Original_To:  BITNET%"words-l@uga"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:13:00 EST
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         "Aaron Dickey, The Happy Spore"
 <AXD7104%NYUACF.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      RE: free press

>     My problem with _Time_ is that they are very good at reporting
>what was said in the last couple of weeks, but very poor about
>remembering what was said two years ago.  I compared _Time_,
>_Newsweek_, _The Wall Street Journal._ and _The Economist_, and _Time_
>came in third, just ahead of _Newsweek_.  _The Economist_ easily had
>the most in-depth (and most prophetic) analysis on the U.S. situation.
>I knew more about the major local races through _The Economist_ than
>through the local papers.

I do agree about _The Economist_; unfortunately, the cost of buying it
each week does add up to a nice chunk of change. I can get a year's
subscription to _Time_ for a little over $20. BTW, I read somewhere
recently that the majority of _The Economist's_ writers are in their
mid-20s, right out of college.  It's nice to know that somebody
recognizes that you don't have to be 40 to write articles on "important"
topics.

>     If she is too lazy to seek information, she is probably too lazy
>to find the time to vote.  (Lisa had already said that her roomie
>wasn't going to vote.)  I am not seeing how she is a threat worth
>doing something about.

The threat is in people like her helping to ruin our already-ravaged
political system by causing knee-jerk reactions to trivial matters,
thus clogging up the system and keeping important matters from being
acted upon.  Case in point: the house check-bouncing scandal.  The
public, most of whom didn't bother to vote, starts screaming "Throw the
bums out!" without having any idea what they're talking about.

>     But a very similar process is already in action.  If you give
>money to a candidate, you had better believe he remembers.  Do you
>like how that works?  People who volunteer time, effort, and/or money
>get priority treatment.  I bet it is pretty close to what you are
>suggesting.

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.  (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.)

>     If you are serious about 'forcing' people to vote, then I might
>find you dangerous w.r.t. our political process.   The USSR had a very
>high turn-out for its elections.  Didn't seem to help the process.

Well, if it were up to me, any law requiring people to vote would be
combined with a way to make sure people understood the issues.  Perhaps
a requirement that the press give candidates time to present the issues
(and the issues ONLY), or free mailing priviliges to sent out copies of
each candidates' platform.  But even without that, a 100% turnout would
help to cancel out all of the radical one-issue voters out there.

>     People who want to get something done get involved as it is.  Is
>your suggestion going to make people like Lisa's roommate more
>informed, or would they just herd over to whatever was the popular fad
>and reinforce it blindly?  Things can get worse.  A lot worse.  Think
>carefully before you start trying to implement significant changes.

See above. :) No plan is perfect, but I think my ideas might be a start.

--Aaron
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU