What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

so much for "one man, one vote"

  • #41
Those votes are counted equally. Everybody gets the same number of votes and each person's votes count as much as anyone else's votes.

Bruce,
you still arent getting the concept..
I will repost the quote from the 3rd post in this thread:

by BlakeR, The problem is that the are doing this to ensure a hispanic is elected. There is a population breakdown of 50% white and 50% hispanic. Of the 12 people running 10 are white and 2 are hispanic. Assuming the white voters split their 6 votes amongst the white candidates and the hispanic voters split their 6 votes among the 2 hispanic candiates, a hispanic candiate is likely to garner 5 times as many votes than any given white candidate. A hispanic voter who may have had a choice between two white candidates in his particular district is now encouraged to vote for a hispanic candidate who does not even represent him. This is social engineering, not fair voting.


each person's votes do NOT count as much as anyone else's votes...
not if some people give ALL their 6 votes to one or two canidates..and others spread their votes among more candidates..

In this case, some people's votes count MORE than others peoples votes..which is the whole point of this scam..

if it were true that " each person's votes counts as much as anyone else's votes." then why not keep if one vote per person then? why the need for 6 votes per person?

the whole point of 6 votes per person is to engineer the election specifically so a Hispanic person gets elected..and it worked..

Why not keep it one vote per person? if they are really interested in "each person's vote counts as much as anyone else's vote"?? wouldnt one vote per person be the ideal way to ensure that each person's vote counts as much as anyone else's vote?

but thats not what they want..
there is a specific reason for 6 votes per person..to rig the election..
and it worked exactly as planned..
its a scam, its "gaming the system" pure and simple..
its just wrong..

replace the wording:

The problem is that the are doing this to ensure a White person is elected. There is a population breakdown of 50% white and 50% hispanic. Of the 12 people running 10 are hispanic and 2 are white. Hispanic people are always elected in this district..a white person has never won under the "one person, one vote" system..Assuming the hispanic voters split their 6 votes amongst the hispanic candidates and the white voters split their 6 votes among the 2 white candiates, a white candiate is likely to garner 5 times as many votes than any given hispanic candidate.
ensuring a white person will be elected..and this time, it worked..a white person WAS elected, for the first time. even though the white canidate has less *indiviual* people voting for him..he had more votes, by less people, because of the 6 votes per person system.
the majority was NOT represented..

is it still fair now??
of course not..
if it was actually done that way, if white conservatives were trying to rig the election that way to ensure they got more votes, you would see huge protest marches and headline news storys every day of the week for a month! but as long as minorities and liberals are the ones doing it, it just slides right by..

this is why its pure hypocrisy..and why its flat-out wrong..

Scot
 
  • #42
Yes, it's still fair. Everyone's votes ARE the same, and you could spread your votes around or concentrate them just like anyone else. All this does is change the mechanism of voting such that the people with 51% of the vote don't win 100% of the available seats. Scotty, we understand the concept perfectly well. It's just not hypocritical, unfair, or undemocratic as you seem to think it is. Using words like "rigging" election or gaming the system does not make it so. And your wording and framing are inaccurate. It is NOT to ensure a hispanic is elected, it's to ensure that ANY group that perpetually has 49% of the vote does not get 100% shut out of the process. In your own supposedly unfair example, the 51% majority STILL has far more than 51% of the available seats in the end.

A representative, constitutional democracy is not predicated on the notion that 51% of the people get to rule everyone else. It is NOT a "majority rules" government. Witness the current Congress where 41% is effectively able to stifle Congressional action through the filibuster. In other areas, you need 67% of the vote to win. And in all cases, citizens are afforded rights that cannot be voted or legislated away without a Constitutional Convention. To pretend that democracy means specifically that each voter gets one vote and that's it is simply fallacious.
 
  • #43
hmmm..I could of sworn I kept hearing and reading things about how Bush "stole the election" in 2000..and hearing a lot about "whoever wins the popular vote should win the election"..
I guess I must have imagined all that. because apparently it was perfectly legit, and no one complained about it at all..

;)

Scot
 
  • #44
replace the wording:

The problem is that the are doing this to ensure a White person is elected. There is a population breakdown of 50% white and 50% hispanic. Of the 12 people running 10 are hispanic and 2 are white. Hispanic people are always elected in this district..a white person has never won under the "one person, one vote" system..Assuming the hispanic voters split their 6 votes amongst the hispanic candidates and the white voters split their 6 votes among the 2 white candiates, a white candiate is likely to garner 5 times as many votes than any given hispanic candidate.
ensuring a white person will be elected..and this time, it worked..a white person WAS elected, for the first time. even though the white canidate has less *indiviual* people voting for him..he had more votes, by less people, because of the 6 votes per person system....

is it still fair now??

Yup. (At least the cumulative voting advocates are consistent.)
 
  • #45
Scot, I most certainly do get the concept. Some people will choose to give all their votes to one person, but they're only helping one person get elected. Others will split their votes among six candidates, giving 1/6 of the support to 6X as many candidates. The voters have the same influence on the election.
 
  • #46
Hey Scott, there were some who complained about the popular vote with Gore, but most of the ire was directed towards the recount procedures in Florida, the stopping of the recount by a paid "mob" of GOP operatives, and the horrible Supreme Court intervention into the process. There were other problems as well, with the distribution and availability of voting machines and the scandalous purging of the voter rolls of legitimate Gore-leaning voters. So yeah, there were complaints, but they weren't really about the electoral system versus the popular vote.
 
Back
Top