User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 25 to 32 of 46

Thread: so much for "one man, one vote"

  1. #25
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by herenorthere View Post
    To make it perfectly fair, just give everyone a single vote and the top six (or 9 or whatever) vote getters win. The party machines/political mainstream would consider it anarchy because a candidate preferred by a smaller number of voters can get elected.
    Bruce,
    I dont understand what you mean..
    could you clarify?
    if the top six (or 9 or whatever) win, because they are the top six or nine that get the most votes..how is that anarchy?
    that sounds exactly like the system that *was* in place, before this judge changed it..
    thats the system we are supposed to have..
    under that system, a Latino candidate has just as much of a chance as anyone else..if people like his ideas, and if enough people vote for him..so what is wrong with that system?

    Scot

  2. #26
    dashman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,575
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by herenorthere View Post
    As I mentioned earlier, I'd prefer it if each person only has one vote for that board. I figure the town previously had elections like my town, with everyone getting to vote for a multiple candidates (6 here) to fill their 6 trustee seats (9 town council seats here). That system is set up to ensure that Ds and Rs win every seat.

    To make it perfectly fair, just give everyone a single vote and the top six (or 9 or whatever) vote getters win. The party machines/political mainstream would consider it anarchy because a candidate preferred by a smaller number of voters can get elected. Giving each voter six votes is messier than just giving each one vote, but I figure the judge did it that way because it would give the D and R machines a more reliable outcome, with fewer "others" elected.

    In Port Chester, 2 Rs, 2 Ds, a Conservative and an Independent were elected (the Hispanic was one of the Rs). It probably would have been a mix of Ds & Rs with the city's previous voting system and any candidate who didn't toe the party line would have been shut out. If each person got one vote, it might of turned out the same, but I think it would have been even wackier.
    That I can agree on. Top 6 vote getters are in. Each person gets one vote. I am very against the two party system. I actually think parties should be illegal. Party officials vote for thier parties stance on issues, not on thier constituents. If an elected official is voting against the will of the people they represent, are they really representing them?

    ---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

    On a related note of politics, I found this article rather amusing...
    http://www.comcast.net/articles/news....US.Senate.SC/
    Last edited by dashman; 06-17-2010 at 08:44 PM.

  3. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    470
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One of the great things about the USA is that minorities have rights, and that the majority can't take away those rights (in theory, anyway). When I first learned about cumulative voting years ago, I thought it was a good idea because it makes it easier for minorities to be represented in government. A healthy democracy depends on robust citizen participation, so it's important for everyone to feel that they are represented. We Americans live in a country that is transitioning from a rather homogeneous society to one that is becoming more diverse, and our democracy is evolving to adapt to the new environment. Cumulative voting more closely represents the wishes of a diverse electorate. By the way, I wouldn't have thought that Texas and Alabama (parts of those states, anyway) would be on the leading edge of this evolutionary political trend.

  4. #28
    dashman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,575
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Really? Texas would be the state I would have first expected this flam to be deployed by the Progressives because that state has traditionally been deeply conservative. So... if they can't win the publics hearts, just change the rules to give themselves a better shot. That is not democracy.

    The term "democracy" means exactly one man, one vote. Having a ruling body that does not reflect or act upon the majority of it's constituents opinion towards each and every issue is not a democracy.

    So I guess in my perfect government who is in office wouldn't really matter anyway because they would be bound to act upon the will of the people and not thier own interests. Even if it contradicts the very fiber of thier being.

  5. #29
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Scot - I wish I could explain it better. In my town, we have a 9-person town council and, by state law, no more than 6 can be from the same party. So far, so good.

    The problem is that everyone gets to vote for 6 people, the number each party can nominate, and it looks like a large percentage of people vote pretty close to the party line. I assume Port Chester used to be similar before the judge intervened.

    The reason I say most people seem to stay close to the party line is that is that there is remarkably little difference between the number of votes that the most popular candidate and the least popular candidate of each party get. There can be a big difference between the parties. If the most popular D got 10,000 votes, the least popular probably got 8,000 and the same kind of ratio will happen with the R candidates. I think the reason is that each party's slate is selected by that party's town committee and dissenting points of view are not welcome. All the Ds all say X and the Rs all say Y. Actually, what the Ds say isn't that different from what the Rs say, except for some social issues and the associated spending.

