OT - Not voting...
UnltdLife
Presidential ballot. Many of you have even indicated that you may not vote.
I'll throw this out for discussion...
"Not voting is casting a vote for the person you'd least like to see in
office."
Let the argument ensue.
Jason
Duetta1
What if citizens had the right to vote against all the candidates running in
a given election in a meaningful way? Call it the null vote. If a majority
voted to nullify the election, they would get a new election and new
candidates (the rejected candidates would be barred running again within
that particular political year) within a reasonable period of time -- say 6
or 8 weeks (with the current officeholder remaining in their position in
the interim). If they didn't like those candidates, they could nullify the
next election as well...and continue to insist that the political parties
put up candidates that a majority of Americans actually want to vote for.
It would dramatically shift power away from party activists, the leadership
and big campaign contributors, and into the hands of average voters. Of
course, neither the Democrats or Republicans would ever go for it -- for
obvious reasons. But it could very well be the rallying cry of a credible
third party.
Matt Carnicelli
Rick
If I had a penny for every time I've heard the phrase, "They're all the
same", then... I dunno, I'd probably have lots of pennies.
The problems (for they are indeed myriad) with this kinda idea aren't
related to politicians, the system or anything like that. The biggest
obstacle will always be the voters themselves. You give people a "none
of the above option" and they'll always take it. Cynicism, see, is
viewed as the position of experience & knowledge - so everybody does the
cynical act in the idiotic belief that it demonstrates some kind of
wisdom or maturity or something. The truth is probably that it
demonstrates the so-called cynic always turns to the Sports pages first,
or at best certainly doesn't get far past the headlines.
The "They're all the same" stance is either - take your pick - (a)
Stating the obvious - in that politicians are "all the same" in the
sense that, say, the people you work with are "all the same". Doesn't
stop you deciding which to go for a drink with and which to avoid like
an early episode of Voyager, does it? Or (b) Simply lazy, in that it
indicates the cynic can't be bothered to take the time to actually
*discern* the space between politicians, but can't possibly bring
himself to admit that he doesn't have an "informed" opinion.
No, IMHO if you're going to have a vote, then you need to have people
vote *for* something, not *against* something. Otherwise, the sports-
page-reading cynics will win out every time.
You want to know a good thought-exercise that proves how moronic the
"They're all the same" argument is? Try imagining the dumbest teen-
friendly rock act you can conceive, and then try to imagine them
actually standing up to support a political candidate for any period of
time. Doesn't work, does it? You just can't see it happening. Because it
means actually coming out from under that shell of MTV-cynicism and
believing in something, knowing you may be proved wrong but having the
guts to voice those beliefs out loud. It wouldn't sound cool (as
conclusively proven by this rant, I think you'll agree), and it risks
alienating people who've grown up to believe the "They're all the same"
line as a God-given truth. But so what?
>Matt Carnicelli
>
Well, *I* certainly feel better for that...
--
Cheers,
Rick
Jon Niehof
> office."
Here's my dilemma: I really am not seeing *anyone* who I believe is
Presidential material. As much of a waste as it is to vote for Cthulu, or
Mickey Mouse, or None of the above, I consider it an even greater
irresponsibility to support (with my vote) anyone that I would not like to
see in office, even if they are the "least of the evils"
That doesn't mean I 'm waiting for the perfect candidate, just for an
*acceptable* one.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
I've been cut by the rose again
All the petals have fallen to pieces
I'm left with the thorn and the stem
--Ellis Paul
Hobbs
>Many of you have expressed a desire for a "None of the above" category on
the
>Presidential ballot. Many of you have even indicated that you may not
vote.
>
>I'll throw this out for discussion...
>
>office."
>
I wish I could vote, but I'm about six months too young. So, if you don't
want to vote for yourself, you could cast a vote on my behalf. Heh. Gee, I
wish I had rights. ;-D
Rob Perkins
> I wish I could vote, but I'm about six months too young. So, if you don't
> want to vote for yourself, you could cast a vote on my behalf. Heh. Gee,
I
> wish I had rights. ;-D
Oh you do! You do have rights! Really, you do!
You have the right *not* to join the national defense forces of the nation,
unlike in many countries in Western Europe and elsewhere around the world!
Sadly, that right doesn't extend to you during an actual war. :-(
You have the right not to go near liquor stores! Or tobacco counters!
Excersize your rights in this area; that stuff'll kill ya dead.
;-D
On a serious note. When you're old enough, don't forget to vote in every
election you can. Even if you write in "Michael Garibaldi" for each office
you can't make sense of, etc. Vote.
Rob
RaG
the obvious - in that politicians are "all the same" in the
I think your missing the forest because of the trees here. By people saying
they are all the same does not mean they think the politicians political
views are all the same. Its that the two main political groups are all the
same in that they have more loyality to their political party than the
american people. OR they have more loyality to the companies that gave them
big bucks to pay for the campaign than they do for the american people.
I'm researching the third party vote because the way it is now, I'd not
vote, before I'd vote for Gore or Bush. My wife says I'm wasting my vote on
a third party. I know a third party is not going to win, but I'm voting for
the one I believe is better for the american people. Besides the more third
party votes that are made, indicates how much the people are tired of the
big two. Sooner or later they'll change or get voted out.
Duetta1
don't believe that people would simply choose the "none of the above" option
unless they were truly digusted with their choice of candidates (as I am with
the NY Senate race) -- especially since they would have to keep going back to
the polls to eventually elect someone. People will enthusiastically vote for a
candidate when that candidate connects with them on a human level -- instead of
simply trying to batter their opponent's reputation or distort their record --
and appears to stand for something other than business as usual.
In truth, most politicians are alike -- in that their primary interests appear
to be getting into office, and once there, staying in power. Or to borrow the
title of a Mozart opera, "Cosi fan tutte." They all do it. The exceptions,
sadly, are few and far between.
In the end, I believe in an electorate of functional adults (since the
Professional Wrestling & Jerry Springer fans probably can't find their way to
the voting booth anyway) who can decide for themselves whether they want to
endorse the political parties' efforts, or merely tell them to go back to their
room and not come back until they have something intelligent to say.
LK
>Many of you have expressed a desire for a "None of the above" category on the
>Presidential ballot. Many of you have even indicated that you may not vote.
>
>I'll throw this out for discussion...
>
>"Not voting is casting a vote for the person you'd least like to see in
>office."
>
>Let the argument ensue.
>
>Jason
>
>
It's hard not to vote, especially when you've seen newscoverage of
Hatians(?) being gunned down as they stand in line to vote. (This was
a few years, when the dictatorship was opposing open elections and
sought to prevent people from voting, thus maintain power.)
Not voting sounds like a wimpy excuse for not participating. One
person does not run the USA. Congress, governors, state legislators,
county and city governments. The lack of whatever in Presidential
candiates seems to be an easy out for" why bother?".
We're supposed to have learned something from B5 and that something
wasn't wimping-out against the Shadows or Clark just because Sheridan
and Delenn weren't the people we wanted them to be.
Do any candiates "pass" the "Who are you?" test? Who do they serve?
What do they want? Why are they doing this?
Would anyone of them have the courage or potential of courage to face
the abyss and fight through tons of rock because they have something
worth living for? Minus the public power, can they make good
decisions?
Do we support their direction of change or do we need to redirect the
changing? And how much will they trust us as citizens to make our
own decisions on personal issues?
LK
Who BTW thinks Bush's campaign ads about spending $$ on character
education in public schools isn't talking about acting lessons.
That sealed his character as unsavory, for me. Damn.
Kjotvi
1) "Not voting is casting a vote for the person you'd least like to see
in office."
Not voting means throwing one less obstical in the way of the person
you'd least like to see in office, thus increasing their chance to win
through your in-action. It's not hard and fast mathematics, but as a
rallying cry to the disillusioned public, it's not bad.
2) "Politicians are all the same"
One of the great paradoxes of politics is that the skills neaded to
gain office are often the opposite of those needed to fulfill the
office. To win you have to be be a salesman. You need to make yourself
a comodity, to use your personality and presence to convince the public
that you, as an individual, are more exciting and better than anyone
else, and that you *alone* can do the job. You must make the voting
public like you enough to elect you, and convince them that you hold
their interests above those of the special interest groups whose money
pays for the advertising you use to convince the people of this. To do
this you must (in the US at any rate) convince these contributors that
it is *their* iinterests that you will pursue over those of the "little
man".
As an effective office holder, you must (or should, IMHO) make your
personality subservient to the public good. You must work as a small
part of a large system to subtly maneuver policy which will benifit you
constituents over the long haul, even if this policy is inconvenient to
both the public and your contributors in the short run.
I suspect this paradox lies at the center of the US public's
traditionsl antipathy toward politicians. If you elect the man who
sells himself the best, you get a salesman in office. The potentially
great statesman is so dedicated and self-effacing that during the
campaign, no-one even notices him. He discusses complex issues with in-
obvious solutions (if the solutions were obvious, they would no longer
be issues), generates no excitement, gets little or no word-of-mouth
advertising, and shows up near the middle-bottom of the election
results.
Or perhaps this is just a sign of my becoming more aware, as I grow
older, of the complexity of the problems, and the simplicity and
inadequacy of the answers being offered.
"Form follows function - and frequently obliterates it."
--
Kjo...@my-deja.com
"Form follows function - and frequently obliterates it."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kjotvi
Rick
>The big question here is: who exactly is responsible for people's cynicism. I
>don't believe that people would simply choose the "none of the above" option
>unless they were truly digusted with their choice of candidates
Unfortunately, I think 4 out of 5 people *will* choose "none of the
above" every time if they're offered the option. Unless a party offers
to lower taxes or "take a firm stand" against whoever the current media
bogeyman is, or some similar headline-friendly policy. A minority, I
think, have genuine reasons for their dislike of all politicians (the
anti-WTO protesters can legitimately claim that the entire political
process is geared up to meet the interests of multinationals, I guess).
But it seems to me that for the vast majority, not choosing (and then
complaining that there's no choice anyway) is a lazy way out. People who
wear Nike, eat at MacDonalds, watch/read/listen to any mass-media
product, or even run a car (this is a sore point right now here in
Europe:) can't really complain that their politicians are propped up by
big business while they're supporting it themselves...
>In truth, most politicians are alike -- in that their primary interests appear
>to be getting into office, and once there, staying in power. Or to borrow the
>title of a Mozart opera, "Cosi fan tutte." They all do it. The exceptions,
>sadly, are few and far between.
Getting into office is pretty basic to my understanding of a
politician's function. I don't see it as much of a criticism. I'd have
thought that, by definition, the exceptions would be less than "few and
far between". Surely *no one* becomes a politician in the first place
without aiming to get elected?
>In the end, I believe in an electorate of functional adults (since the
>Professional Wrestling & Jerry Springer fans probably can't find their way to
>the voting booth anyway)
Let's hope so, anyway...
> who can decide for themselves whether they want to
>endorse the political parties' efforts, or merely tell them to go back to their
>room and not come back until they have something intelligent to say.
This is at the heart of my real problem issue with the "none of the
above" option. As things stand now, election results affect the
presentation, policies and personalities of political parties (an
abundance of alliteration - but you get the point). Upon losing an
election, an authoritarian party may shift towards a more liberal
position, while a liberal party may stiffen itself up - in either case,
as a direct result of the voters' attitudes.
But a majority of "none of the above" votes will communicate... what
exactly? The political parties would simply explode into internal
battles - the right-wingers in each party saying the People are crying
out for the smack of firm government, while the liberals would argue
that the People rejected them because they had been too harsh and needed
to mellow out a little. And what would the voter get out of this? Years
of political in-fighting, followed by another - equally uncommunicative
- "none of the above" vote.
That's how it seems to me, anyway. If you wanna take part in the
democratic process, I think you've just got to deal with the facts that
(a) All politicians want to get elected, (b) No politician agrees with
your views, and (c) Government costs money - lots of it. These things
will always be true. But they don't stop you voting on the other issues
(crime, health, transport, defence, foreign policy) that are most
pressing to you today.
--
Cheers,
Rick
Jon Niehof
> nation, unlike in many countries in Western Europe and elsewhere around
> the world!
>
> Sadly, that right doesn't extend to you during an actual war. :-(
they have a database of potential fighting men in the event of war so they
can..uh...send us postcards or something. Right.
Frankly, that's something that *really* burns me. It's tantamount to
required registration of all citizens--the government must have a record of
all persons, their address, their age, yadda yadda--pretty soon we'll have
to carry our papers to prove that we're allowed to be alive. How they can
think this is constitutional is beyond me. I have ethical problems with
conscription even in the case of an invasion of the mainland--I'd pick up
my gun and go, but don't make me!--and stuff like 'Nam is just insane.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
The boy's pure dang-nasty evil! They all
sense it, why can't you?
--Star Wars, Episode II: The Menace Strikes Back
Jms at B5
>Hatians(?) being gunned down as they stand in line to vote. (This was
>a few years, when the dictatorship was opposing open elections and
>sought to prevent people from voting, thus maintain power.)
>
Voting is the absolute, bare minimum requirement for being a citizen.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Hobbs
>"Hobbs" <bl...@smashing-pumpkins.com> wrote in message news:NDbw5.1194
>
>> I wish I could vote, but I'm about six months too young. So, if you
don't
>> want to vote for yourself, you could cast a vote on my behalf. Heh.
Gee,
>I
>> wish I had rights. ;-D
>
>Oh you do! You do have rights! Really, you do!
>
>unlike in many countries in Western Europe and elsewhere around the world!
>
>Sadly, that right doesn't extend to you during an actual war. :-(
Oh, yes it does. I'd simply turn my yellow tail and run to Canada or say
that I'm gay or a communist or bi-polar or something else that makes the
military boys cringe. Plus, I'm female, and I don't think they bother us
womenfolk too much about service.
>You have the right not to go near liquor stores! Or tobacco counters!
>Excersize your rights in this area; that stuff'll kill ya dead.
I do. I'm profoundly uncool because of it, but what the hell. At least
I'll be alive in 50 years. ;-)
>On a serious note. When you're old enough, don't forget to vote in every
>election you can. Even if you write in "Michael Garibaldi" for each office
>you can't make sense of, etc. Vote.
Believe me, I will. They *will* hear what I have to say, dammit.
My friend, who is also underage, and I have briefly discussed getting fake
i.d.'s so that we could vote, but that's the kind of thing that would
undoubtably haunt us for the rest of our lives. So, we've decided we'll
just bother everyone about why X wouldn't be good for this country and why Y
would. ;-)
James Bell
> >It's hard not to vote, especially when you've seen newscoverage of
> >Hatians(?) being gunned down as they stand in line to vote. (This was
> >a few years, when the dictatorship was opposing open elections and
> >sought to prevent people from voting, thus maintain power.)
> >
>
> Voting is the absolute, bare minimum requirement for being a citizen.
Requirement? Don't think so. It is a tool of the citizenry...a tool that
no one is required to use. It is a little thing called freedom.
Jim
Michael Ross
>>It's hard not to vote, especially when you've seen newscoverage of
>>Hatians(?) being gunned down as they stand in line to vote. (This was
>>a few years, when the dictatorship was opposing open elections and
>>sought to prevent people from voting, thus maintain power.)
>>
>
>Voting is the absolute, bare minimum requirement for being a citizen.
That's a little arse about face, Joe. In the USA , being a citizen is
the requirement for voting - I won't be a citizen for many years, so I
can't vote...
Mike
Rangers Catering Corps - 'We boil for the One, we fry for the One'
http://www.corestore.org
Jms at B5
>no one is required to use. It is a little thing called freedom.
Is it a rule? No, of course not. I was speaking of the matter of honor and of
principle and of responsibility, things not overmuch popular in a time of
"Leave me alone, I can do whatever I want, you're not the boss of me."
One is not *required* to help a person who is being assaulted in the
street...but a basic requirement of decency and humanity is that we *try*.
When I was a guest at Chicago Comic Con a few years ago, some guy was caught
shoplifting in the dealer's room. He punched the dealer and started running,
the dealer followed, yelling for somebody, ANYbody, to stop the guy.
Nobody moved, which is when it came inside my peripheral vision.
The dealer got a partial hand on the guy, but the dealer was an older man, he
wasn't going to be able to take this guy, who was a toned (as it turned out
Navy) guy.
So I jumped in and tackled the guy. The two of us brought him down, and we
held him, against his struggling, until the cops finally showed up.
We live in a representational form of government, which has a lot of problems
and a lot wrong with it. It also has a great deal to offer: the street lights
generally work, the mail generally comes, we are generally free to voice our
opinions without fear of gulags or death squads.
To vote is *our part of the bargain*. If we want government to keep to THEIR
part of the bargain, how can we in all good conscience not keep *our* part of
the bargain?
I'm not jingoisitic, I know and am quite open about all the problems of this
country and this government. But I also vote every year, year in and year out,
good candidates and goofballs, because if I don't, then I'm not entitled to
gripe about the consequences.
Every year, fewer and fewer people vote, meaning that our futures and our
fortunes are being dictated by an increasingly smaller portion of the
population because the rest just don't want to be bothered.
And I'm sorry, but to me, that ain't the proper perspective of a citizen. It's
not just a one-way "gimme" street.
To vote is not the *legal* requirement of a citizen -- and by the way, the
freedom you cite is first and foremost the freedom to choose the form of your
elected government -- but it *is* a moral and ethical requirement.
Because if you don't exercise it, sooner or later you will lose that freedom
and all the others you cherish, because those with a vested interest in making
those freedoms go away will be the ones to pass the final laws, unopposed by
dissenting voices at the ballot box.
Freedom does not equate laziness.
I said it in the show: you must choose the future you want, or others will
choose it for you.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Oh you do! You do have rights! Really, you do!
>
> You have the right *not* to join the national defense forces of the nation,
> unlike in many countries in Western Europe and elsewhere around the world!
Well, at least one of these Western European countries offers civil
service as an alternative. I'd be very surprised if the other's didn't
have anything similar.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Pål Are Nordal
>
> On 15 Sep 2000 14:47:17 -0700, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> >
> >Voting is the absolute, bare minimum requirement for being a citizen.
>
> That's a little arse about face, Joe. In the USA , being a citizen is
> the requirement for voting - I won't be a citizen for many years, so I
> can't vote...
I think you're taking the statement a bit to literally.
j...@gte.net
I agree totally. Anybody who can't be bothered to get their butts out
of the house for 15 min to go vote doesn't deserve the benefits of a
democratic society.
But I also think that sometimes the party machines don't provide
anybody worth voting for. Then we need to go for the least
objectionable.
We do need a "none of the above" box on that ballot, and if "none of
the above" gets a plurality, then the office remains vacant, and a new
election is held in 45 days. Nobody who was defeated by "none of the
above" can appear on the second ballot, and write-in votes for those
people are not counted. If we had that system for a short time, the
parties would soon start worrying about getting good candidates
instead of running any loyal party hack who can be trusted to vote the
way he is told.
Another nutcase heard from. Next week -- my solution to campaign
finance problems.
Jon
--
If you give someone a program, you can frustrate
them for a day. If you teach someone to program,
you can frustrate them for a lifetime.
Thomas A. Horsley
>freedom you cite is first and foremost the freedom to choose the form of your
>elected government -- but it *is* a moral and ethical requirement.
And, to continue the off topic thread here, if you want some other less
philosophical and more practical reasons to vote, check out my web page at:
http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/whyvote.html
--
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: Tom.H...@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+
Kurtz
> To vote is not the *legal* requirement of a citizen -- and by the way, the
> freedom you cite is first and foremost the freedom to choose the form of
your
> elected government -- but it *is* a moral and ethical requirement.
>
freedom
> and all the others you cherish, because those with a vested interest in
making
> those freedoms go away will be the ones to pass the final laws, unopposed
by
> dissenting voices at the ballot box.
>
> Freedom does not equate laziness.
>
> I said it in the show: you must choose the future you want, or others will
> choose it for you.
>
I've been voting for about 20-some years, and I even vote in odd-years -
for local candidates, mostly. But I have a couple *dozen* friends and
acquaintances
who never vote. They all say exactly the same thing - they don't see how it
makes any difference. Some say it because they are deeply cynical, and
honestly believe there is very little chance that they will be fairly
represented,
and that the power 'of the people' has long gone. A few say that the
differences
are just degrees, but they are not enough to bother. But most feel that the
issues just don't have significant bearing on their day to day lives. From
their
perspective, they might be right.
When a *local* candidate - say, a county commissioner or a judge gets
elected -
it might mean getting your brother out of jail, or your street repaired, or
a new
school or grocery store nearby. When a national candidate tells me about a
tax
cut that might amount to a few bucks a week, or about some fringe area of
society
that doesn't affect me, I'm not terribly interested. When it IS something of
interest
to me, there's this doubt that nothing will come of it.
What I'd like more than anything, is a chance to vote where the consequences
mean a great deal to me.
Wesley Struebing
wrotf:
>Rob Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Oh you do! You do have rights! Really, you do!
>>
>> You have the right *not* to join the national defense forces of the nation,
>> unlike in many countries in Western Europe and elsewhere around the world!
>
>Well, at least one of these Western European countries offers civil
>service as an alternative. I'd be very surprised if the other's didn't
>have anything similar.
Gee! Does anyone else get echoes of "Starship Troopers" in the above
comments?
(just to throw things back into an SF'ish vein...)
--
--Take care; faith manages!
--
--Wes Struebing
--
--+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-- str...@americanisp.com
-- ph: 303-343-9006 / FAX: 303-343-9026
-- home page: http://users.americanisp.com/~wstruebi/
Mark Dowling
vote, use it. There may not be something worth voting for, but there's
always something worth voting against.
--
______________________________________________
Mark Dowling, 2 Marlboro Mews, Wellington Road, Cork, Ireland
+353-21-4508865, +353-87-2260861, markd...@eircom.net
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000915174659...@ng-me1.aol.com...
> >It's hard not to vote, especially when you've seen newscoverage of
> >Hatians(?) being gunned down as they stand in line to vote. (This was
> >a few years, when the dictatorship was opposing open elections and
> >sought to prevent people from voting, thus maintain power.)
> >
>
> Voting is the absolute, bare minimum requirement for being a citizen.
>
Nicholas C. Weaver
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>Voting is the absolute, bare minimum requirement for being a citizen.
Also, just because one may not want to vote for any of the
candidates for a particular office, this does NOT mean one shouldn't
vote at all, since there are usually a host of minor offices and
hordes of critically important ballot propositions.
--
Nicholas C. Weaver nwe...@cs.berkeley.edu
Friar Chuck
>To vote is not the *legal* requirement of a citizen -- and by the way, the
>freedom you cite is first and foremost the freedom to choose the form of your
>elected government -- but it *is* a moral and ethical requirement.
>
>Because if you don't exercise it, sooner or later you will lose that freedom
>and all the others you cherish, because those with a vested interest in making
>those freedoms go away will be the ones to pass the final laws, unopposed by
>dissenting voices at the ballot box.
>
>Freedom does not equate laziness.
>
>I said it in the show: you must choose the future you want, or others will
>choose it for you.
>
> jms
>
>(jms...@aol.com)
>B5 Official Fan Club at:
>http://www.thestation.com
>(all message content (c) 2000 by
>synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
>to reprint specifically denied to
>SFX Magazine)
>
>
>
In theory very true. In practice, it is hogwash. The american people
have much less say in their government than I think they care to
admit. The reason for that is simple, you as a major corporate entity
can buy both parties, then it doesn't matter who gets in, you win
either way. You want example, try to an make an appointment with your
congressman, good luck. Yet the corporate giants gets in at a whim.
Why, because the blue suites gives millions and you give jack dip. The
real crime is that in order to run for office, the system is rigged
so you have to be able to put up millions to get heard. The 40 second
factoid news agencies only want ratings, so they only put on stories
about the rich, famous or the violent. So Jack Smith who may have a
good idea never gets heard, and he doesn't have the cash to get his
name known off the block. While there is mass private funding for
political races, we simply cannot have any kind of real democracy in
this country.
And of course any time someone proposes to do away with the system,
they are shouted down, or the bill is killed in committee. The simple
fact as I see it is that it really makes no different who gets in.
BTW as an exercise, do a study of Roman History from 150 BC to 30BC.
It shows some very interesting parallels to what we see going on now
in this country, minus the CNN. And you all know what happened to
them.
FC
Iva
>Is it a rule? No, of course not. I was speaking of the matter of honor
and of
>principle and of responsibility, things not overmuch popular in a time of
>"Leave me alone, I can do whatever I want, you're not the boss of me."
