From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:54:01 GMT

jb145@cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:

>I assume everybody reading these newsgroups knows that the U.S. is
>infamous for having terrible voter turnout.  Perhaps less well-known
>is the fact that *registered* American voters do vote in proportions
>comparable to other democracies (85% as I recall; please post exact
>figure).  The problem is that a ridiculously low proportion of
>Americans are registered in the first place.

More accurately, that a ridiculously low proportion of Americans
bother to register in the first place.


>Ironic, isn't it.  But forget about them for now: let's talk about the
>millions more who do want to vote, but aren't registered.  People move
>and they forget to register; by the time the election draws near, it's
>too late for them!  And many have never registered in the first place.

Nice scenario, but not likely.  It's easy to register.  Someone who
isn't going to bother to do that isn't likely to put out the larger
effort to vote.  Colorado did their own Motor Voter.  They increased
registration 19%.  Percentage of eligible (this includes
non-registered) voters who voted: %0.2 percent more.



>Remember that old cliche that government is for, by, and of the
>people?  From this it follows that a truly democratic government has
>every responsibility to make the voting procedure as accessible to
>everybody as it can.  As I see it, Congress tried very much to accept
>this responsibility by passing the motor-voter bill.

If they really wanted to accept this responsibility they'd get rid of
registration in its current form.


>The motor-voter bill would have required every state to allow voters
>to register to vote at the same time they get their driver's licenses.
>This is a brilliant and simple idea that would ensure that EVERY
>AMERICAN HAS A VISIBLE, EASY WAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE. 

So?  They still haven't given every American a visible, easy way to
vote.   It was far more effort standing in the long lines at the
polling places, after finding parking in the inadequte parking lot,
and using the little pick to punch out holes in the card for almost a
dozen races and quite a few propositions, bond issues, and the like,
than it was to register.


> This would have been the most healthy piece of legislation for U.S.
>democracy in years.  BUT GEORGE BUSH VETOED THE BILL!!!

The Federal government enforcing yet another piece of bureaucracy (of
questionable worth) on the states is healthy for democracy?  I don't
see it that way. 


>It's not often that a presidential action drives me to communicate in
>capital letters.  But this time it does.  GEORGE BUSH, WHY DON'T YOU
>WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE?  IS IT BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT IF AMERICA REALLY
>WAS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, YOU AND YOUR MILLIONAIRE FRIENDS WOULD
>BE CHUCKED OUT ON YOUR CUMMERBUNDS?

Not likely, even if increased registration meant increased voting.
Bush draws most of his support from those under 35, those who are
least likely to vote, and who tend to be more conservative.  Keep in
mind who you're registering, as well - those people with cars.


>P.S.  The motor-voter bill would have gone into effect *after* the 1992
>election.

Which makes your conclusions less credible.  He doesn't stand to lose
anything. 



-- 
Refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc