2000-11-23
Even though this sounds like a good idea, I doubt the US will ever adopt it.
For one reason, it is a foreign idea. No matter how flawed an American
method might be, it is perceived to be better than anything foreign.
Imperial/pre-imperial units are not perceived as foreign. They are the
units the founding fathers used. Even if they came over on the Mayflower,
they are still seen as American, because they were used by Americans from
day one. SI is foreign, because it is something we would have to change
over to. And worst of all, it was not an American idea.
Once a method or system is established in this country it is very hard to
change it. Changing it means it was wrong from the beginning; that it was
flawed. And if one part of an American method is flawed, others parts might
be too. We would have a domino effect. This country prides itself in being
consistent and stable for over 200 years. This may sound arrogant, but I
don't think Americans care. They feel superior to all and want it to stay
that way.
Being different than everyone else and/or doing things in a less efficient
way is not a concern to most. What is important is that the good old US of
A sticks out as being the best for all to see and admire.
In addition to SI, money is another issue. We mint dollar coins and print
two dollar bills, but they are rarely used. Using them would be like saying
we were wrong for not having them a long time ago. And arguing in their
favor based on the fact that others have them is even more reason to reject
them. Even when we come up with new money, we don't immediately pull the
old stuff from circulation. We let it gradually wear out. Pulling it from
circulation before it wears out is like saying American money has no value,
and that would be a blow to our ego.
Nothing must place into doubt who and what America is. America may not be
perfect, but pretty damn close to it.
So, as you see change is an uphill battle.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Bill Potts
Sent: Tuesday, 2000-11-21 02:14
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:9281] Re: US metric and integers -- OFF TOPIC
A helluva good idea, Joe.
Maybe the current fiasco will lead to some revisions in that direction,
although it might possibly require a Constitutional Amendment. (I
don't have
time to read through it at the moment, so I don't know for sure.)
Bill Potts, CMS
San Jose, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Joseph B. Reid
> Sent: November 20, 2000 17:54
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:9276] Re: US metric and integers
>
>
> Bill Potts wrote in USMA 9272:
>
> >Scott Clauss wrote:
> >> I suspect this is why other countries have run off elections.
> >
> >Which is really the only fair way to deal with a mere plurality.
> That way,
> >there is no such thing as a spoiler.
> >
> >If run-offs were the normal practice here, Nader could have got his 5%
> >without affecting the outcome for the other two.
>
>
> I might add that the same result would be obtained in one election using
> the Australian system of single transferable vote, in which the
> voter marks
> his preferences by 1, 2, 3, etc. It was introduced in Queensland in the
> 19th century and is now used in all electios throughout Australia to the
> lower houses of parliament.
>
>
