[EM] (no subject)

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

You wrote:

I like that, but one thing that strikes me about it is that it would
still require a person to make a judgment on every issue - whether they
want to keep their proxy, or vote directly, or switch their proxy, etc.

I reply:

Yes, now we have no such decision to make, and so we get to let our 
"representatives" make all the decisions for us. I claim that it would be 
good to be allowed to make that decision. And we needn't make that decision 
on every issue. We could make a blanket decision to leave all of up to our 
proxy(ies). Or we could vote only on the most important and controversial 
issues, such as the war against Iraq, at its inception, or at its occupation 
stage.

By the way, though ordinary the ballot should be secret, anyone voting in 
favor of a war should have to accompany that vote with infantry enlistment 
and a binding, irrevocable promise to fight in that war, with his/turn in 
combat to be in the same order as his/her vote for the war. War advocacy 
votes from people unqualified for combat wouldn't count. Anyone could vote 
against a war.

You continued:

People like to categorize, and many like to go the
forest-instead-of-the-trees route.  Many would rather just feel like
someone is doing a good job at representing their interests.

I reply:

Good, and such a person could make a blanket choice to just leave it up to 
hir proxy.

You continued: