Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!andree From: andree@uokvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: voting - (nf) Message-ID: <5958@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-Mar-84 04:33:05 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5958 Posted: Thu Mar 1 04:33:05 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 08:36:02 EST Lines: 19 #R:hogpd:-26900:uokvax:5000080:000:825 uokvax!andree Feb 27 18:47:00 1984 I agree with Scott Renner - I occasionally suggest something similar myself. However, you'll never get it passed - you have to get it past the people that you're going to disenfranchise. Something tells me that we'd have record voter turnouts (maybe even over 70 percent) to stop that one. Trying to do this any other way than via constitutional amendment would be a loss, as you'd be buried in lawsuits from now till armegeddon. However, it IS worth a try. Anybody feel like using the net to start a movement for a constitutional amendment? Final point - any such law/amendment/ruling IS elitist. So what? Somebody has to rule, and those people are (by definition) an elite. Might as well have some criterion for who gets to choose them, as opposed to letting anybody with enough gumption to register choose them.