X-Message-Number: 22883
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:01:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Randall Burns <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #22872 - #22881

 I would suggest that religious fundamentalists have
representation now than they would under proportional
--though there are more extreme elements of the
fundamentalist community
that do not have a voice now that would under pro-rep,
as would libertarians,
racialists like David Duke, vegetarians etc. In this
context, cryonicists will start to appear not so

New Zealand and Austrailia haven't fallen apart with
proportional representation
-neither will the US. I would also keep in mind that
using pro-rep in the house
wouldn't imply pro-rep in the senate. Pro-Rep might
mean that the Senate and house
would be even more different than they are today.

Aldoph Hitler's rise is actually an arguement in
_favor_ of pro-rep. Hitler's
party took advantage of quirks in the German Electoral
system to get substantially
more seats than its portion of supports would have
indicated. Under German law, 
smaller parties got weeded out-and that gave the
Nazi's, Social Democrats, Communists
and Christian Democrats all an advantage.

>If we had proportional representation I am afraid the
tiny number of
>people championing our causes would be more than
>by Ten-Commandments-In-Our-Courthouse fanatics,
>engineered-food nuts, etc.

>You would have a parliamentary system in which an
>personality like Adolph Hitler could snatch power. 
We may not like our
>Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum choices but in the end
>of belief and practice is safest under governance
from the middle.
IMHO it is the center in US politics that is now most
corrupt. I have far fewer problems with either Pat
Buchanan or Ralph Nader/Dennis Kucinich than I do
George Bush or Al Gore.

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22883