Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!yale-com!scott From: scott@yale-com.UUCP (Walter Scott) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: voting (more FLAME) Message-ID: <2964@yale-com.UUCP> Date: Sun, 19-Feb-84 15:02:35 EST Article-I.D.: yale-com.2964 Posted: Sun Feb 19 15:02:35 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 20-Feb-84 01:05:38 EST Lines: 97 Having cooled down now somewhat from my original broiling reaction to this debate (but not all the way!!!), I will try now to give an answer to hogpd!keduh's (sorry, I don't know your real name) reactions to my little flame, and (hopefully) clarify my objections to his proposal. BUT FIRST... I *deeply resent* being labelled a bigot (or having "some rather bigoted attitidus" attributed to me). I don't think that this kind of name-calling is called for on the net. I could get *really* angry about this, but like I said, I'm cooled down now. I will assume that you simply misunderstood my motives, which I will now try to explain. I question your assertion that you can separate an "abstract" discussion on how to change the voting laws from questions of "implementation". I think that changing the voting laws in the manner that has been suggested is inherently a "bad idea" precisely because of problems that you would call "implementation". It doesn't matter how wonderful the "basic idea" sounds in theory; the fact is, if you decide to give people who are somehow more "capable" and have more "horse sense" additional votes, then SOMEBODY has to decide just what criteria to base this on. And this is where you get into trouble. Who gets to decide what criteria to pick? Who decides when these criteria need changing? How do you keep people from abusing these new voting laws for their own self interests, or for purposes of unfair discrimination? Again I bring up the Literacy Tests. In Scott Renner's own words: > "...I believe that voters should be able to demonstrate *some* knowledge > of the issues involved in the election." Sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn't it? The "basic idea" sounds just fine. But in the cold reality of the real world, you have to face the fact that Laws Are Abused, and some laws are more easily abused than others. (Which was why I brought up the whole bit about minorities and the poor. Is it bigotry to point out that there are people in government who, given any law, are very likely to try to use that law to deny rights and privileges to certain groups?) Do I have to point out the obvious? Such as the fact that under the proposed scheme, the average member of this net would get 5 or 6 votes?? Who are we to presume that we deserve 5 or 6 times as much political power as the fellow who drops out of high school for whatever reason, and is more interested in finding a job that they enjoy rather than earning over $30,000 a year? I could raise a number of additional specific arguments, but why bother? Plenty of people participating in this discussion, yourself included, have pointed out the numerous problems in trying to establish a "fair" criterion on ANY basis. But I think that it was this presumptuous, and yes I'll say the damn word, ELITIST attitude (that I *know* that I am more capable of making informed political decisions than my neighbor because of x,y,z) which really bothered me and led to my flame. And I'm STILL bothered about it; there were some statements in your reply which just left me flabbergasted. For instance: > I agree that the poor would not meet the > monetary requirement, but they could still achieve a High School > education or the equivalent. If they couldn't, do you want them > deciding what happens to you and how much to tax you and what > to do with your money ? How tough is a High School education > anyway ? I mean, you have to learn how to read and how to > perform basic arithmetic operations and maybe some history and > that's about it. Anyway, it's not limited to just formal education. > Some of the poor have trade skills, they're just woefully underpaid > or living beyond their means. Sure, SOME of the poor will not get > a vote. Is that an unmitigated disaster ? Possibly, if you think > that it will destroy their sense of human dignity, but I doubt it. > With the terrible voting record we have in this country (USA), I > wonder how many people would even notice that their vote had > been taken away. :-) If you are really serious about the attitudes that you express in this paragraph, then I am *really* worried. Who are you to pass judgement on another person and deny them rights because they don't fit *your* standards? "How tough is a High School education anyway?" Believe me, it can be tough -- when the teachers can't teach and are too busy trying to survive anyway, and when you are forced to drop out and get a job just to keep the family from starving... And it doesn't take knowledge of Algebra I and English Composition for a person to be able to think about the country they live in and the way that they want it to be. That had BETTER have been a big :-) buddy at the end. "Sure, as long as we make sure people don't notice, and nobody complains too much, it's okay to take away people's rights..." All I can say is that I'm glad that this discussion is all hypothetical, because I sure wouldn't want someone with your attitudes making decisions on how to run this government. This discussion has still got me nauseated (no, the Alka Seltzer didn't help :-) ) and disgusted. I really hope that you're not as serious in some of your attitudes as I think you are. -- "Out of the void, into your mind..." >From the ever-weary fingertips of... Walter Scott Yale University decvax!yale-com!scott