>
>To vote is not the *legal* requirement of a citizen -- and by the way, the
>freedom you cite is first and foremost the freedom to choose the form of
your
>elected government -- but it *is* a moral and ethical requirement.
>
>Because if you don't exercise it, sooner or later you will lose that
freedom
>and all the others you cherish, because those with a vested interest in
making
>those freedoms go away will be the ones to pass the final laws, unopposed
by
>dissenting voices at the ballot box.
>
>Freedom does not equate laziness.
Absolutely. I've missed exactly one election since I was able to vote.
Even when I don't like _any_ of the choices, I've voted. At least we have
still a choice here in the USA unlike many other countries. When you
choose not to vote, you're handing control of _your_ life to someone else.
Sorry, I still intend to make my own choices about the people governing me.
Maybe the candidate I vote for doesn't always win, but I VOTED!
Use it or lose it.
Iva
Thomas Bagwell
>
>I agree totally. Anybody who can't be bothered to get their butts out
>of the house for 15 min to go vote doesn't deserve the benefits of a
>democratic society.
Actually, that's the reason that I (surprisingly, to me) decided I was
against on-line voting. Those that make the effort to go vote are
more likely to be at least familiar with the items and people up for
election. When it gets too easy, then people vote for the wrong
people for the wrong reasons, turning into a pure popularity contest
rather than an informed decision.
Tom B.
Rick
>Every year, fewer and fewer people vote, meaning that our futures and our
>fortunes are being dictated by an increasingly smaller portion of the
>population because the rest just don't want to be bothered.
>
>And I'm sorry, but to me, that ain't the proper perspective of a citizen. It's
>not just a one-way "gimme" street.
I wonder if part of the continuing decline in electoral turn-outs is
related to the whole cult of individuality that I'm afraid me and my
fellow baby-boomers bought into. It seems we want to stay adolescent for
our whole lives (don't get me wrong - not an entirely bad goal!) and
treat every issue with the same hormonal imperative as The Beatles vs
The Stones.
It's as though a vote for a politician - who may be better than his/her
opponent but still not perfect - is seen as some kind of betrayal of the
voter's self-image. How could a man possibly live with himself if he
placed a cross next to (for example) the name of a candidate who
received donations from Microsoft? Or maybe it's more to do with peer
pressure - what would your friends say if they knew you cast a vote for
Gore after seeing him in that sports-coat...?
So the easiest, safest thing to do is not risk your carefully cultivated
individual image. Don't vote at all. Who can criticise you then?
Pathetic, I know. But in an age where *everything* is treated like a
lifestyle choice - where you eat, what you drive, what you read, what
you *think* - maybe politics is too complicated for people who can make
a big issue out of the relative merits of Kurt Cobain or ST:Voyager.
>To vote is not the *legal* requirement of a citizen -- and by the way, the
>freedom you cite is first and foremost the freedom to choose the form of your
>elected government -- but it *is* a moral and ethical requirement.
>
>Because if you don't exercise it, sooner or later you will lose that freedom
>and all the others you cherish, because those with a vested interest in making
>those freedoms go away will be the ones to pass the final laws, unopposed by
>dissenting voices at the ballot box.
>
>Freedom does not equate laziness.
>
>I said it in the show: you must choose the future you want, or others will
>choose it for you.
This raises an interesting (to me, at least) question:
In B5, you clearly took the opportunity to deal with this and similar
issues. You had the whole 5-year story - the whole universe, in fact -
at your disposal to allow you to do this. But what about before, when
you had less control - and what other about jobbing freelance writers?
Does a writer's political outlook equally inform his work when he/she's
contributing a single episode to a show, say? Do you think it should?
Are there stories a writer simply *shouldn't* tell when they conflict
with his/her beliefs?
For example, imagine at some point in the past you'd been working on
some show and been presented with an outline for an episode much like
"By Any Means Necessary", but in which the protagonist came down firmly
*against* the docking unions. Would you do it and try to sneak in a plot
thread or two to try and make it a little more acceptable? Or would you
walk?
> jms
>
--
Regards,
Rick
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erno Simila" <ersi...@paju.oulu.fi>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Not voting...
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
> > It [the government] also has a great deal to offer: the street lights
> > generally work, the mail generally comes, we are generally free to
> > voice our opinions without fear of gulags or death squads.
>
> > To vote is *our part of the bargain*. If we want government to keep to
THEIR
> > part of the bargain, how can we in all good conscience not keep *our*
part of
> > the bargain?
>
> Still, many of good things that the government of any country offers
> is funded by *taxes*. If you pay taxes, you are entitled to these
> services (e.g. an electricity, a road network, even a police)
Electricity? Not in the USA. That's privately owned by the electric
utility industry.
Mac
Aubrey W. Adkins
I vote for one of the minor ones, in the hope that next time they will have
garnered enough votes to rate a seat at the debate, money table. However, that
always stands a chance of bringing the 'Pat Buchanans' out to steal the nest egg
that the minor party may have earned. If all else fails, one can vot for a prez &
VP of one party and senators and representatives of the other party and hope that
congressional gridlock prevents either party from doing too much irreparable
damage.
Aubrey
Jms at B5 wrote:
> >Requirement? Don't think so. It is a tool of the citizenry...a tool that
> >no one is required to use. It is a little thing called freedom.
>
> Is it a rule? No, of course not. I was speaking of the matter of honor and of
> principle and of responsibility, things not overmuch popular in a time of
> "Leave me alone, I can do whatever I want, you're not the boss of me."
>
> One is not *required* to help a person who is being assaulted in the
> street...but a basic requirement of decency and humanity is that we *try*.
>
> When I was a guest at Chicago Comic Con a few years ago, some guy was caught
> shoplifting in the dealer's room. He punched the dealer and started running,
> the dealer followed, yelling for somebody, ANYbody, to stop the guy.
>
> Nobody moved, which is when it came inside my peripheral vision.
>
> The dealer got a partial hand on the guy, but the dealer was an older man, he
> wasn't going to be able to take this guy, who was a toned (as it turned out
> Navy) guy.
>
> So I jumped in and tackled the guy. The two of us brought him down, and we
> held him, against his struggling, until the cops finally showed up.
>
> We live in a representational form of government, which has a lot of problems
> and a lot wrong with it. It also has a great deal to offer: the street lights
> generally work, the mail generally comes, we are generally free to voice our
> opinions without fear of gulags or death squads.
>
> To vote is *our part of the bargain*. If we want government to keep to THEIR
> part of the bargain, how can we in all good conscience not keep *our* part of
> the bargain?
>
> I'm not jingoisitic, I know and am quite open about all the problems of this
> country and this government. But I also vote every year, year in and year out,
> good candidates and goofballs, because if I don't, then I'm not entitled to
> gripe about the consequences.
>
> Every year, fewer and fewer people vote, meaning that our futures and our
> fortunes are being dictated by an increasingly smaller portion of the
> population because the rest just don't want to be bothered.
>
> And I'm sorry, but to me, that ain't the proper perspective of a citizen. It's
> not just a one-way "gimme" street.
>
> To vote is not the *legal* requirement of a citizen -- and by the way, the
> freedom you cite is first and foremost the freedom to choose the form of your
> elected government -- but it *is* a moral and ethical requirement.
>
> Because if you don't exercise it, sooner or later you will lose that freedom
> and all the others you cherish, because those with a vested interest in making
> those freedoms go away will be the ones to pass the final laws, unopposed by
> dissenting voices at the ballot box.
>
> Freedom does not equate laziness.
>
> I said it in the show: you must choose the future you want, or others will
> choose it for you.
>
Andrew Swallow
>
>We do need a "none of the above" box on that ballot, and if "none of
>the above" gets a plurality, then the office remains vacant, and a new
>election is held in 45 days. Nobody who was defeated by "none of the
>above" can appear on the second ballot, and write-in votes for those
>people are not counted. If we had that system for a short time, the
>parties would soon start worrying about getting good candidates
>instead of running any loyal party hack who can be trusted to vote the
>way he is told.
Why stop at 45 days? After 1 year the local election committee will be ready
to stand up to head office.
Andrew Swallow
Jms at B5
>issues. You had the whole 5-year story - the whole universe, in fact -
>at your disposal to allow you to do this. But what about before, when
>you had less control - and what other about jobbing freelance writers?
I've always tried to express a point of view in the work...when I worked on
Twilight Zone, I did stories about wife beaters and such; when I did Murder She
Wrote I tried to slip in a point of view (Jessica going toe to toe about Gulags
with the former head of the KGB and criticizing their treatment of writers and
other intellectuals), that sort of thing...but I tried never to get *political*
in the sense of saying, in or out of B5, "Democrats are better," or
"Conservatives suck."
They were really about the importance of taking personal action and
responsibility for both yourself and the world around you.
Which was the point of my story about the comic con incident (typical of late
night postings, I started the tale, got distracted, and forgot to get to the
*point* of the thing, the reason I mentioned it, which is that as a citizen, I
could not ignore someone who is being unjustly treated by a thief, and felt it
necessary to intervene. Similarly, how can one not hear the cry of a nation in
distress and not take action, even if that action is nothing more revolutionary
than the casting of a vote (which in historical terms is a very revolutionary
thing in and of itself)?
>For example, imagine at some point in the past you'd been working on
>some show and been presented with an outline for an episode much like
>"By Any Means Necessary", but in which the protagonist came down firmly
>*against* the docking unions. Would you do it and try to sneak in a plot
>thread or two to try and make it a little more acceptable? Or would you
>walk?
If it was a freelancer's story...no, of course not, it all comes down to how
well that particular story is told. Had the unions lost in that story, it
would've been equally fine with me if the story had been told with logic and a
point of view and integrity, if it ahd made a point.
If, on the other hand, we had that script as written, and the network insisted
that it be changed the way you suggest because it didn't want to be pro-union,
THEN we'd have words....
Steve Brinich
> Gee! Does anyone else get echoes of "Starship Troopers" in the above
> comments?
>
> (just to throw things back into an SF'ish vein...)
Not really a good analogy -- the system in Starship Troopers was
purely voluntary, and the only consequence of not volunteering is that
you didn't get to vote.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Alyson L. Abramowitz
>
> This raises an interesting (to me, at least) question:
>
> In B5, you clearly took the opportunity to deal with this and similar
> issues. You had the whole 5-year story - the whole universe, in fact -
> at your disposal to allow you to do this. But what about before, when
> you had less control - and what other about jobbing freelance writers?
> Does a writer's political outlook equally inform his work when he/she's
> contributing a single episode to a show, say? Do you think it should?
> Are there stories a writer simply *shouldn't* tell when they conflict
> with his/her beliefs?
There was a panel at worldcon on politics and SF in which this topic was
touched on a bit. I think we are going to do a continuation of it at
another con (there was certainly a continuation of it at the SFWA
party).
An interesting note from the panel was that one of the panelists (a
writer of written sf, alas I can't think of her name off the top of my
head) suggested that they were afraid to write about certain political
topics for fear that they would not get published.
A bit different then the moral dilemma you suggest. It's one I find
fascinating.
I can't speak for this one in writing for tv but I often find the
equivalent with my clients. Do I do what is morally the correct thing or
what the client asks me to do? For example, it is not unusual for me to
see a collection of folks marching off a (virtual) cliff because
something emotionally keeps them on the path. The most interesting are
the ones who recognize the cliff, can describe it accurately, know it is
going to hurt like hell when they fall over the edge, yet stay there.
I recently had someone at a client site ask me why I was the only one
saying get off the path (he's in this category of recognizing the path)?
For me it was important to choose the moral path of doing what my client
needed while incensing them to understand why it is of value. Otherwise,
what value am I if I merely tell them what they are doing?
Sometimes that means I just get off the path because I'm not going down
or in a direction I can't morally support.
Yeah, I'm flexible in this. I'm always learning new (and sometimes
improved) paths. There isn't one way (though there are many that are
destined for failure).
It's hard when you need to pay the bills and it's your only source of
income, though. One of the skills that employees, in particular, could
use to strengthen is how important it is to stand up for what you
believe in. I see far too many Real World Dilbert cartoons where the
participants feel its morally repugnant yet choose not to make a stand.
It's one of the more important back pressures an organization has to
guide them to the moral and commercial high ground (which can actually
be the same).
Best,
Alyson
Alyson L. Abramowitz
> In theory very true. In practice, it is hogwash. The american people
> have much less say in their government than I think they care to
> admit. The reason for that is simple, you as a major corporate entity
> can buy both parties, then it doesn't matter who gets in, you win
> either way. You want example, try to an make an appointment with your
> congressman, good luck. Yet the corporate giants gets in at a whim.
Actually this isn't entirely true. Want to know how to get the ear of
your elected official? The same way you get anyone's ear: do something
they notice on a positive basis. It doesn't necessarily have to be
money.
A number of years ago I was just a random volunteer working on the local
campaigns. The first time I worked on a campaign in California (after a
20 year hiatus from having done so as a kid in another state and an area
that was as hopeless as Jerry Doyle's for my own political beliefs) the
staff tried to offer me a job after about a week. I had a job and they
couldn't afford me (politics doesn't pay well). OTOH, my State Assembly
person certainly figured out who I was (I was working in her office).
Two years later I was volunteering in the local party campaign office
during the next campaign season. My congressperson's staff (who I had
never met before) asked me if I would organize GOTV (Get Out The Vote)
for one of the towns in her area. Sure, said I. Suddenly my house became
campaign central. We also ran out of targeted voters to call to ensure
that they had voted well before the polls closed.
At the victory party later that evening I timidly asked the staff member
I was working with if she'd introduce me to the (re-elected)
Congressperson. Once she recovered from realizing that I'd never taken
the opportunity before, I was introduced. I've never had a problem
getting heard since that point. Everyone had assumed we already knew
each other. Oops.
One of the secrets of elections are the immense amount of access that
those who work on the campaigns and (even more so) those who work within
the Party structure have. I had no problems getting access to any of the
local elected officials of my Party and a great many from my State. I
saw/see them all the time.
Certainly as I grew up a Watergate-era kid the Party system seemed to be
getting less important. In reality, it is a great way to get that
access. Get known inside the Party closest to your views (it just takes
a bit of time and effort) and you'll get lots of access. That doesn't
mean you always will agree with all their candidates or their views.
If you feel passionate about an issue(s), get active enough that you are
involved in the structure of where the Party chooses to endorse its
candidates. At least in the Democratic Party, anyone involved in the
process gets to ask whatever questions they want. Now you not only have
access and an opinion, but that candidate will probably remember you.
Ask questions about your passions enough and they might start asking
their voters. They certainly started asking me *my* views.... which was
a definite start.
If you can't get involved, come to the events that they have, whether
they be Open Houses or rallies or whatever. Go up and talk to them. Even
Presidents listen to polite, short discussions. Want to talk to them?
Figure out a comment or question to engage them. If they ask you to
follow up with their staff, make the effort. Tell them that you were
talking to X at Y and he/she TOLD YOU to call them. Sometimes staff can
be a little overwhelmed so you need to help them.
The more local the candidate, the easier you will get access. Take it.
They will remember as they move upwards.
> Why, because the blue suites gives millions and you give jack dip. The
> real crime is that in order to run for office, the system is rigged
> so you have to be able to put up millions to get heard. The 40 second
> factoid news agencies only want ratings, so they only put on stories
> about the rich, famous or the violent. So Jack Smith who may have a
> good idea never gets heard, and he doesn't have the cash to get his
> name known off the block. While there is mass private funding for
> political races, we simply cannot have any kind of real democracy in
> this country.
I agree that there is a problem with the current funding of campaigns. I
know of no politician who got into politics to fundraise. However, the
higher the office you aspire to the more time you spend raising money
rather than talking to your potential voters.
Although it certainly seemed counter-intuitive to me when I first
considered it, the way we stop this is by making all offices (down to
the lowest of the baby ones on the ballot) publicly funded. Virtually
all the data on the subject says it will save us billions of dollars in
the States to do so. The savings comes out of removing that vested
interest. The intangible savings will be in getting our politicians more
time to spend listening to voters (which is really what most of us want
to do, anyhow). I firmly believe both will benefit us immensely.
> And of course any time someone proposes to do away with the system,
> they are shouted down, or the bill is killed in committee. The simple
> fact as I see it is that it really makes no different who gets in.
