100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: One Man, One Vote ... ? No. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This is going beyond 'equal rights' and into the area known as 'special rights' ... and WHO believes that the machine will be set - yes, SET - to LET you cast SIX votes if you're white, black, or asian instead of the new, improved, 'preferred' minority - Hispanic ... ? Please ... what? are you saying the machine will have some secret programmer hiding inside of it to view each voter as they enter and adjust the machine accordingly? Its equal, if you have six votes and those six votes are CONSISTENTLY applied for everyone to dispense as they choose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's software ... and no, there's no need for a 'secret programmer' - it can be done with a card swipe that activates the machine ... this is one more reason for doing away with electronic voting ... if a purple thumb was all the proof the Iraqis needed when they voted, why do we need more? For SPEED? Screw that ... it's the politicians who want electronic voting machines that do NOT provide a paper trail that can be independently verified ... I'm for 'purple thumb' voting ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's software ... and no, there's no need for a 'secret programmer' - it can be done with a card swipe that activates the machine ... this is one more reason for doing away with electronic voting ... if a purple thumb was all the proof the Iraqis needed when they voted, why do we need more? For SPEED? Screw that ... it's the politicians who want electronic voting machines that do NOT provide a paper trail that can be independently verified ... I'm for 'purple thumb' voting ... ok,, I was unaware of any card swiping. WHen I go to the polls I just take my identification and get directed to the next available booth,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no "Special rights" involved. Equal and fair representation is supposed to be a right in this country.
Unfortunately, minorities are often excluded until their numbers and their earnings achieve a level of significance to both the government as in taxes and GDP and as consumers and as supporting community members. Well - now they're significant enough for the Court to declare that they have representation, and that can be accomplished by redistricting or other means - as Port Chester has decided to do. The poeple who voted all had 6 votes - (6 credits) to spend however they wanted. Vote all on one candidate or split them up. All that has happened is that ONE of the six who were voted into office, is now Hispanic and at least in some small way, that part of the population is now represented on a more local level - they place they all live and work, and spend their money. http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2409654,CST-NWS-vote19.article June 19, 2010
ASSOCIATED PRESS PORT CHESTER, N.Y. -- The court-ordered election that allowed residents of one New York town to flip the lever six times for one candidate -- and produced a Hispanic winner -- could expand to other towns where minorities complain their voices aren't being heard. The unusual election was imposed on Port Chester after a federal judge determined that Hispanics were being treated unfairly. Trustees had been elected two at a time every two years, with conventional at-large voting. Most voters were white, and there were always six white trustees even though Hispanics made up half the population and nearly a quarter of the voters. Judge Stephen Robinson concluded the system violated U.S. law by diluting Hispanics' votes. The standard remedy was to break a municipality into districts, with one district including many from the minority, thereby increasing the chances for a candidate backed by the minority group. The Justice Department proposed that solution for Port Chester. But the village of about 30,000 objected to districts. It suggested instead a system called cumulative voting. All six trustees would be elected at once and the voters could apportion their six votes as they wished -- all six to one candidate, one each to six candidates or any combination. The system allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes behind specific candidates. Peruvian immigrant Luis Marino, 43, finished fourth, making him Port Chester's first Hispanic trustee. Apparently this system was ‘approved’ by the village of Port Chester, rather than to be segregated into districts. So it works for them. As for this idea spreading to other municipalities, it could - or they might choose to redistrict. Either way, it is a measure designed to equalize fair representation to all sectors/classes/ethnicities or however you want to refer to the under represented populations in any given area. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Tue 06/22/10 09:22 PM
|
|
Suppose you are black, in a community that has 400 active black voters and 600 active white voters. Suppose all people vote for someone in their race. Suppose we have two equivalent position, with two candidate each: Mr. Black and Mr. White are running for the first position, Mr. Caucasian and Mr. Cracker are running for the other position.
We only have one black candidate of the four, Mr. Black, but despite have 40% of the population behind him, he has no chance of winning because 60% of the votes for that particular position go for Mr. White. Now suppose we change things so that we let all people, black and white, cast two votes for the those two positions and allow them to cast both the votes for the same person. Now Mr. Black can get (400*2) 800 votes, and the three white candidates have to share the remaining (600*2) 1200 votes. This approach to voting doesn't give minorities any more votes than other people - it just allows them to pool their votes, giving them a shot at representation. Edit: Of course this is a contrived example; I am not a fan of voting along racial lines. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you are black, in a community that has 400 active black voters and 600 active white voters. Suppose all people vote for someone in their race. Suppose we have two equivalent position, with two candidate each: Mr. Black and Mr. White are running for the first position, Mr. Caucasian and Mr. Cracker are running for the other position. We only have one black candidate of the four, Mr. Black, but despite have 40% of the population behind him, he has no chance of winning because 60% of the votes for that particular position go for Mr. White. Now suppose we change things so that we let all people, black and white, cast two votes for the those two positions and allow them to cast both the votes for the same person. Now Mr. Black can get (400*2) 800 votes, and the three white candidates have to share the remaining (600*2) 1200 votes. This approach to voting doesn't give minorities any more votes than other people - it just allows them to pool their votes, giving them a shot at representation. Edit: Of course this is a contrived example; I am not a fan of voting along racial lines. nice explanation, but Im guessing it still wont get through to everyone,,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you are black, in a community that has 400 active black voters and 600 active white voters. Suppose all people vote for someone in their race. Suppose we have two equivalent position, with two candidate each: Mr. Black and Mr. White are running for the first position, Mr. Caucasian and Mr. Cracker are running for the other position. We only have one black candidate of the four, Mr. Black, but despite have 40% of the population behind him, he has no chance of winning because 60% of the votes for that particular position go for Mr. White. Now suppose we change things so that we let all people, black and white, cast two votes for the those two positions and allow them to cast both the votes for the same person. Now Mr. Black can get (400*2) 800 votes, and the three white candidates have to share the remaining (600*2) 1200 votes. This approach to voting doesn't give minorities any more votes than other people - it just allows them to pool their votes, giving them a shot at representation. Edit: Of course this is a contrived example; I am not a fan of voting along racial lines. Very good explanation! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am still missing how re districting equates to giving some 'individuals' more than one vote,,,, In the old days, it was called "Gerrymandering".  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Wed 06/23/10 01:22 PM
|
|
I am still missing how re districting equates to giving some 'individuals' more than one vote,,,, I didn't see this before, sorry I didn't explain that part too well. Becasue all people are to be represented by our governing officials, districts were set up so that Congress fairly represented not only the number of constituents but also the make up of that constituency. Probably the greatest reasons for the development of the Census bureau. Every 10 years the Census is taken and States are required to verify that their district lines provide a representative faction of the population. Otherwise they must "redistrict", literally move the lines. Segregation either, self imposted by incoming immigrant factions or due to discrimination, tends to change the demography over a long period. And many States use to line off those sectors so the the majority of representation would be to Whites of power and status. Some were lined off to give Repulican or Democrats unfair advantage in elections - and all of that was called Gerrymandering. Today, we could say that the court in effect forces gerrymandering but it's for the sake of supporting our rights to political representation not gain unfair voting advantage. I'm sure Massagetrade would respond much better. I hope this helps. |
|
|
|
|
