HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjhostet@slayer.mit.edu (Mat Hostetter)
Subject: Re: Runoff, Constitution
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 08:38:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.055656.19110@cco.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu  
(Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
> In article <1992Apr11.011145.14263@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J.  
Byrd) writes:
> >
> >Anybody read the constitution and what it says about runoffs in
> >the presidential voting?  The HOUSE chooses from the top five!
> >Ooooh, scary!
> 
> Uh, no, the Constitution states that if no one candidate has a majority of  
the
> electoral vote, the election goes to the House of Representatives, which
> selects from the top *three* electoral vote getters.  This proviso has been
> used only once in American history, in the 1824 Presidental election.  Read
> the 12th Amendment for the full story (trust me, it's easier than it looks...  
:)

One other interesting fact is that each state only gets *ONE* vote,
regardless of how many Representatives it has.

An excerpt from the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be
 the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
 appointed; and if no person have such a majority, then from the persons
 having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted
 for as President, the House of Representative shall choose immediately, by
 ballot, the President.  But in choosing the President, the votes shall be
 taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; a
 quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from
 two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be
 necessary to a choice."


Can someone tell me how each state would decide whom to vote for?  Would the
Representatives for each state vote by which party had the most Rep's for
that state or by what their state decided to send to the electoral college?
Also, I know there are more Democrats than Republicans in the House, but if
each state only gets one vote do the Democrats still have the majority?  I can
imagine some large states having mostly democratic Representatives, and some
small states being Republican, so Republicans might own more states than
Democrats, even if they have fewer total Representatives.  It seems unlikely,
but possible.

-Mat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: greg@agora.uucp (Greg Broiles)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot on social issues
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:57:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.174425.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> bergen@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>Perot's connections with Oliver North and Gen. Singlaub worry me a 
>great deal.

Please post more about this.

>
>Comments?
>


-- 
".. when laws are outlawed, only outlaws will obey the law." - Tom Robbins
Greg Broiles          |   greg@tomten.pdx.com  |          greg@agora.rain.com
PO Box 8988, Portland, OR  97207-8988          |            MCIMail: gbroiles
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Important Points WAS: <none>
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:57:40 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Apr8.183526.10854@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:

  You raise some very good points and issues that may make the libertarian
philosophy imperfect.  I cannot address them, but as an example of how
much damage our government has inflicted upon the mass consciousness I
wish to respond to the following:

>If we didnt have the 1st amendment, we not might be able to carry on
>this debate, nor go to worship somewhere.  If we didnt have the 4th
>amendment to attempt to limit police behavior you would have even more
>illegal search and seizures.

  These are not regulations.  These are god-given rights that are merely
recognized by the Constitution.  The Constitutional Bill of Rights was
not drawn up as a list of things that the government could not do, but
as a list specifically outlining what it must *never* do with the rest
of the Constitution as a list of _only_ what powers the government is ALLOWED.

  I contend that The Libertarian Party although not perfect and may 
sound radical, is based on the same ideas that founded our country
and led to its catapult to the top of the world in prosperity.


-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:722 talk.politics.misc:17721
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Free Trade
Keywords: free trade
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:18:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa

mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>>  Also, never forget that there are
>>some cases where we might want to consider temporary tariffs.  Take
>>Harley Davidson.  Back a few years ago, they were getting crushed by
>>Yamaha, Honda, and other Japanese companies.  They went to Congress and
>>asked for protection.  Several years later, re-armed with new plants and
>>products, _Harley Davidson_ went back to Congress and asked that the
>>tariffs be lifted.  This kind of _temporary_ tariff for "infant industries"
>>or "rebuilding" companies should be allowed - although it is rare that
>>a company will come along with the guts that HD had and ask for a lifting
>>of tariffs.

	This is an example of someone knowing some of the facts, and
using them to twist an example to their viewpoint.  Fact #1 - The
tarrif on motorcycles was not for protection of an "infant" industry,
Harley Davidson has been in business since 1903.  Fact #2 - The
tarrifs were on only one segment of the motorcycle market - over 700cc
in engine sized street bikes.  Fact #3 - And pay attention, this is
the most important.  The tarrif was invoked for unfair trade
practices by the Japanese.  Specifically "dumping" (selling products
for less than the cost of manufacture to gain market share.  At the
time of the tarrif imposition in 1983, Yamaha Motor Corp of America
had a THREE YEAR supply of motorcycles in its warehouses if no
additional bikes were imported.  1982 models which started the year at
$3099 were selling for $1999.  Now, I was intimately involved with the
motorcycle business at that time, and I don't believe that the
Japanese companies got together and formed a plan to drive Harley out
of business.  But, the Japanese got into a market share war (with each
other) and conducted business in a very unsound fashion.  Then they
got caught in a recession.  In the words of one Yamaha executive - "We
thought we could catch Honda (for number 1 in the market), and we got
burned." Cycle World Febuary 1992.  Harley Davidson was hurt by these
actions (it is tough to sell a 1200cc bike for 10K when others are
selling similar sized bikes for 2K no matter how different they are)
and asked for help through the trade laws.  Unlike the chip dumping
snafus, this case was cut and dried.
				
				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:28:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.190958.27793@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

|> Have you heard of company towns?  Have you studied the history of the US
|> around the turn of the century?  Do you know how Pinkertons got started?

yup
 
|> Why is government able to infringe on people's rights?  Because it is
|> big and has lots of power.  Major corporations have, or in the past have had, 
|> the exact same powers that government has to infringe on people's rights.  
|> That is, they're big and they've got lots of money, which can buy power.

But they can't force people to buy. The reason why people buy is because they
like what they are getting. People go to work because they like getting money.
People choose to live in company towns (the kind that exist today atleast)
because they are cheaper and closer to work.

|> Which brings up a question I've had, which I hope the net.libs can
|> answer.  What's the Libertarian position on incorporation?  As far as I
|> can see, a true Lib should oppose the concept; a company is a bunch of
|> people getting together to do something, not a government defined person.
|> Incorporation prevents accountability; in the example someone gave about
|> a factory which leaks carcinogens, they pointed out that the EPA limits
|> liability, but that without it, the company would have incentive to NOT
|> pollute.  But as long as you have corporations, in which they can declare 
|> bankruptcy if too many people sue them, and in which the executives are 
|> not responsible, then Libertarian liability-accountability doesn't work.

I'm not a libertarian, but I subscribe to their philosophies, and I think that
corporations are VERY bad.


|> >Jason W. Solinsky
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:596 alt.individualism:2344
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.individualism
Subject: LP as 3rd Largest Party
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:51:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

I just got my hands on the "Other Party" registration information for El
Paso County Colorado (the county encompassing Colorado's 2nd largest
city, Colorado Springs).  95% of the list is Libertarian (3% appears to
be the Prohibition Party and 2% is some code I can't fathom).

Also, although I don't have exact numbers, from what I was told of LP
registration in the county 2 years ago, our registration is up 250-300%. 
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour)
Subject: Re: Electronic town hall (was Re: Ross Perot)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 07:43:35 GMT

In article <MAS.92Apr7215508@csa.bu.edu> mas@csa.bu.edu (Mark A. Semich) writes:
>
>One of the things that no one seems to have brought up about this
>proposed interactive-TV vote process is that if one is in control of
>what is broadcast over TV, it's very easy to convince people how to
>vote.  
>
>Using an extreme example to get my point across, you could have some
>voluptuous woman in a bikini seductively telling you to go for it and
>push the flashing "Yes" button on your screen.
>
>More realistically, I believe that the idea that Perot proposes is to
>have an informative presentation of an issue, immediately followed by
>an opportunity for the viewer to vote.  Just how informative would
>this presentation be?  How informative is the network news?  This
>proposed show could end up being like the new tabloid-news shows.  It's
>certainly easy to present any issue with a strong slant, especially if
>it's given the right soundtrack and/or produced by the right advertising
>agency.  It's also very easy to mis-represent any opposing viewpoint.
>The viewer wouldn't even have the chance to learn anything more about
>the issue than what is presented on TV, because the vote would
>immediataly follow the show!
>
>It seems to me that this electronic town hall idea may sound good, but
>has an enormous potential to be mis-used.

Point taken.  But part of the concept is obviously believing in the
integrity of the person (or people) responsible for presenting the
information.  The motivation is to take the power away from the special
interest groups and return it to the people by educating them about
what in the heck is going on.  Note, for instance, that Perot would
not be the one explaining things on the TV.  He want to assemble various
experts on the issue in question and have them discuss the proposed
solutions and the pros and cons associated with each one.  I realize
that depending on the experts you choose, you could slant the outcome,
but again that goes to the integrity of the participants and the
organizers.  It seems clear to me that Perot intends to assemble
experts who will present different opinions and not all agree on
one solution.

Anyway, do you think the blockheads in Congress now are doing a better
job of informing their constituents of the various issues than Perot's
concept could?

Bob
From: jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 10 Apr 1992 10:18:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

I know I said only Bush voters should talk here.  Of course,
no one listened.  So I'll barge in, too

YOU CAN'T IMPEACH SOMEONE FOR INCOMPETENCE!!

And as for the tax/lips, it is a rather moot point.  The tax issue
didn't really effect the vote much in '88.  I'll try to uncover the
NES data on it later this week.

And to the last poster who scorched someone's 6 reasons for Bush,
BACK OFF!  Just a newsgroup, and while you and I don't see the logic
as valid, it is his own.  And may the Bush supporters that have been
emailing, rather than posting, be a little more bold.  You can always
skip drooling fury like the article before.

jason o'rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: POTHEAD'S MESSAGE TO CLINTON
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 01:02:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Ben Masel <bmasel@igc.org> writes:
>Arrived sort of late, missed the TV crews...

     Figures.  What do you expect from a pothead?  

					John Nagle
From: mwizard@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Craig R. Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Democratic psyche
Date: 15 Apr 92 07:14:58 GMT

achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin) writes:

>I just thought of the following analysis of the Democrats:

>   Superego:  Tsongas
>   Ego:       Clinton
>   Id:        Brown

>What do you think?

Nicely executed.  I hope the Democratic party likes the taste of
Kool-Aid.

=============================================================
|  Craig Nelson , OO Programmer    mwizard@eecs.cs.pdx.edu  | 
|  CC Software, Inc.		   Beaverton Oregon  97005  |
=============================================================
From: sdstpk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Stephen D Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 11 Apr 1992 20:19:30 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

In article <s82dgINNqi6@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>
>Tell you what, folks.  You can listen to this idiot if you like, but I'm
>going to put him in my kill file.  He may be interesting to sit next to
>in Computer Science... but his childish notions of government and 
>politics bore me.
>

:(  I'm crushed.

-Steve Spencer

-- 
I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano--a stage, where every man must play
a part, and mine a sad one.
       -Merchant of Venice I.i.77
               grendel@cis.ksu.edu            sdstpk@matt.ksu.edu
From: robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: News: NYT 4 Apr 92  Jerry Brown's Tax
Date: 6 Apr 92 02:50:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Organization

In article <Apr.4.14.10.58.1992.5440@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>
>(Also, I still haven't seen an adequate rebuttal to the CTJ's estimate
>that Brown's program would add $200 billion to the deficit, and that a
>tax rate of 16% rather than 13% would be necessary to equal current
>income.  This is from the NYT 26 Mar 92 piece.)


  Currently the lowest income tax bracket is 15%, with an additional
14.2% for FICA (ODS + MED).  So even the 16% rate would be a reduction.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: Jamie Zawinski <jwz@lucid.com>
Subject: what does Clinton have to SAY?
Organization: Lucid, Inc., Menlo Park, CA
X-Windows: The defacto substandard.
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:48:06

I've now read a lot about Brown, Tsongas, the Libertarians, and even a bit
about Perot (who, incidentally, scares the shit out of me.)  But I really
have no clue what Clinton stands for; all I know is that he is a slick
political operator, who claims to be pro-choice but probably isn't really.
What does he have to say about, for example, ANYTHING ELSE?

Note that I'm not trying to knock Clinton here; I couldn't, because I don't
know what he has to say.  All I've seen is the slick, contentless nonsense
that TV offers forth as "news."

	-- Jamie
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Idea for campaign reform
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:16:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.093828.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|> I've been reading a lot of ideas on campaign reform and eliminating PACs.
|> Most of them involve giving peopl free TV time etc..
|> 
|> I think most of these ideas go too far and are too complicated.
|> Here's my idea:
|> 	Give each real candidate a set amount of money (determining who a real
|> candidate is is another issue).  Make it illegal for them to spend any more
|> than that fixed amount.  Let them spend it however they choose! (but they can't
|> keep it)  If they want to do expensive TV mud-slinging ads, let them!  If they
|>  want to take out print ads, let them! (get my drift?)   
|> 	One of the advantages of this aproach is that we would find out which 
|> candidates can manage they're money (we know that members of congress can't!).
|> 
|> I've posted this idea a few times before but no one comments on it. why?

This is already the case, isn't it?

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot, Free Trade
Keywords: free trade
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:54:46 GMT

>In article <1992Apr8.130655.28253@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>
>
>>2)  Statistics quite easy to find reveal that countries with high trade 
>>barriers have very poor economies(barriers made the economies obviously
>>worse off in many of these cases that I have knowledge of.)


	How many of these countries were communist when the surveys were
taken? That may be the reason the statistics work. I'd be interested in
statistics that leave out the Former Warsaw Pact, China, and other communist
countries.
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:59:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.112658.10988@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
|> No has perfect information and without some neutral (but not alwys since
|> gov't is too influenced by big business) standards no one could judge
|> what they were buying.

Once again, the cost of being free is avoiding ignorance.

Compare and contrast these two scenarios:

1) The government has agencies that regulate things. It spends [begin Carl Sagan
mode] billions and billions of dollars on these organizations every year.
Everything must comply with certain minimum levels of quality. This causes a
deadweight loss and will at any given time be responsible for 2-3% of the
unemployment weight due to a similar loss in the labor market.

2) Since many people don't want to have to worry about eating things which are
poisoned, and buying automobiles which are safe, they subscribe to an infromation
company, and for a couple of hundred dollars a year this company tells them which
restaurants and cars are safe, ect. This could be run by a company for profit. It
is likely, however, that because some people fear the power of companies, that
many such information agencies would be run as cooperatives, where everybody puts
in the same amount of money, and has the same say in how the cooperative is run.
It is extremely likely (due to the profit involved) that larger corporate
information agencies would be willing to sell information to these cooperatives.
Consequently, it would only take a few hundred people to make one of them work.

The key advantages of the second way are:

1) You don't HAVE to get these services. You could take care of everything on
your own. and...

2) In the latter option, the cooperatives, and agencies are run by people
interested in saving money, so it costs much less than the equivalent government
agencies take in tax dollars.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot's company standards
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:32:16 GMT
Reply-To: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC


> >Perot Systems is a company and you have the right to not
> >work for it if you choose. ...

> Aha, so he IS the Libertarian candidate for President !!! :-)

He is certainly more qualified than any candidate the Libertarians
have ever run but so is Jackson, Quayle, and a number of other
political jokes.
-- 
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375   (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091                 (703) 620-1141 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: Homeless Voters
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:54:34 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

I recently read about a guy who successfully petitioned (sued?) to
be allowed to register to vote, with his address being listed as
"the streets of the 7th ward" or something like that.

In general, registering to vote does require a home address; most
homeless citizens do not have the resources to protest this requirement
effectively or to work around it.

I personally think it sucks.
-- 
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.

VOTE FOR TSONGAS -- HE'S STILL ON THE BALLOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:879 talk.politics.misc:18059