HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:08:17 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <1992Apr9.195834.19233@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:

>NOBODY EVER received a MAJORITY vote for President!
>Not even George Washington, who got a unanimous vote from the electoral
>college, but less than half the population actually voted.

>Presidential winners only received a majority (or plurality) of the VOTES CAST 
>in an election, but usually a majority of the people stayed home.  These are 
>protests, NOT abstentions.  Many of the stay-at-homes are really voting for
>"none of the above".  (I, for one, wish they'd be less lazy about it, and at
>least do a write-in!)

Expecting the political system to acknowledge and try to count people who
do not vote is really kind of silly. When Poll Taxes and other rules
sought to disenfranchise many voters that sort of reasoning might have
made sense but most of the barriers are gone. It is rare for someone in
the United States to be unable to vote if they try. The one major
exception would probably be students who are at College in a different
state than the one they reside in.

Democracy is a participatory activity. You can 'wish' for more active
voters all you like and I join you but I have no interest intrying to
compensate for them. Failure to participate in an election is an action
which surrenders all claim on the government.
I am sick and tired of people who complain about the state of the union
but will not even take the time to vote. I tell the one I know, "well, you
missed your chance... don't complain to me."

This yeras crop of crooks and thieves and swindlers is very dis-heartening
so I'm planning a write-in myself.

>Even in "landslides" (like Reagan's in 1984 or Nixon's in 1972), the winner
>got votes from only about 25% of the population.

I haven't really looked at the numbers. By population do you mean 'all
eligable voters' or everyone in the US? It isn't clear which you are
referring to.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU  -  Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
"The Blues isn't about feeling better, it's about making other people
 feel worse, and making a few bucks while you're at it."
	- Bleeding Gums Murphy, "The Simpsons"
From: kyrie@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thomas S. Marlowe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: NH Primary & LP
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:16:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>   berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:
>   >What was important about Dixville Notch as a political experiment is that
>   >the LP and Marrou/Lord put enough effort into that one town to really
>   >educate the voters on the LP.  Dixville Notch was a test of libertarian
>   >ideas, when those ideas are communicated clearly and thoroughly.  It
>   >showed that the ideas CAN gain a majority of voters when you are able to
>   >communicate them.

And what happens when the Libertarian Party comes to Dartmouth College (NH)
and Marrou tells some very excited Libertarians (and some people who were just 
interested in learning more)  that it would be a good idea if we encouraged
nuclear proliferation so that if every country had a nuclear weapon, we would
be a lot safer (the argument being that it would create a true stalemate if
Libya, Iran, Iraq, etc.  had nuclear weapons and the other argument being
that it is not fair for only the superpowers to have NUKES.)

The NET libertarian that I met (on the NET) told my friend that he had a 
tendency to focus on unimportant issues like NUKES when the Libertarian Party
has so much to offer on other, more important issues.

Opinions?

TSM
d
--
"He eats the droppings from his own table;
thus he manages to stuff himself fuller than the others for a little while,
but meanwhile he forgets how to eat from the table;
thus in time even the droppings cease to fall." - Franz Kafka
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Perot, Clinton, OR Bush?
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:31:08 GMT

In article <s8b00INNo1g@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>
>>  I even agree that Perot defintely bears looking into.  I think I disagree
>>that "Perot doesn't want to run for president".  I suspect that it is a
>>likely "campaign stunt" (am I too cynical?)

