From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #302 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, October 23 2004 Volume 13 : Number 302 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Curses the return of E. Poole ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: One more note [FSThomas ] RE: Curses the return of E. Poole ["Maximilian Lang" ] Olivia Tremor Control show ["Natalie Jacobs" ] RE: One more note ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: One more note [steve ] Re: anything sweeter? ["Michael Wells" ] Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? [Jeff Dwarf <] Re: One more note [Carrie Galbraith ] Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? [Jeff Dwarf <] Re: desperate times, desperate measures, etc. [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: voter fraud ["Stewart C. Russell" ] RE: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? ["Marc Alberts" ] winnipeg sun spooked review [bisontentacle ] RE: voter fraud ["FS Thomas" ] Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? [2fs Subject: Curses the return of E. Poole >From: Ed Poole >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V13 #300 >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:43:06 -0400 >The "Curse" may not be about beating the Yanks, but is there anything >sweeter than hanging the greatest chokefest in the history of sport -- >nay, the history of competitive behavior of any sort, like cavemen >tossing rocks into crude fedoras in Lasgaux -- on the most successful >(and arrogant) team in the history of sport? Well, is there? NO! >And at Yankee Stadium, to boot! Welcome back Ed, stay a spell! Enjoy it but remember this, it is the 26'th world series that is most difficult to win. Also, I don't believe in the curse one bit but it is fun to chant 1918 at the stadium when the Bosox are in town. I will only do it after Sox fans start with ' Yankees Suck' chants...which usually start in the first inning with a walk or a hit on Boston's part. I do think that in most cases the fans that travel to other stadiums are often the worst fans a team has to offer. Sometimes in Baltimore; where I go once a year to see the Yanks, I will remove my NY hat if some nearby rube Yankee fan starts to make an ass of himelf. I would not want anyone to think of me as being with him. Yes, they choked. But I would have to put the 64 Philles right there alongside them. I do think this has happened in the NHL as well...twice. Baseball fan, Yankee fan, in that order. Max PS. Jill, you still have time to see the light! My father was a Giants fan, even after they moved and was until Mays left them. Now, he loves the Yankees. There is but inevitable darkness for you on the path of fandom you have chosen. >Well, I'm not even a Bosox fan, I'm a Cubs fan -- so I'm hoping that >the fall of curses can be contagious (seeing as sticking pins in my >Steve Bartman doll worked no better than all those Bucky Dent >pincushions have over the yearsb&) >Jw/2F's: > > >I read an interesting article - sorry, can't remember where - >asserting that a lot of >Bush strategists believe the 2000 election >was lost by them because the late >revelations of Bush's DWI >convictions turned off the moralist vote. (Turned out >losing the >elction didn't > >matter...) > >(Hi Jeff!) which makes it VERY interesting to see Pat Robertson coming >out and calling bush a liar (saying Bush claimed that there would be >"no [American, fully-human] casualties in the then on-the-horizon >Iraqi invasion. The Shrub Administration has cleverly countered by >calling Robertson a liar (which, undoubtedly, he is, but I bet some of >those "moralists" will be slightly offended by the charge): >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49088-2004Oct20.html > >Steve: > > >DC doesn't have any electorial votes. > >which is why the city council voted to change the slogan on our >license plates from "A Capitol City" to "Taxation Without >Representation." which rocks. (hi Steve!) > >~~ed "once I start talking, I'll never shut up" poole > >NP: Cornelius: "Drop" > >-- >When you're thin and damp and shoddy >Just remember that you're in a body. _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:08:22 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: One more note Tom Clark wrote: > I remember years ago there was an ad in the back of Rolling Stone - or > maybe it was National Lampoon - where you could buy little stickers in > the shape of dog bones to put over the hearts on those "I My > Poodle" bumper stickers. Oooooh, rebellious! I remember stickers of screws, other playing card suits (clubs and spades) for the same purpose. "I My Grandkids" "I My Wife" "I My Australian Shepherd" etc. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:37:01 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: RE: Curses the return of E. Poole Y I K E S ! I meant Curses and the return of E Poole. Sorry Ed, Max _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:30:25 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: anything sweeter? >The "Curse" may not be about beating the Yanks, but is there anything >sweeter than hanging the greatest chokefest in the history of sport -- >nay, the history of competitive behavior of any sort, like cavemen >tossing rocks into crude fedoras in Lasgaux -- on the most successful >(and arrogant) team in the history of sport? Well, is there? NO! >And at Yankee Stadium, to boot! hell, that happened back on May 26th, 1989, and at Anfield, to boot. Of course, times have changed now, and I suppose more people look on the Gunners as the arrogant ones now. James - -- 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, 22 Oct 2004 17:33:45 -0700 From: "Natalie Jacobs" Subject: Olivia Tremor Control show >The Olivia Tremor Control >November 12, 1999 >Lounge Ax, Chicago, IL: >http://www.easytree.org/torrents-details.php?id=10701 Oh my god!!! This is the OTC show that I attended!! I can't use Bit Torrent because I have a Mac with OS9 (and I don't have Internet capability at home right now anyway) - would some very, very kind and sweet soul be able to burn this and send it to me? You'll get a lovely tinfoil Thoth in return. greedily, n. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rock, jazz, country, soul & more. Find the music you love on MSN Music! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:36:47 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: One more note Jeff wrote: > (I'm Jeff Norman, and I have not approved the content of this message > - I mean, don't *really* go around vandalizing people's yard signs.) One of my neighbors had his Bush signs vandalized--the vandals threw a rock through their front window and tossed all their signs into their living room. I'll be happy when this election is over. Violence in a democratic election process in a free society should never be considered acceptable. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:10:51 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: One more note >>> I have this friend who is going around replacing Bush/Cheney 04 >>> bumperstickers with his home made Tyler/Jack 04 stickers. Cute. I'll have to get a "Kinky in 06" sticker, because Mr. Friedman has already declared as an independent candidate for Governor of Texas. He's got my vote. - - Steve __________ Anime as a whole isn't really my bag, but 15 minutes with "Spirited Away" - or any Miyazaki film - should be enough to convince you you're in the presence of a major film artist. - Andrew O'Hehir ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:57:55 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Re: anything sweeter? James, with a mildly obscure soccer reference: > hell, that happened back on May 26th, 1989, and at Anfield, to boot. > Of course, times have changed now, and I suppose more people look on > the Gunners as the arrogant ones now. For the non-footy minded, this refers to Arsenal winning away at Liverpool by two goals clear...and the season-winning goal coming in injury time. The late lamented mag Total Football voted it "The Most Memorable" moment in (mostly English) football *ever*, over 'The Hand of God', 1966 and all that. Here on the homefront, at least we've got Brandi Chastain ripping her shirt off. The thing about this year's Boston-NY series wasn't that it ended so dramatically - like the year before, say - but that the Sox mounted an unprecedented comeback *and then finished it off*...instead expecting (and getting) the worst. Boston fans have always seemed to have that knowing sense that things will always unravel and somehow, inexplicably, they'll lose. This year, under the bright lights and with uber-enemy fans howling for blood, they went out and stuffed it right back down their throats. Good for them. Game 6: Curt Schilling, throwing 99 pitches on an ankle stapled together and bleeding through the gauze, reminded me that night what athletic greatness was. Ed: > hello friends... Hello yourself - glad to hear you're still a going concern! I figured brain waves generated by the odd Zappa talkup on list might have reached you. And finally... As a moderate living in one of the most Republican counties in America, I've been working up plans to print off some magnetic bumper stickers at work for last-minute voter aggravation. Try to come up with one or two each day... "W is for Weenie" "Shave that Bush" "George Bush S*cks C*cks" (my fave so far, I hope to have it ready for Sunday church) Michael "McCain / Obama in '08" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:12:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? "Jason R. Thornton" wrote: > A compromise could be reached between a nationwide > majority-win type system, and the desire to make sure > each state has adequate representation in the process, > without touching the Constitution nor doing away with > the electoral college. There is nothing in the > Constitution that says a state must award all of its > electoral votes to one candidate. Electoral votes > could be split among candidates based on regions within > the state (with the "Senatorial" votes going to the > winner of the state-wide popular election), or split the > electoral votes based on the percentages voting for each > candidate within a state. Except that still does nothing to address that larger states are would still be underrepresented because the number of Electoral votes (by virtue of the size of the House of Representatives being capped) that larger states have is artifically low. ===== "[The Bush administration] deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride." -- President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Poland "'Bushworld' is sort of an alternate universe where things are the opposite of what they seem. President Bush said the other day, 'It is a ridiculous notion to assert that because the United States is on the offensive, more people want to hurt us. We are on the offensive because people do want to hurt us.' I mean that is a perfect 'Bushworld' quote. It's not true and it's nonsensical. It's the opposite of what is true. His new campaign motto is 'America is safer. Be afraid, be very afraid.' Everything is an oxymoron." -- Maureen Dowd __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:20:56 +0300 From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: One more note On 23/ott/04, at 0:13, 2fs wrote: >> I have this friend who is going around replacing Bush/Cheney 04 >> bumperstickers with his home made Tyler/Jack 04 stickers. Cute. > > Yes, but who's Tyler and who's Jack? > Tyler is Tyler Durden and Jack, well, he's also Tyler Durden. And this person uses harmless scotch tape so they are easily removed. The defacement of private or public property is wrong and I, in no way, encourage such action. > I was thinking it'd be fun to make a large red "no" symbol (you know, > the bar crossing horizontally through a circle, as in "no passing" > etc.), hinged at the top, to hang on top of folks' Bush/Cheney yard > signs. > I did see a wonderful comment in August in Berkeley, California. A huge "no" symbol cut out of red paper and draped over a large shrub in the front yard of a house. Certainly creative. The elections are the hot topic here and many of the Europeans (from EU and non-EU countries) I meet feel they should have a say in voting for the President as it affects their lives so much. It's covered on Romanian news every night and EuroNews is doing quite a lot of specials following the candidates. The debates were even broadcast here! And since Romania is now part of NATO but not part of the EU yet they have this alignment with America that is quite different than any of the EU countries. - - c ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:22:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? 2fs wrote: > No, our interests, then, become subordinated to the > interests of voters in Montana, Nevada, etc. > Cumulatively, that is, fewer people have effective power > over the majority. It also drives a lot of the bullshit. If you had a true national election, candidates couldn't afford to waste time proposing ammendments banning gay marriage or other such idiocy just to curry favor in the small states (which veer Republican, since people who move to those states tend to be conservatives). > While democracy (or representation) isn't only a matter > of majority rules, it surelyneeds to take that into > account. > > Of course, none of this would be an issue if we had a > truly representative, multi-party system, with something > like instant run-off voting in elections. Well, third parties will never really take hold in the US unless it something that would allow a third/fourth/etc party to participate in large quantity in the government itself, a la switching to a Parliament-style arrangement for the House of Representives. As long as all elected officials are chosen winner take all, "fringier" parties have so real chance of building a foothold. ===== "[The Bush administration] deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride." -- President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Poland "'Bushworld' is sort of an alternate universe where things are the opposite of what they seem. President Bush said the other day, 'It is a ridiculous notion to assert that because the United States is on the offensive, more people want to hurt us. We are on the offensive because people do want to hurt us.' I mean that is a perfect 'Bushworld' quote. It's not true and it's nonsensical. It's the opposite of what is true. His new campaign motto is 'America is safer. Be afraid, be very afraid.' Everything is an oxymoron." -- Maureen Dowd __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:25:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: desperate times, desperate measures, etc. 2fs wrote: > Rex Broome wrote: > > Wow. Can someone check the archives to see when I > > predicted the Husker Du reunion? > > Dunno - but we are, of course, halfway to a Beatles > reunion...although not so's any of us can see it. Yeah, but it's the wrong half.... ===== "[The Bush administration] deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride." -- President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Poland "'Bushworld' is sort of an alternate universe where things are the opposite of what they seem. President Bush said the other day, 'It is a ridiculous notion to assert that because the United States is on the offensive, more people want to hurt us. We are on the offensive because people do want to hurt us.' I mean that is a perfect 'Bushworld' quote. It's not true and it's nonsensical. It's the opposite of what is true. His new campaign motto is 'America is safer. Be afraid, be very afraid.' Everything is an oxymoron." -- Maureen Dowd _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:08:43 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: One more note Carrie Galbraith wrote: > The elections are the hot topic here and many of the > Europeans (from EU and non-EU countries) I meet feel they > should have a say in voting for the President as it affects > their lives so much. I live in Washington, and what California does affects me greatly since the economies are so tied--should I be able to vote for or against California referenda? How about if a Senator running for re-election in Georgia is strongly against a piece of legislation that I really need to pass, should I be able to cast a ballot against him just because it affects me? It's an interesting concept to argue that externalities should justify democratic participation, but that would mean that there is no national sovereignity anymore, and you are left with the tyranny of the majority as your only remaining option in absence of controlling institutions that can protect the rights of the minorities. It makes for a good John Lennon song, though I doubt anyone would call it a practical solution. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:28:36 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: voter fraud Jason R. Thornton wrote: > For whomever it was that said voter registration fraud is mainly > something Democrats, not Republicans, would be guilty of: Pardon the "amazed foreigner" stance, but how does saying party affiliation have anything to do with voter registration. I don't even remember having to register to vote. A few months before an election, someone comes to your door to check the names of the occupants against the electoral roll. If anyone's due to be 18 , they get to be on the roll. ISTR penalties for lying about the ages of occupants, but being on the electoral roll is optional, I think. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:28:29 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? Jeff: > 2fs wrote: > > No, our interests, then, become subordinated to the interests of > > voters in Montana, Nevada, etc. > > Cumulatively, that is, fewer people have effective power over the > > majority. > > It also drives a lot of the bullshit. If you had a true > national election, candidates couldn't afford to waste time > proposing ammendments banning gay marriage or other such > idiocy just to curry favor in the small states (which veer > Republican, since people who move to those states tend to be > conservatives). Of course, changing the election policies simply because small states currently vote Republican and thus leads to silly ideas being represented is nothing more than expedient gerrymandering. It makes me wonder how you'd feel if the five largest states were heavily GOP and it was Wyoming and North Dakota that were heavily Democrat. Heck, for a Republican, he would gerrymander it so that the number of Senators from every state doubled to four just so they could reduce the number of silly welfare proposals being proposed, and it would amount to the same sort of thing. I guess the thing is that I am strongly of the opinion that the reason you make changes to a system of representation is because those changes ensure stability, fair representations of territorial interests, and orderly transfer of power. Currently, our Electoral College has a pretty strong record fo doing just that. > > While democracy (or representation) isn't only a matter of majority > > rules, it surelyneeds to take that into account. > > > > Of course, none of this would be an issue if we had a truly > > representative, multi-party system, with something like instant > > run-off voting in elections. > > Well, third parties will never really take hold in the US > unless it something that would allow a third/fourth/etc party > to participate in large quantity in the government itself, a > la switching to a Parliament-style arrangement for the House > of Representives. As long as all elected officials are chosen > winner take all, "fringier" parties have so real chance of > building a foothold. I'm not sure that magnifying the influence of fringe parties is the way to go. The mainstream parties tend to do better at representing the fringe elements in their parties on at least a point or two than a fringe party with 2 reps in the House could ever do. Think of it this way--are the interests of Socialists better represented by having Bernie Sanders in the House, or by being able to influence directly the left wing of the Democratic party? It's not so clear cut as it would seem. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:04:55 -0400 From: bisontentacle Subject: las vegas mercury spooked review Robyn Hitchcock Spooked 4 out of 5 stars If you can get past the tedious opening track, this thing pretty much sails. Hitchcock's old cheek comes through again, with a semi-delicate skittering quality that coalesces well over time--like a warm, winking Jethro Tull without the self-congratulatory vibe, or maybe even Bauhaus' Peter Murphy on Paxil. Hitchcock does get a bit spooky, offering up some sharper counterpoints to the open-air strummery he's most known for, as illustrated by the sweet coupling between "Demons and Fiends" and "Creeped Out." The bloke has veteran charisma, helped along by the distressing personification he favors in lines like, "There's a door inside you/ and it wants to slam you shut." Of course, the somber side is there as well ("Tryin' to Get to Heaven Before They Close the Door"), as is the winsome, romantic expectation ("Full Moon in My Soul"). Like Hitchcock himself, Spooked exudes a sort of casual excitement, preferring to flirt with truly beautiful moments without chasing them around like a fool. --David Surratt ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:07:19 -0400 From: bisontentacle Subject: winnipeg sun spooked review ROBYN HITCHCOCK Spooked Yep Roc / Outside The most satisfying collaborations are often the most unlikely ones. And it's hard to think of a more unlikely pairing than eccentric English pop-rocker Robyn Hitchcock and rustic Americana duo Gillian Welch and David Rawlings. Despite -- or perhaps because of -- their obvious cultural, musical and generational differences, these three new friends fashion one of the prolific Hitchcock's strongest and most consistent albums in ages. Spooked still delivers the former Soft Boy's unique combination of sweet pop melody and surreally silly lyrics ("Guess what? I've spoken to Norm / We're gonna live in the trees"). But here they are lovingly blanketed in Welch and Rawlings' warm acoustic guitars and sincere harmonies, grounding Hitchcock's songs without weighing them down and fleshing out his sound without padding it. These dozen cuts offer plenty of winsome folk and roots, a little Dylan, some sitar-soaked Beatle-pop, dashes of gospel and blues -- and absolutely nothing to get spooked about. **** -- DS ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:59:20 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: voter fraud > Pardon the "amazed foreigner" stance, but how does saying party > affiliation have anything to do with voter registration. Well the truth is, it doesn't. What throws the game off is when different "non-profit" or "independent" groups not officially part of the parties sponsor campaigns to get people elected. They set up shop at the grocery shops or go door-to-door trying to register people to vote. It all sounds innocent enough until the sponsoring groups say (as in that case earlier), "don't come back with anyone from party x on your forms," etc. Also broken is the idea that these people will get paid x amount of dollars for each form submitted. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that the odds of people faking forms for the sake of upping their numbers, thereby netting more cash, are pretty high. Personally I registered when I updated my drivers license recently. Not a bad way of going about it, if you ask me. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:43:22 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:28:29 -0700, Marc Alberts wrote: > Jeff [the dwarfish one]: > > It also drives a lot of the bullshit. If you had a true > > national election, candidates couldn't afford to waste time > > proposing ammendments banning gay marriage or other such > > idiocy just to curry favor in the small states (which veer > > Republican, since people who move to those states tend to be > > conservatives). > > Of course, changing the election policies simply because small states > currently vote Republican and thus leads to silly ideas being represented is > nothing more than expedient gerrymandering. The tricky word above is "simply": while it's true that right now, a change in the EC rules (or its elimination) would benefit progressives more than conservatives, that isn't *necessarily* true - and I, at least, have been arguing that it's a principle of overrepresentation of the interests of those in small states & underrep.->large - regardless of what those interests might be. > I guess the thing is that I am strongly of the opinion that the reason you > make changes to a system of representation is because those changes ensure > stability, fair representations of territorial interests, and orderly > transfer of power. Currently, our Electoral College has a pretty strong > record fo doing just that. Two of your three criteria are principles held even by the most repressive governments...and therefore, I lend them relatively little weight. Your middle criterion is closer to a democratic impulse...but it raises a question that goes all the way back to the founding of the US, which is whether we're a nation or a federation. And I'd argue that, with a few exceptions here and there, more people think of themselves as "Americans" than as "Nebraskans" etc. Which flag tends to get waved above their doorways or stickered onto their car windows? The phrase "state patriotism" sounds almost ludicrous (except to Texans perhaps...). But the EC effective acts as if we're primarily citizens of states, and only secondarily citizens of a nation. Yet the nation is *governed* as a nation: if as Wisconsin citizens we voted for Gore in 2000, we are effectively disenfranchised by the Bush presidency. In some ways, the logic of the EC almost suggests that we have a *co*-presidency...with Gore presiding over "his" states and Bush his. While this is absurd, I'm not sure the notion that "territorial interests" should take precedence over *people*'s interests isn't equally absurd. What's a "territory"? In many ways, state borders are arbitrary abstractions. Furthermore, in many states, mine among them, the interests and beliefs of the residents of large urban areas are quite different from those of the sometimes-smaller number of rural residents, who often resent the influence of big cities upon their own lives. The fact is, territorial interests are better represented by the different levels of government than by giving territorial interests power over the federal government. Let the people choose who they most want to lead them, and let them also choose their local representatives to fight for those territorial interests, even when those TIs oppose what the federal government wants. The EC, along with the primary schedule, also leads to situations where in choosing the two main candidates, smaller states with early primaries (hello New Hampshire) have an absurdly disproportionate influence on whom the rest of us have to choose from. Many states' residents simply have absolutely *zero* say in determining who's weeded out in the primary cycle. If we're going to keep primaries (which in a winner-take-all system is probably necessary - but again, I'd like to get rid of that & go to a more parliamentary system), a one-day national primary is a lot fairer in giving every citizen equal influence in that process of weeding out. (There: an old-school SST reference for y'alls...) You also wrote: > I'm not sure that magnifying the influence of fringe parties is the way to > go. I think your conception of "fringe parties" is rather limited by thinking inside the framework of our current system. What's clear to me is that the range of "acceptable" political opinion - that is, the actual opinions people hold - is compressed by the two-party system, since people tend to see their ideas as reasonable to the extent they're reflected by media and authority. Why is it the range of political opinion is so dramatically narrower in the US than nearly anywhere else in the world? Two-party winner-take-all systems also tend to emphasize either the middle (most of the time - since all you need is 51%, and people are going to favor whoever's closest to their view, even if they also disagree with much of it) or the extremes (in more polarized times, because then it seems necessary that everyone choose sides clearly). In other words, what are now "fringe parties" are at least partially on the fringes *because* of the current system, because many people know that those parties have no real power or influence. It doesn't mean people might not believe their ideas, given a chance in hell of those ideas being represented. It's clear, also, that "Democrats" and "Republicans" are two distinct parties in a highly artificial way. Paradoxically, that's because they're both closer to one another than ever (see above re: compression of range of opinion) but also because they're only single parties because they have to be. If not for the dominance of two parties, would Dennis Kucinich really be in the same political party as, uh, Zell Miller was until recently? Would John McCain be in the same party as John Ashcroft? Certainly the tension between economic and social conservatives would be represented in two parties. What would happen is that parties would form contingent coalitions around issues, rather than force-marching party members toward one position or drumming them out of the party. (There'd be no need to keep such people *in* the party - they'd just join one of the many other parties.) (I think the 2PWTA system also helps the undue influence of corporate power: they have only two parties to co-opt, not 37. And this leads into the whole need for massive $$$$, etc. - another argument to be sure.) If you're worried that more "fringe" parties would mean greater prominence given to wacko ideas...well, (a) as if that's not happening now, in the person of our ruling party, and (b) I guess you don't trust people actually to govern. Which is the real crux of the matter. - -- ++Jeff++ The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #302 ********************************