Actually, Gore promised when he accepted the Democratic Party nomination
that his first bill to Congress would be in the area of campaign finance
reform. Of course, if the Congress continues to be filled with the
current folks who don't want this to change, it might not pass.
Best,
Alyson
Alyson L. Abramowitz
>
> Duetta1 <due...@aol.com> writes
>
> >In truth, most politicians are alike -- in that their primary interests appear
> >to be getting into office, and once there, staying in power. Or to borrow the
> >title of a Mozart opera, "Cosi fan tutte." They all do it. The exceptions,
> >sadly, are few and far between.
>
> Getting into office is pretty basic to my understanding of a
> politician's function. I don't see it as much of a criticism. I'd have
> thought that, by definition, the exceptions would be less than "few and
> far between". Surely *no one* becomes a politician in the first place
> without aiming to get elected?
I don't think I can speak for every politician in the USA, no less the
world. I don't think I can even speak for every politician in my Party.
Let me talk for myself as someone who has been elected and with some
personal experience talking to others of my Party (which happens to be
the Democratic Party; I've had a bit of discussion, in passing, with
folks in the Libertarian Party on this one; I have no idea how folks in
other Parties differ in the USA or the world).
I didn't get into politics to get elected to anything. Most folks
involved in politics don't ever want to be elected. A small number of us
change our minds and run for some office along the way. An even smaller
number decide to run for a major office. For every one who does want to
get elected there are hundreds of grass-roots political activists and
staff who do everything from stuff envelopes to phone bank to write
position papers for candidates.
I got involved because I wanted to find others who were interested in
discussing what was happening in our country and our world. My friends
reflected what appears to be a majority view on this newsgroup: they
just weren't interested. I wanted to ensure that those views which I
believed passionately were reflected in our laws. I wasn't disillusioned
enough (despite growing up during Watergate) to believe that a single
person couldn't make a difference. In the end I look back and believe I
was and continue to be right.
While I'm sure that there are exceptions to this, I've rarely run into a
politician who was in it purely for personal glory. It is far, far too
much work for that.
There are much easier ways to receive gratification.
Here is a secret of all politicians I've ever met when we are running
for office. Do you know what politicians up for election talk about in
the first 5 minutes of every conversation with their fellow candidates
(before getting down to the business that initiated their conversation)?
How utterly exhausted they are. I mean exhausted from head to toe. Every
bone and every muscle feels abused. Emotionally there is no off time.
Yet the commitment is there (at least in the winning ones) to go on to
the end.
It is something you need to be there to truly understand. The closest
thing I've been able to describe to folks is what it feels like the
Tuesday after Worldcon.... only for months at a time. It reminds me a
bit of Joe's description of the toll B5 took out of him.
There are definitely easier was to receive gratification.
Getting into office and staying there is a significant precursor to
making more of that difference... although it is far from the only way
to do so. Those folks working within the Party structure or on staff or
campaigns can have a great deal of affect also.
Obtaining an Office is, also, the most visible view most of the non
participating public have into political life. It is what the media
covers. It is what we see, personally, as I or others ask for your vote
at your doorstep, by mail, etc.
What you don't see is the next hundreds or thousands of hours in which
we work to get agreements or laws into place. Those are rarely covered
by the media. It is even rarer, when it is a state or local office. It
just isn't covered at all within the Party. Most of the work involved
doesn't make great sound bites. There isn't much exciting about talking
to folks at a caucus or meeting (or lunch or a private conversation
ahead of time to clear the way) because I know their endorsement will
help me get the views I believe I and my electorate are passionate
about.
You don't see the work in interviews within the Party structure to get
the Party machinery to provide support. Or how much value that actually
is to a candidate. I've seen folks with good ideas who didn't know how
to sell them fail at that level.... ultimately not succeeding in their
run for office. And they should because they'll need those skills to get
anything done in office. If they can't convince their colleagues they
are serious how are they going to convince folks who won't naturally be
on their side?
There are much easier ways to get gratification.
> That's how it seems to me, anyway. If you wanna take part in the
> democratic process, I think you've just got to deal with the facts that
> (a) All politicians want to get elected, (b) No politician agrees with
> your views, and (c) Government costs money - lots of it. These things
> will always be true. But they don't stop you voting on the other issues
> (crime, health, transport, defence, foreign policy) that are most
> pressing to you today.
I've talked about (a) above.
I'd agree that no politician will have ALL of your views. Hopefully the
one you vote into office agrees with at least SOME of them. If they
don't, tell them. If they really don't agree with ANY, vote them out of
office. Check their actual voting record if they are in a major office.
Ask them if they are in a minor office where that information isn't
easily available.
I've certainly been able to have an affect on views of other politician
by being clear on mine. When I've gone door to door to talk to folks or
visited groups, I listen to what folks say. I've even been known to
borrow some of the great ideas I hear. I watch my elders borrowing mine.
I'm far from unique in this.
OTOH, if you yell at me, hang up on me, or don't bother to tell me your
views, I'll never have the opportunity to listen. So in the end, you'll
have your views and I'll have mine. And you'll continue to feel
disenfranchised because you've never made the effort. I've truly made an
effort to get out there and connect but I have 100,000 folks to cover. I
can't possibly get directly in contact with everyone unless some of them
come to me.
I agree on (c).
Best,
Alyson
Alyson L. Abramowitz
Alyson L. Abramowitz
Rob Perkins
news:039601c01fd8$e24bf680
> Electricity? Not in the USA. That's privately owned by the electric
> utility industry.
Where I am, and where I've lived in the past, that's not universally true.
In Vancouver, WA, the electricity is provided through the Clark Public
Utility District, who purchases power from the Bonneville Power
Administration, built and/or operated by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Electricity here is very very much a public entity, operated at various
levels by one government department or another. Cost? $0.046/Kwh
In Northern Kentucky, where I used to live, power was provided by the Owen
Electric Cooperative, which I believe took or takes some Federal subsidies
to build and sustain a power grid in rural parts of Kentucky. Cost?
$0.068/Kwh
Compared to San Diego, that's not bad, you know.
Rob
Rob Perkins
> You have the right *not* to join the national defense forces of the
nation,
> unlike in many countries in Western Europe and elsewhere around the world!
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>Well, at least one of these Western European countries offers civil
>service as an alternative. I'd be very surprised if the other's didn't
>have anything similar.
I know Germany offers civil service as an alternative. I know Switzerland
and Austria do not. If you're 18, healthy, and male, and in country, you're
going in. Still, in Germany, that service, no matter its form, is
*mandatory*, and if you don't serve, you're going to jail.
In the United States, you have the right to not serve in the government,
except in case of war or national emergency. You're an ingrate if you don't
find *some* way to contribute to society, but you're not going to prison
over it.
In the same vein, I have been told, by voting Austrians, that not voting in
Austria is a misdemeanor, and you can be fined or go to jail if you fail to
vote. In the U.S., you have the right to abstain from voting. You're an
ingrate if you don't vote when you can, but you're not going to prison over
it.
"Wesley Struebing" <str...@americanisp.com> wrote:
> Gee! Does anyone else get echoes of "Starship Troopers" in the above
> comments?
It was one of the first few Science Fiction books I read. I loved to read
that book, so for that reason, I really disliked the movie. What a tragic
waste of film.
Rob
j...@gte.net
Why stop at 45 days?
The idea was that since the main election is held in early November
and the people take office in early January, 45 days (to mid December)
would allow for a second shot at getting someone elected to the
office. You don't want it to go vacant for a year or more, because if
(for instance) Kansas implements this "none of the above" and 3 of the
long-term congressmen are tossed out because of it, you want to have
new representatives elected so that the people of Kansas to not lose
part of their representation in Congress.
If it should turn out that mid-December is a bad time for elections
due to the commercialized mayhem that we call Christmas, then maybe 30
days or so would be better. If anyone ever is courageous to adopt
this plan or one similar to it, details would need to be worked out.
Rick
>Surely *no one* becomes a politician in the first place
>> without aiming to get elected?
>
>I didn't get into politics to get elected to anything. Most folks
>involved in politics don't ever want to be elected. A small number of us
>change our minds and run for some office along the way. An even smaller
>number decide to run for a major office. For every one who does want to
>get elected there are hundreds of grass-roots political activists and
>staff who do everything from stuff envelopes to phone bank to write
>position papers for candidates.