>The actual quotation is:  "I don't want to do this and if I ever had to
>do it, I would only do it as a servant of the American people.  I would
>not compromise or sell out or make deals with anybody or anything."
>This was in his conclusion to the national press club.  A "campaign
>stunt"?  For one thing, he isn't officially running yet.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  Or, if you prefer another
Shakespeare paraphrase, "Three times did Caesar refuse the crown."
When someone whom nobody ever asked to be president starts talking about
how much he doesn't want to be President and would only do it if asked,
I'm suspicious.  "Don't throw me in that there briar patch, Br'er Bear!"
I'm more impressed by someone like William Tecumseh Sherman, who responded
to _others_ suggestions that he run for office with, "If nominated, I
will not run, if elected, I will not serve."  Perot's attempt to
create his own groundswell looks like a pretty standard political ploy--
I mean, does setting up a phone bank just in case a few million people
randomly decide to ask him to be president, then placing himself in
the media spotlight on the off chance someone might ask him what he'd
do as president look like the actions of someone who doesn't consider
himself a candidate?  There's nothing inherently wrong with trying
to run for elective office (other than Plato's point that no one who
wants the job should be allowed to do it, of course); but Perot is
being disingenuous with his "What, me run for President?" tactics.
Doesn't make him a bad person, or even less qualified for the presidency,
but I'm disinclined to give him positive points for such tactics either.

Mike

-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:40:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sco49INN630
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr13.175520.21422@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) writes:
> Bush has the authority to at least tell them to do SOMETHING. He gave them
> a reasonable time for the passage of an economic growth package.  Congress
> is stalling, hoping to stall the recession of course. They don't want to
> take the risk of having the economy improve so Bush will lose in '92 to
> Slick Willie.

Remember that Congress is full of incumbents also.  If they stall the
recession, they may improve Clinton's chances, but they sure won't
improve their own.  Remember that they did pass a budget, but Bush
said he would veto it.  He wasn't telling them, "Get to work and send
me a budget", he was saying, "Send me a budget that I like".  They are
very different things.  It's clear that Bush is trying as hard as he
can to make Congress (i.e, the Democrats) look as bad as they are
trying to make him look.  Business as usual.

	Wayne "Perot for President" Christopher
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Primaries
From: parvin1@husc10.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:34:45 GMT

berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:

>There are clearly some misconceptions on this list vis a vi primaries.
>Political parties are private organizations whose activities are
>protected from government intrusion (to various extents) by the freedom
>of association.  The government can not really regulate how a political
>party chooses its candidates.  The courts generally slap the wrists of
>any government entity that tries to regulate the behavior of a political
>party.

Political parties are subject to government regulations far more stringent
than most private entities.  This is because, ever since the early 20th
century and the demise of classical legal thought, bright line distinctions
between public and private have been abandoned.  For example, I have far
more legal protection if I try to stage a protest in a "private" shopping
mall, than on a "public" military base.

Regarding the political parties - There are government laws that concern
almost every aspect of political parties as we know them, including the
requirement that they have some form of democratic selection of their
candidates for office.  These laws apply only to large parties with many
privileges - Dems, Reps, and Libs included...

-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: None
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:08:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.112658.10988@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>It is me again.  Once again, I am replying to JW Solinsky.  Your
>vision of society being free to choose to eat helathy or
>unhealty food, to buy safe or unsafe cars is premised on the idea
>that everyone will have perfect information about the products
>that they are buying.  

Speaking for myself and not JWS:
Not at all...let those who are better able to obtain and distill 
information be rewarded for their efforts and skill. 

>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.  

Except by using their skills to judge what they are buying, i.e. let each
person judge according to their skills.

>ANd it is extremely inefficient not to say a waste of time and money 
>to make each individual consumer have to run around and
>investigate a car aor house or food they are buying to make sure that
>it is a good and safe products. 

Well- a media helps, after all Consumers Union has found a marketplace
for their Consumer Reports magazine.

Secondly, if a seller puts a bad product on the market, word of mouth
will certainly put them out of business before too long.

Third, let each consumer decide how much effort they are willing to
expend in deciding which product to buy.

>I much rather be free to buy food knowing it wasnt full of vermin and
>spend my time more profitably like having long political
>converstaions on the net. :-)
>I think with no govt regulation we would run around being slaves 
>to big business and monoplies instead of to the govt like JSW feels
>we are.

I'm not so sure, provided we have laws which forbid monopolies. We should
have regulations that prevent conspiracy, collusion and monpolies or
anything else that discourages a free market place.

>The gove is supposed to be working in our interest (And Here I agree
>with JWS it hasnt done a too good of a job there lately)
>big business is out to make a prof

Don't knock profits - thats what pays the workers. And thats what encourages
new businesses to form.

