orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/26/85)
> Tim, a few months ago I recall that you were terribly upset that > Reagan was elected again. As I recall, your position was that > the public had been manipulated into electing this monster. Please > make up your mind. Either the democratic process works (in which > case, why were you so upset about Reagan) or it doesn't. If it > doesn't, how can you claim that it is possible to change it > within the system? The militant anarchists have a point, you know. > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura I think it was a ghastly mistake for the American electorate to re-elect Ronald RayGuns, and as he said it would be "You ain't seen nothin' yet." Does that mean that I have abandoned my faith in the democratic process? Certainly not. It just means that I am working harder than ever to use that process to oppose RayGun's horrible policies. One of the problems with our current system is despite the avowed freedom of speech and the press, it is very difficult for most groups or people to get access to the media which exerts a disproportionate influence on public opinion. I think that there should be some sort of equal time provisions that are more extensively used by all groups, conservative or liberal, libertarian or socialist, rather than a media dominated by corporate advertisers. If Wm Rehnquist is going to argue (in the recent Supreme Court decision on independent political spending) that free speech means nothing without a microphone, then how can it mean anything if only those groups with gobs of money can afford media time? We need more diversity in the views presented in popular media. Just because you lose an election doesn't mean you should give up on them. That would be rather childish wouldn't it? ("I'm taking my ball and going home") an unrequited democrat! tim sevener whuxl!orb
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/28/85)
Tim, if you lose an election, it behooves you to figure out why. After all, you don't want to do it again, if you can help it. Right now, the American who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican has a real problem. Regardless of how an election is suppsoed to work, the question remains: ``Does a non-Republican & non-Democrat stand a cahnce of getting elected -- say as Governor of a state or as a Senator or as President?''. Right now, I would say, unequivically, No. Now, I do not believe that this is because only Republicans and Democrats would make good Governors, Senators or Presidents. [Snide aside: what does it matter? It is not as if there was a shortage of *lousy* Democrat and Republican Governors, Senators and Presidents...] I think that tehre are several problems. First of all, the average citizen doesn't really know anything about any other parties (if they did, Libertarians wouldn't have to explain what Libertarianism is so often) and second of all it requires a hell of a lot of money and well established political machinery to wage elections these days. Personally, I think that political parties are bad things. Now tell me how I can get *that* changed using the current democratic process in either the US or Canada? It seems hopeless. Traditionally, when enough people think that the current government will not permit them to make changes which they feel are necessary, there is a revolution. ``No taxation without representation'' made a lovely rallying cry. These days, the only good one I have seen is ``Don't vote: it only encourages them!''. I get more satisfaction out of writing ``none of these candidates are acceptable'' on my ballot, but it doesn't have the same nice ring to it... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura