> A few comments interspersed: A lot of my previous mail snipped to which Ronn didn't respond.
> At 12:07 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, Frank Schmidt wrote: > >Other points are a constitutional right to vote (currently > >excluding someone from voting is illegal if it�s because of > >e.g. race or sex, but not if it�s because of other reasons) > > How about convicted felons? Those who have been adjudged > mentally incompetent to manage their own affairs? I'm for letting them vote. I'd make exceptions to not let jail populations vote in local elections, and the mentally incompetent if it's not really themselves, but someone else who votes. (I think it's this way here in Germany, and I remember how the 2000 election was heavily influenced by the exclusion of many black people on a 'felons list', many of which weren't even felons. I read that people remain marked as felons even when their jail term is over. If you give a detailed description what makes one a felon, I'm interested) > >and an end to gerrymandering (multi-member > >districts seem to be a popular solution) > > What about as a beginning following existing city or > county lines? As a beginning. There will be a problem, however, if gerrymandering is ended only in Democrat-controlled states or only in Republican-controlled ones. And this doesn't answer the question of representation of the minority side in a district which might never get a chance to win. > >House gets enlarged to 600, > > Actually, it would have to be a number around 8000 if > one made the districts small enough that everyone in > the district had a reasonable chance of knowing their > representative as anything more than a name on the > ballot when he runs for election (or on the news when > he's indicted). (FWIW, would you recognize your > Congressman if you ran into him in 7-Eleven late one > night when you both were there to pick up a gallon of > milk? If you answer that your Congressman would never > go by himself to 7-Eleven late at night to pick up a > gallon of milk, then that's the problem, isn't it?) > > In either case, if we expand Congress, where do we put > them all, not to mention their staffs and minions? > Rebuild the Capitol? If the House remains at 435 seats, many Representatives would lose their seats in a switch to multi-member districts. I would not mind, but I think a lot of Representatives would. The 7-Eleven problem can be half solved: while your Congressman will probably don't know you, you should know him and what he stands for. How else can you decide who to vote for? > >US citizens don�t live in the 50 states, and are not > >registered in any of them get treated as if they are > >living in an additional state. (This way, they get > >represented in Congress) > > If they are in the military or employed overseas and > can reasonably be expected to return to the States at > some point, they should be allowed to vote absentee > in the district of their home of record. Agreed. I meant that when I wrote 'registered in any of them'. > If they have apparently moved out of the US for good, > frex they have stopped paying US taxes, then why should > they have a say in how things are run in the US? I meant US citizens living in US territories. They are under US control and are US citzens, so they should be represented. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ NEU: GMX DSL_Flatrate! Schon ab 14,99 EUR/Monat! +++ GMX Garantie: Surfen ohne Tempo-Limit! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
