. He suggests we allow votes to be positive or negative. A candidate's total would be the difference between positive and negative votes. In a strictly two-party system, there isn't much difference, but it's morally more satisfying to vote against someone I hate vs. voting for someone I merely dislike. And if there are small third parties or write-ins, it gives them a better chance, since a major party candidate could actually end up with a negative total, making a write-in with a small positive total the winner! My friend made his proposal even less practical (and more appealing) by suggesting that to win, a candidate would have to score a certain minimum percentage (I believe he suggested 10-15%, which I think is quite high under this scheme), and any candidate scoring less than a certain percentage (0% being an obvious option) would be disqualified from that office for that election. If everyone is so disqualified, then we have to find new candidates and start again. Well, I admitted it wasn't a very practical suggestion. But that would really let us send a message to those party leaders! I wonder if they would ever get the message and start giving us more real choices? ------------------------------ Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 10:41:14-PDT From: Wilkins <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA> Subject: republicans and taxes I would feel a lot better about the Republicans liking lower taxes if they also liked lower government spending. However, a $260 billion deficit beats (by half an order of magnitude) any deficit FDR, LBJ or any democrat ever ran up (and we're not even at war). Anyone can be in favor of no income as long as they can keep spending. Too bad the rest of us cannot mortgage the future of others to live high off the hog now. ------------------------------ Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 16:25:58-PDT From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Subject: FDR and Reagan To say that FDR and Hoover destroyed this country and Reagan (along with those who follow) will save it, seems to me to put too much emphasis on the people involved. FDR instituted some programs to help the country during a difficult time, with some difficult problems. They were effective at the moment. But they weren't 'uninstituted' as they became unnecessary. Politicians (and people in general) don't think very long-term, and they tend to maintain the status quo. If Reagan undoes what FDR did, he will do it, no doubt, to solve what he perceives are this country's current problems. And he (and his followers) will eventually establish a new status quo, by which time the policies will be outdated and ineffective and even bring us further along the path of destruction (but in a different direction - there are many paths to destruction). And they will be defended as the status quo. The problem isn't FDR or Hoover or Reagan. It's that times change faster than laws, and no one knows how to predict the future. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 84 09:55 PDT From: Kiewiet.pasa@XEROX.ARPA Re: Are you better off than you were n years ago, and 50% tax rate vs. starving people The Republican strategy "think tank" must have read Kiewiet's "Macroeconomics and Micropolitics: the Electoral Effects of Economic Issues" (U of Chicago Press), for they seem to have adopted these theories into their current operations. A recent poll (NYTimes I think) asked people questions along the lines of: Are you more worried about (a) some people not getting the welfare payments they are enttitled to, or (b) some people getting more welfare payments than they are entitled to? Question B is of more concern to most people, and those vote Republican about 5-1. Are you more worried about (a) Communist takeovers in Central America, or (b) the U.S. becoming engaged in a war in Central America. More are worried about (a) and vote Republican 6-1. Lorraine ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------