Sure is quiet...

[prole]

to enforce one person, one vote is to get rid of big money in politics so that representatives aren't the tools of corporations like they are today. The current system of corrupt politics flooded by corporate money that Fairweather keeps defending like all tea baggers do.

 

What does any of this have to do with one person one vote? Is someone getting extra votes? Are corporations (or unions) now casting votes? Please try to answer the question.

 

Read carefully and think hard, you daft bastard. A political system that requires candidates to amass enormous amounts of corporate cash to run for office doesn't need to formally disenfranchise anyone -- by the time candidates make it on the slate they've already been "sanitized for your protection". Furthermore, once candidates are elected, they're expected to deliver returns on their donors' investments. Tit-for-tat campaign contributions in exchange for policy support (often written by the industries themselves), technically illegal but hard to pin down, is so rampant as to be practically the air politicians breathe, it's simply "the way things are done" or "being effective". A political process which essentially requires influence peddling and corruption is just as effective at disenfranchising those without cold hard cash as a poll tax, literacy test, property requirement.

[Fairweather]

But this isn't what your other avatar is claiming. I'd appreciate it if he (you) clarified or retracted his (your) statement--which is patently untrue--that one person, one vote is not now in effect.

[Peter_Puget]

I think J_B was taking issue with the impact illegal immigrants have on representation in congress. States with large populations of illegal immigrants receive a disproportionate number of seats in the House of Representatives because noncitizens are included with citizens.

[Phil K]

"I think J_B was taking issue with the impact illegal immigrants have on representation in congress. States with large populations of illegal immigrants receive a disproportionate number of seats in the House of Representatives because noncitizens are included with citizens."

 

Ya'know, if you regressives weren't so wrong on every point, you might not need to lie so freaking much. I seem to recall that House seats are apportioned according to the latest census; we're still working under figures from 2000. And you're telling me that hordes of illegal brown people reported themselves to the 2000 census takers so that they can have more representation in Congress? 'Don't think so.

 

How about this for skewed representation? Because each state gets two Senators regardless of population, via the unprecedented obstruction by the current minority party in the Senate (and yes, the spineless response from the majority), about %18 of the population's representatives get to squash any legislation that they choose to.

 

Why do you people hate America so much?

Edited November 5, 2010 by PHILONIUS

[j_b]

to enforce one person, one vote is to get rid of big money in politics so that representatives aren't the tools of corporations like they are today. The current system of corrupt politics flooded by corporate money that Fairweather keeps defending like all tea baggers do.

What does any of this have to do with one person one vote? Is someone getting extra votes? Are corporations (or unions) now casting votes? Please try to answer the question.

 

It's really not my fault if you are too stupid to understand or ignorant to know/learn that 'one person, one vote' entails political equality between individuals, in particular equality to influence political outcomes. Without political equality, 'one person, one vote' is impossible.

 

Now, I know you don't agree with that, but you don't even agree with the concept of democracy. SO who fucking cares what a goon like you believes?

[Fairweather]

to enforce one person, one vote is to get rid of big money in politics so that representatives aren't the tools of corporations like they are today. The current system of corrupt politics flooded by corporate money that Fairweather keeps defending like all tea baggers do.

What does any of this have to do with one person one vote? Is someone getting extra votes? Are corporations (or unions) now casting votes? Please try to answer the question.

 

It's really not my fault if you are too stupid to understand or ignorant to know/learn that 'one person, one vote' entails political equality between individuals, in particular equality to influence political outcomes. Without political equality, 'one person, one vote' is impossible.

 

Now, I know you don't agree with that, but you don't even agree with the concept of democracy. SO who fucking cares what a goon like you believes?

 

In other words, you were just shooting off your mouth without any real grasp of the words you were told by someone else to say. Well done, leftist dupe. Try thinking before you speak--at least every once in a while.

[j_b]

What part of "'one person, one vote' entails political equality between individuals, in particular equality to influence political outcomes" didn't you understand, regressive ignoramus.

 

Once again, we are privy to the vacuousness of your interventions.

[j_b]

Here you go, chew on this since you insist so much because you believe that you have found a bone. There will be a quizz so make sure you read it all, lazy bum.

 

One Person, One Vote, One Dollar? Campaign Finance, Elections, and Elite Democratic Theory

April, 2010

12 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1257

Author

Stephan Stohler*

Journal of Consitutional Law

University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law

 

I. Introduction

 

The Supreme Court's "one person, one vote" standard imposes a measure of equality onto any individual's ability to influence an election's outcome. 1 The Court has been reluctant to attach this standard to other election resources, like campaign expenditures, despite the fear that money will bring about the appearance of impropriety in democratic decision making. 2 Recently, the Court reasserted this position in Citizens United v. FEC, 3 upholding a corporation's right to expend resources freely in support of political candidates and issues, but the general proposition dates back to the Court's pronouncement in Buckley v. Valeo, establishing the constitutional framework for contemporary campaign finance regulation. The framework first laid out in Buckley and developed subsequently continues to incur substantial criticism, usually advanced in the name of equality. 4 But equality is a tricky value to maximize; interventions that cause people to become more equal along one dimension frequently have the opposite effect along another dimension. 5

 

One promising alternative avoids equality and instead recommends campaign finance rules in accordance with democratic principles themselves. This "institutionally bound" approach permits the restriction of speech within the context of democratic and governing institutions, but only to the extent necessary for carrying out the purpose of those institutions. 6 Recognizing that under certain conditions the rights of a speaker may run counter to other democratic values, the institutionally bound approach rejects a categorical solution to speech regulation.

