Good point Bob. I will  be doing election monitoring on Election Day... 
Go to electionprotection.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Oct 7, 2004 11:52 AM
To: 'Stephen Fisher' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [UC] RE: VOTE FOR CHANGE FINALE


There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the debate. 

Moore has maintained all along that if more people vote, the less
conservative the outcome will be, as the average person's values are less
conservative than the average VOTER'S values.

Back in the day, it was all about choosing what parts of town to go and buy
people drinks. Nobody followed the tipplers into the voting booth, but
getting 100 factory workers fired up would have a different effect than
buying 100 bankers drinks.  

A similar argument might be made for underwear, although I personally value
a case of Bud more than a pack of Haines. (But that's just me.)

It could also be argued that incentives to vote, or disincentives not to
vote would encourage an election that more accurately reflects the wishes of
the population.  Interestingly, according to some Australians I spoke with a
while back, you can be FINED there for not voting!  

It doesn't take a PhD in political science to figure out what would happen
here to the political spectrum if similar laws were enacted.  But such laws
never will be. Not for reasons of fairness, but because the penalized party
would scream bloody murder.  

Nor, for that matter, will we ever get Senators here in DC, (except maybe on
the baseball diamond) again for reasons that have nothing to do with
fairness.  (Hey, at least we get to drive around with "TAXATION WITHOUT
REPRESENTATION" on our license plates.)

Getting back to Michel Moore, despite having a noble goal of trying to get
voters to be more demographically aligned with the population at large, I
think he made a mistake. One needs to work within a system to change it. 

That is why I will be doing election monitoring on Election Day, to ensure
that all the new voters get out and are counted. If you are interested, go
here: www.electionprotection.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Fisher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UC] RE: VOTE FOR CHANGE FINALE

Having been to one of Moore's recent lectures where he gave away 
underwear and tortilla chips, I'd like to point out that he was very 
clear in expressing that he didn't care who you voted for, he just 
wanted you to get involved and vote.  While I realize this might still 
be considered 'wrong' by some and that the majority of people he was 
addressing were probably not republicans, there were actually some 
republicans in the room and he definitely didn't discriminate against them.

 > It is unfortunately true that Democratic loyalists subscribe to
 > bribery as a tool for tempering party loyalty.

I think these people should be thrown in jail.  What Moore is doing is 
not even close to this.

 > Moore's final sentencing should reflect his praying upon naive youth.

Yes, praying on them to get involved and to actually care about our 
country.  Rather than the current (ie non-Lincoln era) Republican stance 
of "leave most voters behind" and disenfranchise, disenfranchise, 
disenfranchise.

Flames away,
Stephen


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 10/6/2004 4:53:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
>     Here is proof that the Republicans are worried. They want
>     Michael Moore arrested...read on..
>     http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2393829&nav=0RceRgjo
>     <http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2393829&nav=0RceRgjo>
> 
> Monk:
>  
> You are too young to remember when ward leaders and committeemen bought 
> constituents a shot at the corner tappy to pull the big D lever. I am 
> sure if you were around then, you would have wanted them arrested for 
> corrupting our democratic process, regardless of the party being pushed.
>  
> It is unfortunately true that Democratic loyalists subscribe to bribery 
> as a tool for tempering party loyalty. Moore's final sentencing should 
> reflect his praying upon naive youth.





----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Reply via email to