HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Term limits, was Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:35:57 GMT


    Alright, so power corrupts.  But how will a Procrustean standard like
term limits, which regard only the calendar, be able to determine that
a politician is corrupt and needs to be removed better than the electorate?

    A certain congressman from my home state (though not from my district,
fortunately) had a 106 bad checks.  He was re-elected.  Moral of the story,
as I see it: we get the kind of government we deserve.  If we don't have
sense enough to yank someone that irresponsible out of office, I don't
see how term limits are going to help.

    

John Rickert
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:984 alt.politics.elections:23423 talk.politics.theory:4849 sci.econ:8570 rec.org.mensa:8152
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 11 Nov 1992 05:03:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:

>  I'm still unclear about what the problem is that weighted suffrage
>  is supposed to solve.  Is there any way to express that problem
>  that doesn't boil down to us accepting the particular biases of
>  the proponent, "people who don't contribute economically shouldn't
>  have political power", or "the rich have too much political power".

It all depends on your particular agenda.  If you want more
government, then there's no problem--things are moving along
just fine.  If you want less government, then one-man-one-vote
doesn't make it.  Weighting by income taxes paid would tend to
favor the middle class agenda (since they pay most of the taxes),
which would feature the election of those who would reduce the
size and scope of government, thus freeing up the private sector.
The increased role of the marketplace would narrow the gap between
rich and poor, and promote peace worldwide.
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: dtiberio@csws20.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Perot/United We Stand Mailing List
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:31:38 GMT

	There are too many messages coming thorough this newsgroup for me to 
read every day, and I don't want to miss the good ones. I am tired of doing
nothing with my life and intend to join the united We Stand political
group. And eventually this group will die for whatever reason, as the others 
will too.

	So I am starting the United We Stand mail echo. Send posts to 
united@xamiga.linet.org. Send subscriber inqueries to 
subscribe@xamga.linet.org. WHEN SUBSCRIBING: Please give me the name of
the group you are subscribing to (I run 11 mail echos), and the email
address you want it sent to. My system will give a huge path address and
I will only guess as to what your email address is. Again, the subscribe
address is for lots of different groups, so just mention the Perot or the
United We Stand group.


-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Electoral votes
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:16:00 GMT


The other state you were  thinking of is Nebraska. Yeah, they
got some screwy methofd that I can't think of offhand.
this is the same system that allowed Andrew Jackson to win 
the presidency in 1820 (I think), while his opponent got more
of the popular vote.
In this election, one candidate could realistically gotten less than 30% of
than 30% of the popular vote, and still won the election. FOr 
details on how I worked that one out, mail me.
the system sort of sucks, and there hads been some clamoring to go to the 
system that Maine has, thereby making the Electoral College more fair.
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:05:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1dq46nINNocn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>
>In a previous article, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:
>
>>  I'm still unclear about what the problem is that weighted suffrage
>>  is supposed to solve.  Is there any way to express that problem
>>  that doesn't boil down to us accepting the particular biases of
>>  the proponent, "people who don't contribute economically shouldn't
>>  have political power", or "the rich have too much political power".
>
>It all depends on your particular agenda.  If you want more
>government, then there's no problem--things are moving along
>just fine.  If you want less government, then one-man-one-vote
>doesn't make it.  Weighting by income taxes paid would tend to
>favor the middle class agenda (since they pay most of the taxes),
>which would feature the election of those who would reduce the
>size and scope of government, thus freeing up the private sector.
>The increased role of the marketplace would narrow the gap between
>rich and poor, and promote peace worldwide.

   I can't tell if this response is tongue-in-cheek or not, so I 
   would simply advise the poster to re-read my original comments.

   It's nonsense to suggest that "the middle class" benefits less
   by Big Government or favors it less than any other segment of
   society.    

   In terms of government transfer of payments ("welfare") the
   home mortgage interest deduction is the most persistent in
   in the US -- EVERYTHING will be cut before that goes.  Moreover,
   all those big juicy defense contracts provide (-d) millions of
   engineering, skilled factory, office, and other solidly middle-class
   jobs.  This is true with almost all government spending:  educators,
   researchers, social workers/therapists/doctors, consultants,
   highway and other construction workers, etc, etc, are all
   middle-class incomes and stand to lose or gain by government
   spending patterns.   And this is backed up empirically:  As
   a practical matter, if you look at voting patterns, you'll
   see that the middle-class is solidly and consistently behind
   the politicians of both parties who favor ever bigger, more
   intrusive government and "bringing home the bacon".

   I've complained many times before on Usenet that posters 
   have these nice, neat little theories about how the world
   works but they don't think to consult the world first to
   see if their theories are corroborated empirically.


