"Crafted to boost hispanic representation..." [Archive]

SteamWake

06-15-10, 02:49 PM

I could not believe my eyes when I saw this headline, then I read the story and .... what in the hell !!!! :shifty:

Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election

tater

06-15-10, 02:54 PM

That is... wow, just wow.

AVGWarhawk

06-15-10, 02:54 PM

Morts

06-15-10, 03:00 PM

what a load of S***

UnderseaLcpl

06-15-10, 03:21 PM

Whoa, take it easy, guys. This is about equal opportunity, which can sometimes means equal outcome. It's about making sure that the Hispanic population is represented adequately, and that it votes adequately......and maybe more than adequately, should somebody need to get into office.

Honestly, this whole thing sickens me. Thank God it's in that sorry excuse for a state that we call New York and not in a decent state. Not much has changed since the days of Tammany Hall, it would seem.

While the act itself is actually quite legal, the spirit of it is deploreable. It spits in the face of the idea of equality under the law and fair representation of the people. Our system of government was designed to protect the minority and guarantee the freedom of the individual, but this kind of crap is only there to ensure that the will of some becomes the representation of most and the will of one. Randolph McLaughlin is on my s*** list.

Tribesman

06-15-10, 03:27 PM

wow, its an old and well used system which gives results more like proportional representation.
That is absolutely shocking.:yawn:

tater

06-15-10, 03:34 PM

wow, its an old and well used system which gives results more like proportional representation.
That is absolutely shocking.:yawn:

It's completely shocking.

I'm a german-swedish-irish-french american. If my "kind" is not exactly represented in congress, I deserve extra votes!

Nonsense.

There are no "hispanic" voters in the US. There are only AMERICAN voters. What your surname happens to be, or what tone your skin is is meaningless. One man, one vote. Man, as in mankind, Homo sapiens. Any other silly distinctions are just that, silly.

Ducimus

06-15-10, 03:39 PM

>>There are only AMERICAN voters

Yeah, ill never understand why people hyphenate themselves. I've never liked it when people fly a foreign flag over/on top of/instead of, the US flag. If they're so proud of that country, WTF are they doing here then? Seems like for awhile now, there hasn't been much intergration. Just self segregation and drawing of lines. Honestly im surpised this is happening in NY and not CA. Then again, Hispanic probably already IS the majority vote here.

Tchocky

06-15-10, 03:45 PM

Psh. It's just a voting system.

GoldenRivet

06-15-10, 03:52 PM

and yet there continue to be those American's who will just sleep right through this too.

America... you're still snoozing.:nope:

how hard do they have to shake your bed?

Tribesman

06-15-10, 04:03 PM

One man, one vote.
Yet one man several votes is used in many places and in many circumsatances, its not like its new as its been used in America for well over 100 years.

There are no "hispanic" voters in the US. There are only AMERICAN voters.
Tell that to the Americans.:rotfl2:
But you are wrong anyway as there are lots of non-American voters and lots of hispanic voters too. It all depends on the election in question, and like cumalative voting it is as old as the hills.

If my "kind" is not exactly represented in congress, I deserve extra votes!

Representation?????didn't you lot have a revolution over that:yeah:
Besides which it isn't someone getting extra votes as everyone gets the same amount.

Skybird

06-15-10, 04:19 PM

Just to be sure I get it right: first I thought that only some people - Hispanics - would get six votes, while other stay with one, but that first ipression was wrong yes? ALL voters no matter their district and ethnicity get six votes, yes?

Okay, way to make things complicated over fears of lacking political correctness, but despite being idiotic, one could live with the method. Just that judges think they must mess around with the outcome of elections because the results are not the wanted ones - that one would worry me.

Tchocky

06-15-10, 04:46 PM

Just to be sure I get it right: first I thought that only some people - Hispanics - would get six votes, while other stay with one, but that first ipression was wrong yes? ALL voters no matter their district and ethnicity get six votes, yes?

As far as I can se it, yes.

But it's much more fun to think that minorities are getting lots more votes.-

SteamWake

06-15-10, 06:29 PM

Just that judges think they must mess around with the outcome of elections because the results are not the wanted ones - that one would worry me.

What other motive could there be? Putting extra vote counters in work? :haha:

Pioneer

06-15-10, 06:52 PM

>>There are only AMERICAN voters

Yeah, ill never understand why people hyphenate themselves. I've never liked it when people fly a foreign flag over/on top of/instead of, the US flag. If they're so proud of that country, WTF are they doing here then? .

Side issue: I fly my home country and US flag side by side because I haven't earned the right YET to be considered USAmerican. I can't vote because I legally immigrated, sat outside the country until my paperwork was processed, agreed to a higher standard of laws that citizens, and have a waiting period of 7 years.

I love my new country, and will stand shoulder to shoulder in defense, but this vote is an atrocity.

Platapus

06-15-10, 07:40 PM

I love my new country, and will stand shoulder to shoulder in defense, but this vote is an atrocity.

Please explain why you think it is an atrocity? That's a pretty strong word.

Zachstar

06-15-10, 08:19 PM

TLAM Strike

06-15-10, 08:31 PM

WTF is a village? I have heard of city, state, local, town, municipality. The last time I heard village I think a dragon was attacking.

:(

I live 3/4 of a mile outside of the Village of East Rochester. Its a nice place I walk or bike there often to do errands.

I have a friend who lived in the Village of Brockport until he moved three years ago.

EDIT: 6,500 posts! Woot!!!

Platapus

06-15-10, 08:56 PM

WTF is a village? I have heard of city, state, local, town, municipality. The last time I heard village I think a dragon was attacking. What a dumb idea this was. I think we need to raid the village with pitch fork and flaming torches. :yeah:

I don't live in a city, town, municipality, or village. I live in an Administrative District. My AD does not have a mayor but an elected Supervisor. The next higher level of government would be county.

We often in conversation call where we live a town, but legally it is not. Weird :D

Sailor Steve

06-15-10, 09:16 PM

Not to mention the very famous Greenwich Village in New York.

Snestorm

06-15-10, 09:38 PM

Appointed judges and the democratic process don't usualy travel well together.

tater

06-16-10, 10:51 AM

Another topic meant to start right wingers screaming. How shocking on SubSim *Rolleyes*

Its ALL voters and the only thing it does is increase the total number of votes overall. Costs more to count but hardly controversial.

It's extremely controversial, and should be.

Any voting system designed to affect a particular voting outcome is WRONG, period.

Tribesman

06-16-10, 12:24 PM

Any voting system designed to affect a particular voting outcome is WRONG, period.
Thats wrong whichever way you look at it

AVGWarhawk

06-16-10, 02:07 PM

:(

I live 3/4 of a mile outside of the Village of East Rochester. Its a nice place I walk or bike there often to do errands.

I have a friend who lived in the Village of Brockport until he moved three years ago.

EDIT: 6,500 posts! Woot!!!

Well then, be on the look out for a crowd of folks with pitch forks and flaming torches headed your way. :o

UnderseaLcpl

06-16-10, 02:44 PM

wow, its an old and well used system which gives results more like proportional representation.
That is absolutely shocking.:yawn:

Ever the contrarian, Tribesman:roll: Just because it's been used before doesn't make it right or any more acceptable. I swear, there are times when I think that the only reason you're here is to try to get a reaction out of people. What's with that, man?

Any voting system designed to affect a particular voting outcome is WRONG, period.
Thats wrong whichever way you look at it

And here again. Really, wtf? If you're so much better than everyone else that you don't deign it necessary to stoop to our level and offer anything other than insulting remarks then maybe we're not the right crowd for you.

tater has a very legitimate concern given the context and I think he'd benefit a lot more from some actual enlightenment than from a condescending remark. But you don't give a s*** about that, do you?

This is Neal's site, and I do not have the capacity to act as his representative, so far be it from me to actually tell you off or ask you to leave, but please be a little more amicable, Tribesman. This respectable community does not need another troll. If you have something to say then put up or shutup, but please do not continue to demonstrate this kind of rude behavior.

If you still have an irrepresible urge to just make people feel like trash, I can offer you my services. PM me whenever you want to engage in verbally abusive discourse. I'll be happy to give as good as I get.

Good day, sir.

Tribesman

06-16-10, 06:33 PM

Just because it's been used before doesn't make it right or any more acceptable.
Just because some people don't like it doesn't make it wrong or unacceptable.
Since the issue was pretty well misrepresented from the outset it does raise the question about why some are getting so het up over such a minor issue.

