Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jpmac who wrote (14100)	11/9/1998 5:44:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

jpmac, I think any individual is much more (or ideally, should be much more) than any institution or group with which he may be affiliated. Mr. X, for example, may be a registered Republican, a Catholic, the editor of a scientific journal, and a volunteer for a local environmental organization. He does not have four separate identities; all these functions, plus his roles in private life (as husband, father, son, whatever), plus the essential nature of his being, all blend into a single identity. Sometimes one aspect of his identity may come into conflict with other aspects: he may be torn between his party's position on something and his Church's position on the same issue, for example. But he does not lose his own identity when that happens. Gee, that's a long-winded answer to a simple question. <gg> I guess the simple answer would be that you should not need to pick a particular bandana color to know who you are. That would be to define yourself by externalities alone. jbe

To: jpmac who wrote (14100)	11/9/1998 5:57:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

jpmac - I think that the vast majority of people are party-neutral inactivists who flow along hoping that those of us who are involved will statistically represent them when it comes to actual voting. Thus, most have relegated politics to the activists arena, where diatribe and spin keep the frenzy interesting. Consider that around 30% of registered voters participate in elections; care to guess how many are eligible but don't register? It depends on where you live and what the local issues are, but it is less than 50%. Thus, 30% of 50% of eligible voters actually execute ballots. We have to do three things, IMO: 1) Simplify, as well as authenticate, the voting process. I submit this includes a certification of any person who wants to vote - as in, having a valid Social Security number. Voting should also take place on Saturdays instead of Tuesdays. 2) Ban the publication of opinion polls within 90 days of an election. (I'm repeating myself here.) Since this is beyond the scope of the constitutional guarantees of a free press, this may take an amendment to enable. However, see below. 3) Pressure the newsmedia into not predicting results prior to the closing of polls. Since 2 and 3 cannot be mandated through legislation, I would suggest we vigorously make the case to the executives of the broadcast and news media companies. We also approach advertisers such that any program that participates in vote steering like that is bereft of ad dollars. We, as stockholders in such companies, have the right to put the issue on the agendas of our respective annual meetings. JMO on things that may contribute to putting better people in office. Mr. K.