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.

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.

Yeah, for a second there, I kinda did.:DL

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.

I don't see how. Would you care to elaborate?

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).

Remember your blood pressure. :O:

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.

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.

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

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

There certainly is, though in this case its irrelevant.


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.
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.

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.

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

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.

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.