Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Electoral Systems (Was: Who Controls the Network?)
Message-ID: <2663@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 8 Jan 89 12:14:02 GMT
References: <2111@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> <84294@sun.uucp>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 86

In article <84294@sun.uucp>, khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering) writes:
> In article <2111@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes:
> >
> >But why mess about with an Electoral
> >College anyway? Why not use the popular vote?
> 
> ...the EC seems to feel itself bound to mirror the
> popular vote (and most citizens would be shocked if they acted
> differently) 

  For the most part.  There are frequent exceptions.  In 1960 some
electors from States that went to Kennedy voted for, I believe,
Richard Byrd; in '68 a Nixon elector opted for George Wallace; in
'72 an Nixon-Agnew elector voted for the Libertarian ticket of
John Hospers and Tonie Nathan (thus making Ms. Nathan the first
women to receive an electoral vote); in '76 a Ford elector went
for Reagan; last year a Dukakis-Bentsen elector voted Bentsen-
Dukakis instead ... to protest: the Electoral College!


> 
> >
> >I like the NOTA idea but I doubt that many voters would bother to go to the
> >trouble of turning up to vote for it. 
> 
> If NOTA would result in a new slate of candiates (i.e. losers can't
> run in the next round), and if enough NOTA's in a row resulted in the
> position being eliminated, I think NOTA would be very popular in many
> circles. 

I'd suggest another possibility (altho eliminating the office entirely
would certainly be my first preference!).  That, should NOTA win,
the office, even if not abolished, go unfilled for that term.
> 
> I thought that it was possible for a 
> >voter to add a candidate of his/her own choice to the ballot paper in US
> >elections anyway.              
> 
> Yes it is possible, but it is very hard to get a write in campagin to
> work. 

It has happened - even a U. S. Senate seat was once filled this way,
I believe (Strom Thurmond's first term, I *think*, was won this way.
But it is indeed difficult, even if you can motivate people to overcome
the obstacles placed in the way (see my previous posting on those
obstacles), and motivating people to write someone in can be hard.
One thing we can do is make it easier for individuals and parties to
get on the ballot: reduce filing fees or the number of signatures
on nominating petitions required to be allowed to run.

> >
> >                        GIVE TEXAS BACK TO MEXICO !
> 
> 
> #2 Lincoln et al. established that joining the US is a one way street.
>    Once signed up, that bit of geography is stuck forever.

Actually, it was Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, et alia who 'established'
that.  Constitutionally, however, there are no bars to secession
(remember the 10th Amendment?) -- besides, doesn't the Treaty
by which Texas annexed The Union allow us to "dissolve the political
bonds which have connected" us to that Union? (Quote from
The Declaration of Independence of the 13 original States).

However, as has been pointed out, the purpose of c.s.f. is to
discuss the future of computer technology, and this particular
discussion started with a question of whether a compnet should
be voluntarily or coercively financed.  This leads to a sub-
question: which interests should it serve, those of computing and
of Human improvement and advancement, or those of politicians
and bureaucrats?  Personally, I'd prefer the former.  Anyone
out there prefer having it serve the interests of the Jim
Wrights, Dan Quayles, Maggie Thatchers, Neil Kinnocks, etc.?


Jeff Daiell
(opinions my own, until taxed away)



INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS!

-- 

               "Will you still love me tomorrow?"

                                -- The Shirelles