From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #295 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, October 20 2000 Volume 09 : Number 295 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: my first name pollyjean [steve ] Re: heifer project international (NR) [steve ] Re: vocab rehab ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: another (a bit more personal) reap ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: heifer project international (NR) ["J. Brown" ] Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. [grutness@surf4nix.com (] hitchcock redux [netguard@bellatlantic.net] Re: another (a bit more personal) reap [steve ] Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. [steve ] Squid Project International! [Christopher Gross ] Re: Nixon now or never! [Viv Lyon ] Re: Nixon now or never! [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:48:44 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: my first name pollyjean Viv Lyon: >Drew wrote: >> But would the math do you? I hate to ask stupid grade-school questions >> like this, but would the electoral college really allow Nader to win, >> unless there were a true popular landslide? > >I read on Mother Jones a proposal that the US needs international election >monitors, and I'm inclined to agree. This isn't really what you're getting >at, I realize, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. > >I hate the electoral college system. I hated it when I first learned about >in fourth grade, and I hate it now. We have GOT to reform the electoral >system in this country. What I see happening is Nader getting some tiny >fraction of the electoral college and getting a huge amount of the popular >vote. It will make me sick to see, but I'm preparing myself. Each candidate has a slate of electors in the states where he is on the ballot. You're actually voting for the electors, not the candidate. In theory, the electors can vote for anybody they want. Ralph will get zero electors, because he's not going to win any of the states where he's on the ballot. If he gets 5 million votes, the Greens will get some federal funding in 2004. It will take a Constitutional amendment to change the current system. If we went to a popular vote, it would make a huge change in the way campaigns are run. I'm not sure it would be a good change, unless there was campaign reform at the same time. Maybe that should be in the amendment as well. Blame jeme - Steve __________ More confirmation that we have a vast sucking noise running for president. - Dahlia Lithwick on the Bush wedding video ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:50:54 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: heifer project international (NR) Capuchin: >>None of the other minor party candidates would have gotten in. Other >>parties get in only when they can't be kept out. This should not be a >>surprise. >Yes, this should be SHOCKING. This should be riot-in-the-streets kind of >offensive. This is our government inhibiting free speech and open >election. This is a violation of your basic rights. This is the sort of >thing our government sends troops to foreign nations to prevent (if it's a >pro-USA candidate being kept out, that is). The government has nothing to do with it. All political parties are private institutions. They may act poorly, but they're not violating any right that might be derived from *our* Constitution. >We should not accept this. Only rank cynicism, lack of self-respect, and >indifference would make this "not be a surprise". No, a look back four short years should make this not be a surprise - Perot did not get into the debates in 1996, after getting almost 20 percent of the vote in 1992. I would love to see full government financing of all federal elections, open televised debates, a ban on political advertising, etc. But the current Supreme Court equates money with speech, and will not allow a lot of this. >RE: eddie's not-quite-carefully-document-yet-clear rant about the failings >and atrocities of Clinton/Gore: >>I would agree with three of the above and might score a couple at zero. >>On the rest I simply disagree or would apply a heaping dose of context. >I'd love to see you break that down and justify that view. I simply >cannot understand how a person could explain away genocide, economic >terrorism against one's own countrymen and others, and the administrations >complete inaction on environmental and civil rights issues. I assume you mean the sanctions against Iraq, which do not constitute genocide. There would be food for every person in the country, should Hussein wish it. GHW Bush should have allowed the removal of Hussein and as much of his party as possible. Ask the Kurds of Iraq about genocide. "Free Trade," in and of itself, is not economic terrorism. Like most everything, this is a complicated issue. Is it better to work in a sweat shop than to pick rags out of a dump or work on a rice farm? I think citizen action against Nike and other internationalized brands is really the best way to get better wages and working conditions. Domestic economic terrorism by the Clinton administration? - I don't see any. Welfare reform maybe, but I wouldn't agree. The economy changes, and there are always winners and losers. The trick is to provide enough safety net. Opinions differ on what that would be. Inaction on the environment and civil rights - again, I don't see this as an issue. Remember that the Republicans have controlled the congress for the last six years. The EPA has been pretty active, but you might argue about specific areas. Clinton has used his executive power to set aside huge tracts of land. I think the "drug war" is destructive to civil rights, and I would end the death penalty (because I don't think it deters crime and is impossible to administer fairly). >>And I DO think that Gore has the potential to to be a very good >>President because it's obvious that he recognizes what the problems are. >No. He recognizes what the public thinks the problems are. He doesn't >believe they're problems and he's (seemingly) perfectly happy ignoring >them. He's been doing it for eight years. I think that Gore could converse with you on pretty much any topic you choose. He might not agree with your point of view. >> The question is whether he would be willing to take ALL of them >> on, and how successful he would be if he did. >The question is whether he'll take ANY of them on. Let's talk in four >years. It's more likely we'll be talking about what a steaming pile of shit GW Bush is. >> Nor do I think that his policy positions are crafted simply to get >> elected. Again, the question is how much he would be able to get done. >Can you point to any specific examples of his work reflecting his publicly >stated views post-nomination to VP? (He was pretty strongly anti-abortion >before he was nominated to VP and did some work in that respect. When >asked to "reconsider his conviction" by the Democratic National Committee >before being nominated, he said he had and so he was nominated. He didn't >say whether or not he came to a different conclusion, however. Let's not >forget the prayer of the Catholic bishop openning the DNC.) I can point >to NUMEROUS examples of his work contradicting his publicly stated views. Vice Presidents don't normally express their own independent policy views in public. I disagree that Gore had a nomination conversion on abortion rights. Remember that he tried to get the Democratic nomination in 1988. Political conventions are free advertising - if the Catholic bishop said anything pro-life it was because the Democratic party wanted to show that they welcomed differing views. No policy implications should be assumed. >> I believe that voting for Nader will get you nothing. >OK... wait. Hold that thought. >> If Gore is elected, campaign reform might just skate by. >If Nader is elected, campaign reform is sure to be a top issue. No >compromises or half-assed baby-steps toward resolution. (I can just see >Gore's "don't ask, don't tell" resolution to corporate campaign >contributions.) >I ask you what it would benefit Gore or his party to reform campaign >financing. The major parties have no interest in this. They get all the >money they could like and it keeps fringe candidate out of the >spotlight. It's win/win for the Dems and Reps. Nader *will not* get elected. Gore said that he would submit McCain/Feingold to the congress, and even if you think he's lying, someone would remind him of that. >>The current Supreme Court is a hindrance to reform and if Bush gets >>the kind of appointees he wants, it will be worse. >By what criteria? >Bush's appointees will be strict Constitutionalists who emphasize the >freedoms granted by the Constitution (including the 14th amendment, thus >being extremely weighted toward corporate control, but perhaps not >interpreting it the same way it was in Roe v. Wade). I was referring to campaign reform, but it would be true of other areas as well. The current court has overturned over 20 acts of Congress and they've taken up more cases for this session. Past courts have used the 14th Amendment to enforce federal law on the states, this court is moving in the opposite direction. >Gore's appointees will be restrictive of civil rights in favor of >"protection" of the people in order to satisfy the Democratic requirement >of more strict gun and drug laws while satisfying Gore's own requirement >a strong anti-abortion stance. So you're making the Republican argument on guns? And drug laws are about as strict as anyone can get away with. It is simply ridiculous to say that Gore is secretly anti-aboriton. >But also, realize that we're letting abortion rights ride on a very shakey >Supreme Court decision rather than just passing a law like we should. >Even a STATE law would be enough. >If your state passed a law protecting the right to particular medical >procedures without restriction, the Supreme Court couldn't do a damn thing >about it. I'm not sure why this approach hasn't been taken, seeing how >71% of Americans are in favor of such protections. A court that would overturn Roe would also be a court that would overturn a federal abortion rights law (as if one would pass under a Republican administration), so it would go back to the states. I wouldn't