From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:42:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.072808.18581@s1.gov>,
lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>        I'm in a real dilemma regarding June Genis, because I
>seriously dislike Bruce(?) Herschensohn, and I'm afraid of helping him
>win by not voting for Barbara Boxer. He's right-wing on social issues
>and I don't like that. Barbara Boxer is much better there :-)

Are you aware, Loren, that Boxer was a key supporter of the "smoke a
joint - lose your license" bill. So much for being pro-choice. (For
those who haven't heard about this law it would withhold federal
highway funds from any state which did not pass such a law.  It has
nothing to do with driving under the influence.  You can lose your
license for smoking as little a one joint in the privacy of your own
bedroom.  It turns out that a state can opt out of this condition
by passing special state legislation, however Wilson just vetoed the
last version of this bill in California)

>        I get the impression that BB's main sin is that she
>regards Government money as a credit card with no maximum and no
>monthly payments (not that she is alone in this :-).

She's not alone but she is at the top of the list.  She propsed
about 70 billion more in new spending last year than any other
congress-critter for a total of 405 billion in new spending
(actually 406 in new spending, 1 billion in cuts).  We simply can't
afford Barbar's good intentions any more.

>        I confess I have a lot of respect for JG's calling for no
>extra spending without an equivalent reduction somewhere else or else
>raising taxes to compensate. Something like proper use of one's credit
>card :-).

Thanks,  Have you called Barbara to see how she feels about the
idea. BTW? :-)

>        I guess that's the trouble with our political system. It
>discriminates against third parties. I'm not sure what will change it
>except a revolt against the two parties' leaderships and their desire
>to keep their monopoly on politics. I wonder how many pols will become
>fed up with having to coexist with ideological non-soulmates, as they
>currently have to do. Just consider the divisions in the Democratic
>and the Republican Parties; if multiple parties were allowed, the two
>parties would fragment rather quickly.

If you vote for a major party candidate that you like less than a
third party candidate, just because you are afraid that the other
major party candidate will then win YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!

Politics is NOT a horse race.  Your goal in casting a vote should be
to tell the politicians what you want.  If you tell Democrats that
you want a big spending Barbara Boxer then that is what the
Democrats are going to give you.  I can't promise that I will win
this election if you vote fore me, but I can promise that *you* will
lose if you vote for Boxer when you don't really want to see her in
the Senate.

>        There are a number of routes for making opportunities for
>multiple parties:
>
>        Cross-endorsement, currently practiced in New York State. A
>party can endorse a candidate from another party.

I will be happy to accept the endorsement of any other party.
They'd just better not expect anything in return :-)

>        Proportional representation, practiced in nearly all of the
>rest of the democratic world. Parties would send in legislators in
>proportion to how many votes they received.

I think this is something we should definitely look into.  I favor
the single transferable vote system but I think that requires a lot
of advance voter education to work correctly.

>        Runoff elections. The two top vote-getters would enter a
>second election. If one's candidate loses the first time around, one
>still has a choice of the lesser of two evils :-)
>
>        Does the Libertarian Party have any position on these?

I don't believe that the platform of either the national California
LP's says anything on the subject which means that candidates are
free to state their own views.  It's not something that involves
Libertarian principles per se and there is generally resistance to
putting anything in the platform which can't be derived from the
non-coercion principle.

>>/June
>>Libertarian for U.S. Senate, California (full term)
>
>        I don't know what to say. Some of the self-proclaimed
>Libertarians on this net come off as obnoxious right-wingers.

Face it, obnoxious people come in all political flavors.  Remember
that only the Libertarians support your right not to associate with
obnoxious people in your complete business and personal life :-)

>/Loren

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42163 alt.politics.elections:11666 alt.politics.bush:3068 alt.politics.clinton:3137