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 : voting (fini) Message-ID: <283@hogpd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Feb-84 10:16:04 EST Article-I.D.: hogpd.283 Posted: Tue Feb 21 10:16:04 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Feb-84 02:04:36 EST Lines: 69 << hee hee hee >> Boy, this is getting to be rather bizarre. Now people think I'm a radical/reactionary/elitist/"master-race"-ist. No, noone actually called me this, but it's getting that way. It seems that I've nauseated people who think I want to play god and sit in judgement in order to take away people's rights. I'll put out one more article on this and then hopefully shut up for good, at least on this subject. :-) First off, I was only semi-serious about the whole idea in the first place. Why can't we discuss controversial subjects calmly without getting so emotional and worked up ?? I volunteered to take the less popular side for the purpose of discussion and then whammy!, I have nauseated people. Wow, it must be nice to only think about *correct* ideas... where can I get programmed like that ? :-) Damn, I'm doing it again... I'd better warn you that I'm not too serious even in this article. Sorry if I offend you. [but not TOO sorry, everyone should be shocked and offended every once in a while--- it makes you think :-) although I apologize for descending into "name-calling" if I do ] Anyway.... I'll try to get serious here for just a minute. The basic idea proposed [using some criteria to allot votes to the citizens of a country] is nothing new or startling. We do it in the USA today. Our criteria is age [ mainly ] and the number of votes alloted is one. I was interested in what people might think about changing either the criteria or the number of votes alloted and thought it might be fun to discuss the reasons why. I used Mark Twain's story as a base and then tried to defend his scheme. I guess I should have made myself clearer in the original article. Anyway, I found out what most people thought. A few were willing to talk about it but thought that the idea needed more careful thought (establishing fair criteria is a tricky business), but most people were disgusted at me for even thinking about a change and seemed to think I was dangerous !! C'mon... gimme a break ! I dunno... maybe I am a dangerous radical since I see nothing sacred in the status quo and am willing to entertain other ideas of how things should be done { O NO !! go get the thought police :-) }. For this topic at least, however, I think I would leave things as they currently are (if someone made me god for a day :-) ). There might be marginal benefits to be gained by changing the voting allotment scheme from what it is today, but it's probably not worth it. As I said in an earlier article, establishing fair criteria and doing the monitoring is a real pain in the ass. (No, I didn't say it in exactly those words, but that's what I meant). Well, that's all I had to say. I guess I'm going to have to work on my endurance if I want to participate in the net [ I'll get my office mate to hurl insults at me twice daily and tell me I'm a dangerous elitist maniac !! :-) ] Cheerio !! p.s. I hereby apologize to anyone offended by my use of the words Damn and ass instead of D*mn and a**. :-) p.p.s. To those who wondered, I am a male and my last name is my login spelled backwards. * * \ / _____ / \ | ` ' | {ihnp4! or pegasus!} hogpd!keduh | > | | \_/ | \___/