I agree with you 100%. I was specifically meaning electoral candidates,
not party activists, and even then it was a helluva oversimplification.
Traditionally here in the UK, for example, there are vast regional
biases in voting patterns - so you often find that parties that see no
chance of victory in an area will field what are in effect dummy
candidates. These people have no particular hope of (or even desire for)
office, and are simply acting as a name on a ballot paper, fulfilling
the need for major parties to have some representation in each election.
The last General Election here was a huge landslide for the Labour
Party, and resulted in many of these apparently unelectable candidates
actually being elected! Suddenly, people who expected to be going back
to their normal jobs the next day found they had to uproot their lives
and head for Parliament! Many of these people were unassuming activists
who suddenly found themselves in an extraordinary situation.
My point was more to do with the weird dichotomy some would-be voters
exhibit when they talk about candidates being "all the same" - one of
these similarities being that said candidates actually *want* to be
elected. Conversely, it seems to me that having a candidate who wants to
be elected is a *good* thing, since they're prepared for the work,
stress and general personal disruption that goes with the job. It
strikes me that a professional politician - who wants the job - will in
most cases be a better choice than, for example, many of those Labour
Party activists who were totally unprepared and will probably not stand
again when the next election rolls around.
>I got involved because I wanted to find others who were interested in
>discussing what was happening in our country and our world. My friends
>reflected what appears to be a majority view on this newsgroup: they
>just weren't interested. I wanted to ensure that those views which I
>believed passionately were reflected in our laws. I wasn't disillusioned
>enough (despite growing up during Watergate) to believe that a single
>person couldn't make a difference. In the end I look back and believe I
>was and continue to be right.
I'm with you all the way again. Idealism and the belief in change is a
positive virtue; cynicism an entirely negative vice.
>While I'm sure that there are exceptions to this, I've rarely run into a
>politician who was in it purely for personal glory. It is far, far too
>much work for that.
>
>There are much easier ways to receive gratification.
>
>Here is a secret of all politicians I've ever met when we are running
>for office. Do you know what politicians up for election talk about in
>the first 5 minutes of every conversation with their fellow candidates
>(before getting down to the business that initiated their conversation)?
>How utterly exhausted they are. I mean exhausted from head to toe. Every
>bone and every muscle feels abused. Emotionally there is no off time.
>Yet the commitment is there (at least in the winning ones) to go on to
>the end.
Absolutely. The best answer to someone who tells you what a cushy, easy
time politicians have is: "So why aren't *you* doing it?"
>You don't see the work in interviews within the Party structure to get
>the Party machinery to provide support. Or how much value that actually
>is to a candidate. I've seen folks with good ideas who didn't know how
>to sell them fail at that level.... ultimately not succeeding in their
>run for office. And they should because they'll need those skills to get
>anything done in office. If they can't convince their colleagues they
>are serious how are they going to convince folks who won't naturally be
>on their side?
True. The interesting thing about this point is that it justifies the
involvement of media consultants, image consultants and other assorted
spinners in the political process. Having someone whose job is entirely
concerned with *presentation* allows our politicians to spend more time
on policy and the actual machinery of Government. If the consultants
weren't there, politicians would have to be far more concerned with
presentation than they currently are, and would be limited to thinking
within a much smaller box.
And yet conventional wisdom would have it that politics is *more*
restricted because of the involvement of consultants. Okay, they may be
over-paid... but they do their job, and allow politicians to do theirs.
>> That's how it seems to me, anyway. If you wanna take part in the
>> democratic process, I think you've just got to deal with the facts that
>> (a) All politicians want to get elected, (b) No politician agrees with
>> your views, and (c) Government costs money - lots of it. These things
>> will always be true. But they don't stop you voting on the other issues
>> (crime, health, transport, defence, foreign policy) that are most
>> pressing to you today.
>
>I've talked about (a) above.
As I say, I think all *effective* political candidates want to get
elected. Better?
>I'd agree that no politician will have ALL of your views. Hopefully the
>one you vote into office agrees with at least SOME of them. If they
>don't, tell them. If they really don't agree with ANY, vote them out of
>office. Check their actual voting record if they are in a major office.
>Ask them if they are in a minor office where that information isn't
>easily available.
That's my point. Since everyone is an individual, no one is ever going
to agree with *all* your views. Your task as a grown-up voter is to find
the closest one out of the available options.
>OTOH, if you yell at me, hang up on me, or don't bother to tell me your
>views, I'll never have the opportunity to listen. So in the end, you'll
>have your views and I'll have mine. And you'll continue to feel
>disenfranchised because you've never made the effort. I've truly made an
>effort to get out there and connect but I have 100,000 folks to cover. I
>can't possibly get directly in contact with everyone unless some of them
>come to me.
Absolutely. This is my problem with the "none of the above" ballot
option. Just what message are the parties expected to take from that?
Sure, you may occasionally meet bratty teens for whom the sentiment
"You're all crap" would be considered a major achievement in
communication. But why on Earth would we want to reduce the political
process to such a moronic level?
>Best,
>Alyson
--
Regards,
Rick
Rick
> Not really a good analogy -- the system in Starship Troopers was
>purely voluntary, and the only consequence of not volunteering is that
>you didn't get to vote.
The *only* consequence...!
That might be an ideal alternative for the advocates of "none of the
above". But for the rest of us, it's quite a big deal!!
--
Cheers,
Rick
Rick
>An interesting note from the panel was that one of the panelists (a
>writer of written sf, alas I can't think of her name off the top of my
>head) suggested that they were afraid to write about certain political
>topics for fear that they would not get published.
I'd be curious to know if she mentioned any specific topics here. My own
instinctive take on this is that the comic-book dystopianism that seems
to infect a lot of modern SF would make writing anything that presented
a positive view of change difficult...
>It's hard when you need to pay the bills and it's your only source of
>income, though. One of the skills that employees, in particular, could
>use to strengthen is how important it is to stand up for what you
>believe in. I see far too many Real World Dilbert cartoons where the
>participants feel its morally repugnant yet choose not to make a stand.
>It's one of the more important back pressures an organization has to
>guide them to the moral and commercial high ground (which can actually
>be the same).
One of the interesting things about the Dilbert phenomenon is the range
of people who've bought into it. The majority of the cartoons are about
put-upon technicians whose job involves producing a physical finished
product. And yet their popularity extends all the way up the middle-
management hierarchy, to... well, to as far up company structure as
*I've* ever been involved with. Are managers so deluded they don't get
the jokes :)? Is the task of delegation now recognised as a productive
end in itself, on a par with producing a physical product? Or is
*everyone* now at the business end of some bureaucratic shotgun?
Rick
>>some show and been presented with an outline for an episode much like
>>"By Any Means Necessary", but in which the protagonist came down firmly
>>*against* the docking unions. Would you do it and try to sneak in a plot
>>thread or two to try and make it a little more acceptable? Or would you
>>walk?
>
>If it was a freelancer's story...no, of course not, it all comes down to how
>well that particular story is told. Had the unions lost in that story, it
>would've been equally fine with me if the story had been told with logic and a
>point of view and integrity, if it ahd made a point.
This is a fairly lateral jump in theme, but may I ask another question?
As you say, the story could have been presented with a different
outcome, but my impression throughout B5 was that - whether they
triumphed or not - you always preferred to put morally defensible
viewpoints in the principle characters. OTOH, a lot of the opposing
forces (Refa, Morden, Catargia, the EarthGov guy whose name currently
escapes me in "By Any Means...") get to articulate their aims but are
rarely sympathetic when doing so.
So I'm wondering: in the above scenario, would *you* have considered
writing Sinclair as anti-Union? Or would you worry that by putting
vaguely illiberal attitudes in the mouth of the lead character - the
person the audience are most likely to identify with - the story risked
being misinterpreted; a milder form of the sort of problem Paul Schrader
encountered with audience reaction to Travis Bickle, for example?
> jms
>
--
Regards,
Rick
Chuck Bridgeland
>Many of you have expressed a desire for a "None of the above" category on the
>Presidential ballot. Many of you have even indicated that you may not vote.
>
>I'll throw this out for discussion...
>
>"Not voting is casting a vote for the person you'd least like to see in
>office."
BS. Not voting is refusing to give them "the sanction of the victim".
