Should each citizen's vote weigh the same as any other? Or should some citizens be granted bigger votes? If so, which citizens and what’s your moral justification?
Originally posted by ulTRAX: This falls in the category of democracy 101.
Should each citizen's vote weigh the same as any other? Or should some citizens be granted bigger votes? If so, which citizens and what’s your moral justification?
No. Minority's votes should count more because 1) There are less of them 2) make up for past injustices when they were not even allowed to vote and 3) to be certain that they are represented fairly economically and get what this country promised them.
Affirmative action has been a great success in every other aspect of American life; why not at the ballot box?
I think my vote should count more. I have more opinions.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by LFOD: No. Minority's votes should count more because 1) There are less of them 2) make up for past injustices when they were not even allowed to vote and 3) to be certain that they are represented fairly economically and get what this country promised them.
As a Progressive I'm a minority LOL.
quote:
Affirmative action has been a great success in every other aspect of American life; why not at the ballot box?
One difference I can think of is that if some votes weigh more than others... there's always the risk of minority government... by that I mean candidates rejected by the people can take office.
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: No minority states should get more votes. The policies of the US should not be subject to a handful of larger states.
As it even stands now, Alaska can not decide what it feels is important to itself. The rest of the states like the fact of one big park called Alaska.
- Yea, well if Alaska had its way it would be one big Exxon station and an environmental wasteland. Thank God we are here to save it from its greed for oil money from Halliburton and its ilk.
Yea, well if Alaska had its way it would be one big Exxon station and an environmental wasteland. Thank God we are here to save it from its greed for oil money from Halliburton and its ilk.
LOL, You silly man. They would like 20,000 acres used for exploration in a part of the state that only a few natives visit and oil employees. Do you know how many acres are there? Sorry I don't know of any Halliburton offices there. Believe me they are just as concerned about their environment as we are, but they realize that exploration can be done responsibly.
Where do you live? I think every state should put aside 96% of their land area as one f- big park. And then just sit back and watch 4-6 million acres of it burn each and every year. Love this plan so far. And please save us from ourselves. My that is very socialist of you. rdrradio1 at msn.com
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: No minority states should get more votes. The policies of the US should not be subject to a handful of larger states.
But since with EVERY vote weighting/dilution scheme there's a very real possibility of minority government... under your system the majority can be subjected to a tyranny of the minority. Surely there are other ways to protect minority rights other than anti-democratic means. Or don't you believe in the Bill of Rights?
True, you have plenty of opinions... all of them wrong!
Well, that's a matter of opinion. I'm not the one asking the dumb ass question about how much a vote should weigh however.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: As it even stands now, Alaska can not decide what it feels is important to itself. The rest of the states like the fact of one big park called Alaska.
Alaska entered into a voluntary union with the federal government and agreed to the following:
quote:
As a compact with the United States said State and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to any lands or other property not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this Act, the right or title to which is held by the United States or is subject to disposition by the United States...
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: No minority states should get more votes. The policies of the US should not be subject to a handful of larger states.
But since with EVERY vote weighting/dilution scheme there's a very real possibility of minority government... under your system the majority can be subjected to a tyranny of the minority. Surely there are other ways to protect minority rights other than anti-democratic means. Or don't you believe in the Bill of Rights?
Nope, we have the House to give the Majority a stake in drafting legislature. I think you confuse tyranny for deadlocked congress (an impasse). Yes, and we all know that the Bill of Rights was a compromise. I wonder did Germany have one of those thingies before Hitler?
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Sawdust: Well, that's a matter of opinion. I'm not the one asking the dumb ass question about how much a vote should weigh however.
I thought that conservatives once opposed affirmative action on the basis of civic equality... that no one should have extra rights just because they belong to a class of citizens. I never believed it. I always thought it was a code to conceal their appeal to racist voters.
So are you proof that the Right has no real commitment to civic equality?
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: Nope, we have the House to give the Majority a stake in drafting legislature. I think you confuse tyranny for deadlocked congress (an impasse).
It's a nice theory if you believe it. In reality a supermajority of the Senate and President can be elected by a MINORITY of citizens. They can enter the US into international treaties that become the supreme law of the land, they can hijack the judiciary, and with the help of Gerrymandering in the House, the Senate can propose amendments to the Constitution that could be ratified by states with as little as 38% of the population.
Sorry, your predictably traditional defense of the secular religion just doesn’t square with reality.
By george I think you are right. There are only 3 identities that "own" land in Alaska: Native Alaskans, The State of Alaska, And the US Government.
Shit and I was planning on retiring on my small bit of land there. And I can not even claim to be a native of Alaska. I think we need to inform everyone there that it is not their land.
Well I guess we the people would also like your land back from you and only you.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
I think we need to inform everyone there that it is not their land.
Well I guess we the people would also like your land back from you and only you.
I have no idea WTF you’re babbling about.
You're evading the question whether you support Alaska breaking what they agreed to as a condition of statehood? If that land belongs to all of us... how are WE to be compensated? Or do you believe theft from the federal government is acceptable as long as it looks like a libertarian revolt? No, that can’t be. Libertarians are big on contractual agreements.
It's a nice theory if you believe it. In reality a supermajority of the Senate and President can be elected by a MINORITY of citizens. They can enter the US into international treaties that become the supreme law of the land, they can hijack the judiciary, and with the help of Gerrymandering in the House, the Senate can propose amendments to the Constitution that could be ratified by states with as little as 38% of the population.
Sorry, your predictably traditional defense of the secular religion just doesn’t square with reality.
Yes, and??? The President could be elected with 1% does that make him any less a President? Imagine the power of those that did vote>?
quote:
Article Five describes the process necessary to amend the Constitution. It establishes two methods of proposing amendments: by Congress or by a national convention requested by the states. Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds (2/3) of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments. As of mid-2006, only the first method (proposal by Congress) has been used.
Once proposed—whether submitted by Congress or by a national convention—amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states to take effect. Article Five gives Congress the option of requiring ratification by state legislatures or by special conventions assembled in the states. The convention method of ratification has been used only once (to approve the 21st Amendment). Article Five currently places only one limitation on the amending power—that no amendment can deprive a state of its equal representation in the Senate without that state's consent. Article Five: Process of amendment
So I believe that every amendment has been through the House. We could all resort to "what-ifs" but history is a better guide than your scenarios, and are not likely to go to fruition.
Luckily I am in a jovial mode. Because I will let the ad hom attacks go for now.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
You're trying to further hijack a discussion that isn't going well for you.
Not from my perspective.
quote:
Simple fact is that ALASKA AGREED TO THE CURRENT LAND OWNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT AS A CONDITION OF STATEHOOD. Deal with it.
So how many other states had to agree to this? And why or why not. Are you saying that land in the state you live is not owned by the Federal Government? Or more specifically can they not take your land if they so desire? Do you live on land that is "controlled" by the USA? If they develop their land does that not help us all? And if they produce more liquid gold will we not be better off?
Again why should we stand in the way of their desire to develop their state? I think Portland should be turned into a nice park also but does that mean I am going to force Oregonians to change?
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Yea, well if Alaska had its way it would be one big Exxon station and an environmental wasteland. Thank God we are here to save it from its greed for oil money from Halliburton and its ilk.
LOL, You silly man. They would like 20,000 acres used for exploration in a part of the state that only a few natives visit and oil employees. Do you know how many acres are there? Sorry I don't know of any Halliburton offices there. Believe me they are just as concerned about their environment as we are, but they realize that exploration can be done responsibly.
Where do you live? I think every state should put aside 96% of their land area as one f- big park. And then just sit back and watch 4-6 million acres of it burn each and every year. Love this plan so far. And please save us from ourselves. My that is very socialist of you. rdrradio1 at msn.com
You're right! Halliburton isnt there; much to the dismay of the Cheney/Bush Oil Cartel. We stopped them from making Alaska the next Gulf and the Alaskans thank us for that.
I thought that conservatives once opposed affirmative action on the basis of civic equality... that no one should have extra rights just because they belong to a class of citizens. I never believed it. I always thought it was a code to conceal their appeal to racist voters.
Don't try to think unless you're equipped for it.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
You're right! Halliburton isnt there; much to the dismay of the Cheney/Bush Oil Cartel. We stopped them from making Alaska the next Gulf and the Alaskans thank us for that.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I knew I would be right about something.
Actually a majority of Alaskans actually support off shore drilling too. If done right we could build some platforms for those poor Polar Bears. So I don't think they are thanking "you" yet.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
I thought that conservatives once opposed affirmative action on the basis of civic equality... that no one should have extra rights just because they belong to a class of citizens. I never believed it. I always thought it was a code to conceal their appeal to racist voters.
Don't try to think unless you're equipped for it.
I take it you just object to the "racist" aspect.
OK... so if the Right truly respects civic equality... where TF are they when it comes to protesting the civic INequality built into our federal system? US federalism seems to be the nation’s first Affirmative Action program in which SOME US citizens based on class (choice of state residence) were given extra rights at the expense of other US citizens.
The simple truth is the Right… and no doubt you… DEFEND such civic INequality.
How f*ckin' noble.
EDIT... corrected my careless error: "The simple truth is the Right… and no doubt you… DEFEND such civic equality." to "The simple truth is the Right… and no doubt you… DEFEND such civic INequality."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: ulTRAX,
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: I think Portland should be turned into a nice park also but does that mean I am going to force Oregonians to change?
WTF are you now babbling about? Land ownership in Alaska is largely a result of what Alaskans agree to in exchange for statehood. Are you suggesting that there are similar issues with Oregon? Does some third party have a legal claim to the land Portland is on? Who are they? If there was land theft involved, I’ll support their claims. But why do I suspect you’re not defending any native peoples’ claims to land in Alaska. Which brings us back to the question… WTF are you now babbling about?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: ulTRAX,
Discussion Community 