And here again. Really, wtf?
Thats simple, taters statement was simply wrong and it made no sense whichever way you looked at it.
This story arises from a law (that was made permanant under Reagan) on fixing issues over ensuring representation in elections.
That law was to fix a voting system which was designed to affect the result and replaced it with a voting system that was designed to affect the result.
Both cannot be wrong , yet if somehow they are then it means that another voting system must be designed to affect the result or another voting system must be designed.........and on and on....period.

tater has a very legitimate concern given the context
Context??? its a small local council and its addressing the issue of representing the people under that couincil, there were two real; options and cumulative voting would appear to be the fairest.

But you don't give a s*** about that, do you?

Don't talk rubbish.

I think he'd benefit a lot more from some actual enlightenment than from a condescending remark.
Some enlightenment, you mean like a talk about representation through elections, like what is going on.
Heres one for ya (or tater)how is cumalative voting far more representative in some situations than other systems ?
For another, given that he mentioned American voters and one man one vote, how does that equate with electoral college?
Or a simple one, how is minority rule democratic?

To be honest your opening post got it backwards Lcpl.

August

06-16-10, 08:59 PM

Lcpl you didn't actually think he was going to answer your question did you?

OneToughHerring

06-16-10, 09:34 PM

Lcpl you didn't actually think he was going to answer your question did you?

Just shut up and let people express their opinions. Or are you against the freedom of speech?

NeonSamurai

06-16-10, 10:18 PM

Can we keep things civil here please

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

06-17-10, 12:43 AM

First, the theory of the scheme. Everyone is still equal because they all have 6 votes. In fact, it probably provides a better representation than the usual 1-vote scheme in that it provides at least some way to quantify the MAGNITUDE of desire. Democracy is not tyranny of the majority, and if 10% of the people want A say 15 times more (perhaps because they'd be greatly inconvenienced if B comes to pass) than the other 90% people want B (perhaps because they'll only be mildly inconvenienced if A comes to pass), all else being equal there is a good case for stating that the best interests of society would be served by going with A.

As for whether there are Hispanics in America. I'll say there are (there are also blacks, Asian-Americans ... etc). Face it, like it or not racism or other -isms are not dead, and given our biological nature, it will likely never go away entirely. Given this reality, it is inevitable that each "ethnic group" or race will have interests that are slightly out of axis with the others, and that given no compensation, the majority group (Whites) will be given unfair dominion.

Now, given that there ARE minority ethnic groups, in reality the law cannot be completely fair in both the axis of equal opportunity and equal results due to human nature. If you are at all interested in protecting the rights of the minority, you will have to superelevate them somewhat in law. The majority can take comfort in the fact that their numbers are their protection.

And this 6-vote thing, insofar as it is one of these superelevations, is only one in effect, to counter the effect of the majority having numerical superiority. There is nothing objectionable to it, IMO.

Tribesman

06-17-10, 01:14 AM

There is nothing objectionable to it, IMO.
Yes, its just people getting outraged over nothing really. Though if it works is another matter entirely, but the other proposal would have led to a less representative local council.

UnderseaLcpl

06-17-10, 01:51 AM

Lcpl you didn't actually think he was going to answer your question did you?
Yeah, for a second there, I kinda did.:DL

Now, given that there ARE minority ethnic groups, in reality the law cannot be completely fair in both the axis of equal opportunity and equal results due to human nature. If you are at all interested in protecting the rights of the minority, you will have to superelevate them somewhat in law. The majority can take comfort in the fact that their numbers are their protection.

And this 6-vote thing, insofar as it is one of these superelevations, is only one in effect, to counter the effect of the majority having numerical superiority. There is nothing objectionable to it, IMO.

Take notes, Tribesman, this is what a relevant answer looks like, though I disagree. I can understand this perspective being taken within a properly limited political system, but allowing for proportional representation sets a dangerous legal precedent.

Additionally, Kazuaki points out that "democracy is not a tyranny of the majority", and his observation would be very astute if we were talking about a fair system of democracy but we don't have a democracy and there is not a democracy anywhere on this planet. We have a representative form of government, and I am always wary when it comes to letting the elected determine who elects them and how. Case in point: gerrymandering.

To be honest your opening post got it backwards Lcpl. I don't see how. Would you care to elaborate?

Morts

06-17-10, 01:57 AM

Just shut up and let people express their opinions. Or are you against the freedom of speech?
yeah, tell another person to shut up and then go on about freedom of speech:rotfl2::rotfl2:

August

06-17-10, 09:40 AM

yeah, tell another person to shut up and then go on about freedom of speech:rotfl2::rotfl2:

We keep him around for comic relief. The coolest part is that he doesn't even realize it (and still won't after reading this).