>So bring back the combines, bring back the Robber Barons.
>
>I do think that govt subsidies to farmers are a waste.  If it is so
>important to amke sure they can compete in the world (we are
>dealing with a world economy) at least buy the excess grain and
>give it to Ethiopia or maybe poor Americans.

Just my opinion,
Joe
joec@morgan.com
Usual disclaimers....



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Re: PAC's Lets have a real democracy
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:14:29 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: alt

In article <Mdv2Z5200h5yIx1G8m@andrew.cmu.edu> cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman) writes:

>> Otherwise, the media could offer a public "service" (through tax break)
>In other words, the taxpayers will pay for it, by increased taxes or by
>adding to the deficit via decreased tax collection.

Ack!  Who PAYS NOW?  The money comes from the taxpayers now!  The business
or special interest forwards the cost to the people through their products.
Consider the whole, not the part!  I am interested in having the tax payers
being the rulers of the government, not the businesses who serve as
intermediaries. 

>My question was, how do we determine which candidates get this
>taxpayer-provided time on TV?

Now this is an excellent question.  But again, we can see how it is resolved
today.  Also, have you ever run in an election?  Here is how it is solved:

To "qualify" you must gather a certain amount of popularity (names) simply.

Today, this takes place in a sort of self acceleration.  The more popular
you are, the more coverage you get, the more popular you get ...

Do the same thing.  Each stage has cut offs, and the race narrows until
only a few people are left for the general election.  Probably the very
initial picks would be done regionally (as today)

Ideally though, it would occur in another format.  Lets dream for a second..

Every person who wants to run places their platform/ideas/experience on
a "net".  Then every interested voter reads a random sample, and ranks
these.  Then through discussion with friends and with candidate forums,
the race rapidly narrows down to fewer and fewer, until it reaches the
point where every person knows all the candidates.  At this point, a
general election could take place.  However, in the interest of platform
adoption strategies to serve the public good, this process would continue.
The "net" would be provided for by the government, as it is today.
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Somebody please post current Democratic delegate counts
Date: 9 Apr 1992 22:05:54 GMT
Organization: Nobody for President
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr09.160528.38638@watson.ibm.com> jazzman@jazzman.vnet.ibm.com  writes:
>from the NY Times 4/9/92:
>Democrats             Pledged     Super     Total
>-------------------------------------------------	
>Brown                     267         5       272
>Clinton                  1029       250      1279    ( 47% of 2689 )
>Tsongas                   508        12       520     
>Undetermined              223       395       618 
                                              -----
Total allocated.............................: 2689
>Total Delegate Votes                         4288
Remaining...................................: 1599
>Needed to Nominate                           2145
Additional delegates needed by Clinton......:  866    ( 54 % of 1599 )

So Clinton does not have it wrapped up yet!  (I realize that most
of the uncommitted Super delegates would _probably_ go to him.)
----------
    --Brad Sherman
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:527 talk.politics.misc:17238
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:50:09 GMT
Distribution: usa,local

In article <1992Apr6.190958.27793@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
} In article <1992Apr6.100838.4157@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
} >Business represents normal people spending money.Business has no power to force
} >anybody to do anything. The only thing that a business is able to do is spend
} >money. ...
} 
} See, I'm a civil libertarian, and am for intelligent government
} policieis towards business (rather than plain antagonism) but *this* is
} the thing that keeps me from being a Libertarian.  This total naivety, with 
} a complete lack of historical perspective.
} 
} 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?

I suggest you study your history again.

The idea that government is the only thing that stands between us and
company towns being run by thugs is not based on historical fact, since
it wasn't the government which did away with them in the first place.

} 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 corporations come and go, whereas government has become bigger and
more intrusive.

What I don't understand is why you apparently believe that government,
which is magnitudes bigger and more powerful than even the largest
corporations, is preferable.

This is not to say I am in favor of the country being run by huge
corporations.  I am just puzzled by your lack of perspective.
--
David Olson ...!att!druwa!dlo
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Perot very clear on issues
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 17:09:10 GMT

In <5fTE02jVcdvP00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>  Well, if you've been paying attention lately, you would have read
>some of Ross's SPECIFIC solutions concerning the deficit:
>    1) do not implode the tax-base of this country; specifically, he
>       he is against the Mexico free trade agreement

I'm not sure what I think about this specific trade agreement,
but input tariffs and isolationism will just lead to a continuation
of the downward marketability of US products overseas.

I think Bush thinks that our products are better than Mexico's and
so we have the advantage in such a free trade environment.  I don't
know if I agree.

>    2) means-testing for Social Security and Medicare

Yeah, that'll cut spending.  Create more overhead and paperwork.

>    3) having a better working relationship between Govt. and business
>       to create more tax payers- hence reduce the deficit.  Specifically,
>       he favors a reduction in the capital gains tax, and 10-year 
>       business/govt. plans to get industries in trouble on their feet.

Cutting income == cutting deficit?  Why doesn't this make sense?

We're not talking about the TRADE deficit here, we're talking about
the GOVERNMENT deficit.

>    4) improved software for the IRS- projected revenue gain $100 billion.

I'll concede this one.

>    5) eliminating congressional and executive 'perks'- this includes
>       jet flights to golf games, limos for senators, etc.

This too is a good thing.  Of course, Jerry Brown is saying
pretty much the same sort of things.

>Japan, China, and Mexico to name a few countries.  This is a man who
>is the recipient of prestigous awards like the Winston Churchill Award
>(presented by Prince Charles in 1986) and the Raoul Wallenberg Award.

OOH.  Awards.  I'm *so* impressed.

Except that I thought awards were usually as political as they were
merit based.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                      I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman
From: jadahlin@acsu.buffalo.edu (sm00sh)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Flat Tax
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:52:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB




Clinton quoted The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Chicago Sun-Times
editors as saying that the flat tax will not work the way Brown says it will.


jason

-- 
jadahlin@acsu.buffalo.edu
v285raag@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: feldman@cs.tulane.edu (Damon Feldman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot very clear on issues
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:05:17 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane University, New Orleans, LA

In <1992Apr10.044419.9044@StarConn.com> pmahler@StarConn.com (Paul Mahler) writes:

>Mr. Perot's overriding concern is the state of the economy. In 
>particular, the four billion dollars of debt that 
>we Americans are burdened with.  

Are we going to listen to sombody who is off by three orders of 
magnitude :-) ?!

Damon
-- 
Damon Feldman                  feldman@rex.cs.tulane.edu
Computer Science Dept.         Tulane University, New Orleans LA, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: PAC's Lets have a real democracy
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:22:29 EDT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


I would not worry about paying for t.v ads for candidates.  ONe long
programm for each of them would be enough on PBS.  IN fact,
all t.v. stations operate under gov't license so it could be part
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Free Trade
Keywords: free trade
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:19:56 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <31546@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>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.

I didn't write this.  It was included in a message to which
I was responding.

Please be more careful in attribution.

Thank you.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 07:50:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.010141.5817@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.192135.415@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour) writes:
>
>>Well, the dopey American public is well on its way to making the U.S. a
>>first rate third world country.  And there aren't too many third world
>>countries with stable governments.  We NEED a strong leader since we
>>obviously can't do it ourselves.
>
>Speak for yourself, bud.
>
>I don't WANT or need a paternalistic government runing my life any
>more.
>
>   don

Great.  I don't either, but I also recognize that our current system
will continue to be more and more ruinous unless we can get it
straightened out.  And it seems pretty clear that the only realistic
way to do that is to join together and change things.  Now, how
are we going to unite 250 million people without a strong leader?
I'm not advocating a dictatorship (in fact, I border on Libertarian
views about how government should be small and get the hell out
of my life).  But how does small government require a weak and spineless
leader - especially in getting there from where we are now?  Huh?

Bob

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:533 talk.politics.misc:17283