From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: COUNTER BLITZ  -= Strike out against Pork-Party-Politics =-
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:22:00 GMT

refs:
{ alt.conspiracy, 30 Sep                                          }
{ Re: COUNTER BLITZ  -= Strike out against Pork-Party-Politics =- }

spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)...
|
 
|b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)...
|>

You opened some interesting points Steve.

|>      o  "representation" by number coded district
|>         (rather than neighborhood, subdivison, or town)
|
|How is the "South Fernwood Acres Congressional District" any more or
|less descriptive than Congressional District 32?  How does this lead
|to any better or worse representation?

Giving a congressional district a name doesn't help, which is why the
voting districts (fed/state/local) should split along commonly known
lines, whether city subdivisions, (or county, or town, or burrough).

The problem is easier to see if we consider a "senator" who represents
adjacent portions of several states, rather than a state, or a president
who presides over a region which crosses portions of several countries.

For instance, the Pork-Party(*) representative for "my" area is Martin
Frost representing the 24th district. Which means he covers (bear with
me): Grand Prarie, Alex County, Navarro County, Part of Tarrant
County, and Part of Arlington. Practically, he represents no one
except other porkers, but the point is that the "part of's" are hard
to define except with a map. Town, city, and county boundaries make
much more sense, and are clearly oriented to serving the people in
those areas.

(* The intent is to refer to the big spenders in both the gop/dem
parties, which is all but a handful.)

|>      o  dominant party control of districting
|>         (to exclude minor party or independent access)
|
|No argument there -- but I'd like to hear of an alternative that is
|less prone to corruption.  Computer generated congressional districts
|maybe?

Supposedly redistricting is for equalizing representation *between
the 2 major parties*. I'll borrow from myself in another post...

  As an independent, I'm always misrepresented. A *just* method of
  equalizing representation is to eliminate party considerations
  altogether.

  Perhaps the best approach is for anybody who takes an oath of office
  to lay aside their party affiliation while in office, and simply
  represent their constituency and America, as best they can.

Lay aside party and represent *all* your constituency -- makes sense,
right. Just like voting by mail makes sense.

|>      o  elections on work days
|>         (rather than simple mail-in voting)
|
|All employers, by law, must give employees time off to vote.  Anyhow,
|every day is a work day for someone.  Other days run afoul of
|religious proscriptions.  In any case, you can always request an
|absentee ballot.

Society has learned to time shift tv program viewing, but the parties
still try to tie us to a one-time/one-place herd-the-masses voting
process. Change is coming, no matter who believes what. The law varies
greatly from place to place. Here where I live its... hang-on... again
quoting myself...

  Texas (which is where I live) has a very good voter registration
  drive... We can register by mail, and the forms are available
  at libraries and post-offices. We can vote early, starting the Oct.
  14th, this year. I'm reasonably happy with the changes made for the
  presidential election, and wish the same push had been there for the
  local elections.

Everyone in America ought to be able to register and vote by mail. And
I do mean everyone.

|>      o  age restrictions
|>         (rather than direct recognition that every citizen
|>          regardless of their degree of intellectual or material
|>          attainment has a valuable viewpoint to offer)
|
|The vote for the newborn!  Now there's a concept for ya.

  If your child can fill out the ballot (pull the lever, punch the
  button) that's fine with me. "The baby vote" won't be more than
  a negligible percentage, so why bother restricting it.

  And even though a person is 40, they're still "influenced strongly"
  by their parents "wishes." So sure, a lot of kids are going to vote
  like their parents. Then again a lot are going to vote due to influence
  from peers, school, media, church, etc... so what's the difference
  between them and an adult? It should give parents incentive to be
  more aware of their childrens "thoughts" on such matters.

  People become involved with those things they grow up with. One of
  the reasons so many of us don't vote is because it's something
  that's put off till 18. My concern is with encouraging children, and
  giving them due recognition as citizens -- which they deserve anyway
  -- regardless of age.

  Recognizing our children as citizens is an amazing gift, and completely
  in accord with the spirit of freedom that extended the vote regardless
  of race, sex and ability to pay ... and to the 18-21 year olds, and the
  citizens of Washington DC. There is a clear truth we are telling
  ourselves, blazoned across our constitution by amendment:

             **  The vote is a right of citizenship,   **
           ****  & should be completely unrestricted.  ****

  As a country, we hurt ourselves whenever we restrict some group
  from voting in any way. Take for instance convicts. These people
  think they're outside of society, and thus it's easier to prey on
  others. Restore the vote to them, and it becomes more difficult
  for them to feel alienated. Additionally, there are plenty more
  "crooks" in society who have never been caught, yet have the vote,
  so excluding the convicts accomplishes nothing.

  Another instance: Foreign nationals who are US residents. They have
  just as much interest (probably more) in what happens in America
  but are completely unrepresented. And they pay taxes as well.
  Just on the grounds that we want them to identify with our country
  and our interests -- it'd be wise to include them in the vote. More
  importantly, they *are* here, and are in fact are our neighbors --
  they deserve a voice. And paying taxes by itself should be reason
  enough to give them the vote.

  (Do you reckon native born Americans would have more incentive to
  vote knowing that the 50% of college graduate-students in the country
  who are foreign nationals -- might vote, given a chance?)

  In short, every American RESIDENT should have the unrestricted
  right to vote.

|>And lastly, the most damaging [restriction]: dominant media control
|>of the world view (ie propaganda) by leaving out essential facts, or
|>just plain lies.
|
|...  Everyone pushes their own viewpoint to the detriment (and
|sometimes exclusion) of all others.

How about lies? Pushing your own view is fine -- I've no problem
with that. Misrepresenting another person's views is just flat wrong.
And I will fight it. (I see Time magazine has become the prime
authority on lying this week.)

|Face it.  The media aren't there to give you information.  They're
|there to sell you cars and beer and soap and what have you.  The
|"programming" or editorial content, whether it's "news," music videos,
|sitcoms, or the latest made-for-teevee potboiler, is just there to
|keep you interested long enough to watch the commercials (or read the
|ads or listen to the five minute spot cluster).

Hard to do to me personally. I threw out my last tv in '88. And if
it weren't for the talk radio callers themselves, I'd do the same
with the table radio. (The shortwave I'll keep.) By in large, I get
my info about what's going on from a university library, which also
has a government documents repository. I *read* in the Congressional
Record what was said of the floor of the senate or the house on any
given day. And the committee hearing transcipts are there as well.
Likewise I can look over a dozen newspapers, including back issues on
microform. And then there are all the journals, magazines, and other
references.

Television is a very dilute substitute. It doesn't have to be that
way, but then again it's like street drugs -- cut with all kinds
of trash. Most of the newspapers are no better. Just as there ain't
no free lunches, there ain't no free media -- the big corporations
wouldn't pay big bucks if they couldn't constrain your choices, to
their products.

TANSTAFM.

|Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
|UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608

/                   \     |     /                                  \
   Stephen D. Tice     -- J --     American Independence Movement
   Arlington Texas        |        =The Spirit of Freedom Reborn=
\                   /     |     \                                  /