Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!hogpd!keduh From: keduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: re: RE: voting (semi-FLAME) Message-ID: <276@hogpd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-Feb-84 17:56:45 EST Article-I.D.: hogpd.276 Posted: Thu Feb 16 17:56:45 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 01:19:42 EST Lines: 100 << 100101010111010110001010101010101011101 so there ! >> All right !! Just what I've been waiting for, a nice juicy flame condemning those who thought Mark Twain might have had a good idea concerning the vote !! :-) I refer specifically to yale-com!scott's article called Re: voting (semi-FLAME). Let's see..."Has it occurred to anybody that there would be *huge* practical problems in changing the voting laws from the way they are now ?" Yep, it sure has. In my original article I specifically indicated that I would ignore those problems for the nonce, just for the sake of arguing the basic idea itself and not the implementation problems. I agree, they are tremendous and possibly insurmountable, but seemingly impossible changes have been made in the past before (eliminating slavery, giving women the right to vote, etc. Just look at the problems facing the ERA, but people are still trying). The basic question is is it a good idea, and if so, good enough to try to implement ? This next one is a doozy : "... such changes would violate the basic principles of democracy which are embodied in our constitution, and undoubtedly lead to the denial of the right to vote to the poor, minority groups, etc.?" Say what ?!? Yes, the changes would require a change in the constitution, but I don't buy that therefore they would be inimical to democracy. The constitution is not perfect; we've made changes in it before. Besides, the changes indicated would be to let the more "responsible" members of society with more "horse-sense" have more of a say in deciding matters. Even today, not everyone gets the vote. People who society has deemed to be "crazy" do not get to vote. Criminals in federal penitentiaries do not vote (to the best of my knowledge). I know that the wording [ "responsible" members of society , etc. ] makes the idea sound somewhat repulsive, but the basic idea seems sound. Let all who are capable of taking care of themselves , running their lives in an overall beneficial manner, and making intelligent decisions have a proportionately greater say in the government of the populace as a whole. If you accept that as reasonable, then the problem is what metric to use. I claim that using education, trade skills, and earnings is not a bad approach. This would not UNDOUBTEDLY lead to the denial of the right to vote to the poor, minority groups, etc. In fact, I challenge you to back up that statement. 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. :-) As to minorities losing the vote under the scheme discussed, I think you are displaying some rather bigoted attitudes. Don't get me wrong, but to me you seem to be implying that minorities are incapable of achieving an education or of earning a living for themselves. Are you sure that's what you want to say ? As for the rest of the flaming [ :-) ] article..... Yes, I do remember Poll Taxes. We could discuss the monetary side of M.Twain's scheme in more detail, but I think that the other criteria (education, trade skills) serve to counterbalance the monetary side and keep the whole scheme from being outrageously discriminatory. [As an aside, I do realize that any time you have a differentiation between people it will be discriminatory. The problem is to see if it is "bad" or "good". One could claim that not allowing just anyone to perform brain surgery is discriminatory (by the precise definition of discr.) but I claim that limiting it to those who have demonstrated skill in the endeavor is a "good" ] As to the other comment about earning the money and "whoever said they earned it?!?!", I would have absolutely no problem with eliminating inheritances and lottery winnings from consideration when assigning votes. Finally, concerning the comment that Mr. Scott was becoming "VIOLENTLY ILL", I hope you feel better. Have you tried Alka-Seltzer ? It seems to work for me. :-) :-) (I'm just joking, really ! Don't get too pissed.... :-) ) Anyway, I don't want to give the wrong impression. I don't really feel THAT strongly about the issue, it's just that I'm one of those a**holes who likes to argue [whoops, I mean discuss and debate! ] * * \ / _____ / \ | ` ' | {ihnp4! or pegasus!} hogpd!keduh | > | | \_/ | \___/