---peter



   
   


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
From: gsmith@clio.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 17:58:55 GMT

In article <h!!qx8f@lynx.unm.edu> mdiehl@triton.unm.edu (J. Michael
Diehl) writes:

>Oh what a relief!  But, in defense of those of us who did take you seriously,
>there are people out there that really do think that way.  I hate it when I
>jump the gun and show my cynicism. ;^)

The serious discussion has started, so I wouldn't worry about an
excess of cynicism.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral votes
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:30:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.041600.6868@news.ysu.edu> ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
>
>The other state you were  thinking of is Nebraska. Yeah, they
>got some screwy methofd that I can't think of offhand.
>this is the same system that allowed Andrew Jackson to win 
>the presidency in 1820 (I think), while his opponent got more
>of the popular vote.
>In this election, one candidate could realistically gotten less than 30% of
>than 30% of the popular vote, and still won the election. FOr 
>details on how I worked that one out, mail me.
>the system sort of sucks, and there hads been some clamoring to go to the 
>system that Maine has, thereby making the Electoral College more fair.

Your going to have to be more definitive than to simply say something
"sucks"... you are messing around with the brillant scaffolding established
by the founders without understanding what it is you are doing.

This concept of "fair" should not be flippantly accepted as the most
prudent principle to guide the selection of the leader of the free world.
By your reasoning why would we even need the electoral college, why not
go to direct election?  Why should we even have Senators - that isn't
"fair" either.  This "fair" concept smacks of socialism!

Democracy:  two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date:  9 Nov 92 14:25:32 GMT

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>| }If not that, then how about:  each person gets one vote on attaining
>| }voting age.  If a person serves in the military, they get another vote.
>| }Graduating from college gets yet another vote.  And finally, performing
>| }a great service to the country gets a fourth (and final) vote.  The great
>| }service should be roughly equivalent in uniqueness to the valor needed to
>| }win a Medal of Honor.
>| }
>| }The above idea is taken (modified) from a Nevil Shute novel (In the Wet,
>| }I think).  ...

>hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath):
>| I read the book years ago and always liked the idea, in principle.
>| Unfortunately, I don't think you could get it implemented short of bloody
>| revolution.

>It's interesting that the three extra votes would all come
>about as a result of submission to, or perhaps seduction of,
>authoritarian institutions.  In general, that's what this
>thread has been about: how those who already have power
>through cohesion with established institutions (those who 
>pay more taxes, have more education, and so on) should be 
>granted more power still.  

In my original post, which didn't make it out to the net, I addressed this
problem.  The types of service mentioned above are just samples from the
original book.  The same principle could be applied to other types of
service.  I don't think it unreasonable, though, to require that the
service be beneficial to society.  The problem arises in determining
what is beneficial to society.  

For example, I think that someone who put in two or three years working
in the civil rights movement during the 60's has provided a service that
is beneficial to society.  The power structure, especially in the South,
would have disagreed, though.  And it is the power structure that would
grant the vote.  *That* is where the problem lies.  Although I like the
scheme (otherwise I wouldn't have posted the idea), I haven't found a
good way to do two things:  1) determine which actions are sufficiently
beneficial to society to deserve an extra vote, and 2) set up a method
of granting votes that doesn't automatically preserve the existing
power structure.  If anyone can solve those problems, then this scheme
might work; otherwise it is doomed to remain an interesting idea.
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:34:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.160533.9249@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
}| }If not that, then how about:  each person gets one vote on attaining
}| }voting age.  If a person serves in the military, they get another vote.
}| }Graduating from college gets yet another vote.  And finally, performing
}| }a great service to the country gets a fourth (and final) vote.  The great
}| }service should be roughly equivalent in uniqueness to the valor needed to
}| }win a Medal of Honor.
}| }
}| }The above idea is taken (modified) from a Nevil Shute novel (In the Wet,
}| }I think).  ...
}
}hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath):
}| I read the book years ago and always liked the idea, in principle.
}| Unfortunately, I don't think you could get it implemented short of bloody
}| revolution.
}
}It's interesting that the three extra votes would all come
}about as a result of submission to, or perhaps seduction of,
}authoritarian institutions.  In general, that's what this
}thread has been about: how those who already have power
}through cohesion with established institutions (those who 
}pay more taxes, have more education, and so on) should be 
}granted more power still.  
}
}I find the affection, the eagerness to submit to authority,
}curious in an environment where so many profess strongly
}libertarian ideals.  The very article I'm following up also
}suggested that all incumbents should be turned out of
}office.  Anyone care to decode this paradox?

1.  I'm neither a Libertarian nor a libertarian.  I consider the
    Libertarian Party to be an attempt to cloak naked greed and
    shortsighted selfishness with a thin veneer of political
    respectability.

    (Save your flames.  I don't have time to debate this in public or
    via e-mail.  I've expressed an opinion.  Feel free to disagree or
    ignore it).

2.  When I added those lines to my .signature I was firmly convinced there
    wasn't an honest person holding elected office anywhere in the
    country.  For that matter, I've yet to be convinced otherwise.

3.  I said I agreed with the weighted suffrage idea in principle.  The
    practical details of who gets extra votes and why are another matter.

Anything else you'd like decoded?

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral votes
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:23:10 GMT

In article <Bx9HGA.GJ7@acsu.buffalo.edu> kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
>
>Can someone explain to me how Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote, yet
>0 Electoral Votes? How does this system work? Does my vote *really* count?
>It seems as if though it doesn't.

 It cannot be explained on this medium without expiring your attention span.

 Suffice it to say that for some very good reasons, the founders intended
 that one must win states in order to win the presidency.  They also favored
 fewer political parties and the EC encourages the formation of two parties.
 The parties themselves must form coalitions with minority factions that
 have similar interests which requires that the candidate have broad appeal
 if he/she is to win.

 Since the nearly universal adoption of the winner take all rule, voting for
 third party candidates has been as effective as not voting at all.

 Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: ERA and the 27th Amendment
Followup-To: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Organization: Yale University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:11:30 GMT

As most of you must know, the ERA fell three states short of passage, and
was killed when it ran out of time because the text of the amendment itself
contained a time limit for passage.  As you also know, the 27th Amendment
was added this summer after kicking around for 203 years.  In light of
this, the ERA Summit  (a group of old ERA warrior types) has been
considering attempting to get three more state legislatures to pass ERA and
to then sue to invalidate the time limit on the grounds that Congress did
not have the authority to include such a limit in the amendment, since the
27th was passed despite the huge gap between intro. and final ratification.
 		

Putting aside for the moment your feelings about ERA, what does anyone
think of this strategy?

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1056 alt.politics.elections:23760 talk.politics.theory:4902 sci.econ:8655 rec.org.mensa:8234
From: lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Nosek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:55:32 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


	We already have a system of weighted suffrage!!!

	It's called the political action committee (PAC) system.

	You see, the more money you can contribute to a PAC, the more
	you can influence the congress and the more weighted your influence
	on the government.

	And we all hate PACs don't we?

					Luke Nosek
From: aragorn@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Steven J.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:29:40 GMT
Organization: Jobs With Peace at UWM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30

ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
: 
: Second: How are term limits gonna solve any problems? My feeling is
: that if the people in his area like the guy enough to keep voting him
: in, he should be there. Term limits only hurt the people by forcing
: them to vote for someone they might not want, and reducing the power
: that their representative has to get the best benefit for them.

But we all know that this is idealistic at best.  I'm not necessarily in
favor of term limitations, but to say that the only reason that an
individual gets reelected for 12+ years of term isn't just because she is
doing what her constituents want her to do.  Most people just aren't that
well informed to know the real voting record of someone in office.  Recently
here in Wisconsin Russ Feingold defeated 12-year incumbant Bob Kasten for a
US Senate seat.  I voted for Feingold but mainly because of specific issues
like Pro-Choice and Feingold's stand on government spending.  Hmmm, I'm
digressing, here.  My point is just that the media that an incumbant can
create for herself is more of an influence on voters than actual voting
record.


______________________________________________________
Steve J. White
my virtual spheres of consciousness can be reached at:
aragorn@convex.csd.uwm.edu
aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral C. vs Popular vote
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:49:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.051737.13946@news.ysu.edu> ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
>The Electoral College was created, not to insure that a certain
>person wins, but because they didn't have the wonderful methods 
>of cross-country communication that we have today.

Not if the Federalist Papers (defending the structure of the proposed
Constitution) and the debates in the Convention of 1787 (where the
document was written), are at all accurate. The issues discussed 
when the Electoral College was created were the dangers and advantages
of direct democracy, the powers of the State governments and the
seperation of powers within the government (which was assumed to require
different means of electing officials, so that each would have a
different power base.) Travel time and cross country communications
were not discussed. You can hardly attach a motive to the Electoral
College which was never mentioned, when other reasons were debated at
length.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder


Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1029 alt.politics.elections:23583 talk.politics.theory:4885 sci.econ:8613 rec.org.mensa:8190
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:12:42
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
	<1dsr52INN6gv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <BxLxyM.8sy@apollo.hp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:37:34 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|>>   It's nonsense to suggest that "the middle class" benefits less
|>>   by Big Government or favors it less than any other segment of
|>>   society.    
|>
|>Do *you* favor Big Government?

|   No, but I'm highly atypical.    What does your question have
|   to do with the topic at hand?

Besides which, that's the wrong question.  99% of Americans will say
that they're against Big Govt and 99% of those will actually believe
it when they say it; however, what they say and how they act are two
different things.  IF Small Govt(tm) means I don't get a service that
I want then I'm against it.  If Small Govt(tm) means someone else
doesn't get a service and I don't have to pay for it, then I'm for it.

Everyone is against Big Govt until it means that their piece of the
pie gets bitten (this recent election is a perfect example).




--
Peace.
                             "Those who make non-violent revolution impossible
                              make violent revolution inevitable."
                                          -Dr Martin Luther King, Jr
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot