What the heck is up with this?
 

Mystery S.C. nominee has pending felony charge

Alvin Greene has been on the phone all day. That's to be expected for the guy who just won South Carolina's Democratic Senate primary and is facing incumbent Republican Jim DeMint in November. But everyone calling Greene has just been trying to find out who the heck he is — and one thing reporters learned Tuesday is that a criminal complaint was sworn out against him last year for allegedly showing obscene photos to a South Carolina college student and suggesting they go to her dorm room.

Greene, a 32-year-old unemployed military veteran who lives with his parents, defeated Vic Rawl on Tuesday for the Democratic Senate nomination despite having run essentially no public campaign — no events, no signs, no debates, no website, no fundraising.

The result has baffled political observers, who had heavily favored Rawl — a former state legislator, attorney and prosecutor who had the edge inasmuch as he actually campaigned and tried to win. Many in South Carolina (which has grandly lived up to its reputation as a political circus this year) suspect that somewhere, a crafty GOP political operative is snickering.

Maybe people were thinking politics are so full of crooks what does one more matter?

It's South Carolina, people.

Too small for a republic, too big for an insane asylum.

Link

I'm still having trouble figuring out how this guy who ran virtually, if not literally, no campaign came out with 59% of the Democratic votes. Srsly??

As seen elsewhere:

This is wild speculation on my part, and I have absolutely no proof, but this has fraud written all over it. Diebold?

Edit: Aw, Pie. why did you have to go and ruin a good conspiracy theory with a logical explanation?

Hey, don't let me stop you! :right:

Can the R's vote in a D primary there? Aside from the obvious switching of party to do just that. Wouldn't that have raised a red flag or two having tens of thousands of them? That would be really serious.

@glatt... maybe the D's planted him trying to blame it on the R's and thereby . . . .
Yeh there is something seriously wrong here - maybe the machines - I hadn't thought of that.

59 percent of what number?

Strategic voting is a bit of a perversion, I agree. I think it simply reflects a fundamental weakness in our two-party-winner-take-all de facto electoral system. This system is not in place everywhere. And there are a number of other systems, just as democratic, that offer a what I believe to be a better result, specifically proportional representation.

The theory I saw is that nobody knows Rawl either, and Greene was first on the ballot.

Yes, S.C. has an 'Open Primary' where party affiliation is not required to vote for a candidate.

However
:confused: So... I withdraw my speculation. Go ahead, glatt!

Agree.

Thirded. I believe these alternatives spread the money around more evenly as well reducing outside influence - maybe not?!

At least he will be in good company among the rest of the criminals ithat make up our Congress.

There are several states that allow the opposing party to vote in primaries. There were several instances where the Dems were importing voters from all over to tip Republican primaries toward weak candidates. If memory serves me, New England was one area that happened in the past. Business as usual.

Republicans crossed over in TX (hell, Limbaugh encouraged it), OH and other states in fairly significant numbers during the last presidential primary.

I'm not aware of what you suggest happened in New England. Im not aware of any New England state with an open primary.

Its not the "right thing" to do for anyone.

Tell us a lot about the Dems, doesn't it? hey don't put any thought into their votes. They are on automatic D.

BTW, love your sig line. Check out this link:

Products to buy from Arizona
http://www.examiner.com/x-35976-Cons...roducts-to-buy

And this is from the San Francisco Examiner. Only the nutters in SF are boycotting AZ.

Did you vote for me when I was running for Governor of California?

Link
Whaaaaaaaaaaat?????? So because most of them CHOSE not to vote we have to change the system?

Where did it say that most of "them" CHOSE not to vote?

Cumulative voting has been used as a remedy for Voting Rights Act violations in the past.

When a city/town that is majority white but may have one or more districts (or high population neighborhoods) that are non-white majority AND elects all of its council members on an at-large basis (rather than by district), it puts minorities at a distinct disadvantage and those minority voters can (and often will) be underrepresented on the governing body.

The judge choose the option of cumulative voting over changing to voting by district, which is what the DoJ evidently proposed.

added:
Not that you are reading this (right!), but for others to see the issue from another perspective.

I guess they are trying to hide the fact they are about to soak the taxpayers for another boondogle of a failed jobs stimulus since they have wastes so many billions to date.

Don't call it a stimulus package: Obama wants another $50 billion

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...her-50-billion

Why do you think the Dems want to make them all US citizens ASAP? They need to pad the elections. Remember nearly everything that happens or is said by the Dems between now and Nov is in an effort to stave off greater losses in the elections. Politics as usual.

This has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and making then citizens.

Using at-large elections to increase or maintain the influence of the White majority or conversely, decrease or discourage the representation of minorities in a community has been a long-standing violation of the Voting Rights Act under all administrations since it was enacted (well, except for Bush).

Bullshit.

Where are all the conspiracy theorists hiding ...

Wasn't this the ideal "proof-of-principle" experiment for re-wiring the touch-screen voting machines with no paper trail ?

I'm not usually among the CT crowds, but it seems more credible than multitudes of Republicans agreeing ahead of time that they should cross their votes over to this particular candidate.

I didnt expect you to understand the Voting Rights Act and you didnt surprise me with your typical bullshit response.

Well done Comrade! Your party will be proud!

Perhaps an education on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will help...but I doubt it.

Are you one of those extremists who think we shouldnt have a voting rights act?

No. I am a common man who can point out to the rest of the voters that you are a Demoncratic Mouthpiece who carries water for the Obama Admin and the party that is going to bankrupt this nation. Your party lies preced you Comrad.

From classic's link:
Given that the settlement was imposed/approved by Judge Stephen Robinson, a Bush appointee to the bench (he rejected the remedy proposed by the DoJ of voting by district).....perhaps you can explain how it was all an Obama/Democratic plot.

Every time you open your mouth, you look more foolish....my advice, stick to eating your :corn:

They already are citizens, aren't they?
I find it odd that one group gets 6 votes each and the other only gets one. Unless I read it wrong and all the voters got 6 votes.

Of course you read it wrong...you rushed to judgment. Every citizen gets 6 votes and Merc's suggestion that it is to make them citizens ASAP is ludicrous.

But you're not reading this :lol: ...or my explanation of how it (at-large elections) is a fairly common Voting Rights Act issue and an issue of law despite Merc's attempt to make it a partisan political issue by somehow turning a Republican-appointed judge's settlement into a nefarious plot by Democrats.

added:
I think elections by district would have been better, with a far greater likelihood that an Hispanic would be elected to the town council, which is long over-due considering that the town is almost half Hispanic and the council has been all White for ever.

Your making the assumption the white councilmen don't vote what's best for the entire town and not just for whites.

No...I'm not. I'm just offering my understanding of the case.

The judge made the decision that it was a violation of the Voting Rights Act, based on a pattern over time that the at-large process has not provided for a "fair" opportunity for minority representation on the town council...ever....in a town that is nearly half minority (it would not be an issue if the minority population was very small).

Added
And, I still prefer district elections (or a combination of mostly district and one/two at large) over all at-large elections at the local level. IMO, they are more representative, not just of race, but neighborhood issues, fair distribution/allocation of resources, etc.

We're going through a version of this right now. Our county board members are elected at large for the entire county. The county is made up of roughly 75% Democrats and 25% Republicans. So the county board slots have always been filed by Democrats. It's basically a one party system here in Arlington.

There's a movement now to switch over to a district election system, pushed by the Republicans so they can get some representation on the board.

DC had a similar issue with the city being 85% Democrat.

We have districts and at-large, with two at-large elected every two years; the catch being they cant be from the same party, so a Republican always gets one at-large seat on the Council.

That's stupid, people should be able to elect who they want.

As it relates to political affiliation, I agree with you...and it is not covered by the Voting Rights Act.

As to race, it falls under civil rights and IMO, the Voting Rights Act has played a significant role in enabling minorities to achieve elected political office....and that is what this case is all about.

Enabling minorities to achieve elected political office? Big fucking deal. That's like giving losers an extra 500 points on their SAT scores.

So now what are they going to do once they're in office, take care of their own, or do what's right for the whole community? If they're going to do what's right for the whole community, what difference does it make who wins?

Politicians should be elected for their record, or promises in the beginning, then bounced if they fuck up... no matter what color or party. This sounds like one of those fucking esteem boosting programs.

I get it. You dont like the Voting Rights Act....or at least, Section 2 of the Act.

I disagree...and so has every President/Congress since its enactment/extension.

