JR>NP>Three million people tossing in $10 each would give the NRA 30
JR>NP>million extra dollars.  Which I would think is actually a very
JR>NP>good idea, at least as far as the NRA would be concerned.
JR>Thats before expenses, and two would create too many choices for a
JR>reasonable selection.  Just think of it as going into the voting
JR>booth this November and having to choose from 1000 candidates for
JR>President. What are the odds that a total "idiot" could get elected?
JR>I would bet a lot less than the odds of the best 35 being selected.
I don't think the NRA is even concerned about expenses today.  They
spend very close to my annual dues costs in postage sending me heavy
junk mail several times a month, as well as an expensively printed
magazine 12 times a year.  In the above case, I don't think expenses
would come anywhere near $30,000,000.00.
I also still strongly disagree with you about the numbers of candidates
that would enter.  I doubt even a hundred would do it.  Although many
thousands would claim their going to.
Reason I say that is because of the work I do.  We convene public
hearings regularly about industrial activities.  When we pick up the tab
and do all the work, people often turn out by the hundreds to complain
and demand the most absurd and obscure things.  But as soon as we
require them to write a letter, the complaints and demands usually drop
to zero.  And I mean absolute zero.  Occasionally, on a really volatile
issue, we might get two letters.  So I think $10 bucks would stop nearly
all the dingbat entries.  If not, raise the anti.
JR>We will have to disagre on this point.  In summary, I don't see your
JR>plan as any improvement over the existing election procedures.
Volley back to you.  Have you a better suggestion?
---
* CMPQwk #1.4* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- InterEcho 1.18
---------------