be surprised if as many as 30 states passed anti-abortion laws. Some states already have them ready to go. >> I suspect Gore's appointees would be much like Clinton's. >You hope Gore's appointees will be much like Clinton's. They will be >similar or worse. But Gore will absolutely assure that they will not be >better... not for you, anyway. This is just silly. >All it would take is Nader in the debates. If Nader's message was heard >and understood freely by the American people, it would be supported >in a massive wave. It would be a landslide. I'd take Ralph over Bush in a heartbeat, but I don't think he'd get more than 20 percent of the vote in a three-way race. So Bush would win easily. >>OK, I'm sure that everybody has had more than enough of this. So no >>more political stuff until after Viv eats her shorts. >You sound like you're hoping, Steve. As always, I hope that Gore will win. It depends on the undecided 20 percent. Who knows what they'll do, many of the ones I've seen on TV don't seem to have any rational basis for their eventual decision. (No, I don't mean that they don't agree with me). >Seriously though, offlist or on (preferably on because there's education >in it), respond to the direct questions. Heh. Send all angry messages to jeme. - - Steve __________ "He's probably the least qualified person ever to be nominated by a major party ... What is his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk? - Ron Reagan on George W. Bush ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:48:53 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: vocab rehab "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" wrote: > > Dic-tionary-tator you wanna step outside and say that? "I am the E-lim-in-a-tor" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:06:08 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: another (a bit more personal) reap Eb wrote: > > Scottish Rite Masonic Center wtf?! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:11:25 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: vocab rehab Michael R Godwin wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > > New Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary: > > Maybe this is a difference in language. could also be that steve's dictionary ain't that great. "Webster's" is a generic term; I could bung a word list together, wap it in a red cover, and call it a Webster. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:16:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "J. Brown" Subject: Re: heifer project international (NR) On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > >I ask you what it would benefit Gore or his party to reform campaign > >financing. The major parties have no interest in this. They get all the > >money they could like and it keeps fringe candidate out of the > >spotlight. It's win/win for the Dems and Reps. > > Nader *will not* get elected. Gore said that he would submit > McCain/Feingold to the congress, and even if you think he's lying, > someone would remind him of that. Nader will never get elected president! Even if he was allowed to debate and there was full and equal federal funding of elections because he's too far to the left of the political mainstream in the US. And gore and the democrats want campaign finanace reform because the democrats have to work a whole lot harder to raise money thatn the repubs do. And raising all that money also forces them to compromise their values more than the repubs. Jason Wilson Brown - University of Washington - Seattle, WA USA "Monkey in a Turban, Oh What Does it Mean?" -Frank Black ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:08:51 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: vocab rehab "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" jbranscombe@compuserve.com wrote: > My Chambers dictionary says for disinterested - " impartial; unselfish; > (revived from obsolesence) uninterested..." Yes, but Chambers is the dicker which admits "dove" as a possible past participle of "to dive". I rely on my old Pocket Oxford which has an addendum featuring such brand new words as "blackout" and "blitzkrieg". (: > As my language pogrom is in full swing I might as well tell you that > it's 'trouper' as in acting troupe not 'trooper'. Absolutely - as in "Brian Blessed is a real trouper - he's been acting for years". But where does this leave "Super trooper", that big spotlight? It must relate to acting, so shouldn't it be "Super Trouper"? Stewart C. Russell stewart@ref.collins.co.uk wrote: > "Webster's" is a generic term; I could bung a word list together, wap it > in a red cover, and call it a Webster. All this hi-tech is really confusing. I just got a WAP phone myself, but when I hit my dictionary with it, nothing happened ... - Mike "Pretentious - moi?" Godwin PS My only interest in who becomes US President is that whoever gets it doesn't take over RAF Fylingdales for that new US protection system which doesn't protect the UK. Worse than TPWS! n.p. "The Martian Hop" by the Randells ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:46:18 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. I yesterday heard some rumour about a live-action Scooby Doo movie scheduled. Please somebody tell me that it was all a ghastly joke... James ("Rrrraaagggyyyyy!!!!!") James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:49:36 -0400 From: netguard@bellatlantic.net Subject: hitchcock redux hi, the second gig at joe's pub was a stunner. i dont know if it was because i was in a much better mood due to a good seat, but it seems to me that the setlist and general vibe of the gig was outstanding. i made a recording of this one too, so trade away! have fun, mike hooker ps- i finally met some fegs and its always fun to have faces to go with the names. NOBODY ever looks like you imagined they did :) take at look at my music trading list http://pages.zdnet.com/mikehooker/hookstradingpage PLEASE NOTE NEW E MAIL ADDRESS: NETGUARD@BELLATLANTIC.NET DO NOT USE TRIUMPH1@IDT.NET ANY LONGER PLEASE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:45:20 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: another (a bit more personal) reap Stewart C. Russell: >> Scottish Rite Masonic Center > >wtf?! You know - the Masonic Lodge, part of the One World Conspiracy. The Scottish Rite is, I believe, one variant. http://www.austinscottishrite.org/links.html http://www.allthingsmasonic.com/ - - Steve __________ Well, Jesus ain't no astronaut And Buddah, he's no fool Cathedral bells don't ring in hell 'cos cats down there don't think that's cool. - Bill Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:45:12 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: from the 'is this really a good idea?' dept. James Dignan: >I yesterday heard some rumour about a live-action Scooby Doo movie >scheduled. Please somebody tell me that it was all a ghastly joke... Yes, it's true. Jennifer Love Hewitt has been mentioned.... www.fandom.com/smilinjackruby/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=228751 - - Steve __________ Well, Jesus ain't no astronaut And Buddah, he's no fool Cathedral bells don't ring in hell 'cos cats down there don't think that's cool. - Bill Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:04:58 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Nixon now or never! Viv says, >I read on Mother Jones a proposal that the US needs international election >monitors, and I'm inclined to agree. This isn't really what you're getting >at, I realize, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Be careful what you wish for! If we really had monitored elections, one of the most likely things to have happened in the last few decades is that Nixon would have beat Kennedy in 1960. It's fairly well accepted that he really would have won that election by a "squeak" if it weren't for the perfidies of the Democreatic machines of Illinois and -- you guessed it! -- Texas. >I hate the electoral college system. I hated it when I first learned about >in fourth grade, and I hate it now. We have GOT to reform the electoral >system in this country. What I see happening is Nader getting some tiny >fraction of the electoral college and getting a huge amount of the popular >vote. It will make me sick to see, but I'm preparing myself. I am queasy about the electoral college, too. I can vision it in two frameworks, one that seems fair, and the other that seems unjust. But all my natural molecules seem to quiver in the "unfair" category; and in any event, I do feel we need reform. And yes, Buchanan and Nader should have been in the debates, and it's shameful the way these things are run -- shameful down to the very format the debates even adopted. The media is not free; in that I agree with Cappy 100%. Politics and the Feg List.....Two great tastes that taste great together! - --Quail, still voting for Kang - -- +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "The people asked, and he brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven." --Psalms 105:40 (Also see Exodus 16:13 and Numbers 11:31-34 for more starry wisdom) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:55:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Squid Project International! On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, steve wrote: > Christopher Gross: > >And who's Howard Phillips? > > He's is a good bit creepier than anything Mr. Lovecraft ever dreamed up, > being an advocate of Christian Reconstructionism. Ah yes; I forgot the candidate's name, but I have heard of the party. BTW, here's a nice site that gives capsule descriptions of as many US political parties as they could find: Among other things they go into the semi-split in the Greens that I was asking about yesterday. Unfortunately, they seem to have missed the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which occasionally leaflets the DC area. On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Asshole Motherfucker wrote: > i'm afraid this democrats-cowering-before-the-republican-congress > argument doesn't hold water. No? Well, I'm sure Clinton's first two years didn't please you, but that's not enough to prove that his administration was *as bad* as the Republicans. It would be more useful to compare Clinton's acts before and after the election of 1994, to see how much of a shift occured. But anyway, aren't you trying to argue that Clinton and Gore are *worse* than the Republicans? How does Clinton pushing NAFTA, a Republican "wet dream," show that he's worse than the Republicans? Surely, even on your own terms, the most this could prove is that they're *equally* bad. > the latest clinton budget requested more for the fucking military > than even the *pentagon itself* had said it needed! Well, the Republican Congress did the same thing in several of its proposed budgets since 1994. (In fact, they may have in the latest one too, but I'd have to check.) Again, the most this example could possibly prove is that Clinton and the GOP are equally bad, NOT that Clinton is worse. In general, most of your arguments that the Democrats are *worse* than Republicans seem to boil down to showing that the Democrats are the *same* as the Republicans. (Of course I don't agree with *either* of those positions.) > i do agree with chris that the presidency has been drifting steadily > rightward. Actually, our whole culture has drifted rightward, at least on economic issues. The governing parties haven't forced this rightward shift on the country; it's more of a vicious feedback loop between the government, the media, and the right wing of the voting public. And the left, in a negative way: I really don't think the left, even when it gets media exposure, has done a good job arguing its views to the public. > yow, who'd have thought, at the time, that thirty years > hence, we'd be looking back at the nixon administration as a relative > golden age? Actually, you're the only non-Republican I've ever met who feels that way. (Well, the Quail might be a partial exception. Quail, have you read that new Nixon bio by Anthony Summers, the one that argues Nixon sabotaged the Paris peace talks in 1968 to keep the Democrats from getting a treaty that would win the election for them?) - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:59:18 -0600 From: hbrandt Subject: lennon remembers Nay-sayers, beware! It's bigger than Jesus... It's the Motherlode!! (<--yes this is a fan boy gush) As an audio compliment to the current magazine issue, RollingStone.com has added previously unheard, uncensored excerpts from the 1970 Jann Wenner conducted "Lennon Remembers" interview sessions to their website. Whether or not you've read the (recently re-released) transcripts of this famous interview in book form, the chance to actually hear John "speaking with his voice" as he unloads years of frustration with Being Fab is a truly funny, revelatory and harrowing listening experience. If you (taper-weenies) think Robyn gives revealing interviews, wait'll you hear Lennon in all his vitriolic glory: http://www.rollingstone.com/sections/special/lennon/default.asp (They really should release this in its entirety on CD.) Enjoy! /hal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: Nixon now or never! On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, The Great Quail wrote: re: US election monitoring > Be careful what you wish for! If we really had monitored elections, > one of the most likely things to have happened in the last few > decades is that Nixon would have beat Kennedy in 1960. You may beat me silly (too late) for asking this, but... would that really have been such a bad thing? Maybe I been living with Jeme too long. > I am queasy about the electoral college, too. I can vision it in two > frameworks, one that seems fair, and the other that seems unjust. But > all my natural molecules seem to quiver in the "unfair" category; and > in any event, I do feel we need reform. And yes, Buchanan and Nader > should have been in the debates, and it's shameful the way these > things are run -- shameful down to the very format the debates even > adopted. The media is not free; in that I agree with Cappy 100%. The big question: How do we reclaim control of the media? How do we get them to report on real news, how do we get them to widen their filters so more political views get through, how do we get them to stand up to their corporate masters and cover events of true interest, rather than manufactured spectacle? HOW???? Hopefully in the next few months, the Green Party here will have a microwatt station. That's a start, I suppose. A very small, low-powered start. > Politics and the Feg List.....Two great tastes that taste great together! Agreed. Vivien ps- now, if Nixon's head on a giant robotic body ran for president.... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:53:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Nixon now or never! This will probably be my most unpopular post ever. But the parts down below about "instant run-off" and the media are pretty good, no matter what you think of the first bit. On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > Be careful what you wish for! If we really had monitored elections, > one of the most likely things to have happened in the last few > decades is that Nixon would have beat Kennedy in 1960. It's fairly > well accepted that he really would have won that election by a > "squeak" if it weren't for the perfidies of the Democreatic machines > of Illinois and -- you guessed it! -- Texas. I'd like to go on record as another non-Republican that thinks this would have been FAR better for the nation. Kennedy was a showboy. A nepotistic, womanizing, sheister of a bootlegger's son. I can't think of one good reason why he should have been elected. (He looks good on television and he's Catholic... that got him the shallow and the mob votes and that won it for him.) Nixon, however, proposed some of the most progressive legislation this century. Nixon signed as much civil rights law as Johnson. Under Nixon, we got the Environmental Protection Agency and the Endangered Species Act. And recall most importantly that the Nixon Negative Income Tax Plan was shot down by a Democratic congress because it was a) proposed by a Republican and b) a plan that didn't involve indentured labor for impoverished Americans (like the Democrat's plan). The Plan would have ELIMINATED poverty in this country while encouraging work for those capable as well as providing child care for families unable to work because of dependent children. Kennedy, on the other hand, is responsible for the Bay of Pigs and quite possibly the Vietnam War. Now, you can look at Nixon and point to the CIA's actions in Cambodia during Vietnam (which I think might not have happened at all without Kennedy, but anyone's guess on that subject is exactly that, a guess) and Watergate. But I think Watergate was really a "waking up" of America. It's when we realized what had been going on all along in government. And Nixon knew that. And he resigned and made himself be the National Criminal so we wouldn't see how the rot in that particular apple (the federal government) had gone all the way to the core. Presidents today are routinely found to be involved in things as nasty as Watergate, yet it's dismissed as "what we expect" from our leadership. Nixon is most guilty of destroying or illusions. > I am queasy about the electoral college, too. I can vision it in two > frameworks, one that seems fair, and the other that seems unjust. But > all my natural molecules seem to quiver in the "unfair" category; and > in any event, I do feel we need reform. In Oregon, our state constitution allows for something we call "instant run-off". It's a brilliant little system. See, instead of voting for a candidate, you put the candidates in the order that you'd care to see them elected. So you might do this (taking a subset of the candidates available; and this is not what my ballot would look like, exactly): 5 Gore 4 Bush 1 Nader 2 Browne 6 McReynolds 3 Buchanan 7 Phillips What would happen, then, is that the votes would be tallied as though everyone had voted for their 1 choice. If a majority is not reached (no candidate gets >50%), then the candidate with the least 1s is taken from the running and all of the 2s on those ballots are distributed as 1s to the candidates marked. This process is repeated (with 3s or 4s where necessary, but always just taking the lowest score out of the running and redistributing those votes based on "next best" numbers) until someone has the majority. That candidate wins the election. This means that all those people that don't vote for (Nader, Browne, whoever) some "other" candidate because they fear "throwing away" their vote would get redistributed to other candidates if their guy is low on the list. No group's vote is ever "split". Oddly enough, although this has been a provision in our constitution since the early part of the 20th century, we've never enacted a law enforcing it. So it is legal, but unused. I think that will change as soon as the public is better educated and we can get a referendum built. This model would do wonders for elections in this country. > And yes, Buchanan and Nader should have been in the debates, and it's > shameful the way these things are run -- shameful down to the very > format the debates even adopted. Agreed. I can't add much to that particular sentiment. They would have been laughable if they didn't hurt so much. > The media is not free; in that I agree with Cappy 100%. The media is free. Absolutely. As free as free markets can be. Free and INTERESTED. The media belongs to defense contractors (GE), hollywood moguls (Disney), monopolists (Microsoft, AT&T), and multinational interests (NewsCorp, Viacom). The law used to be more clear regarding private media and their responsibility to objectivity. Ethics used to also exist in newsrooms. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which impacts every single one of us in HUGE ways) gave away (as I like to repeat over and over) $70B in public resources to private media companies, never to be repaid. In the eighteen months that this bill was battered around Congress before being signed into law, it received 19 minutes of coverage on news television from the five major players (GE, Viacom, Disney, Time-Warner, and NewsCorp). This is a free, interested media. > Politics and the Feg List.....Two great tastes that taste great together! I agree, too. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #295 *******************************