IMO, having equal access to the political process is not just the right to vote, but the right to serve in elected office and when barriers exist to make that possibility less than fair, the remedy (not a guarantee) is appropriate.

That doesn't make it right, just politically correct.

Perhaps I didnt explain it well or perhaps it wont make a difference.

Many decisions by local governing bodies are not always about what is best for the city/town as a whole. Often, it is about prioritizing and/or responding to the needs of communities or neighborhoods within the city/town.

If a community/neighborhood is not represented on the governing body, preferablly by someone from within that community/neighborhood and particularly when that community/neighborhood is primarily a minority community...there is a far greater likelihood that the community/neighborhood will not be served as well as those that are represented directly on the governing body.

It is not always political correctness, but fairness!

What if the "majority" office holder only takes care of their own? They'll never be bounced because they have the backing of the majority. Someone who consistently fucks the minority can stay in office forever, regardless of whether they they do what's right for the whole community.

:thumb:

Special treatment for minorities is not fairness, no one should get special treatment.

So how is puting 1 or 2 minorities on a council of 6, 9, or a dozen going to change that?

I'll give you a couple of examples.

A city/town council has decided to undertake a major capital improvement project to fix up the city parks...but over a 3 year period. There is one "central" park that should be first on the list, but there is no compelling citywide reason to prioritize the other neighborhood parks. The six council members, all White and all living in the predominantly White neighborhoods of the city. There is no one on the council who lives in the predominantly Hispanic neighborhood. Which neighborhood park is most likely to be last on the list?

A city has an opportunity to receive a community development grant from the state. There is no one project that the council can come up that will benefit the entire city, but each of the council members has a project in his/her neighborhood that they think should be funded. Who is there to promote the project for the Hispanic neighborhood.

It is not special treatment...it is having an equal voice on the council and the opportunity to be represented by someone from within the community.

The change? Having someone from within the Hispanic community on the council who might better understand the issues of the community and, at the very least, providing a voice on the council.

Sure, because every majority candidate feels those minorities must be oppressed, we'll fix up their park with broken glass and infected needles. :rolleyes:

If the voting is for several candidates at large, and the minority community wants one of there own, (whether it's a vote for one, or vote for say, 3 of 6), all they have to do is get off their ass and vote for him. 20, 30 or 40% turnout shows they really don't want to make an effort, they want it handed to them by do-gooders making fucked up laws.

Broken glass and infected needles...come on, dude.

My point was that on issues like this, which are common at the local level and have no real citywide impact, a White council member (or any council member) is more likely to serve his closest constituents first.. the ones they know voted for him.

As to at-large voting, that is not how it works.

I dont know the specifics of the town in question, but if there is a six member council, probably elected in overlapping terms...say three at a time for two years...each citizens votes once, but votes for three people.

Increasing the percentage turn-out of the minority voters does not change the odds against their ever achieving representation if all (or most) of the majority voters continue to vote on color (or neighborhood) lines.

added afterthought:
cumulative voting does increase the chances for a minority to get elected....just not as much as changing to a sytem of voting by district.

God Dammed Right.

What a load of bull shit. Statistics consistently show that minority voters are overwhelmingly Demoncratic. Pedal your propaganda elsewhere.

Most local elections are non-partisan...and putting that aside, it still doesnt address the issue of having representation on the governing board from within one's own community.

Most people don't turn out for local election cycles. On a national level is where Obama and the Demoncrats will gain votes by giving illegals citizenship status and they know it.

In the imortal words of Rham It Through Emanuel, never let a good crisis go to waste.

I'll be happy to discuss it further with Bruce if he would like.

That's true, Philly is Democrat and elections are settled in the primary. My burb is Republican and the same is true, in fact you'll find the same people running for things like the school board, on both tickets.

To bring the discussion full circle, a Hispanic was elected to the council in Port Chester last week, using the court-sanctioned cumulative voting system.

It did not provide additional rights to Hispanics, it was not undemocratic. It corrected a deficiency in the voting system that previously benefited the majority at the expense of the minority.

OK, I misunderstood how this works. They give everybody 6 votes, not just some people. So they went from one man, one vote, to one man, six votes.

I still don't like it, but I'm less incensed.
The hispanics make up nearly half the 30,000 population, and the top 6 of 13 candidates get elected. Sounds to me like they never elected one before because they weren't trying very fucking hard. I also suspect they elected one of the two running, because of...

link