berman@ihuxm.UUCP (02/26/84)
Michael Turner says: >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. > Now why is the low voter turnout in the US so "disgraceful?" Grant you, Reagan was voted into office by something like 27% of the eligible voters, by why is that so disgraceful? Why not take it for its face value? The 45% of eligible voters who don't vote in Presidential elections and the massive number of others who don't register, simply don't see the importance of it in their own lives. This, mind you, is in the face of a phenomenal media build up, the likes of which we are now getting for the 1984 election. When the American people are bombasted with TV hype for 6-8 months, and then still fail to respond, the people are saying something significant. I suspect that an awful lot of folks have a gut level feeling that the options that are offered unto us, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, generally don't differ very much. The fault, perhaps, in not in the "apathy" of the American people, but in the failure of the political system to present alternatives that people feel are significant. The fact that third-party movements are so often still-born, may not reflect on their own lack of appeal so much as the legal and procedural blocks put in their way. Andy Berman
turner@ucbesvax.UUCP (02/29/84)
/***** ucbesvax:net.politics / ihuxm!berman / 8:17 pm Feb 26, 1984*/ Michael Turner says: > 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 . . . . This would certainly bring voter > participation up from its rather disgraceful level. To which Andy Berman replies: > Now why is the low voter turnout in the US so "disgraceful?" ....The 45% of > eligible voters who don't vote in Presidential elections and the massive > number of others who don't register, simply don't see the importance of it > in their own lives. Andy is not really disagreeing with me, since I say something quite similar towards the end of my note. The disgrace is not necessarily on the (non) voters, but rather on this supposedly democratic system of ours, which seems to have degenerated into mere power-brokerage. My feeling about this is expressed well (if somewhat overstated) by the saying that "if voting could really change the system, it would be illegal." Back to the subject: for those of you who are rankled by the idea of a guaranteed national income, I suggest that you solicit the opinion of a certain well-known Chicago School economist who has come out in favor it. "Free to Choose," indeed! (Granted, he sees it as simply the least among evils, but still....) --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)