[comp.org.eff.talk] Non geographic representation

rbc@cuuxb.ATT.COM (~XT6561210~Rick Clark~C24~H15~6011~) (11/01/90)

In article <779@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> mccoy@ils.nwu.edu writes:
>In article <faustus.656783393@tartarus.uchicago.edu>, faustus@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Kurt Ackermann) writes:
>|> In <1990Oct20.224407.23367@world.std.com> lains@world.std.com (Layne L Ainsworth) writes:
>|> 
>|> >In article <1990Oct04.001804.18056@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes:
>|> 
>|> [comments regarding constitution and "community standards"] Especially when
>|> >the majority of people would vote for repression of a small group.  
. . .
>|> Imagine if ALL ELIGIBLE NET-FOLK voted in the next election for a
>|> presidential candidate who had a proven track record of support for 
>|> computer networks . . .
. . .
>|> 10 million voices, in light of the current apathy among the rest 
>|> of the voting public, would certainly cause politicos to stand up and 
>|> take notice...)
>|> 

>Possible, but I do not think that it could be done.  It is hard to get
>a group like the net together with any sort of cohesive
>group-identity.  We are an interest group that spans the country, but
>our concerns seem to be more oriented towards positions that are
>elected within small regions (president is about the only one we could
>all vote for, and I don't think that there would be a chance to get
>everyone voting based just upon support for computer networks.

>jim

One feature of the electronic frontier is we now could have much more
flexibility to express democratic principles.  For example, it is now
logistically possible for almost everyone in the country to vote on
every individual piece of legislation if they choose to.

One thing I would like to see changed is touched upon above.
Each member of the house of representatives represents a predetermined
geographic area.  The result is that minority interests have little
or no representation in congress.  I don't just mean racial minorities.
For instance even 1 million persons strongly interested in the extension
of civil liberties to electronic media certainly deserve a representative
or two, but will never get one because we don't all live in the same district.

What I would like to see is the ability to give your vote to anyone you
want.  People all over the country could give their votes to the president
of the Sierra Club, the chairman of the Democratic or Republican party,
Jesse Jackson, a representative of the right to life or freedom of choice
movements, or the head of EFF.  As long as a candidate collected a minimum
number of votes, they would be in.  If they came up short, they could
forward their votes to someone close to their political platform who did
make the minimum.  Voting power of a representative would be proportional
to the number of votes they acquired.

Think of the advantages!
	1) "Your" candidate never loses.  At worst he comes up short
	   of the minimum and forwards your vote to someone s/he believes
	   will still sort of represent what is important to you.
	2) Elections will suddenly become clean!  Candidates will have
	   nothing to gain by slinging mud at each other, because it
	   is no longer two or three people duking it out, winner take all.
	3) Elections will be much cheaper, because candidates would be
	   reaching voters through media tailored to their platform, rather
	   than by trying to saturate everyone at once.
	4) We would have fewer congressmen to pay (and listen to in full
	   session), because some would hold more than one person's
	   worth of votes.
	5) You would probably be voting for someone (or some issue) you really
	   care about, or at least know something about.
	6) Congress will become much more interesting, filled with
	   a wide variety of colorful persons.
	7) Hopefully, legislation will improve with the varied interests
	   of the nation more accurately represented, and with the
	   importance of big money and political party machines reduced
	   as a factor in getting elected.

This would be a real bitch to make happen though, because the current
congress would never go for it.  Most of them are too faceless to hope
to keep their jobs under such a system.
-- 
=Richard B. Clark
 Lisle, IL       ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!rbc  OR cuuxb!rbc@arpa.att.com