From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: COUNTER BLITZ  -= Strike out against Pork-Party-Politics =-
Date: 2 Oct 1992 22:48:35 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <01GPH9STSTOK001GRO@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
>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 with this kind of scheme is that makes it difficult to
equalize representation.  What do you do about representation for
Dogpatch, population 5, vs. New York City, population 7.5 million?
Admittedly, this is an extreme and ludicrous example, but there are
real examples that show similar disparities.

Unless set up and administered carefully, this sort of districting
could lead to unequal representation, over-representing certain
segments of the population.

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

An idealistic suggestion but, considering human nature, unlikely.  Not
to mention the rather significant question of what exactly it means to
represent "*all*" of a constituency.  Majority rule?  If so, you're
probably back with the same inequities that you complain of.
Proportional representation?  This often gives a disproportionate voice
to relatively small and often extremist groups (for instance, the
minority religious parties in Israel and some of the smaller parties
in a number of European countries cause a large number of problems).
While I'm not suggesting that minority views be suppressed or ignored,
it's difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a workable way to
do it.

>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...

I think you've responded to your own complaint here.  Things are
changing.  They'll change more.

Personally, I think I'd worry more about having something to vote for
than the time and place of voting.

>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.)

It's often hard to tell what is a lie and what is the truth.  Politics
are frequently very subjective -- my lie is your truth and vice versa.
Certainly if someone steals money and then denies it, that's a lie.
But if someone, for example, imposes a "user fee" and then denies that
they raised taxes, is that a lie or a matter of interpretation.  A
good, real world example of this is the list of "tax increases" that
the Bush campaign trotted out against Clinton.  Some of them were real
tax increases, some of them were user fees, some of them were counted
twice due to selective interpretation.  A lie?  A misrepresentation?
Or simply a different point of view?

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy