Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Heinlein's arguments in _Starshi
Message-ID: <3325@alice.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 11:23:52 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3325
Posted: Wed Jan 23 11:23:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 07:26:06 EST
References: <36200175@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 23

> ... in Heinlein's book, the right to vote is based on *public*
> service, not *military* service.  The book clearly states that the 
> overwhelming majority of voters served two years at desk jobs -- the
> equivalent of Civil Service -- and not in the military.  Of course, you
> don't get to choose; you sign up, then do as you are told for 2+ years.

> The effect is to limit the franchise to those who have demonstrated --
> through personal service, possibly through personal risk -- that they 
> place the interests of the society ahead of their own interests.  I can't
> imagine a better qualification to vote.

> Scott Renner
> {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner

If I remember the book correctly, it never comes out and gives
any justification for only allowing people to vote who have
served their time.  The character who expounds this theory,
the 'civics' instructor, says that the true reason for this particular
system is that "it works satisfactorily."

Of course, different people find different things satisfactory.
Are you seriously suggesting that the only people who should be
allowed to vote are those that share your political views?