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conditions that lead to its abandonment are no longer applicable.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