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
> >
>