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.

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.

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.

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.

This article just makes me sick to my stomach. It's like the minority runs this country. It's really disturbing and some of the laws that have passed that allow crap like this to go on just amazes me! :nope:

I just wonder just how much underhanded corruption has allowed much of this nonsense to pass and become law? :hmmm:

Then look at the issue not the article.

Laws that allow this are a direct result of America allowing some amazingly disturbing voting laws to have operated.

An update... plans to 'expand'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061803766.html

Any voting system that gives more votes to certain people should not be allowed. Obviously.