keduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) (02/16/84)
<< please have mercy on my electronic soul !! don't eat me !! >>
The following is a portion of a letter I sent out this morning
in response to some mail I received. I dunno, I find the topic
of assigning votes on the basis of something other than age to
be interesting, but maybe I'm just spinning my wheels. Anyway...
I'll throw this out to net.politics one more time and see if I get
any more bites. :-)
>>>> wow ! no pretty pictures ! happy ? <<<<
[ ihnp4! or pegasus! ] hogpd!keduh
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree that there should be a difference between money earned
vs money "found" (inherited,won in a contest, etc.).
As to the idea of rewarding other types of achievement, that
sounds like a good idea. The problem is in determining what
kinds of achievement indicate an ability to think and make
"correct" decisions. Also, which should result in the "immortal"
and which should result in the "mortal"-type votes ?
I would think that publishing the results of new research should
be rated roughly equivalent to the $30,000/year criteria --
you get (temporarily-- for 3 years, say) an extra vote.
I suppose that one could get sentimental and reward people
who bring "honor" to the country with an extra vote [either
temporarily or permanently depending on the great deed].
In other words, one who won a gold medal at the Olympics might
get an extra vote for one year, while the great explorers
(like the men who went to the moon) might get an extra vote
permanently. Of course, when (and if) space travel gets to be
mundane, the voting rewards for that activity would stop.
What about giving people who risk their lives to benefit society
[like firemen/women/people/whatever] an extra vote ?
Oh well, I've run out of time, but it is an interesting topic
to speculate on.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (02/17/84)
How about getting extra votes for bringing up children? This seems to be one of the hardest things to do on earth, yet nobody has mentioned it yet. I think all the critera that have been put forward for decidind who is worthy of voting can be attacked by some very simple insults all endind with "ist". Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/21/84)
#R:hogpd:-27300:uiucdcs:29200097:000:451 uiucdcs!renner Feb 20 17:45:00 1984 /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / watmath!saquigley / 8:32 am Feb 17, 1984 */ > I think all the critera that have been put forward for deciding > who is worthy of voting can be attacked by some very simple insults all > ending with "ist". Most proposals can be attacked by simple insults, ending in "ist" or otherwise. I think this is the usual tactic of those who can't or won't use valid arguments. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
keduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) (02/21/84)
<< hee hee hee >>
Boy, this is getting to be rather bizarre. Now people
think I'm a radical/reactionary/elitist/"master-race"-ist.
No, noone actually called me this, but it's getting that way.
It seems that I've nauseated people who think I want to play god
and sit in judgement in order to take away people's rights.
I'll put out one more article on this and then hopefully
shut up for good, at least on this subject. :-)
First off, I was only semi-serious about the whole idea in the
first place. Why can't we discuss controversial subjects calmly
without getting so emotional and worked up ?? I volunteered to
take the less popular side for the purpose of discussion and then
whammy!, I have nauseated people. Wow, it must be nice to
only think about *correct* ideas... where can I get programmed
like that ? :-) Damn, I'm doing it again... I'd better warn
you that I'm not too serious even in this article. Sorry if I
offend you. [but not TOO sorry, everyone should be shocked and
offended every once in a while--- it makes you think :-)
although I apologize for descending into "name-calling" if I do ]
Anyway.... I'll try to get serious here for just a minute.
The basic idea proposed [using some criteria to allot votes
to the citizens of a country] is nothing new or startling.
We do it in the USA today. Our criteria is age [ mainly ]
and the number of votes alloted is one. I was interested in
what people might think about changing either the criteria
or the number of votes alloted and thought it might be fun
to discuss the reasons why. I used Mark Twain's story as a base
and then tried to defend his scheme. I guess I should have made
myself clearer in the original article. Anyway, I found out
what most people thought. A few were willing to talk about
it but thought that the idea needed more careful thought
(establishing fair criteria is a tricky business), but most
people were disgusted at me for even thinking about a change
and seemed to think I was dangerous !! C'mon... gimme a break !
I dunno... maybe I am a dangerous radical since I see nothing
sacred in the status quo and am willing to entertain other ideas of
how things should be done { O NO !! go get the thought police :-) }.
For this topic at least, however, I think I would leave things
as they currently are (if someone made me god for a day :-) ).
There might be marginal benefits to be gained by changing the
voting allotment scheme from what it is today, but it's probably
not worth it. As I said in an earlier article, establishing
fair criteria and doing the monitoring is a real pain in the ass.
(No, I didn't say it in exactly those words, but that's what I
meant).
Well, that's all I had to say. I guess I'm going to have to work
on my endurance if I want to participate in the net [ I'll get
my office mate to hurl insults at me twice daily and tell me I'm
a dangerous elitist maniac !! :-) ] Cheerio !!
p.s. I hereby apologize to anyone offended by my use of
the words Damn and ass instead of D*mn and a**. :-)
p.p.s. To those who wondered, I am a male and my last name is
my login spelled backwards.
* *
\ /
_____
/ \
| ` ' | {ihnp4! or pegasus!} hogpd!keduh
| > |
| \_/ |
\___/ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (02/22/84)
Hudek, In case it hasn't been made clear yet, the proper word for your proposal was not radical but reactionary. The idea of limiting the vote has been tried in the past (as an intermediate step between absolute monarchy and truely representative government), and been discarded. Once an idea has been discarded, you aren't likely to have much sucess in returning to it unless you can show that the conditions that lead to its abandonment are no longer applicable. Actually, your arguments have less force than they would have had, say, fifty years ago since the American (and I expect the Canadian) populations are better educated and better informed than they used to be. On the other hand, didn't you suggest that voters should have a sense of history? *That* criterion must have some merit; after all, it would disenfrachise you.... Kenneth Almquist