    I believe that if we could only vote for one person, not 6, the top one or two candidates of each party would win easily, but the rest would be in the race of their lives with Conservatives, Greens, Libertarians, Socialists or whatever. If we still were given 6 votes, but could give as many of them to a single candidate as we want, I think we'd see the top 3 or 4 of each party win and only a couple seats would go to candidates with alternative points of view, or alternative colors of skin, for those who care more about that. That's what happened in Port Chester and, while I like it better than letting the Ds and Rs run the table, we'd be better off if each person could only vote for one candidate.

    I hope this explanation is better than my previous attempts. What it comes down to is that I want a choice beyond the socially-conservative, pro-FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate industry) Rs and the socially liberal, pro-FIRE Ds. I swear that one year the only difference between the D and R town council platforms was whether gay couples should be eligible for the family discount at the town pools. Anything that helps break those parties' stranglehold is good.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  6. #30
    Capslock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,088
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LOL! The term "Democracy" does not mean "one man, one vote", dashman. Where did you ever get that idea? This isn't exactly the first time cumulative voting has been used. It is a valid and fair way to elect people, and in some ways is superior to the alternatives.

    However, I am concerned with the notion that the judge found the previous method violated the Voting Rights Act. I'm not sure what the reasoning was there, and the Yahoo article didn't mention it.

    Finally, I'm aghast at the sheer mind-numbing ignorance of the posters here who feel this is some sort of "Progressive" transgression. First, cumulative voting is neither progressive nor conservative. It just "is", and it's common internationally. Second, this federal judge was nominated by George W Bush. Got that? Good.
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

    My photos are copyright-free and public domain

  7. #31
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm aghast at the sheer mind-numbing arrogance of the poster here who feels some of us arent smart enough to understand what this is really about..of course its a "progressive" transgression...it had one purpose, to get a Hispanic elected, who couldn't get elected under normal circumstances..and it worked exactly as planned.

    We understand this perfectly well..we know exactly what it is.
    attempting a very transparent holier-than-thou re-write of the facts wont change what it really is.

    Scot

  8. #32
    dashman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,575
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Capslock View Post
    LOL! The term "Democracy" does not mean "one man, one vote", dashman. Where did you ever get that idea? This isn't exactly the first time cumulative voting has been used. It is a valid and fair way to elect people, and in some ways is superior to the alternatives.

    However, I am concerned with the notion that the judge found the previous method violated the Voting Rights Act. I'm not sure what the reasoning was there, and the Yahoo article didn't mention it.

    Finally, I'm aghast at the sheer mind-numbing ignorance of the posters here who feel this is some sort of "Progressive" transgression. First, cumulative voting is neither progressive nor conservative. It just "is", and it's common internationally. Second, this federal judge was nominated by George W Bush. Got that? Good.
    I beg to differ....
    Democracy
    "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them ..." dictionary.com

    I would argue that is exactly what the simplified term of "one man, one vote" means. The government run by the people directly. Each carrying the same power as the other with thier vote. Issues are decided by the common majority. That is what I have always thought of as a democracy and was taught in school as the definition of a true democracy. Of course a true democracy has not yet been attained due to sheer difficulty of tallying votes for each and every issue from the citizenry. So that is where government stepped in to vote the will of thier constituents and defend the principles upon which the country was built. Of course now they don't even do that. They woo the public to get elected and then vote the will of thier party, or highest bidder, or to just get re-elected. OK, sometimes they vote the will of the people, but it seems at an alarmingly more frequent rate they do not.

    It wouldn't surprise me if Bush appointed him, he is just about as bad as Obama. I do not believe Republicans nor Democrats act with the best interests of the people. At least not the ones that seem to keep getting elected and keep dishing out more of the same broken policies that are sending us to the poor house.

    I would not call this ignorance. I would call it an opinion, one I am entitled to have just as you.
    Last edited by dashman; 06-18-2010 at 06:32 PM.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Heliamphora sp. "Akopan," "Amuri," "Angasima" . . .
    By BigBella in forum Pitcher Plants: (Sarracenia, Heliamphora, Darlingtonia, Cephalotus)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 02:34 AM
  2. Thought you were "registered to vote" think again...
    By swords in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-10-2008, 02:03 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-29-2008, 06:33 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 12:30 PM
  5. The "youth vote"
    By scottychaos in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-09-2004, 03:03 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •