Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!mccoy From: mccoy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Judge for Yourself Keywords: it gets worse Message-ID: <779@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> Date: 29 Oct 90 21:41:13 GMT References: <1084@lsicom2.UU.NET> <6432@hub.ucsb.edu> <1990Oct04.001804.18056@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> <1990Oct20.224407.23367@world.std.com> Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Reply-To: mccoy@ils.nwu.edu Distribution: na Organization: The Internet Lines: 65 In article , faustus@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Kurt Ackermann) writes: |> In <1990Oct20.224407.23367@world.std.com> lains@world.std.com (Layne L Ainsworth) writes: |> |> >In article <1990Oct04.001804.18056@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: |> |> [comments regarding constitution and "community standards"] Especially when |> >the majority of people would vote for repression of a small group. |> Especially when that "majority" is actually a minority of the eligible |> voting population of the United States. A highly motivated and well- |> organized minority (say, about 20% of the _eligible_ voters) could elect |> nearly anyone ON THEIR OWN, not to mention their ability to swing |> the balance of power from one candidate to another (for which an even |> smaller number is required). It gets worse. Some rough calculations seem to indicate that it would only take 10% of the US population to pass a constitutional amendment. This is because the amendment clause in the Constitution is still geared towards a strong state system. To change the Constitution requires passage of the amendment in 3/4 of the state legislatures. (I will skip the part about COngressional approval, because enough money can get just about anything passed there...) First, we start out with the 38 smallest states. From these states we take 51% of the state legislature districts, from here we take the number of registered voters (50-60% of the population, and I am being generous here). And from that group we take 51%. The number of people needed to pass an amendment is so small that it scares the hell out of me. [As an interesting diversion, Article V (amendments to the constitution) prevents an amendment from being passed that limits a states voting power in the Senate, but nothing prevents an amendment from being passed that eliminates a state's representation in the House. Imagine the smaller 38 states taking the larger states out of the House! (The inner thoughts of an Iowa native who spends too much time reading obscure passages of government documents :) ] |> |> |> (as an afterthought: |> |> Imagine if ALL ELIGIBLE NET-FOLK voted in the next election for a |> presidential candidate who had a proven track record of support for |> computer networks [i.e, he/she is a highly desirable candidate in our |> collective opinion]. My understanding is that almost 15 million people |> use the Net in the US, of whom I would guess some 70% might be eligible |> voters. 10 million voices, in light of the current apathy among the rest |> of the voting public, would certainly cause politicos to stand up and |> take notice...) |> Possible, but I do not think that it could be done. It is hard to get a group like the net together with any sort of cohesive group-identity. We are an interest group that spans the country, but our concerns seem to be more oriented towards positions that are elected within small regions (president is about the only one we could all vote for, and I don't think that there would be a chance to get everyone voting based just upon support for computer networks. jim ------------------------------< Jim McCoy >------------------------------------ mccoy@acns.nwu.edu | "Those whom the gods would destroy, mccoy@ils.nwu.edu | they first make mad... #include | -Sophocles -----------------------<"To thine own self be true">--------------------------