Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Edward Wesolowski <ids AT idisplay.com>]

To Linda's argument
>That's exactly how it works.
Here's an archive video from an interview with "Tar Heel Politics" author, 
Paul Luebke (Paul's wearing his "Prof" hat here, as opposed to his "Rep" 
hat...).
http://www.idisplay.com/ncgov2000/vidluebke.htm
I realize it's a complicated issue, and have alot of sympathy w/Dave's pov, 
nevertheless, I believe Paul makes a good/interesting point.
Ed W.

P.S. ...on a technical note, the Realvideo clip plays fine here, ...over a 
TW/Earthlink cablemodem, but does it play elsewhere?



At 10:02 AM 10/10/02 -0400, you wrote:
> At 11:43 PM 10/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > wait a minute...  so, you're telling me if i had gone down to vote that 
> > jesse helms would not be in office? i didn't really think it worked that way.
>
> That's exactly how it works. Assuming you would have voted against Jesse 
> *and enough other people who agreed* had joined you, then he would have 
> been voted out of office. (OK, for the Presidential race, this gets rolled 
> up into the electoral college, but even those votes are based on 
> individual votes.) The candidates can spend and lie all they want, but at 
> the end of the day, it's the votes of individual people that count. For 
> returning candidates like Jesse, it's particularly easy to cut through the 
> rhetoric because you can look at his actions while in office.
>
> Some recent elections have been very close  -- remember near-President 
> Gore? If he had won, we'd be in a different political situation than we 
> are now. Maybe not better, but different. Local races are much easier to 
> influence personally. How on earth the people of North Carolina let Elaine 
> Marshall and Dan Blue lose the Senate primary to Erskine Bowles is beyond 
> me. But we get what we vote for.
>
>
> > or perhaps if i had voted for anyone non-bush in 2000 that we would not 
> > be facing this situation we're in now?  am i getting this right?
>
> See above.
>
>
> > personally, i always thought the idea of going to the polls simply to 
> > vote against someone was a rather cheap gesture. or more so, that it was 
> > ill spirited.
>
> Cheap? Ill-spirited? Now you're bitching again.
> But seriously, I believe in the evolution of social structures. Even given 
> a choice between regressing slowly and quickly, I'll take slowly. Since 
> there are so many issues at stake, I can usually find something to prefer 
> in one candidate over the other.
>
>
> > i don't want to be given a choice for a "lesser of two evils" and that is 
> > what it always winds up being. oh sure, they occasionally throw in one or 
> > two "joke" candidates that garner 1-3% of the votes, but who are we 
> > kidding here? if you "write in" your candidate of choice, you stand even 
> > less chance of your vote being worth anything.
>
> The point is to show that voters exist who support an alternate view. 
> Eventually, I hope the parties with either differentiate themselves again 
> or a third party will succeed. I don't expect them to win, just to show 
> that neither main candidate is acceptable -- and that there is a "market" 
> for another view.
>
> Even if they don't count the write-in candidates, imagine the effect if 
> suddenly everyone who wasn't voting came to the polls and wrote in 
> candidates. Yikes: 25.0001% for Bush, 24.9999% for Gore, and 50% write-in?
>
>
> > did you ever hear back from the 2 parties regarding your letters of 
> > disappointment and resignation?
>
> No. And it took the Libertarians almost six months to even put me on their 
> mailing list. (Yes, I saw the article in the N&O today about the 
> Libertarians. What a relief to see that the Wake County Chairwoman says 
> "We are not all freaks.")
> http://www.newsandobserver.com/front/News/story/1801239p-1803691c.html
>
>
> > what do you tell all the folks who *didn't* vote for bush in 2000? 
> > especially all those who think their candidate actually won the election?
>
> Majority rules. Corruption and mistakes matter most in close elections.
>
>
> > distraction, distraction, distraction -- all the while big hollywood, big 
> > media, and big disney are trying to make sure tomorrows internet is 100% 
> > thought-free!!
>
> So how are you going to stop the Biggies if you don't vote? By not going 
> to see Lilo and Stitch? Personally, I'm glad to have had some small say in 
> who is on the Supreme Court. And on who will decide whether or not our 
> sales tax will go up another half-cent.
>
> On the other hand, the bright side for me of having so few people vote is 
> that my vote counts more.
>
> ... Linda
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web 
> site!  http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers