What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

so much for "one man, one vote"

  • #21
Anyone whose political views run outside the mainstream should be thrilled about such a system. And it's perfectly fair. Everyone gets the same number of votes and can use them how they wish. How is that unfair? In my town, I get six votes for town council but I have no choice but to evenly distribute them among a bunch of party-endorsed hacks. I'd much rather give all my votes to the one or two candidates who I'd especially like to have win a seat.

Bruce,
obviously you havent read this whole thread, if you had, you would understand why it isnt fair..go back and read the 3rd post in this thread..

now explain how rigging the system to make sure people from one group get more votes is "fair"..

Scot
 
  • #22
It's basic math...

If candidate A gets 600 partial votes from 100 people, and Candidiate B gets 599 votes from 599 people, then Candidate B should win because 599 people voted for him.

Not to mention the fact that it was made blatently obvious that the intent was to get a person from a certain race elected. This violates the civil rights of the other races regardless of what proportion of the populace they constitute.
 
  • #23
"First Latino Board Member Is Elected in Port Chester"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/nyregion/17chester.html

gee..what a surprise..
a Latino person has never won before..
this time one did..
I wonder what was different this time?
perhaps this time a Latino candidate had a strong message?
perhaps his ideas really resonated with the voters?
perhaps he won because the MAJORITY of voters felt he was the right man for the job??

hmmm..somehow I dont think thats how he won..
he got the most the votes..but a majority of the voters didnt vote for him..
the scheme worked exactly as intended..

Scot
 
  • #24
As I mentioned earlier, I'd prefer it if each person only has one vote for that board. I figure the town previously had elections like my town, with everyone getting to vote for a multiple candidates (6 here) to fill their 6 trustee seats (9 town council seats here). That system is set up to ensure that Ds and Rs win every seat.

To make it perfectly fair, just give everyone a single vote and the top six (or 9 or whatever) vote getters win. The party machines/political mainstream would consider it anarchy because a candidate preferred by a smaller number of voters can get elected. Giving each voter six votes is messier than just giving each one vote, but I figure the judge did it that way because it would give the D and R machines a more reliable outcome, with fewer "others" elected.

In Port Chester, 2 Rs, 2 Ds, a Conservative and an Independent were elected (the Hispanic was one of the Rs). It probably would have been a mix of Ds & Rs with the city's previous voting system and any candidate who didn't toe the party line would have been shut out. If each person got one vote, it might of turned out the same, but I think it would have been even wackier.
 
  • #25
To make it perfectly fair, just give everyone a single vote and the top six (or 9 or whatever) vote getters win. The party machines/political mainstream would consider it anarchy because a candidate preferred by a smaller number of voters can get elected.

Bruce,
I dont understand what you mean..
could you clarify?
if the top six (or 9 or whatever) win, because they are the top six or nine that get the most votes..how is that anarchy?
that sounds exactly like the system that *was* in place, before this judge changed it..
thats the system we are supposed to have..
under that system, a Latino candidate has just as much of a chance as anyone else..if people like his ideas, and if enough people vote for him..so what is wrong with that system?

Scot
 
  • #26
As I mentioned earlier, I'd prefer it if each person only has one vote for that board. I figure the town previously had elections like my town, with everyone getting to vote for a multiple candidates (6 here) to fill their 6 trustee seats (9 town council seats here). That system is set up to ensure that Ds and Rs win every seat.

To make it perfectly fair, just give everyone a single vote and the top six (or 9 or whatever) vote getters win. The party machines/political mainstream would consider it anarchy because a candidate preferred by a smaller number of voters can get elected. Giving each voter six votes is messier than just giving each one vote, but I figure the judge did it that way because it would give the D and R machines a more reliable outcome, with fewer "others" elected.

In Port Chester, 2 Rs, 2 Ds, a Conservative and an Independent were elected (the Hispanic was one of the Rs). It probably would have been a mix of Ds & Rs with the city's previous voting system and any candidate who didn't toe the party line would have been shut out. If each person got one vote, it might of turned out the same, but I think it would have been even wackier.

That I can agree on. Top 6 vote getters are in. Each person gets one vote. I am very against the two party system. I actually think parties should be illegal. Party officials vote for thier parties stance on issues, not on thier constituents. If an elected official is voting against the will of the people they represent, are they really representing them?

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

On a related note of politics, I found this article rather amusing...
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100618/US.US.Senate.SC/
 
Last edited:
  • #27
One of the great things about the USA is that minorities have rights, and that the majority can't take away those rights (in theory, anyway). When I first learned about cumulative voting years ago, I thought it was a good idea because it makes it easier for minorities to be represented in government. A healthy democracy depends on robust citizen participation, so it's important for everyone to feel that they are represented. We Americans live in a country that is transitioning from a rather homogeneous society to one that is becoming more diverse, and our democracy is evolving to adapt to the new environment. Cumulative voting more closely represents the wishes of a diverse electorate. By the way, I wouldn't have thought that Texas and Alabama (parts of those states, anyway) would be on the leading edge of this evolutionary political trend.
 
