From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Foreign Interest in the US RKBA (was ACLU & 2nd)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Keywords:  Cole Weslock Master Grayhill
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:36:06 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>
>>> So what, politically, is happening to get the government back under the 
>>> control of the constitution?
>>
>>We vote, pal.  What, you say it isn't working?  But you're the guy who
>>thinks that votes can solve everything.
>
>What percentage of eligible people actually vote in US elections? Here it is
>about 98%, thus the majority gets what the majority chooses. If less than 50%
>of voters actually vote then the majority of people still may not have their
>choice.

    What does the number of people voting have to do with it?
    Does increased quantity somehow increase quality? I don't think so.

>(Of course all this presupposes that politicians offer choices...ha ha ha)

    In addition to this, a far more important factor than percentage of
    voters participating, is the percentage of voters who have real
    knowledge of who they're voting for and what they REALLY stand for.
    Last election (yes it was just a primary) I voted for 6 people out
    of the hundred or so positions on the ballot.

    I've been voting for 16 years, and in most of those elections I haven't
    left a hole unpunched, or lever unflipped because I didn't want to
    "waste" this power I wielded. It wasn't until about 1984 that I started 
    to realize that the vast majority of the people I voted for were 
    completely unknown to me. I was wasting the vote anyway. For some
    reason, I believe most people vote the same way. If they don't know
    anyone running for a position, they vote for the party. Does that
    actually mean they want THAT person in office? No, just that they
    think that party represents their views. Does the party enforce its
    views on each and every candidate and make sure they toe the line
    while they're in office? No. Do the voters ever learn how that person
    acted during their previous term? No, not unless they really try to.

    So even if we bring out 100% of the vote, most being completely unaware
    of what the people they vote for actually stand for, is this going to do
    what we really want our voting power to do? I think it will actually
    dilute the educated/knowledgeable vote. Selfish? Perhaps, but I figure
    if I'm willing to work at finding out what the candidates are about,
    then my vote should be worth a little more. And by the same token, when
    I find a position on the ballot where I know nothing about either
    candidate, I'll leave it blank, deferring my vote to someone who has
    done their homework.

    Face it, this is 1992. The parties are no more than anti-each-other. 
    Why don't we just throw all the real losers into a new political party
    called, umm, how about the Political Party, and let people who don't
    want to be politicians work to pare and trim the government down to
    where it needs to be? I can't do much to help, I'm perfectly happy with
    my representation, both at the federal and state levels. Anybody want to
    trade an anti-Kennedy vote for my Armey vote? 8-)

    Kevin
-- 
----   Kevin Langston   langston@convex.com   langston@frontier.lonestar.org
----   Mitchell's Law of Committees: Any simple problem can be made insoluble
----   if enough meetings are held to discuss it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns