3/21    Suppose that someone proposed some "Vote For Yourself" initiative
        by which whatever you vote for only applies to you. For example,
        voters who vote for higher taxes get only _their_ taxes raised.
        People who vote to eliminate gun ownership, can't own one. What
        would be the legal problem with this? Possibly equal protection
        under the law? Can it be structured differently to make it possible?
        \_ I vote for the right to kill anyone I want. And you'll be the
           first person on my list.
           \_ It only applies to you. So you can kill yourself.
        \_ Some laws need to be universal, because some rights are universal.
           The trouble with politics is that people do not agree on what
           universal rights are, if they did no division would exist. -- ilyas
        \_ I vote that I become President.
           \_ you morons are missing the point. I never said vote for
                anything you want. Just that whatever you vote for
                only applies to you. dumbshit.
                \_ "applies only to you".  You'd only be voting for the right
                   to kill yourself.  Some find this right more important than
                   others based on personal circumstances.  I say "go for it!"
                   I fully support your right to kill yourself.
        \_ Aside from legal issues like having a unique set of laws apply to
           each person which makes the legal system cease to have meaning, the
           logistics of keeping track of your personal vote tally would be a
           task beyond mythical proportions.  Also, what do you do about the
           80% of people who don't vote?  Anyway, you'd never get the left to
           agree to give up the power to tax the rich to buy the poor. That's
           the entire basic and core function of the DNC these last several
           decades.  I can't see Gephart going for it.  :-)