Along with that military rule was also frowned upon. That's why the President is a civilian commander-in-chief.
I am in favor of mandatory military service but not the idea that only veterans may vote. What about those people who can not serve? We leave them out? You're creating a clique of people who rule - the military. And to be fair, I served 6 glorious years as a Marine. Matthew Small IT Supervisor Showstopper National Dance Competitions 3660 Old Kings Hwy Murrells Inlet, SC 29576 843-357-1847 http://www.showstopperonline.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:59 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Not anti-suv but.... Democracy was frowned upon by the founding fathers for many reasons. Foremost because of the changeable nature of people. There was a fear that if we went to a truly democratic form of government the laws would sway back and forth without people having to make reasoned decisions. I think some of the problem your having with my statement comes from the common misuse of the word. In a true democracy it would be one person one vote on al issues. Well that would be just chaotic. Not to mention we would spend all of our time voting. Instead we went for a representative form of government. Now if you ask me I don't necessarily think the method we have of voting, or even of granting the ability to vote, is as good as it could be. I would really like to see something like in Star Ship Troopers (the book) where you have citizens and you have civilians. Civilians have all the rights and responsibilities, all the protections under the laws that a citizen does, except the right to vote. The only people that have the right to vote are those that choose to serve in the armed forces. I know this is going to sound really extreme to a lot of people, but I figure hey put up or shut up. If you not willing to lay it ALL on the line then you shouldn't get to participate in the process. I mean if you look at it, most of the time we have record LOW voter turn out anyway. What like 30% and less now right? Well then those people that feel strongly about it, those that want to be part of the process, they have to give up something in order to get in. I think we would have a much better country because of it. Now as to why I would election fraud more than currently if we switched to computer based voting systems, well I think that's pretty basic. I mean internet voting would be open to so many different forms of attack it's not funny. So you would have all the existing tricks (same guy multiple votes, dead people voting, people registered to vote in more than one district or state) plus all the fun hack and crack stuff we all deal with as developers. Additionally there are already questions being asked about the firms that supplied the new electronic voting systems to several states in the mid west. A republican one an election he was supposed to loose by a lot. The big deal there is that he is one of the owners of the companies that provided the voting systems. So I guess that is a fear also. I mean there are so many ways that you are adding additional risks by using an electronic voting system over a manual ballot system where you have a physical ballot to look at. Not perfect by any means. Still better IMHO. Tim -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:37 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Not anti-suv but.... how is going to a democratic system worse? Instead of having to win the majority of votes in a state to get all electoral votes for the state (Because they are not PARTIAL) then you just have to win the majority of votes for the country. How can having it different have worse fraud then now. Say we had 5000 fraudulent bush votes in florida in 2000, well bush won by fraud. If we had 2000 fraudulent bush votes in a NON electoral system gore would still have won. (Don't bring up the whole bush gore thing it was just an example :P) Just not getting it elighten me oh centerist one! "When I came back from Korea, I had no money, no skills. Sure, I was good with a bayonet, but you can't put that on a resume - it puts peple off!" Frank Barone, "Everybody Loves Raymond" ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:14 AM Subject: RE: Not anti-suv but.... Good luck. it would take a constitutional amendment, and those don't come easy. Now when you talk about the technological possibilities I get super scared. There is just way to much of a chance at fraud and misuse. Also as a republic and NOT a democracy things were never supposed to be one man one vote, it's supposed to be a representative form of government. I know there are definitely improvements that need to be made, I mean hell it is over 200 years old, but I still think the US constitution is about the best around :) Tim -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:01 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Not anti-suv but.... yes i know people say well i get my 4 electoral votes instead of just a flat population vote. And then thats because of keeping it honest and then you say ok how come california has like what 30 or something way more then 4 ;). I agree its a stupid an antiquated system which should be done away with but i doubt they will get rid of it ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:54 AM Subject: RE: Not anti-suv but.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 7:31 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Not anti-suv but.... > > > Nah if you get rid of the electoral college all the people > who live in rural states will cry that their vote is not > being counted anymore and they don't mean anything to > politics and the big city folk run everything. The electorial college does very little to "balance" population vrs statehood as it is. More populus states already get a huge margin. That issue is addressed very well in the Senate, I think. As I rememember it the main reason for the college was not to ensure a bigger voice for smaller states but rather to ensure a speedy election (delegates would need days or weeks to travel to make the election). That's no longer the case. While I'm all all for abolishing state government or hindering civic pride in one's state a simpler "one person, one vote" rule for national office seems the simplest way to deal with things - especially now that technology has caught up with the needs of the process. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89 70.5
