Re: Whatever it is, I'm against it.randwolfApril 22 2008, 05:13:33 UTC
Thank you for your reply; I'm glad someone is reading.
The fairness doctrine used to work well enough, though I agree there is some risk; "Experts dispute shape of earth." I hate having the FCC exercising editorial control, period, but what we've got now is worse.
"This implies taking away citizenship of non-voters." A fine, as is used in Australia, would be sufficient, I would think. I see not voting as something on the level of illegal parking, not treason.
Perhaps in 100 or 200 years the voting system will again have to be revised; future activists will have to worry about the problem. What strikes me as especially pernicious in our current system is that, exactly in times of conflict, when we most desperately need to resolve disputes, that is when the system is at its worst. In 2000 we had one disaster; 2008 is shaping up to be another (let's not even get into what ID requirements are going to do this November.)
Having watched the initiative be gamed in California, Oregon, and Washington, I think the only way a national referendum could work is in conjunction with extensive reform of the media. The combination of the "bully pulpit" of the presidency with a propaganda operation like Fox, and otherwise compliant national news operations, makes for a very misinformed public, and a misinformed public cannot cast sensible votes. There is also a widespread underestimation of the power of state and local governments (this is partly due to the collapse of local television news).
The fairness doctrine used to work well enough, though I agree there is some risk; "Experts dispute shape of earth." I hate having the FCC exercising editorial control, period, but what we've got now is worse.
"This implies taking away citizenship of non-voters." A fine, as is used in Australia, would be sufficient, I would think. I see not voting as something on the level of illegal parking, not treason.
Perhaps in 100 or 200 years the voting system will again have to be revised; future activists will have to worry about the problem. What strikes me as especially pernicious in our current system is that, exactly in times of conflict, when we most desperately need to resolve disputes, that is when the system is at its worst. In 2000 we had one disaster; 2008 is shaping up to be another (let's not even get into what ID requirements are going to do this November.)
Having watched the initiative be gamed in California, Oregon, and Washington, I think the only way a national referendum could work is in conjunction with extensive reform of the media. The combination of the "bully pulpit" of the presidency with a propaganda operation like Fox, and otherwise compliant national news operations, makes for a very misinformed public, and a misinformed public cannot cast sensible votes. There is also a widespread underestimation of the power of state and local governments (this is partly due to the collapse of local television news).
In any event, thanks again for the reply!
Reply
Leave a comment