renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/15/84)
#R:hogpd:-26900:uiucdcs:29200094:000:607
uiucdcs!renner Feb 14 20:06:00 1984
The short story by Twain that hogpd!keduh refers to is "The Curious
Republic of Gondour", and can be found in a collection of articles and
letters written by Twain titled "Life as I Find It."
There is some merit in Twain's scheme. I believe that the current
scheme of giving a vote to anyone of a certain age is a poor idea.
Look at the politicians it produces. I believe that voters should be
able to demonstrate *some* knowledge of the issues involved in the
election. The testing criteria and method would make an interesting
topic for further discussion.
Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!rennerrenner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/16/84)
#R:hogpd:-26900:uiucdcs:29200095:000:1175 uiucdcs!renner Feb 15 17:03:00 1984 /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / drux3!trb / 12:41 am Feb 14, 1984 */ > Which brings up a philosophical question: Do those who > pay no income tax and/or receive governmental assistance > have the right to determine how other people's money is spent? This question suggests a voting qualification scheme I propose from time to time. I suggest that only those people who pay more in income tax than they receive directly from the federal government should be allowed to vote. This excludes people on welfare, unemployment, and social security. It excludes federal employees. (It would also exclude me; the feds are picking up the interest on my student loans, which exceeds my federal income tax this year.) In general, it excludes that section of the population with a financial interest in government schemes that take wealth from those who produce it and give it to those who do not. I suggest that such a scheme is the only way, short of financial collapse, that the US can control the out-of-control "entitlement" programs. I expect flames; I trust nobody thinks this plan makes me a "disgrace to the human race." Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
scott@yale-com.UUCP (02/16/84)
Has it occured to anybody that there would be *huge* practical problems in changing the voting laws from the way they are now? Has it occured to anybody that such changes would violate the basic principles of democracy which are embodied in our constitution, and undoubtedly lead to the denial of the right to vote to the poor, minority groups, etc.? All this talk about requiring voters to demonstrate some knowledge of their government sounds *extremely* familiar... Does anybody remember the LITERACY TESTS?! The POLL TAXES!? All of which were used exclusively in the South to DENY BLACKS THE RIGHT TO VOTE!! That anyone could propose that rich people get proportionally more votes than poor people (!!!) because, having earned a certain amount of money (who ever said they earned it?!?!), they have proved themselves more capable and there- fore deserving of more votes (!!!!!) makes me VIOLENTLY ILL. Hmm, looks like this ended up being more of a flame than I thought it would. Anyone wishing to respond in kind is welcome, for these are... ...the asbestos-gloved fingers of... Walter Scott ...decvax!yale-com!scott
keduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) (02/17/84)
<< 100101010111010110001010101010101011101 so there ! >>
All right !! Just what I've been waiting for, a nice juicy
flame condemning those who thought Mark Twain might have had
a good idea concerning the vote !! :-)
I refer specifically to yale-com!scott's article called
Re: voting (semi-FLAME).
Let's see..."Has it occurred to anybody that there would
be *huge* practical problems in changing the voting laws from
the way they are now ?" Yep, it sure has. In my original
article I specifically indicated that I would ignore those
problems for the nonce, just for the sake of arguing the basic
idea itself and not the implementation problems. I agree, they
are tremendous and possibly insurmountable, but seemingly
impossible changes have been made in the past before (eliminating
slavery, giving women the right to vote, etc. Just look at the
problems facing the ERA, but people are still trying).
The basic question is is it a good idea, and if so, good enough
to try to implement ?
This next one is a doozy : "... such changes would violate the
basic principles of democracy which are embodied in our constitution,
and undoubtedly lead to the denial of the right to vote to the
poor, minority groups, etc.?" Say what ?!?
Yes, the changes would require a change in the constitution, but
I don't buy that therefore they would be inimical to democracy.
The constitution is not perfect; we've made changes in it before.