  • #28
Really? Texas would be the state I would have first expected this flam to be deployed by the Progressives because that state has traditionally been deeply conservative. So... if they can't win the publics hearts, just change the rules to give themselves a better shot. That is not democracy.

The term "democracy" means exactly one man, one vote. Having a ruling body that does not reflect or act upon the majority of it's constituents opinion towards each and every issue is not a democracy.

So I guess in my perfect government who is in office wouldn't really matter anyway because they would be bound to act upon the will of the people and not thier own interests. Even if it contradicts the very fiber of thier being.
 
  • #29
Scot - I wish I could explain it better. In my town, we have a 9-person town council and, by state law, no more than 6 can be from the same party. So far, so good.

The problem is that everyone gets to vote for 6 people, the number each party can nominate, and it looks like a large percentage of people vote pretty close to the party line. I assume Port Chester used to be similar before the judge intervened.

The reason I say most people seem to stay close to the party line is that is that there is remarkably little difference between the number of votes that the most popular candidate and the least popular candidate of each party get. There can be a big difference between the parties. If the most popular D got 10,000 votes, the least popular probably got 8,000 and the same kind of ratio will happen with the R candidates. I think the reason is that each party's slate is selected by that party's town committee and dissenting points of view are not welcome. All the Ds all say X and the Rs all say Y. Actually, what the Ds say isn't that different from what the Rs say, except for some social issues and the associated spending.

I believe that if we could only vote for one person, not 6, the top one or two candidates of each party would win easily, but the rest would be in the race of their lives with Conservatives, Greens, Libertarians, Socialists or whatever. If we still were given 6 votes, but could give as many of them to a single candidate as we want, I think we'd see the top 3 or 4 of each party win and only a couple seats would go to candidates with alternative points of view, or alternative colors of skin, for those who care more about that. That's what happened in Port Chester and, while I like it better than letting the Ds and Rs run the table, we'd be better off if each person could only vote for one candidate.

I hope this explanation is better than my previous attempts. What it comes down to is that I want a choice beyond the socially-conservative, pro-FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate industry) Rs and the socially liberal, pro-FIRE Ds. I swear that one year the only difference between the D and R town council platforms was whether gay couples should be eligible for the family discount at the town pools. Anything that helps break those parties' stranglehold is good.
 
  • #30
LOL! The term "Democracy" does not mean "one man, one vote", dashman. Where did you ever get that idea? This isn't exactly the first time cumulative voting has been used. It is a valid and fair way to elect people, and in some ways is superior to the alternatives.

However, I am concerned with the notion that the judge found the previous method violated the Voting Rights Act. I'm not sure what the reasoning was there, and the Yahoo article didn't mention it.

Finally, I'm aghast at the sheer mind-numbing ignorance of the posters here who feel this is some sort of "Progressive" transgression. First, cumulative voting is neither progressive nor conservative. It just "is", and it's common internationally. Second, this federal judge was nominated by George W Bush. Got that? Good.
 
  • #31
I'm aghast at the sheer mind-numbing arrogance of the poster here who feels some of us arent smart enough to understand what this is really about..of course its a "progressive" transgression...it had one purpose, to get a Hispanic elected, who couldn't get elected under normal circumstances..and it worked exactly as planned.

We understand this perfectly well..we know exactly what it is.
attempting a very transparent holier-than-thou re-write of the facts wont change what it really is.

Scot
 
  • #32
LOL! The term "Democracy" does not mean "one man, one vote", dashman. Where did you ever get that idea? This isn't exactly the first time cumulative voting has been used. It is a valid and fair way to elect people, and in some ways is superior to the alternatives.

However, I am concerned with the notion that the judge found the previous method violated the Voting Rights Act. I'm not sure what the reasoning was there, and the Yahoo article didn't mention it.

Finally, I'm aghast at the sheer mind-numbing ignorance of the posters here who feel this is some sort of "Progressive" transgression. First, cumulative voting is neither progressive nor conservative. It just "is", and it's common internationally. Second, this federal judge was nominated by George W Bush. Got that? Good.

I beg to differ....
Democracy
"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them ..." dictionary.com

I would argue that is exactly what the simplified term of "one man, one vote" means. The government run by the people directly. Each carrying the same power as the other with thier vote. Issues are decided by the common majority. That is what I have always thought of as a democracy and was taught in school as the definition of a true democracy. Of course a true democracy has not yet been attained due to sheer difficulty of tallying votes for each and every issue from the citizenry. So that is where government stepped in to vote the will of thier constituents and defend the principles upon which the country was built. Of course now they don't even do that. They woo the public to get elected and then vote the will of thier party, or highest bidder, or to just get re-elected. OK, sometimes they vote the will of the people, but it seems at an alarmingly more frequent rate they do not.

It wouldn't surprise me if Bush appointed him, he is just about as bad as Obama. I do not believe Republicans nor Democrats act with the best interests of the people. At least not the ones that seem to keep getting elected and keep dishing out more of the same broken policies that are sending us to the poor house.

I would not call this ignorance. I would call it an opinion, one I am entitled to have just as you.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Dashman, In cumulative voting, supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them, so it fits the definition that you cite. "One man, one vote" also fits that definition. Democracy comes in different forms. By the way, before 1920 in the US, only men could vote. In certain other democracies, only land owners could vote. Fortunately, democracy evolves with changing times.
 
  • #34
Except for the one vote part. LOL.

True it does evolve. The ones you mentioned are good changes because they address the tyranny of evil men. What is being mentioned here seems to be the opposite, evolution of democracy by tyrannical men.

I hope I am not offending anyone here. I am simply stating my opinions on the topic at hand. I value each of your opinions as well as my own and bear you no ill will. Even if I think you are dead wrong. :)
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Wait Scott, so you're saying that a Bush appointed judge ruling that they were violating the Voting Rights Act is a progressive transgression? Using a system that's been used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas or the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., or the City Council in Peoria, Ill is hardly tyrannical. In many states it is MANDATED to use cumulative voting in corporate governance. For a hundred years it was how the Sate of Illinois elected their Representatives. it's used not to enforce a progressive or conservative agenda, but to ensure minorities don't always lose even when electing full commissions and boards that are supposed to represent the electorate. Remember, of the two Hispanics running here, one was Democrat and one was Republican.

The notion that a system that better represents the voters is preferable is hardly a transgression anyway. It simply addresses the fact that Hispanics don't get elected in this district. Frankly, I find it a stretch of the Voting Rights Act, so I don't understand the Judge's decision in this case. But regardless, that's why he ruled the way he did. it's hardly progressive or conservative - it's simply the application of existing, well-established law. The Voting Rights Act has language ensuring that the electoral processes are equally accessible to minority voters. Is there a problem with that? Is that too "progressive"?

dashman - You are not offending me in the least. I love a spirited political debate (obviously, lol!), and respect all participants as well. But I don't pull punches either - I know the posters here like Scottychaos and rattler and the rest can handle it. :)
 
  • #36
Understood Caps. :)

I don't want you to hold back. Prove me wrong... Prove me wrong... LOL.

EDIT:
BTW, there are progressives on both sides of the aisle. They really are two shades of grey after all. Again reaffirming my point that there should be no sides of the aisle. There should only be the question. "What do the people think?"
 
Last edited:
  • #37
There should only be the question. "What do the people think?"

Cumulative voting answers that question better than "one man, one vote" because minorities are more likely to be represented in the result of the voting. After all, "the people" consists of minorities as well as the majority.
 
  • #38
That is exactly the point. All demographics, races, creeds, colors, etc should be counted equally. No scheme should be derived to give any one group a more influential vote or thier voice louder than thier fellow man.
 
  • #39
Originally Posted by dashman.
There should only be the question. "What do the people think?"

Cumulative voting answers that question better than "one man, one vote" because minorities are more likely to be represented in the result of the voting. After all, "the people" consists of minorities as well as the majority.

it does NOT answer the question better..that is the exact problem with it..
"what do the people think" is best answered with "one man, one vote" because whoever gets the most votes, wins..

its so blatantly obvious that Cumulative voting is designed to give the people what they DONT want, and what the majority didnt vote for..thats the whole problem with it..its rigging the system to get the result that the *minority* wants..

remember the uproar in 2000 when Bush won the election over Gore despite the fact that Gore had more popular votes? funny how liberals were in favor of "one man, one vote" then..when the concept favored their side..but they are against the concept when it favors the evil white people being elected, by the majority, over minorities..

(same can be said for Republicans! they didnt care so much about "one man one vote" in 2000..but they like it now..)

in 2000, Gore should have won..today, Cumulative voting should not exist..

Scot
 
  • #40
Those votes are counted equally. Everybody gets the same number of votes and each person's votes count as much as anyone else's votes.

As for inequality, our national government already gives some voters more of a say. The ~17 million people in AK, DE, HI, ID, ME, MT, NH, NM, ND, RI, SD, VT, WV, and WY have 28 votes in the US Senate, while the 37 million in CA have only 2 votes, as do the 25 million in TX. As Scot pointed out, presidential elections are affected too, because the disparity in senate representation affects the electoral college.

What the judge did in NY doesn't give anyone more votes than anyone else, it just provides more flexibility in how those votes are distributed. Giving each person just one vote would have accomplished even more, but that would be too radical for an at-large local council election in the US.
 
Back
Top