--
"You're afraid, aren't you Mr. Gore? _They're_ afraid. And speaking
of your 'associates' -- we must be able to speak privately. Do not
move."
Chuck Bridgeland, chuckbri at mwci dot net
Jms at B5
>writing Sinclair as anti-Union? Or would you worry that by putting
>vaguely illiberal attitudes in the mouth of the lead character - the
>person the audience are most likely to identify with - the story risked
>being misinterpreted; a milder form of the sort of problem Paul Schrader
>encountered with audience reaction to Travis Bickle, for example?
>
Why must the protagonist be anti-union for the union to lose? There are other
ways of doing the story.
Rick
>>writing Sinclair as anti-Union? Or would you worry that by putting
>>vaguely illiberal attitudes in the mouth of the lead character - the
>>person the audience are most likely to identify with - the story risked
>>being misinterpreted; a milder form of the sort of problem Paul Schrader
>>encountered with audience reaction to Travis Bickle, for example?
>
>Why must the protagonist be anti-union for the union to lose? There are other
>ways of doing the story.
>
> jms
I think I phrased that really badly -- sorry!! No, the story would
clearly work either way: whether the dockers came out on top or not. But
what I wondered was whether - whoever won in the end - you'd contemplate
having your top-billed, most audience-friendly character (Sinclair)
stand alongside EarthGov interests against them.
My suspicion is that, were *I* in the position of the writer, I'd be
very uneasy about putting illiberal attitudes in the mouth of my lead
character, lest they be interpreted as *my* attitudes too! (Probably one
reason why I'd be a rotten writer...) I always think of Schrader and
Taxi Driver here - he went to every possible length to show Travis
Bickle as a lost, confused, unbalanced and dangerous loser - and a
segment of the audience *still* took him to their breasts as a hero!
It's like Shakespeare... He puts a stupid, obvious phrase in the mouth
of a none-too-bright character like Polonius in Hamlet, but over the
years "Neither a borrower... etc" becomes treated as a phrase of great
wisdom, on the basis that Shakespeare wrote it. The fact he wrote it for
Polonius gets forgotten.
Anyway, thanks for listening. I'm sorry to keep going on about "By Any
Means Necessary" - I know it ain't even one of yours! - but it is one of
the most explicitly political episodes, and therefore a good backdrop to
imagine these sort of issues against.
Incidentally, while I'm on, I just want to say that - having just
watched Season 5 for the third time - I think those of us who didn't
appreciate it at first were way off base. It was a fabulous ending, and
if it didn't *quite* reach the peaks of the 3rd and 4th years - well, it
came damn close! Thanks.
>(jms...@aol.com)
>B5 Official Fan Club at:
>http://www.thestation.com
>(all message content (c) 2000 by
>synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
>to reprint specifically denied to
>SFX Magazine)
--
Regards,
Rick
Jms at B5
>what I wondered was whether - whoever won in the end - you'd contemplate
>having your top-billed, most audience-friendly character (Sinclair)
>stand alongside EarthGov interests against them.
I'd have no problem with that propect. As long as a character has a logical,
justifiable reason for taking a particular stance, it's all grist for the mill.
Why shouldn't he take that stance if he genuinely believes it's right?
jms
Pelzo63
politician's statement).
given how uniformly disliked "Professional wrestling" is amongst the members of
this group, what are some of your opinions(especially JMS), on the current
non-partisan campaign by the WWF(the RIVAL of ted turner) to encourage younger
people to vote, and to have Gore and Bush appear in a debate on their UPN
show(with jesse ventura as moderator, natch). as of last night, over 85,000
people have registered through their "Smackdown your vote" campaign. voters
can register at Live WWF events, or online at wwf.com.
granted, it's most likely a self-serving action to both create a block of
voters who will vote against "censorship" candidates, and also a method of
showing "censorship" candidates that such a block of voters exists, but
nonetheless, it's still bringing new voters into the fold.
...Chris
http://pelzo63.terrashare.com
Pelzo63
>I personally grew up watching the WWF, and have not >a thing against it
>and I still watch it to this day.
as do i, and the thing is, it's so ifferent now from the days of "say your
prayers and eat your vitamins" that i can't watch that stuff without laughing.
(aka, watch the wcw, same problem)
>As for the WWF's
>campaign to get a
>debate between both the candidates.... on one hand, >it has helped draw
>in an incredible amount of new voters, on the other >hand, though, it is
>kind of a PR stunt too. What better way to let people >know you exist
>but by throwing yourself into the political arena? >(Though I'd be
>surprised if there are people who have NOT heard of >the WWF.)
well, as i said in the first post, i think it's in large part an attempt to
avoid the censorship of "angry mothers" who tend to vote by getting the "punk
kids" to vote too. but also, it's a way for them to get taken more seriously,
and stand up and say "hey, we're not ALL about blood, beer, and vulgarity".
and while there's not many who do NOT know what the wwf is, there's a GREAT
many who can't differnetiate between wwf and wcw(just read some posts here
during the crusade debacle).
besides, WWF has better story continuity than any trek series. :-) i've had 3
people ask me why chyna is referred to as the "9th wonder of the world" instead
of the 8th.
note: "angry mothers" and "punk kids" are not my terms, nor do i beleive
everyone who likes wrestling is a punk kid, or that anyone who likes to censor
tv is an angry mother.
...Chris
http://pelzo63.terrashare.com
yes, i
m a trekkie, a babbler, and a jerichoholic.
frank_m...@mindspring.com
>this is a bit of a subject change, but also not one(hey, that sounded like a
>politician's statement).
>
>given how uniformly disliked "Professional wrestling" is amongst the members of
>this group, what are some of your opinions(especially JMS), on the current
>non-partisan campaign by the WWF(the RIVAL of ted turner) to encourage younger
>people to vote, and to have Gore and Bush appear in a debate on their UPN
>show(with jesse ventura as moderator, natch).
I don't think I'd bother tuning in to see it.
On the other hand, I'll bet you could get a massive turnout for a
well-orchestrated Gore-Bush "grudge match". Maybe throw in the veep
candidates and turn it into a tag-team event...
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
E-mail: frank_m...@mindspring.com
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pelzo63" <pel...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 8:46 PM
Subject: Wresting and Voting. (was Re: OT - Not voting...)
> this is a bit of a subject change, but also not one(hey, that sounded like
a
> politician's statement).
>
> given how uniformly disliked "Professional wrestling" is amongst the
members of
> this group, what are some of your opinions(especially JMS), on the current
> non-partisan campaign by the WWF(the RIVAL of ted turner) to encourage
younger
> people to vote, and to have Gore and Bush appear in a debate on their UPN
> show(with jesse ventura as moderator, natch).
Jesse Ventura would steal the show (even if he tried not to).
Mac
LK
[snip]
>My suspicion is that, were *I* in the position of the writer, I'd be
>very uneasy about putting illiberal attitudes in the mouth of my lead
>character, lest they be interpreted as *my* attitudes too! (Probably one
>reason why I'd be a rotten writer...) I always think of Schrader and
>Taxi Driver here - he went to every possible length to show Travis
>Bickle as a lost, confused, unbalanced and dangerous loser - and a
>segment of the audience *still* took him to their breasts as a hero!
>
>It's like Shakespeare... He puts a stupid, obvious phrase in the mouth
>of a none-too-bright character like Polonius in Hamlet, but over the
>years "Neither a borrower... etc" becomes treated as a phrase of great
>wisdom, on the basis that Shakespeare wrote it. The fact he wrote it for
>Polonius gets forgotten.
And the Bible which ought to come with one big warning label to not
take short phrases out of context of the work or the times (i.e.,
social and political times when written).
>
>Anyway, thanks for listening. I'm sorry to keep going on about "By Any
>Means Necessary" - I know it ain't even one of yours! - but it is one of
>the most explicitly political episodes, and therefore a good backdrop to
>imagine these sort of issues against.
It's one of my favorites becauses it deals with the infrastructure and
the everyday people who the live the decsions of those in power. And
a reminder the future will always have people who enjoy working with
their own hands and muscles.
Now a crafter's guild... But that speaks to the Crusade episode "The
Needs of Earth" and a planetwide purge of creativity to only allow
functionality. And a high usage of their equvilent of saltpetre and
"Lie down and think of England". And "No, little one. Stack the
blocks this way for strength. The pattern doesn't matter."
LK