Russ,

I believe I agree with all you wrote here.

BTW - my post was from a philosophical or ideological perspective.  I do not
believe it would be an easy or bloodless path to the end I described.

There is an awful lot of power wielded in this country by manipulating the
opinions (and votes) of the masses.  That power would change hands or be
lost if all voters had the analytical tools we are discussing.

-dtd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Smith [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:56 PM
> To: 3000L posting; Dave Darnell; Karman, Al
> Subject: OT: Earning the right to vote (was Microsoft Windows 2000
> Advertising)
>
>
> Dave,  breathe.
>
> I'm reminded of the concept in the book by Robert Heinlein
> (sp?), Starship
> Troopers, where military service was required in order to achieve
> citizenship.  The idea being that you had to earn your
> "rights".  Those who
> did not want to join the military (or who were unable to) were still
> provided with medical care, educational and professional
> opportunities, etc;
> but they were not allowed to vote, and got lesser preference
> in other areas
> (such as birth licenses, since population control was another
> tenant of his
> future world).
>
> I would disagree with required military service as the only
> path towards
> being able to vote, and I would expect any other method by
> which we might
> attempt to "require" an increased level of understanding or
> participation
> would be quickly struck down by existing legislation covering
> discrimination.  Too bad.
>
> I wouldn't mind something like..."in order to be a registered
> voter, you
> must either have completed high school (and passed a test showing you
> learned a set of minimums), have passed a test equivalent to
> high school
> (think G.E.D.), have completed a tour of duty in the military (with
> associated training/testing in government, history, and
> cultural studies),
> or have been granted a waiver by the state for known reasons
> preventing you
> from accomplishing one of the above".
>
> Further, I have often believed that if you "choose" not to
> vote in more than
> two consecutive elections, you should be dropped from the
> rolls, requiring
> you to register again.
>
> My attitudes come from being raised to believe that every
> 'right' has an
> associated 'responsibility'.  For example, I have the right
> of free speech,
> but the responsibility to keep from yelling 'Fire!' in a
> crowded auditorium.
> I have a right to vote, but the responsibility to educate
> myself so that I
> do not participate in electing someone who will harm our way of life.
>
> Regarding Al's response, I think Dave may have made his statement less
> eloquently than he could have, but his idea is not so far
> fetched.  Why
> would both George Bush and Al Gore have made education reform
> in the U.S. so
> prominent in their list of campaign issues, if it were not
> accepted that we
> are not, and for some time have not been, educating our
> children well.  If
> they are not educated properly, it can be argued that they
> are not ready to
> participate in the election process and vote from any
> starting point other
> than a partisan or emotional drive.
>
> A cousin of mine chose to home school his children.  My
> second cousins are
> intelligent, articulate and well adjusted individuals.  I
> would rather work
> to improve the school system, but recognize that my children
> might receive a
> better education from the public school system than some
> others.  This is
> because I value education, and would both instill in them
> that value and
> participate in their education.  Others may not do either of
> these things,
> and the education their children receive would suffer for it.
>
> I doubt anything will happen to say "we have to have smarter
> voters", if for
> no other reason than a poorly informed electorate is required
> in order for
> the money to flow the way it always has, and politicians want
> very much for
> that to continue.  Changes will come from this election, however.
>
> If the federal government does not (in the next 18 months)
> introduce, argue
> out, and pass some form of election reform, I feel confident
> that at least
> the Florida legislature will.  The Florida House of
> Representatives would be
> very lucky to get any incumbent reelected if they don't.
> Americans on the
> whole (and Florideans in particular) have been shown the
> nooks and crannies
> of our election processes this year, and I think most of us
> realize there's
> a lot of junk in the corners that needs to be cleaned out.
>
> My two, uh, seven cents worth.
>
> Rs~
>
>
> Russ Smith, Systems Consultant
> Problem Solved, Vacaville, CA
> r s m i t h @ c u - h e l p . c o m
> h p 3 k - l @ e - 3 0 0 0 . n e t
> my ideas, not my employers.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karman, Al" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Microsoft Windows 2000 Advertising
>
>
> > First, as a reminder to the list re a personal experience
> when I posted OT
> > that didn't agree with some posters.......I found myself
> (repeatedly)
> > 'un-subscribed' from the list, so "poster emptor".
> >
> > Second, I'd like to respond to Dave Darnell when he says
> > ...
> > The average citizen in this country is not equipped educationally or
> > ethically to exercise a vote responsibly.
> >
> > What equips you to make such a presumptive statement - you
> wouldn't be
> > average, would you?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Darnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 1:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Microsoft Windows 2000 Advertising
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dave Darnell
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 2:53 PM
> > > To: 'Nick Demos'; [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: RE: OT: Microsoft Windows 2000 Advertising
> > >
> > >
> > While I'm at it, let me say that I've completely lost faith in the
> principle
> > that every adult citizen (felonies notwithstanding) ought
> to have the
> right
> > to vote.
> >
> > The average citizen in this country is not equipped educationally or
> > ethically to exercise a vote responsibly.
> >
> > Don't get me started on the criteria unless you want your
> blood pressure
> to
> > go way up!
> >
> > -dtd
> >
> >
> >
> > > Nick wrote, in part:
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2.  It is a shame that the one with the largest popular vote
> > > > does not get
> > > >      "elected".  Our "wonderful" politicians should have
> > > > fixed that a long time
> > > >
> > > >      ago.
> > >
> > > From my point of view, which is both reactionary and that of
> > > a person who has lived most of his life in the less populated
> > > states, changing to a purely popular vote would be truly
> > > going in the wrong direction.
> > >
> > > Many of us still take the view, as did many of the Founding
> > > Fathers, that this "Nation" is as much a federation of states
> > > as it is a nation (so call me a Federalist.)  The present
> > > system is a compromise between the extremes of totally
> > > Federal government and a loose confederation of independent
> > > states, both of which were common preferences in the late
> > > 18th century.
> > >
> > > I definitely do not want California and the East Coast
> > > deciding my fate!
> > >
> > > Aside:
> > > Those who read yesterday's Supreme Court opinion would
> > > realize that the states are not even compelled to hold a
> > > popular election for US President - the legislature may
> > > choose the electors if that is how the state wants to set it
> > > up.  I like that a lot because then those in less populated
> > > congressional districts get more say per voter (via their
> > > elected representatives), and again, the city dwellers don't
> > > have sole determination over the results.
> > >
> > > -dtd
> > >
> > > -Dave
> > >
> >
>