What the heck is up with this?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

Which neighborhood park is most likely to be last on the list?

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

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.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

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

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What a load of bull shit. Statistics consitantly show that minority voters are overwhelmingly Demoncratic.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Most local elections are non-partisan...and putting aside, it still doesnt address the issue of having representation on the governing board from 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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

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.