Besides, the changes indicated would be to let the more
"responsible" members of society with more "horse-sense" have more
of a say in deciding matters. Even today, not everyone gets the
vote. People who society has deemed to be "crazy" do not get to
vote. Criminals in federal penitentiaries do not vote (to the best
of my knowledge). I know that the wording [ "responsible" members
of society , etc. ] makes the idea sound somewhat repulsive, but
the basic idea seems sound. Let all who are capable of taking care
of themselves , running their lives in an overall beneficial manner,
and making intelligent decisions have a proportionately greater
say in the government of the populace as a whole. If you accept
that as reasonable, then the problem is what metric to use.
I claim that using education, trade skills, and earnings is not
a bad approach. This would not UNDOUBTEDLY lead to the denial
of the right to vote to the poor, minority groups, etc.
In fact, I challenge you to back up that statement.
I agree that the poor would not meet the
monetary requirement, but they could still achieve a High School
education or the equivalent. If they couldn't, do you want them
deciding what happens to you and how much to tax you and what
to do with your money ? How tough is a High School education
anyway ? I mean, you have to learn how to read and how to
perform basic arithmetic operations and maybe some history and
that's about it. Anyway, it's not limited to just formal education.
Some of the poor have trade skills, they're just woefully underpaid
or living beyond their means. Sure, SOME of the poor will not get
a vote. Is that an unmitigated disaster ? Possibly, if you think
that it will destroy their sense of human dignity, but I doubt it.
With the terrible voting record we have in this country (USA), I
wonder how many people would even notice that their vote had
been taken away. :-)
As to minorities losing the vote under the scheme discussed, I
think you are displaying some rather bigoted attitudes.
Don't get me wrong, but to me you seem to be implying that
minorities are incapable of achieving an education or of earning
a living for themselves. Are you sure that's what you want to say ?
As for the rest of the flaming [ :-) ] article.....
Yes, I do remember Poll Taxes. We could discuss the monetary
side of M.Twain's scheme in more detail, but I think that
the other criteria (education, trade skills) serve to counterbalance
the monetary side and keep the whole scheme from being outrageously
discriminatory. [As an aside, I do realize that any time you have
a differentiation between people it will be discriminatory. The
problem is to see if it is "bad" or "good". One could claim that
not allowing just anyone to perform brain surgery is discriminatory
(by the precise definition of discr.) but I claim that limiting it
to those who have demonstrated skill in the endeavor is a "good" ]
As to the other comment about earning the money and "whoever said
they earned it?!?!", I would have absolutely no problem with eliminating
inheritances and lottery winnings from consideration when assigning
votes. Finally, concerning the comment that Mr. Scott was becoming
"VIOLENTLY ILL", I hope you feel better. Have you tried
Alka-Seltzer ? It seems to work for me. :-) :-)
(I'm just joking, really ! Don't get too pissed.... :-) )
Anyway, I don't want to give the wrong impression. I don't really
feel THAT strongly about the issue, it's just that I'm one of those
a**holes who likes to argue [whoops, I mean discuss and debate! ]
* *
\ /
_____
/ \
| ` ' | {ihnp4! or pegasus!} hogpd!keduh
| > |
| \_/ |
\___/bwm@ccieng2.UUCP (02/17/84)
And how about Heinlein's approach (R. H. - sf author of some controversy). As I recall, he wanted to present anyone who entered a voting booth to vote with a randomly generated quadratic equation with integer roots. You had some limited time to solve the eqn, or you couldn't vote (thus assuring some minimal iq of the voters, i suppose, at least if you prevented calculators from being in the booths as well). He also mentioned that we could improve the species at the same time - if you couldn't solve the eqn, you never left the booth! (I believe I saw these in an essay in Expanded Universe, previously published). -- ...[rlgvax, ritcv]!ccieng5!ccieng2!bwm
curts@orca.UUCP (02/17/84)
In a recent article, it appeared that Mr. Renner has suggested that people
should demonstrate an ability to vote before they are allowed to vote. I may
have misinterpreted this, but if I did not, I have two problems with this
suggestion. One, I wouldn't trust *anyone* enough to establish a specific
criteria for voters. Two, assuming that some criteria could be established, and
that it involved specific kinds of knowledge, I wouldn't trust *anyone* to
ensure that the information was not deliberately kept from some group of people.
