As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

How can we survive without the D and R?

mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
edited October 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
From the Washington Times:
Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The article goes on to say that the city is 2/3 black.

More:
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor.

Emphasis mine.

This strikes me as not only patently absurd, but insulting on a deep level to black voters. It's a well known fact that the Republican party has not done even remotely well with black voters for some time (ever?!), and "no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here. "

So how deep and how much effort should be spent in maintaining a strict political identity in local affairs? And why does the Justice Department feel it needs to override a local law enacted by a majority minority. In fact:
In November's election - one in which "hope" emerged as a central theme - the city had uncommonly high voter turnout, with more than 11,000 of the city's 15,000 voters casting ballots. Kinston's blacks voted in greater numbers than whites.

Whites typically cast the majority of votes in Kinston's general elections. Kinston residents contributed to Barack Obama's victory as America's first black president and voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city.

The measure appeared to have broad support among both white and black voters, as it won a majority in seven of the city's nine black-majority voting precincts and both of its white-majority precincts.

So this is a case of black residents enacting a law that they favor, only to be told that they are harmed by not knowing who is a Democrat.

Incredulous.

mrdobalina on
«1345

Posts

  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    In other words, we can't trust black folk to know who they should vote for, so we need to tell them?

    That is seriously stupid and terribly racist.

    edit: I see this comes from the same person who basically dismissed the Black Panther voter intimidation stuff.

    Blance in the universe folks. Even's things out for the racist JP unwilling to marry interacial couples... ;)

    Yall on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice"
    I'm not sure if I've parsed this correctly. So they're saying that the default "candidates of choice" for black voters are Democrats, and issues are not as important as the letter in front of the candidate's name?

    edit: From further in the article
    "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."
    Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

    As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

    If dudes don't show up to vote, their "candidate" (who they didn't vote for) doesn't win. That is what happens.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    So how deep and how much effort should be spent in maintaining a strict political identity in local affairs? And why does the Justice Department feel it needs to override a local law enacted by a majority minority.

    History. And this is hardly the first time DOJ has ruled against local communities. It's rare but not unusual, this would be the 3rd or 4th time this decade.

    moniker on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    King, in a letter overturning the election, said the city did not meet its burden of proof that the change “has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” King’s letter went on to declare, “Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.”

    moniker on
  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    King, in a letter overturning the election, said the city did not meet its burden of proof that the change “has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” King’s letter went on to declare, “Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.”

    Is that supposed to actually pass for a good reason?

    Yall on
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    King, in a letter overturning the election, said the city did not meet its burden of proof that the change “has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” King’s letter went on to declare, “Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.”

    Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

    It's hard to say that people deciding who to vote for on the merits of their ideas is a bad thing.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    TachTach Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    While I agree with your sentiment, mrdobolina, think about it the other way.

    If your usual identifiers are removed in something as important as an election- how is that fair? We have some people who ONLY vote for the D or the R- removing those- without going the extra mile to help those people out- is pretty undue pressure on those voters.

    Tach on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Tach wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, mrdobolina, think about it the other way.

    If your usual identifiers are removed in something as important as an election- how is that fair? We have some people who ONLY vote for the D or the R- removing those- without going the extra mile to help those people out- is pretty undue pressure on those voters.

    Pressure? Like instead of looking for the D or R they'd have to figure out what he's really about? That's undue pressure?

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    King, in a letter overturning the election, said the city did not meet its burden of proof that the change “has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” King’s letter went on to declare, “Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.”

    Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

    It's hard to say that people deciding who to vote for on the merits of their ideas is a bad thing.

    It seems more to rest on the idea that people aren't going to know the merits of candidate's ideas or even what the ideas themselves are.

    moniker on
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Tach wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, mrdobolina, think about it the other way.

    If your usual identifiers are removed in something as important as an election- how is that fair? We have some people who ONLY vote for the D or the R- removing those- without going the extra mile to help those people out- is pretty undue pressure on those voters.

    The local populace obviously feels that it's fair.

