X-VMS-To: IN%"words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 14:38:00 EST
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         "Aaron Dickey, still alive"
 <AXD7104%ACFCLUSTER.NYU.EDU@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: free press
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

Debateth The Ronin:

>     You get what you pay for.  See if the school library doesn't
>subscribe.  That is part of what it is there for.

I have bought the last few issues, due to an urgent need for information
for my British Politics class.  And, though I know nobody will believe
me, I CAN'T concentrate in libraries.  The sheer quietness makes me
incredibly nervous.  If I can't get the material I need and leave (and
you can't check out the magazines), then I won't go at all.

>     Better watch who you call knee-jerk.  Where are your numbers
>coming from on that statement?  Elections for dog catcher I might
>agree with you on, but not on national elections.  Are you saying that
>the check-bouncing scandal is not important?  If a Representative
>wrote a hot check just prior to an election that just happened to help
>cover campaign expenses then that Rep is a law-breaker (tax law and
>campaign law).  Did this happen?  The House won't say.  It's 'full'
>disclosure only says how many checks, not when or to whom.  These boys
>are playing fast and loose with the rules *they* wrote.  From my
>perspective, most of the clogging (both tying up of resources and fast
>footwork) has come from the House itself, debating whether they should
>own up to running a scam and how to best cover their asses.  You make
>the claim that know-nothings are doing the clogging, but I don't see a
>relationship there.

Here are my numbers...
From _The Politics of Congressional Elections_, Gary C. Jacobson, 1987:

"...members of Congress are elected, collectively, by an unimpressive
proportion of eligible voters.  In midterm elections, little more than a
third of the adult population bothers to go to the polls."

According to the _Statistical Abstract of the United States_, 106th
edition, even during presidential election years it only rises to slightly
under 50%.

The House Bank was NOT a bank like you and I use every day.  It was only a
clearinghouse for members' paychecks.  The "bank's" staff was lazy in its
recordkeeping, thus keeping a lot of the paychecks from being processed
when they should have been.  Any checks written by a member before the
"bank" had gotten around to crediting the account did NOT bounce.  A check
can't bounce unless it's returned for insufficient funds.  These checks
were covered using the general paycheck funds of other members until the
original paycheck got credited.  That's an overdraft, not a bounce.  Real
banks allow that all the time; I have overdraft privileges on my checking
account.  Not one CENT of taxpayer money was used for any of this.  The
overdrafts were "covered" by other House members.  It's not a
Representative's fault that the "bank" was incredibly slow in processing.
I've seen more than one news report that this entire scandal was
manufactured by the House Republicans, who knew that there there more
Democrats with overdrafts, and that the public wouldn't understand the
truth when they found out.  And sure enough, they haven't.

As for who's doing the clogging: If the public understood the House Bank,
there wouldn't be a scandal, and the House wouldn't NEED to be wasting
half their time trying to cover their asses.  It's a witch hunt.

>> If EVERYONE got off their butts and started volunteering time, money, and
>> effort, there wouldn't be much of a priority involved, and everyone
>> would learn more to boot.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>     I'm afraid this is idealistic wishing.  If people want to learn,
>they will.  The information is out there.  But most people seem to put
>a low priority on learning about the issues, so I do not feel it is
>realistic to believe that they will learn just because they have the
>opportunity.  I assume that you are volunteering (or have volunteered)
>for the candidate(s) of your choice?

I know it's idealistic, but it's true.  IF they'd get off their butts and
do as above, they'd learn at least something more than they already know,
by default.  I certainly don't believe it will ever actually happen.

>>                            (Well, from time and effort anyway, not just
>> throwing money at them. I'm no fan of PACs and big-shot individual donors.
>> A set limit on spending would be a nice idea, and give less-well-known
>> candidates a better shot.  It works in Britain.)

>     Bunch of pros and cons here, which is common when comparing these
>two particular systems.  A populace that took a greater interest would
>make this a moot point.  Advertising wouldn't be as important as
>getting one's stand on the issues known.  It would appear that most
>U.S. Americans require that they be sold their political candidates.
>Any time the public, taken as a whole, decides to shift how they react
>to the current glamour show, the glamour show will change.>

True.  Of course, it works a lot easier in the UK in other ways as well.
No election for the leader (the PM only has to run in his own district),
smaller constituencies, no TV ads allowed, etc.  Most MPs actually go
door-to-door seeking support.  At least that gives most voters a chance
to ask about matters that are important to them, face-to-face.  Not
perfect by any means, but better than here, IMHO.

>     How do you propose to determine whether people understand the
>issues?  Who decides which issues have to be understood?  If everybody
>gets franking, won't that *encourage* one-issue candidates (now that
>they don't have to have a broad appeal to get enough money to get
>their 'message' out)?  How does this reduce one-issue voting?  And how
>does 100% turnout help cancel one-issue voting?  Unless there is a
>bias in the voting practices that will occur in the people who aren't
>currently voting, the results will be the same.  If 100,000 more people
>vote, but they split 50-50, would change a result from 65,000 vs
>64,000 to 115,000 vs 114,000.  Same result.  Maybe the 100,000 people
>won't split 50-50, maybe they will be more swayed by one-issue types.
>Maybe they won't.  I do not see a way to foretell what effect these
>extra voters will have.

From Jacobson:

"Voters who were reached through all four modes [personal intercept,
mail, mass media, indirect] are far more likely to be aware of
candidates and to offer evaluative comments about them than voters not
reached at all."

"Competitive challengers also make it possible for more voters to make
ideological and policy distinctions between House candidates...in which
policy issues and ideology usually play a larger role."

In other words, if candidates can just get their messages out, people
actually will bother to listen and make judgements.  If you had forced
100% turnout without any other reforms, you're right, I don't know
what would happen.  With added reforms, I think it would do more good
than harm.  What issues would be discussed would, of course, be
dependent on what the candidates brought up.  But competition tends to
bring issues out.

--Aaron
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l