OneToughHerring

06-17-10, 11:01 AM

We keep him around for comic relief. The coolest part is that he doesn't even realize it (and still won't after reading this).

Remember your blood pressure. :O:

tater

06-17-10, 11:02 AM

Thats wrong whichever way you look at it

Nonsense. The point of voting is for the people to decide the outcome. If an election process is designed to produce particular winners, it's anti-democratic, period.

There is no such thing as "more representative" based on SURNAME.

The notion that people are better represented by people of a particular color or surname is racist, and insane, frankly.

tater

06-17-10, 11:06 AM

If the goal of 6 votes is to have more hispanics (or blacks, whatever) it is wrong-headed, IMO.

The presumption here is that "white" (what a racist load of nonsense) people will vote for the best candidates across the board, while the minority voters will only vote for members of their group, weighting their votes. That's the point in a nutshell. The goal being apparently to weight the votes of racists (anyone whose vote is cast based on race is a racist, period) more than those that spread their votes among candidates for some non-racist rationale.

It is not a good idea for the government to abet racism, IMO.

Guess what, I'm against gerrymandered districts to try and get particular races or parties elected, too.

Tribesman

06-17-10, 12:43 PM

Nonsense. The point of voting is for the people to decide the outcome.
Voting is having people decide the outcome, in which case can you explain how on earth cumulative voting doesn't fit your criteria.

If an election process is designed to produce particular winners, it's anti-democratic, period.

all elections are designed that way, either proportianally or as winner takes all.

There is no such thing as "more representative" based on SURNAME.

There certainly is, though in this case its irrelevant.

Take notes, Tribesman, this is what a relevant answer looks like, though I disagree. I can understand this perspective being taken within a properly limited political system, but allowing for proportional representation sets a dangerous legal precedent.

Learn to read and comprehend then, as I wrote earlier it isn't new so doesn't set any precedent as the overall precedent was set well over 100 years ago and this particular precedent was thoroughly set 45 years ago.
We have a representative form of government
You have a reasonably representative form of government that is also unrepresentative. Look how many muppets have been saying Obama isn't their president since the election and how many muppets were saying the same about Bush.

I am always wary when it comes to letting the elected determine who elects them and how. Case in point: gerrymandering.

So you should be, but its always the elected that do the determining and it always will be just like it always has been.
Just look at the regular changes to voting boundaries the elected work out every time they feel like it.

I don't see how. Would you care to elaborate?
start with it is legal and is within the spirit , it doesn't spit on equality as that would have been the case if they had taken the other option instead, your notions of your government are in one part mythical and this particular crap won't ensure that the will of some becomes the representation of the most

tater

06-17-10, 04:11 PM

The point of this is to elect more "minority" representatives. If that was not the point, they'd not be doing it. The goal is therefore to push a particular party in fact, since one party gets the lion's share of "minority" voters. It's a scheme to elect more democrats, plain and simple.

All based on racism.

How about non-arbitrary vote weighting based on total taxes paid, lol? Pay 100X more taxes, and you get 100X the say!

That's at least fair given the representatives' primary job is spending taxpayer money.

Zachstar

06-17-10, 04:17 PM

So if you are rich you get to have the most say. Gotcha... :har:

It cant "push" a party if everyone has exactly the same effect. Matter of fact it ought to become a national policy because that would mean third parties would have a greater say.

Tribesman

06-17-10, 05:30 PM

It's a scheme to elect more democrats, plain and simple.

Really . Can you run through the current party affiliations of the village trusties(not all of whom, were even elected), would you like to widen it out to county level for a clearer picture of local party politics.

How about non-arbitrary vote weighting based on total taxes paid, lol? Pay 100X more taxes, and you get 100X the say!

That sounds like an old traditional system. But they changed that system didn't they and they changed it to affect the outcomes so that change must have been wrong eh.

It cant "push" a party if everyone has exactly the same effect. Matter of fact it ought to become a national policy because that would mean third parties would have a greater say.
Exactly, its a sop to the complaint that was lodged, if they had re drawn the boundaries to make sure one district was almost bound to elect the peuto ricans main choice there would have been something to moan about, but it wasn't so there isn't.
I would have thought all these people going on about fair representation and the sanctity of elections would be pleased that the voters can now have a chance to reject all 6 trusties each election intead of being limited to just two.