From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:51:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.154243.7363@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>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 see your point in this.

	I wonder if it is a case of Democrats trying to prove that
they are not "soft on crime". Just another reason to move to a
multiparty system.

	I'd be surprised if Bruce Herschensohn is much better.

@        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? :-)

	Good idea.

@        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.

	Note: I'd think it fun to imagine the complexion of American
politics if multiple parties were allowed.

>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!

	I understand your point.

>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.

	Making a statement is one thing. Playing to win is another.
I'm sorry if I seem unprincipled, but I'm reluctant to vote for
someone who does not seem likely to win in our current winner-take-all
system. It's not a happy choice, but I'm not likely to vote for a
third-party candidate unless the two major parties' candidates are
both thoroughly disgusting.

@        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 :-)

	Certainly true.

@        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.

	Good idea.

@        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 :-)

@>/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 :-)

	I see your point.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42680 ca.politics:7199