"N2EY" wrote

However, no matter how interested someone is in politics, that person can
*only* vote where he/she resides. IOW the price of voting is having to
join a
community by living there.

Your analogy remains flaccid. Amateur radio exists in the community in
which we all live. It has an effect on all of us, whether we are licensed
or not, and the regulations concerning qualification to participate in it
even more so.

My friend, W4OYI, ex-President of ARRL, compares the ARS to a public park; a
place in the spectrum set aside for citizens to pursue the avocation of
radio. What you are proposing is that persons already in this 'park' by
virtue of having paid some entry price be the only ones allowed to vote on
the conditions under which other citizens can fully participate in every
area of park activities. IOW, "I got mine, now you get yours, and then you
can vote."

Or consider the recent election of a movie actor with no experience as a
government official to the governorship of California.

Are you suggesting that "experience as a government official" should be a
qualification for election to office in the USA? The Constitution contains
no such language. My daughter was recently elected to public office, and
she has no previous experience as a government official. Should she and
Arnold be denied their office? Should only existing or previous government
officials be allowed to be elected?

Or should there be some sort of 'incentive licensing' of government
officials in which you must first be elected to an entry level office, let's
say Canine Capture Technician. Then after gaining the skill and experience
to capture 5 dogs per minute, they be allowed to run for office at some more
responsible level, all the way up to President, and only those already
elected would be allowed to vote for them? What a concept!

The fact that you have an amateur license suggests
that you will have an opinion about amateur radio
regulation, but it gives no credence in and of
itself whether your opinion is or is not worthy of consideration.

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

....we could go on and on....

In general, what happens to the amateur radio service has a greater effect
on
licensed amateurs and those who want to be licensed amateurs than on the
general public.

But we weren't talking about "in general". Wahtoosey was proposing a poll
to vote on the code test as a qualfication for entry (to HF). Since you
"already have yours", such a poll (were it binding on FCC) would not effect
your entry into amateur radio, but would have a far greater effect on those
not yet licensed (the general public). Thus we could much more convincingly
argue that you should *not* be eligible to vote in the poll, but the general
(non-licensed) public *should* be eligible.

One word: motivation.

Ah, yes, the old "motivation" card. We dealt with that back in 1996 at

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....mn.org&oe= U
TF-8&output=gplain


Who are the people who would want to participate in a one-time survey on
Morse
code testing but who cannot even pass the Technician written test?

Wahtoosey didn't suggest a 'survey'. He talks about a poll where people
vote and democracy rules.

And the discussion was not about those who 'cannot even pass'. It was about
those who (for whatever reason of their own) have not become licensees.
More of your "I've got mine, now you get yours" mindset showing.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB