Original_To:  BITNET%"WORDS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  WHITERJ
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:51:00 MDT
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         The Ronin <WHITERJ%MSCD.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      RE: free press

Replieth      "Aaron Dickey, The Happy Spore" <AXD7104@NYUACF.BITNET>

> 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.

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

> [her refers to people who do not stay informed]
> 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.

     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.

> 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?

>                            (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.

> 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.

     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.

The Ronin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU