Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!ka From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: re : voting (fini) Message-ID: <316@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Feb-84 18:20:18 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.316 Posted: Tue Feb 21 18:20:18 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Feb-84 07:04:39 EST References: <283@hogpd.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 17 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likely to have much sucess in returning to it unless you can show that the conditions that lead to its abandonment are no longer applicable.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