Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. That cheap shot has been leveled so often, and in such a similar manner, that I can get a bit gun shy.

Nevertheless, my "diatribe" as you call it, is still accurate. The Republican Party has been unfairly tarred as the past and present repository of racism in this country by the political party that years ago, actually was.

Define "informed". Reading the Wall Street Journal? Would you concede that somebody who reads the NY or LA Times, WashPost, CNN, et al might also be informed, even if you don't agree with the perspective? If the answer is no, how can you defend yourself against a charge of arrogance?

If the NY or LA Times, Washington Post, or CNN are being put forward as balanced, informative sources of news and political opinions, then I am afraid that I must be damned as arrogant. These are primarily mouthpieces for left-wing opinions, as you yourself must believe if you throw them out as a counterbalance to the Wall Street Journal.

Check this out.

The media. 6 percent conservative. Pretty much says it all.

Your thesis, taken as a whole, demonstrates my point: If it were up to you, you'd gerrymander by demographics. Nobody, liberal or conservative, can be trusted with that power.

I'm not certain what you mean by "demographics." Should there be restrictions on the right to vote? I believe there should. What restrictions? There's the real trick. There are no quick answers.

The society in Heinlein's Starship Troopers required a short term of either civil or military government service, and even then, active civil or military personnel had no vote. They got one only when they retired. I have no real solid ideas myself, although one of my favorites has been to give everyone one vote, then add an extra vote for each $10,000 of taxes paid (not just assessed subject to deductions, but actually paid). Maybe it should be $5,000, or $100,000. The point is, the guys who pay the bills should have a little more say in things. As it is, I'm being generous. I have heard similar proposals that say no one should have a vote at all until they've paid some minimum amount of taxes. Others have said that no one who gets more than a certain amount of their livelihood from the government should get a vote. Boy, would THAT cut back the rolls! The CEO of Lockheed might end up in the same boat with the local street person. Maybe others on this board could work this...I think a similar thread went through a while back.

Oh, I dunno, as I recall the last election, Republicans sold their votes for $300-600. Now we know the market price of a Republican vote, though it seems awfully cheap to me.

An interesting number. Is it national, or are we just talking Florida? The Democrats are the "party of the poor" not because they give a rat's behind about them, but because they are the cheapest vote there is. Bill Gates gets one vote. He can't be bought (although as we have seen in recent months, he can be threatened.) The guy on the corner who talks to lampposts also gets one vote. The Democrats could (and did) buy him with a pack of cigarettes. A bargain.