Curt Stephens
PS. Voting credentials have already been used, and disgarded as a bad idea.emjej@uokvax.UUCP (02/17/84)
#R:hogpd:-26900:uokvax:5000078:000:479 uokvax!emjej Feb 15 08:50:00 1984 Re the Twain voting system--the problem is that these days, one can get a degree without necessarily learning anything--in one of the fuzzy sciences, perhaps in the humanities, or "media technology." I'm tempted to restrict the education votes to the hard sciences, but then again there are all those creationists with degrees in random (non-biology) fields, and *they* certainly haven't learned to detect fallacies... This is going to take much more thought. James Jones
akt@mcnc.UUCP (Amit Thakur) (02/17/84)
what is to prevent me from opening up a diploma mill and selling degrees? what is to prevent a candidate from opening up a diploma mill? what is to prevent a PAC from opening up a diploma mill? akt at ...decvax!mcnc!akt
keduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) (02/17/84)
<< I can't think of anything to say, {sob!} >>
Sophie Quigley brought up some interesting points concerning
the vote allotment schemes under consideration. She mentioned
alloting votes for "bringing up children" which "...seems to
be one of the hardest things to do on earth, yet nobody has
mentioned it yet." I agree that it may very well be one of
the hardest things to do properly and in the long run, may
be the most important thing we can do.
Now, the basic premise underlying the whole voting scheme is
to allow those who seem to be on the ball to have a greater say
in government. Presumably, those who can succcessfully raise
their children do have a lot of common (or uncommon! ) sense
and should therefore be allotted more votes.
The problem is how you could measure the performance
of parents and allot more votes to those who seem to know what
they're doing. Should the father or mother receive more votes---
possibly would be determined by who spends the most time with the
child--- but then you run into the problem of "quality" vs
"quantity" time and who really has the greatest positive impact
on the child? Also, just how do you measure the quality of
child-rearing ? That's definitely a non-trivial task!
It might be easier to look at the other side
of the question and determine what constitutes
a "poor" job of child-rearing. If those negative qualities were
lacking, then positive qualities are assumed and someone gets
more votes. Negative qualities could be along the lines of---
arrest/conviction record (if the kid mugs old people or is
a vandal or shoplifts, etc.), what else ????
Possibly one would wait and see how the child turned out
before alloting the votes---- one way would be to give
the parents as many additional votes as the children acquire.
In other words, the child grows up and gets a High School
education --the child gets a vote, and so do each of his/her
parents, etc. It could be a nice recursive relationship,
after all, the whole voting scheme was to pick out "responsible"
members of society, so why not use it as the parenting criteria ?
Parents who can raise many children who turn out to be contributing
members of society must be really on the ball, so they should get
a larger say in what goes on.
As to the other comment that " all the criteria that have been
put forward for deciding who is worthy of voting can be attacked
by some very simple insults all ending with 'ist' ", I agree.
The question is whether the attacks have any merit or not.
I am coming to the conclusion that they would not.
[as an aside, one could attack the current voting allotment
scheme in the US (those under 18 are denied the vote) as being
anti-young-people-ist or some such. It's just our current
plan to give the vote to those seen as "responsible" and
young persons under 18 are currently deemed not to be "responsible"
in this context.]
* *
\ /
_____
/ \
| ` ' | {ihnp4! or pegasus!} hogpd!keduh
| > |
| \_/ |
\___/pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector) (02/18/84)
This is in response to Hudek's response to Sophie Quiglie's response to all of the responses so far to Hudek's initial article! Whew! If parents are to get extra votes just for bringing up kids and you use a scheme of waiting to see how the kids turn out before giving them (the parents) the extra votes, what if the parents die first? Can I vote posthumously? Can I put in my will how to use my vote or extra votes? In Chicago, dead people vote ALL the time in city precincts. Now that's true respect for the Bill of Rights! We even support them for dead people! Sorry but it's Friday, Scott Pector Good Intentions pave the road to Hell, But they don't do highways half as well!
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (02/19/84)
I hope nobody was taking me seriously when I mentioned parenting as a way to decide whether people should vote or not. I was pointing out that "good" parenting is a value that is not well-recognised in our society. I think that all the suggestions that have been put forward are very biased in accepting a traditional "masculine" (please respect my quotes here) value system. I think that the important values which are of any relevance have been completely forgotten and I think it is a terrible mistake. Good leadership is not made up only of objective competence in certain areas; These are NOTHING without true compassion for other human beings and an honestly open mind. I think many of our world's problems are caused by the lack of such qualities in our leaders and in most people. None of what anybody has been advocating made this point, instead they are trying to find a way to eliminate people who do not fit into what is their little view of who is worthy, from voting. The people who would end up being eliminated are exactly those who have not "made it" and as a result of this might have gained a little compassion and understanding of others (I am thinking of many "housewives" for example), or have decided not to "make it" because of the other values they would have had to give up in order to do so. Well, more power to them! and this is exactly want you want to take away from them. Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather have everybody voting rather than restricting votes using any of the stupid .....ist methods that have been suggested. I will add that I am rather disgusted by the thought that people have actually meant everything they've said in this discussion. I originally thought this was a joke, but I just realised now I was wrong. If that is true, then we are in even worse trouble than I thought we were. I guess this falls into the category of a moralising flame. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley "while you're at it, people are people too!!!"
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/19/84)
================
In general, it excludes that section of the population with a financial
interest in government schemes that take wealth from those who produce
it and give it to those who do not. I suggest that such a scheme is the
only way, short of financial collapse, that the US can control the
out-of-control "entitlement" programs.
Scott Renner
================
The above was part of a proposal to limit voting rights according to
a person's contribution to the Government's finances. There seem to
be two problems (apart from the moral one):
(1) Whose economic theory do you use to determine which people
create wealth? According to some, the underpaid working slaves create
the wealth in which the capitalist pigs wallow. According to others,
only the accumulation and management of capital allows the masses to
enjoy even the meagre standard of living they have. So who chooses
the theory?
(2) Even if the theory could be agreed, what do you do about
people who believe that a change of government would put them into a
plus position and therefore entitled to vote, wheras the present
Government keeps them in a minus position? Do you tell them that
armed rebellion is their only recourse? (Sounds like quite a lot of
the world, righ now).
[I realize that Renner's article doesn't read this way in its literal
sense, but it carries the implications to which I respond. If Renner
doesn't intend those implications, I apologise, but people often do
argue that voting should depend on contribution.]
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtscott@yale-com.UUCP (Walter Scott) (02/19/84)
Having cooled down now somewhat from my original broiling reaction to this debate (but not all the way!!!), I will try now to give an answer to hogpd!keduh's (sorry, I don't know your real name) reactions to my little flame, and (hopefully) clarify my objections to his proposal. BUT FIRST... I *deeply resent* being labelled a bigot (or having "some rather bigoted attitidus" attributed to me). I don't think that this kind of name-calling is called for on the net. I could get *really* angry about this, but like I said, I'm cooled down now. I will assume that you simply misunderstood my motives, which I will now try to explain. I question your assertion that you can separate an "abstract" discussion on how to change the voting laws from questions of "implementation". I think that changing the voting laws in the manner that has been suggested is inherently a "bad idea" precisely because of problems that you would call "implementation". It doesn't matter how wonderful the "basic idea" sounds in theory; the fact is, if you decide to give people who are somehow more "capable" and have more "horse sense" additional votes, then SOMEBODY has to decide just what criteria to base this on. And this is where you get into trouble. Who gets to decide what criteria to pick? Who decides when these criteria need changing? How do you keep people from abusing these new voting laws for their own self interests, or for purposes of unfair discrimination? Again I bring up the Literacy Tests. In Scott Renner's own words: > "...I believe that voters should be able to demonstrate *some* knowledge > of the issues involved in the election." Sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn't it? The "basic idea" sounds just fine. But in the cold reality of the real world, you have to face the fact that Laws Are Abused, and some laws are more easily abused than others. (Which was why I brought up the whole bit about minorities and the poor. Is it bigotry to point