Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

'Angry Majority'

October 30, 1994

Re "The Angry Majority," Opinion, Oct. 16:

I agree that it's time to have a "bloodless revolution" to change the Establishment in Washington (I don't believe in destroying it) by abolishing the electoral voting system but keeping the popular voting system. Electoral votes are what make the career politicians think we owe to them, instead of the other way around.

Granted that the electoral voting was feasible when our country was very young. But, now we've come of age and have grown more sophisticated in many, many ways, electoral vote now is an antiquated but serious hindrance to a well-balanced equality. The popular vote, though not necessarily a Band-Aid or a cure-all in itself, would make a good catalytic recipe of higher accountability for all elected officials.

IRA J. ROTHENBERG

Long Beach

* Kevin Phillips makes the observation that many are discontent with Washington and want something new. As Phillips notes, people complain about both Washington's unresponsiveness and the "special interests." However, many, including Phillips, are sending Washington mixed and contradictory messages: Whenever President Clinton has taken what the people desired into account, he is accused of just following the "polls."

Moreover, while we may look back to the days when the population of Washington was transient, those days were caused by the use of civil service jobs as political bait. The current "special interest" system is far more democratic. Yes, Washington needs reform, but the only way we can do this is to remember that this is a republic, and we must send clear messages though our votes showing that we like true leaders and not demagogues who pander to our desire for a lone savior who will clean up some mess such as that in our nation's capital.

DAVID SNYDER

Los Alamitos

* We find ourselves in another political season. The rhetoric is hot and furious. There is not a great deal heard regarding candidates' stands on the issues; rather (as per usual) a great deal of "negative campaigning." Don't get me wrong. I do not take such a dim view of these attack ads as many people do. The ads exist for a reason. They generally work. What this doesn't do is say a lot for the people who are targeted to consume them. You and I. If they didn't generally work, they wouldn't be used.

I prefer the issues. There are a couple of major reasons why the issues are not discussed and stressed more. First, a good many of us simply don't understand them. Understanding them takes a bit of time and reading and very few invest in those areas. Unfortunately, a democratic society doesn't function well in the absence of an informed electorate. How well is our society functioning at the moment? I hear a lot of people complaining. Second, the principle of political correctness makes frank, open discussion very difficult. A candidate might say something sincerely that could possibly offend someone and cost a bloc of votes. Can't have that. Better to take a middle road and keep the discussion generic and middle of the road. Who is responsible for this situation? The candidates are, you are and I am.

Clinton was ushered in in 1992 to give us a breath of fresh air after the Bush debacle. The Democrats had the answers. They haven't fixed it. The perception now is that the Republicans have the answers. Ask Newt Gingrich. Both of these groups of politicians are more interested in the power than in the answers. So far, we are their willing dupes.

CHUCK SHARP

Laguna Niguel

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|