Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner From: turner@ucbesvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Voting: Low Turnout Message-ID: <7500077@ucbesvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Feb-84 01:22:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbesvax.7500077 Posted: Wed Feb 29 01:22:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 2-Mar-84 06:32:21 EST References: <896@ihuxm.UUCP> Organization: UC Berkeley, EE/SESM Lines: 27 Nf-ID: #R:ihuxm:-89600:ucbesvax:7500077:000:1431 Nf-From: ucbesvax!turner Feb 27 22:22:00 1984 /***** ucbesvax:net.politics / ihuxm!berman / 8:17 pm Feb 26, 1984*/ Michael Turner says: > Give more voting power to those with more money? Let's turn that one > around: have a guaranteed national income, collectible only when one > presents proof of having voted . . . . This would certainly bring voter > participation up from its rather disgraceful level. To which Andy Berman replies: > Now why is the low voter turnout in the US so "disgraceful?" ....The 45% of > eligible voters who don't vote in Presidential elections and the massive > number of others who don't register, simply don't see the importance of it > in their own lives. Andy is not really disagreeing with me, since I say something quite similar towards the end of my note. The disgrace is not necessarily on the (non) voters, but rather on this supposedly democratic system of ours, which seems to have degenerated into mere power-brokerage. My feeling about this is expressed well (if somewhat overstated) by the saying that "if voting could really change the system, it would be illegal." Back to the subject: for those of you who are rankled by the idea of a guaranteed national income, I suggest that you solicit the opinion of a certain well-known Chicago School economist who has come out in favor it. "Free to Choose," indeed! (Granted, he sees it as simply the least among evils, but still....) --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)