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

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.

:(

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!!!

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

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

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

It's extremely controversial, and should be.

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

Thats wrong whichever way you look at it

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Don't talk rubbish.

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.

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?

Can we keep things civil here please

Don't see any problem with it...
 

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.