    My guess would be that they want the elections to be about their local issues and local solutions and to remove national party affiliation from the process, so candidates can't automatically win based on their affiliation.

    That sounds to me like progress.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    agoajagoaj Top Tier One FearRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If you don't know which is which on part of the ballot, don't vote on that part. If you really don't know then you can't be sure if either candidate shares any of your views. They cram their names and letters in every commercial and yard weeks before the election anyway.

    agoaj on
    ujav5b9gwj1s.png
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    Malkor wrote: »
    The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice"
    I'm not sure if I've parsed this correctly. So they're saying that the default "candidates of choice" for black voters are Democrats, and issues are not as important as the letter in front of the candidate's name?

    edit: From further in the article
    "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."
    Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

    As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

    If dudes don't show up to vote, their "candidate" (who they didn't vote for) doesn't win. That is what happens.

    Anecdote: Up until the elections last year, I lived in a neighborhood that was mostly black. I went to my local caucus and saw about 80% white people. Same thing at the voting booth in November. Just because a voting district is majority black doesn't mean that a majority of people who actually show up to vote are.

    Of course, that doesn't excuse the overturning of something voted into law.

    Doc on
  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice"
    I'm not sure if I've parsed this correctly. So they're saying that the default "candidates of choice" for black voters are Democrats, and issues are not as important as the letter in front of the candidate's name?

    edit: From further in the article
    "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."
    Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

    As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

    If dudes don't show up to vote, their "candidate" (who they didn't vote for) doesn't win. That is what happens.

    Anecdote: Up until the elections last year, I lived in a neighborhood that was mostly black. I went to my local caucus and saw about 80% white people. Same thing at the voting booth in November. Just because a voting district is majority black doesn't mean that a majority of people who actually show up to vote are.

    Of course, that doesn't excuse the overturning of something voted into law.

    Nor does it warrant legislating against voter apathy.

    Yall on
  • Options
    TachTach Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, mrdobolina, think about it the other way.

    If your usual identifiers are removed in something as important as an election- how is that fair? We have some people who ONLY vote for the D or the R- removing those- without going the extra mile to help those people out- is pretty undue pressure on those voters.

    The local populace obviously feels that it's fair.

    My guess would be that they want the elections to be about their local issues and local solutions and to remove national party affiliation from the process, so candidates can't automatically win based on their affiliation.

    That sounds to me like progress.
    I would agree, and From the article, it seems that this particular town has it's shit together. But there is a subset of people for whom that just isn't an option- and probably never will be. On both sides.

    Tach on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice"
    I'm not sure if I've parsed this correctly. So they're saying that the default "candidates of choice" for black voters are Democrats, and issues are not as important as the letter in front of the candidate's name?

    edit: From further in the article
    "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."
    Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

    As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

    If dudes don't show up to vote, their "candidate" (who they didn't vote for) doesn't win. That is what happens.

    Anecdote: Up until the elections last year, I lived in a neighborhood that was mostly black. I went to my local caucus and saw about 80% white people. Same thing at the voting booth in November. Just because a voting district is majority black doesn't mean that a majority of people who actually show up to vote are.

    Of course, that doesn't excuse the overturning of something voted into law.

    Nor does it warrant legislating against voter apathy.

    I'm in favor of compulsory voting, even if there is no real enforcement.

    Doc on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice"
    I'm not sure if I've parsed this correctly. So they're saying that the default "candidates of choice" for black voters are Democrats, and issues are not as important as the letter in front of the candidate's name?

    edit: From further in the article
    "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."
    Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

    As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

    If dudes don't show up to vote, their "candidate" (who they didn't vote for) doesn't win. That is what happens.

    Anecdote: Up until the elections last year, I lived in a neighborhood that was mostly black. I went to my local caucus and saw about 80% white people. Same thing at the voting booth in November. Just because a voting district is majority black doesn't mean that a majority of people who actually show up to vote are.

    Of course, that doesn't excuse the overturning of something voted into law.

    It kind of does, depending on the particulars. There's a reason that certain towns are listed as needing DOJ approval in order to change their voting laws. You can certainly argue that this community doesn't seem to warrant being on the watch list anymore and that this specific decision is wrongheaded, but in general it doesn't seem like an unwarranted capability.

    moniker on
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    These are the only numbers I can find for the 2008 election results in Kingston, NC and they are for this ballot initiative.

    4,977 for
    2,819 against

    That's a total of 7700+ for this issue. Is there anyone better at internets that can link the full election results. Im curious what % of the electorate undervoted this line.

    Deebaser on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    King, in a letter overturning the election, said the city did not meet its burden of proof that the change “has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” King’s letter went on to declare, “Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.”

    Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

    It's hard to say that people deciding who to vote for on the merits of their ideas is a bad thing.

    Only the practical truth is that if you need a cue as to the party affiliation of the candidate on the actual ballot then odds are overwhelming that you don't know a goddamned thing about their ideas in the first place.

    There is a reason that we have a party structure in our politics. Mostly it's because parties align behind principles, and allow for voters to make more informed choices than they would otherwise. Trying to eliminate party designations on ballots is an old old game that's been played by both sides in many states and always by whatever political party is in the minority. That the Washington Times is pretending as though this has some basis in principle or is a new development betrays either their ignorance or their bias or, likely, both.

    Would they whine, for instance, that white people in Texas or Georgia or South Carolina are condescended to by that all-important (R) next to the names on the ballot?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Tach wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, mrdobolina, think about it the other way.

    If your usual identifiers are removed in something as important as an election- how is that fair? We have some people who ONLY vote for the D or the R- removing those- without going the extra mile to help those people out- is pretty undue pressure on those voters.

    The local populace obviously feels that it's fair.

    My guess would be that they want the elections to be about their local issues and local solutions and to remove national party affiliation from the process, so candidates can't automatically win based on their affiliation.

    That sounds to me like progress.
    I would agree, and From the article, it seems that this particular town has it's shit together. But there is a subset of people for whom that just isn't an option- and probably never will be. On both sides.

    I'm concerned that the DOJ feels compelled to tell a town that has its shit together that it better get its shit not-together in order to be legally compliant.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    TachTach Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Did DOJ shit upon them because of the Voting Rights Act?

    Tach on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    King, in a letter overturning the election, said the city did not meet its burden of proof that the change “has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” King’s letter went on to declare, “Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.”

    Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

    It's hard to say that people deciding who to vote for on the merits of their ideas is a bad thing.

    Only the practical truth is that if you need a cue as to the party affiliation of the candidate on the actual ballot then odds are overwhelming that you don't know a goddamned thing about their ideas in the first place.

    There is a reason that we have a party structure in our politics. Mostly it's because parties align behind principles, and allow for voters to make more informed choices than they would otherwise. Trying to eliminate party designations on ballots is an old old game that's been played by both sides in many states and always by whatever political party is in the minority. That the Washington Times is pretending as though this has some basis in principle or is a new development betrays either their ignorance or their bias or, likely, both.

    Would they whine, for instance, that white people in Texas or Georgia or South Carolina are condescended to by that all-important (R) next to the names on the ballot?

    I'm kind of curious as to how Nebraska's 'new' system has worked out. I rather like the unicameral idea for state politics in general. Having them be non-partisan elections is just kinda meh, but I've never really seen how that's impacted the setup and if it has resulted in better governance or just the same shit under a different name.

    moniker on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, mrdobolina, think about it the other way.

    If your usual identifiers are removed in something as important as an election- how is that fair? We have some people who ONLY vote for the D or the R- removing those- without going the extra mile to help those people out- is pretty undue pressure on those voters.

    The local populace obviously feels that it's fair.

    My guess would be that they want the elections to be about their local issues and local solutions and to remove national party affiliation from the process, so candidates can't automatically win based on their affiliation.

    That sounds to me like progress.
    I would agree, and From the article, it seems that this particular town has it's shit together. But there is a subset of people for whom that just isn't an option- and probably never will be. On both sides.

    I'm concerned that the DOJ feels compelled to tell a town that has its shit together that it better get its shit not-together in order to be legally compliant.

    I'm confused by this. Are you suggesting that the only useful metric in order to determine whether or not a city's voting laws are discriminatory are whether or not they permit partisanship in local elections?

    moniker on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, mrdobolina, think about it the other way.

    If your usual identifiers are removed in something as important as an election- how is that fair? We have some people who ONLY vote for the D or the R- removing those- without going the extra mile to help those people out- is pretty undue pressure on those voters.

    The local populace obviously feels that it's fair.

    My guess would be that they want the elections to be about their local issues and local solutions and to remove national party affiliation from the process, so candidates can't automatically win based on their affiliation.

    That sounds to me like progress.
    I would agree, and From the article, it seems that this particular town has it's shit together. But there is a subset of people for whom that just isn't an option- and probably never will be. On both sides.

    I'm concerned that the DOJ feels compelled to tell a town that has its shit together that it better get its shit not-together in order to be legally compliant.

    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    I'm kind of curious as to how Nebraska's 'new' system has worked out. I rather like the unicameral idea for state politics in general. Having them be non-partisan elections is just kinda meh, but I've never really seen how that's impacted the setup and if it has resulted in better governance or just the same shit under a different name.

    I don't know much about it. Unicameralism seems like a good development. Making elections nonpartisan would seem to require a very strong local civic ethic and probably a very settled population. I'm not sure it's really geared well to modern America outside of, say, Nebraska and Maine.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Doing away with party affiliations would be the best thing for the US right now, on any level, be it for a city, state or even the whole country. US politics are becoming insanely polarized, and as the economic crisis wears on, as wars wear on, I think the polarization is only going to get more extreme. With only two functioning parties, its the loonies on the fringe that make the difference.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Doing away with party affiliations would be the best thing for the US right now, on any level, be it for a city, state or even the whole country. US politics are becoming insanely polarized, and as the economic crisis wears on, as wars wear on, I think the polarization is only going to get more extreme. With only two functioning parties, its the loonies on the fringe that make the difference.

    How would removing party affiliations reduce this or really do much of anything beneficial, really?

    moniker on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2009
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Doing away with party affiliations would be the best thing for the US right now, on any level, be it for a city, state or even the whole country. US politics are becoming insanely polarized, and as the economic crisis wears on, as wars wear on, I think the polarization is only going to get more extreme. With only two functioning parties, its the loonies on the fringe that make the difference.

    With a population as willfully ignorant and heterogenous as ours is, and a political system that rewards graft and conflict-of-interest as strongly as ours does, party affiliation and having two well-defined and relatively well-understood parties is the only thing that is keeping us from being fucking Greece.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, mrdobolina, think about it the other way.

    If your usual identifiers are removed in something as important as an election- how is that fair? We have some people who ONLY vote for the D or the R- removing those- without going the extra mile to help those people out- is pretty undue pressure on those voters.

    The local populace obviously feels that it's fair.

    My guess would be that they want the elections to be about their local issues and local solutions and to remove national party affiliation from the process, so candidates can't automatically win based on their affiliation.

    That sounds to me like progress.
    I would agree, and From the article, it seems that this particular town has it's shit together. But there is a subset of people for whom that just isn't an option- and probably never will be. On both sides.

    I'm concerned that the DOJ feels compelled to tell a town that has its shit together that it better get its shit not-together in order to be legally compliant.

    I'm confused by this. Are you suggesting that the only useful metric in order to determine whether or not a city's voting laws are discriminatory are whether or not they permit partisanship in local elections?

    I was responding more to the comment above that the town has its shit together. It was a very broad generalization.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Did they ever consider the effect this would have on the ability of black Republicans to get elected?

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, mrdobolina, think about it the other way.

    If your usual identifiers are removed in something as important as an election- how is that fair? We have some people who ONLY vote for the D or the R- removing those- without going the extra mile to help those people out- is pretty undue pressure on those voters.

    The local populace obviously feels that it's fair.

    My guess would be that they want the elections to be about their local issues and local solutions and to remove national party affiliation from the process, so candidates can't automatically win based on their affiliation.

    That sounds to me like progress.
    I would agree, and From the article, it seems that this particular town has it's shit together. But there is a subset of people for whom that just isn't an option- and probably never will be. On both sides.

    I'm concerned that the DOJ feels compelled to tell a town that has its shit together that it better get its shit not-together in order to be legally compliant.

    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    I'm kind of curious as to how Nebraska's 'new' system has worked out. I rather like the unicameral idea for state politics in general. Having them be non-partisan elections is just kinda meh, but I've never really seen how that's impacted the setup and if it has resulted in better governance or just the same shit under a different name.

    The unicam seems to function a lot better than what I've seen in my home state (Minnesota) and Minnesota doesn't even have a particularly disfunctional state government. Most of the friction in Nebraska that I've seen comes from the conflicts between rural senators (everyone is a senator in the unicam) and senators from Lincoln/Omaha, particularly since one group is growing and the other shrinking. Other than Ernie Chambers, who done got termed out, most Nebraska senators aren't going to be terribly extreme, so that probably makes nonpartisan elections less polarizing. I mean, we sent both Nelson and Hagel to DC.

    Having become pretty familiar with the unicam, I don't really see a compelling reason to have dual legislative houses in any small to moderate sized state. Large states may benefit from the checks and balances provided by two houses, but even then I'm not really convinced.

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    Well, it supposes that they will vote in the majority for Democrats. I don't think that's racist to suggest, at least until party dynamics change a whole lot.

    Doc on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    Well, it supposes that they will vote in the majority for Democrats. I don't think that's racist to suggest, at least until party dynamics change a whole lot.

    Party dynamic is not going to change if the only way black candidates can get elected is to have that all-overriding "D" next to their name.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    Well, it supposes that they will vote in the majority for Democrats. I don't think that's racist to suggest, at least until party dynamics change a whole lot.

    Party dynamic is not going to change if the only way black candidates can get elected is to have that all-overriding "D" next to their name.

    Yes let's start our effort to revolutionize party dynamics in a black town in South Carolina. Surely allowing small-town Southern black Folks to be tricked into voting Republican is the lynchpin that will revolutionize the civic dynamic in this country.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Doing away with party affiliations would be the best thing for the US right now, on any level, be it for a city, state or even the whole country. US politics are becoming insanely polarized, and as the economic crisis wears on, as wars wear on, I think the polarization is only going to get more extreme. With only two functioning parties, its the loonies on the fringe that make the difference.

    This is... a really bad understanding of US politics. The most important people politically right now are moderate Democratic Senators. In terms of the populace, it's those disillusioned with both parties for whatever reason. The fringe whackos are basically guaranteed votes for whichever fringe and only have power if they're allowed to (hi Republicans!). Fortunately, this is a self correcting problem as the extreme wings of the two parties don't appeal at all to the people who hate both parties and will end up either not showing up or voting for the lesser of two evils.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    Yall on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    But it's all good because they are small town Southern blacks; that means they don't matter.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    Well, it supposes that they will vote in the majority for Democrats. I don't think that's racist to suggest, at least until party dynamics change a whole lot.

    Party dynamic is not going to change if the only way black candidates can get elected is to have that all-overriding "D" next to their name.

    Yes let's start our effort to revolutionize party dynamics in a black town in South Carolina. Surely allowing small-town Southern black Folks to be tricked into voting Republican is the lynchpin that will revolutionize the civic dynamic in this country.

    That's a mighty cynical viewpoint. If a locality can overcome party dynamics and institutionalized racial attitudes of pre-determined voting patterns, why stop it?

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    The History of the United States would like to have a word with you. Unless you're of the opinion that the problems that caused the creation of the Voting Rights Act are gone?

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Sign In or Register to comment.