 

[..]

 

One Person, One Vote, One Dollar? Campaign Finance, Elections, and Elite Democratic Theory

[Stonehead]

Increasing the number of voters tends to dilute the impact of your vote, especially if the increase is populated by the decision making of morons. Sure, that's a cynical eye on the process but I gotta say it begins in our formative years within the educational system. Seems to reason that reformation starts with education. But if what you really want is a homogenized product then by all means continue with the current system.

[Peter_Puget]

"I think J_B was taking issue with the impact illegal immigrants have on representation in congress. States with large populations of illegal immigrants receive a disproportionate number of seats in the House of Representatives because noncitizens are included with citizens."

 

Ya'know, if you regressives weren't so wrong on every point, you might not need to lie so freaking much. I seem to recall that House seats are apportioned according to the latest census; we're still working under figures from 2000. And you're telling me that hordes of illegal brown people reported themselves to the 2000 census takers so that they can have more representation in Congress? 'Don't think so.

 

How about this for skewed representation? Because each state gets two Senators regardless of population, via the unprecedented obstruction by the current minority party in the Senate (and yes, the spineless response from the majority), about %18 of the population's representatives get to squash any legislation that they choose to.

 

Why do you people hate America so much?

 

Wait I've heard you before I think! Yes from this documentary on MSNBC - you get up and speak at a Democratic caucus several years ago!

 

[video:youtube]

[Stonehead]

I predict Google will revolutionize politics:

 

"With your permission you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches."

 

"We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about."

--Google CEO Eric Schmidt

 

Google's CEO: 'The Laws Are Written by Lobbyists'

[j_b]

Has anybody seen Fairweather? he has a quizz to take.

 

[j_b]

[video:youtube]nVh0ZdLgj5U

[Fairweather]

Dude, you have some serious issues.

[j_b]

So, you really wanted to press the issue until recently and now you are making yourself scarce. Are you ready for your quizz, jackass?

[Fairweather]

I guess I just don't consider the posting of chicken pictures and videos as being worthy of response. You're like the guy at a party who is slow to realize that everyone else has already left.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I guess I just don't consider the posting of chicken pictures and videos as being worthy of response. You're like the guy at a party who is slow to realize that everyone else has already left.

 

j_b doesn't go to parties - too much risk that he might actually have fun, and distract him from his life's work to inform the masses of the evils of "unfettered" capitalism, and reform our economic system according to a vision only he can see

[tvashtarkatena]

Have I got the perfect party for him....

[j_b]

I guess I just don't consider the posting of chicken pictures and videos as being worthy of response. You're like the guy at a party who is slow to realize that everyone else has already left.

 

Right, the law journal article on how 'one person, one vote' entails some form of equality to influence outcome, which you ignored after claiming that the flooding of our election with corporate money didn't prevent 'one person, one vote' is on this page. Just scroll the page up and you'll see it. You are such a lousy liar. You aren't done seeing running chicken pictures, coward!

[j_b]

I guess I just don't consider the posting of chicken pictures and videos as being worthy of response. You're like the guy at a party who is slow to realize that everyone else has already left.

j_b doesn't go to parties - too much risk that he might actually have fun, and distract him from his life's work to inform the masses of the evils of "unfettered" capitalism, and reform our economic system according to a vision only he can see

 

here comes the extremist thugs whose only arguments are ad-hominem.

[kevbone]

Alot of poo being slung on this thread.

[j_b]

Fairweather claims he has no recollection of how we got here:

 

I said: "right, who knows what might happen when uppity commoners actually try to enforce one person, one vote ..."

 

Fairweather replied:

"S'what we have already. Well, for those of us who choose to participate anyhow. Your goofy ideas don't look like freedom at all."

 

then FW posted: "explain what you mean when you talk about "enforcing" one person, one vote."

 

then FW posted again: "Does this mean you're not going to answer the question?"

 

then FW insisted: "What does any of this have to do with one person one vote? Is someone getting extra votes? Are corporations (or unions) now casting votes? Please try to answer the question."

 

but FW wasn't going to let it rest, so he said: "I'd appreciate it if he (you) clarified or retracted his (your) statement--which is patently untrue--that one person, one vote is not now in effect."

 

and my short answer wasn't enough, so FW came back for more: "In other words, you were just shooting off your mouth without any real grasp of the words you were told by someone else to say. Well done, leftist dupe. Try thinking before you speak--at least every once in a while."

 

So, I got tired of FW's bullshit and I posted the law journal article that everyone can read near the middle of this page.

 

and then .... Fairweather ran away like a coward that he is and now he pretends to not know what's going on. You couldn't make that shit up if you wanted. What a clown!

 

[j_b]

Fairweather still hasn't commented on the law journal article discussing how 'one person, one vote' entails some measure of equality to influence outcome, even though he insisted ad-infinitum that he wanted an answer to his questions.

 

Guess what?

 

[video:youtube]bUopnpcGzrE

[The_Rooster]

This thread is awesome!!

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm totally gonna pick up a roast chicken from Freddy's for dinner.