out that there are people in government who, given any law, are very likely to try to use that law to deny rights and privileges to certain groups?) Do I have to point out the obvious? Such as the fact that under the proposed scheme, the average member of this net would get 5 or 6 votes?? Who are we to presume that we deserve 5 or 6 times as much political power as the fellow who drops out of high school for whatever reason, and is more interested in finding a job that they enjoy rather than earning over $30,000 a year? I could raise a number of additional specific arguments, but why bother? Plenty of people participating in this discussion, yourself included, have pointed out the numerous problems in trying to establish a "fair" criterion on ANY basis. But I think that it was this presumptuous, and yes I'll say the damn word, ELITIST attitude (that I *know* that I am more capable of making informed political decisions than my neighbor because of x,y,z) which really bothered me and led to my flame. And I'm STILL bothered about it; there were some statements in your reply which just left me flabbergasted. For instance: > I agree that the poor would not meet the > monetary requirement, but they could still achieve a High School > education or the equivalent. If they couldn't, do you want them > deciding what happens to you and how much to tax you and what > to do with your money ? How tough is a High School education > anyway ? I mean, you have to learn how to read and how to > perform basic arithmetic operations and maybe some history and > that's about it. Anyway, it's not limited to just formal education. > Some of the poor have trade skills, they're just woefully underpaid > or living beyond their means. Sure, SOME of the poor will not get > a vote. Is that an unmitigated disaster ? Possibly, if you think > that it will destroy their sense of human dignity, but I doubt it. > With the terrible voting record we have in this country (USA), I > wonder how many people would even notice that their vote had > been taken away. :-) If you are really serious about the attitudes that you express in this paragraph, then I am *really* worried. Who are you to pass judgement on another person and deny them rights because they don't fit *your* standards? "How tough is a High School education anyway?" Believe me, it can be tough -- when the teachers can't teach and are too busy trying to survive anyway, and when you are forced to drop out and get a job just to keep the family from starving... And it doesn't take knowledge of Algebra I and English Composition for a person to be able to think about the country they live in and the way that they want it to be. That had BETTER have been a big :-) buddy at the end. "Sure, as long as we make sure people don't notice, and nobody complains too much, it's okay to take away people's rights..." All I can say is that I'm glad that this discussion is all hypothetical, because I sure wouldn't want someone with your attitudes making decisions on how to run this government. This discussion has still got me nauseated (no, the Alka Seltzer didn't help :-) ) and disgusted. I really hope that you're not as serious in some of your attitudes as I think you are. -- "Out of the void, into your mind..." >From the ever-weary fingertips of... Walter Scott Yale University decvax!yale-com!scott
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (02/21/84)
scott@yale-com.UUCP (Walter Scott at Yale) writes in response to keduh's novel interpretation of democracy, "All I can say is that I'm glad that this discussion is all hypothetical, because I sure wouldn't want someone with your attitudes making decisions on how to run this government." I couldn't agree more with Walter, but unfortunately, we DO have someone with those attitudes making decisions on how to run this government. If anyone doubts that Ronald Reagan's politics are anti-democratic, they need only look at his record: opposition to the Voting Rights Act; opposition to equal rights for women; advocate of federal aid to schools that discriminate racially; strong opponent of affirmative action. Of course, Reagan is not so stupid as to suggest we give extra votes to those who make more money. He just gives more money to those who make more money (in the form of a massive redistribution of the tax burden), and lets them translate that into political power. keduh's ideas are more a reality than he thinks. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/21/84)
#R:ihuxw:-71200:uiucdcs:29200098:000:586 uiucdcs!renner Feb 20 17:55:00 1984 /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / orca!curts / 4:42 am Feb 18, 1984 */ > > PS. Voting credentials have already been used, and discarded as a > bad idea. The forms of "voting credentials" previously used, such as the "grandfather clause", poll taxes, and oral constitution tests administered by county officials all had the *intent* (and not just the effect) of keeping minority members from voting. The question now is whether all forms of voter qualifications are a bad idea. The experiences of the past are no help for this question. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
turner@ucbesvax.UUCP (02/21/84)
