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: 7 Nov 92 11:35:19
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
	<1992Nov2.211745.7394@ttinews.tti.com> <1992Nov6.160533.9249@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: gcf@panix.com's message of 6 Nov 92 16:05:33 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.
[...]

|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.  

Once again, you seize the true issue, Mr Fitch.

The reasons are simple, I think and in some ways particularly American
(or USA-ian, if you prefer).  In this country, we do not hate our rich
because we, by and large, believe that we (or at least our children)
will become rich.  The American Dream(tm) and all that.

Similarly, we are particularly fond of allowing those with power
"through cohesion with established institutions" to have more power.
We, by and large, believe that we (or at least our children) will have
this power one day.  Libertarians, in particular, tend to be
well-educated computer scientist types.  Their philosophy is terribly
well-suited to their own needs, both material and psychological (for
lack of a better term).  After all, it allows people like them a much
better opportunity to succeed and acheive power (or it would if the
universe worked that way).

The terribly middle class, educationally-elitist nature of discourse
on the net fascinates me, I must admit.  The issues of concern and the
proposed solutions to address them are so terribly Middle Class(tm)
it's almost embarrassing.  A true argument for increased diversity in
my mind.  Only those who do not have to deal with the negative
consequences of their ideas could champion them so.

This is okay, of course, and something completely expected.  All of us
tend to champion ideas we think will help us.

|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?

Most on the net are armchair generals, like most of the public.  Few
of us are doing so poorly that it's worth the effort to actually think
through, much less act upon, our ideas.  Even I, in all my
self-righteousness, rarely get terribly involved until I see an issue
that strongly affects me for racial reasons (been called "nigger" one
too many times, developed too strong a hatred for police officers, and
been the victim of too many stereotypical assumptions, I suppose).  On
that issue, I have been dealt with poorly and so it has been worth it
for me to think through and act upon some of my ideas.  But other than
the fact that I have to avoid cops like the plague and deal with the
utterly inane, vapid and stupid comments that only silly White people
in America can make with a straight face, I have too much a stake in
the system to radically change it.  Racism excluded, of course.  That
I'll fight over.

To touch on your questions, by the way, according to exit polls this
week, 80% of people who said the "whole Congress should be wiped clean
and started over" voted for their incumbent.

Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.  What
separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is that we can hold
contradictory thoughts in our heads and not explode.

--
Peace.
          "It is the purpose of the grad student to accumlate 
           papers that s/he will never read."
                                -Scott Hofmeister
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-