"Crafted to boost hispanic representation..."

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.

06-17-10, 12:43 AM	#14
Kazuaki Shimazaki II Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,140 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	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.