Give more voting power to those with more money? Let's turn that one around: have a guaranteed national income, collectible only when one presents proof of having voted (or proof of inability to do so). This would certainly bring voter participation up from its rather disgraceful level. The obvious counterargument: poor people will then start voting themselves ever larger pieces of the pie. But so what? The middle classes of industrialized nations have been doing this for decades. (I think Karl Marx says somewhere that capitalist democracy will meet its Waterloo when voters discover that they can vote themselves more money.) Legislative checks and balances could probably keep this process under control. Best of all, this program could result in a net decrease in welfare spending, simply by redistributing wealth with less bureaucratic overhead. Any student who has been through the paperwork blizzard of applying for financial aid can tell you that. Food stamps are a similar hassle. Friends of mine who have worked for state and federal welfare agencies willingly admit that the application process is often one of *mutual* humiliation. How much better to simply go up to a counter and say, "here's my voter's stub and ID." Some will object that citizenship should be its own reward, and that this would only encourage frivolity at the polls. Yes, it would probably bring the "noise margin" up (currently at about 4%, I'd say), but I think that people would in general take voting a little more seriously. And if citizenship is its own reward, why *aren't* people voting? Is it that they feel like they don't count? That they aren't asked to make real decisions, or that no decisions that politicians condescend to allow them to make are worth bothering with? That happens to be the way I feel. Ask someone who's poor--they'll probably tell you the same. --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
jobe@ssc-vax.UUCP (John W Jobe) (02/22/84)
Hmmmm- perhaps it's time to add my two cent's worth. I can understand, and
and almost even agree with the idea that more educated people vote more
sensibly(i will *not*, however, define sensible :-), I must emphatically
point out that having made money does not necessarily imply that one has
"smarts", anymore than a high grade-point average absolutely implies vast
intelligence.
***It only implies that the person with the money has money!***
Let me tell you a little story (stop me if you've heard this!). I have a
neice (my wife's brother's ex-girlfriend's kid) who was featured on a TV
news story in my home town last week. It seems that this kid is a born
hacker, 'cause she was using the Apple computer at her kindergarten to
draw all kinds of nifty pictures. In fact, she was the best in her class
at it. She's five(5) years old. But, when the newsman asked her mother
if she was going to buy her kid a computer, her answer was "Man, are you
crazy?" You see, the woman's got 4 kids, she's on welfare(before you
right-wing welfare haters start steaming, I should mention that she's
also in a jobs training program and trying very hard to get out of the
mess she's in)**and there's no way she can afford to pay for a micro**.
So, this kid who shows so much promise will eventually lose it, lose interest,
and become another statistic.
So, her mom has no money, therefore she may never make any money, and so
she would never get to vote. What a friggin' waste. Of course, those who
had money would never consider putting their "hard-earned"cash out to help
such people- the training program that this kid's mom is in probably would
never exist- and there will always be an underclass of poverty in this
country.
Extra votes for having money? Pfui.
_______________________________________________________________________________
From the oftimes fiery but seldom understood keyboard of
the dark avenger
Jobe
(...!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!jobe)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
From the oftimes fiery but seldom understood keyboard of
the dark avenger
Jobe
(...!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!jobe)cdanderson@watarts.UUCP (02/23/84)
The problem with government lies not with the system of voting
but that of "govern-ment" itself.
Out with the unending sea of faces, hello humanity!, or
If voting could do anything, they would have outlawed it long ago.
Try reading some of the works of Goldman, Bakunin, Malatesta etc. for
a Real change.
"If I can't dance, I'm not going to the Revolution".
Cameron Anderson
watarts!cdanderson
wgraham@parsec.UUCP (02/29/84)
#R:ssc-vax:-84800:parsec:40500020:000:312
parsec!graham Feb 28 11:33:00 1984
It seems me that to guarantee an income in return for voting would merely
move the lines from the walfare offices to the voting booths. Why would
the new voters be any more informed just by having changed lines?
Marv Graham; ConVex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!parsec!graham O: (214)669-3700andree@uokvax.UUCP (03/01/84)
#R:hogpd:-26900:uokvax:5000080:000:825 uokvax!andree Feb 27 18:47:00 1984 I agree with Scott Renner - I occasionally suggest something similar myself. However, you'll never get it passed - you have to get it past the people that you're going to disenfranchise. Something tells me that we'd have record voter turnouts (maybe even over 70 percent) to stop that one. Trying to do this any other way than via constitutional amendment would be a loss, as you'd be buried in lawsuits from now till armegeddon. However, it IS worth a try. Anybody feel like using the net to start a movement for a constitutional amendment? Final point - any such law/amendment/ruling IS elitist. So what? Somebody has to rule, and those people are (by definition) an elite. Might as well have some criterion for who gets to choose them, as opposed to letting anybody with enough gumption to register choose them. <mike
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (03/05/84)
#R:yale-com:-296400:uokvax:5000082:000:778
uokvax!emjej Mar 1 08:37:00 1984
What does affirmative action have to do with democracy, save in the same fashion
totalitarianism has something to do with democracy, or leprosy with health?
Re taxes: the use of the term "progressive" to refer to graduated taxes is one of
the best semantic scams since a tiny minority of the Russian people labeled
themselves Bolsheviks ("the majority"). Obviously if income taxes place a greater
burden on people with greater income then a reduction in income taxes will mean
a larger absolute reduction in taxes for people with greater income. So what?
"Progressive" taxes penalize success. (I understand that for a time, one could
be taxed for more than 100% of one's income in England; this was changed, but
for a different reason than the obvious one.)
James Jonesliberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (liberte ) (03/27/84)
#R:yale-com:-296400:uiucdcs:29200111:000:3901
uiucdcs!liberte Mar 27 01:55:00 1984
Although the concept of limiting voting has serious problems, as scott has
pointed out, there are certain aspects of it that still make sense. (I hope
this hot air I am letting off here is not too flamable. :-)
First of all, you must recognize, as hogpd!keduh pointed out, that we already
limit voting in a number of ways. By age, by criminal record, by U.S.
citizenship, and maybe other criteria I am unaware of. I do not necessarily
agree with these criteria, but only point out how we accept them, by default,
as valid criteria. Seems to me that there may be some pretty serious
problems with each of these.
In addition to these legislated criteria, there are also a plethora of
non-legislated criteria which serve to inhibit, limit or prohibit otherwise
eligible people from voting. People dont *want* to vote if they dont know
who or what they are voting for. People have a hard time voting if they are
disabled. Sometimes people *wont* vote if Nobody is running. These kinds of
criteria must be considered if you are trying to achieve a better system of
government. These are things people dont always have a choice about.
None of this directly addresses the question of an education criteria. But
all of it is indirectly related. It seems that the main justification for
an age criteria is that older people are wiser, in general, and younger
people tend to do foolish things (as well as very wise things too). Why
else do you think we have an age criteria? Granted, wisdom is not knowledge.
But they go together to a great extent.
To become a U.S. citizen, and thus be eligible (responsible?) to vote, an
alien humanoid type person must pass a certain test, I believe. This test
involves some knowledge of the English language and of the U.S. constitution,
or something along those lines. But natural citizens dont have to pass any
such test. Is this fair?
Criminals who have commited a felony or some such "serious" crime are not
allowed to vote, I believe. But is their felony conviction always fair?
If they were better educated, might they have gotten a better lawyer or
might the jury have been more leanient? ("They" in the singular sense)
What I am trying to do here is weaken the absolutely clear boundary between
no voting criteria and "unreasonable" voting criteria. All criteria have
problems, and "no criteria" may have more problems. We as a government of
people (supposedly) decide what we as a whole (majority anyway) want those
criteria to be. Of course, if we are good people, we will try to set up
criteria that benefit everyone as much as possible.
I have no specific arguments on the education criteria, but I think there
may be some value to it. It would *not* be a fair criteria if it served
to keep people uneducated or oppressed in other ways. But it seems to
me that it would be a good criteria if it served to promote education of
and for everyone. The question is could it serve that positive goal?
Another question thet comes before that is whether education is good
in the first place?
One final topic (and the original motivation for writing) on alternative
voting rules: If everyone could vote for as many of the available
candidates or choices on issues as they wanted, then perhaps the more
agreeable choices would win. Instead of primaries to eliminate candidates,
have all candidates on the final ballot and voters may vote for as many of
them as they wish. If they vote for all, that is as good as not voting.
(A refinement to this method is to prioritize votes, but that is sometimes
impossible.) The winner would be the candidate who was ok by more people.
This method has a name which escapes me. There have been articles in
Scientific American on voting methods. One thing that impressed me from
one article was that no method is totally fair. Each had problems.
Daniel LaLiberte
(uiucdcs!liberte)
Urbana, IL