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.