From: William Clark on
In article <tTHbn.75092$JE2.71270(a)newsfe09.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org
wrote:

> On 7-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> > But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
> > call that "democracy"? I don't think so.
>
> eviction is a result of not meeting one's contractual obligations and not of
> some vote taken.

No, it can also be the result of someone buying out and tearing up a
valid contract of a fully paid up tenant.

You need to get out more.
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<clark-D65648.22083507022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

> In article <tTHbn.75092$JE2.71270(a)newsfe09.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org
> wrote:
>
> > On 7-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
> > > call that "democracy"? I don't think so.
> >
> > eviction is a result of not meeting one's contractual obligations and not of
> > some vote taken.
>
> No, it can also be the result of someone buying out and tearing up a
> valid contract of a fully paid up tenant.
>
> You need to get out more.

Give a concrete example.

And then deal with the fact that you've assumed that those tenants will
have no vote...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: William Clark on
In article <alangbaker-A1A2AA.16265807022010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:

> In article
> <clark-6B89C1.17543407022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <alangbaker-AAC593.14031507022010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <clark-B507BB.08034807022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <alangbaker-35AE26.20434306022010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > > > > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> > > > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegrou
> > > > > > > > ps
> > > > > > > > .c
> > > > > > > > om
> > > > > > > > ..
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegrou
> > > > > > > >> ps
> > > > > > > >> .c
> > > > > > > >> om
> > > > > > > >> ..
> > > > > > > >> .
> > > > > > > >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegro
> > > > > > > >> >up
> > > > > > > >> >s.
> > > > > > > >> >co
> > > > > > > >> >m.
> > > > > > > >> >..
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said
> > > > > > > >> > > Obama
> > > > > > > >> > > was
> > > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people
> > > > > > > >> > > who
> > > > > > > >> > > can't
> > > > > > > >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a
> > > > > > > >> > > prerequisite
> > > > > > > >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here
> > > > > > > >> > > think
> > > > > > > >> > > about
> > > > > > > >> > > this. Do you defend him?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to
> > > > > > > >> > enact
> > > > > > > >> > socialist
> > > > > > > >> > policies.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read
> > > > > > > >> > or
> > > > > > > >> > write".
> > > > > > > >> > That
> > > > > > > >> > is stupid.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It
> > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > >> > never
> > > > > > > >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact
> > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > >> > elections
> > > > > > > >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight
> > > > > > > >> > votes
> > > > > > > >> > based
> > > > > > > >> > on
> > > > > > > >> > how
> > > > > > > >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous
> > > > > > > >> > year's
> > > > > > > >> > tax
> > > > > > > >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never
> > > > > > > >> > happen.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you
> > > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > > >> > looking
> > > > > > > >> > for.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > >> than those cast by people who don't?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> - - -
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in
> > > > > > > >> taxes
> > > > > > > >> since
> > > > > > > >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide
> > > > > > > >> how
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > >> it.
> > > > > > > >> What is wrong with that?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you mean by "weight"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - - -
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person
> > > > > > > > pays
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > weight votes on what government should do based on who is
> > > > > > > > paying
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > income
> > > > > > > taxes you get two votes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that there is no chance that it could
> > > > > produce a better society?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I am. I saw how this system operated in Northern Ireland, and the
> > > > consequences for the society of effectively disenfranchising large
> > > > sections of the population. We all know where it ended up.
> > >
> > > I'm unfamiliar with the situation. Could you point me to some info?
> >
> > In Northern Ireland up until the 1970s, property and business owners had
> > multiple votes, renters had none, thus effectively maintaining a
> > Protestant minority in control of a predominantly Catholic city in
> > perpetuo. It was this that was the stimulus for the civil rights marches
> > of the late 1960s, that eventually degenerated into the "Troubles" that
> > are only now just behind us. I think this idea is a recipe for the same
> > civil unrest.
>
> I'm sorry, but you are incorrect on a number of particulars:
>
> Only a very small percentage of property and business owners had
> multiple votes. 1.5% according to the reference I read.
>
> Renters had votes. Lodgers didn't and neither did adult children living
> at home.
>
> Also, this wasn't unique to Northern Ireland, so pointing only to
> Ireland and its problem while ignoring that the rest of Britain operated
> the same way until 1945 without "anarchy" is a little dishonest, don't
> you think?
>
> <http://suffrage-universel.be/uk/ukvoul.htm>

The fact is that one vote per houselhold, combined with widespread
gerrymandering (which the Protestant minority, being in power, could
implement) led to the civil rights marches of 1968 and the ensuing
Troubles. I don't think we need that here. And pre-1945 Britain actually
moved on - you seem to want to turn the clock back to the Victorian ers.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now we have a tyranny of the majority situation in one
> > > > > particular
> > > > > area: if the majority want something, they can force the minority to
> > > > > pay
> > > > > for it.
> > > >
> > > > You are assuming that the majority is a) coherently organized, and b)
> > > > all of the same mind. Our electoral system (as long as the districts
> > > > are
> > > > not gerrymandered) shows that the moveable center shifts sides and
> > > > leads
> > > > to change.
> > >
> > > You're assuming that coherent organization is necessary for politicians
> > > to see which way the wind blows...
> >
> > I don't think so.
>
> Really? You don't think political parties attempt to put together
> platforms that will appeal to the majority?

They try, but fortunately the swing voters in the middle usually see
through them and vote their way. Would you have said in Summer of 2008
that Obama's was a platform to "appeal to the majority"? No - it was
Magoo and Barbie that tries to do that, and got dumped.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If 5 guys on a street corner "vote" to "redistribute" the wealth of a
> > > > > sixth, we usually call that a mugging...
> > > >
> > > > But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
> > > > call that "democracy"? I don't think so.
> > >
> > > You're assuming that he'll have that power. I'm not talking about making
> > > money the only vote and I don't pretend to know where the balance point
> > > should be, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't necessarily be some
> > > counterbalancing.
> >
> > I don't follow. Giving any one individual the right to disenfranchise
> > another, and that is what this will do, is asking for anarchy.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're making that part up. I'm not suggesting that
> anyone be disenfranchised and that is not automatically what this will
> do.

Yes, if you give any one person more votes than the other, then you are
effectively disenfranchising those on the bottom end. Instead of my
vote canceling out Bush's for example, he will be able to cancel out me,
and several others, and still have a vote that counts. It is nonsense.
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<clark-DBBAB6.22194607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

> > > > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that there is no chance that it could
> > > > > > produce a better society?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I am. I saw how this system operated in Northern Ireland, and
> > > > > the
> > > > > consequences for the society of effectively disenfranchising large
> > > > > sections of the population. We all know where it ended up.
> > > >
> > > > I'm unfamiliar with the situation. Could you point me to some info?
> > >
> > > In Northern Ireland up until the 1970s, property and business owners had
> > > multiple votes, renters had none, thus effectively maintaining a
> > > Protestant minority in control of a predominantly Catholic city in
> > > perpetuo. It was this that was the stimulus for the civil rights marches
> > > of the late 1960s, that eventually degenerated into the "Troubles" that
> > > are only now just behind us. I think this idea is a recipe for the same
> > > civil unrest.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but you are incorrect on a number of particulars:
> >
> > Only a very small percentage of property and business owners had
> > multiple votes. 1.5% according to the reference I read.
> >
> > Renters had votes. Lodgers didn't and neither did adult children living
> > at home.
> >
> > Also, this wasn't unique to Northern Ireland, so pointing only to
> > Ireland and its problem while ignoring that the rest of Britain operated
> > the same way until 1945 without "anarchy" is a little dishonest, don't
> > you think?
> >
> > <http://suffrage-universel.be/uk/ukvoul.htm>
>
> The fact is that one vote per houselhold, combined with widespread
> gerrymandering (which the Protestant minority, being in power, could
> implement) led to the civil rights marches of 1968 and the ensuing
> Troubles. I don't think we need that here. And pre-1945 Britain actually
> moved on - you seem to want to turn the clock back to the Victorian ers.

William:

Your thesis was that the policy was what led to the Troubles.

You were both wrong on the facts (and AFAICT presented what you got
right with a deliberate slant) and if your thesis is valid, it must
address why other jurisdictions didn't experience the same probems.

Furthermore, you continue with this strawman that I advocate
disenfranchising anyone.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now we have a tyranny of the majority situation in one
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > area: if the majority want something, they can force the minority
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > pay
> > > > > > for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are assuming that the majority is a) coherently organized, and b)
> > > > > all of the same mind. Our electoral system (as long as the districts
> > > > > are
> > > > > not gerrymandered) shows that the moveable center shifts sides and
> > > > > leads
> > > > > to change.
> > > >
> > > > You're assuming that coherent organization is necessary for politicians
> > > > to see which way the wind blows...
> > >
> > > I don't think so.
> >
> > Really? You don't think political parties attempt to put together
> > platforms that will appeal to the majority?
>
> They try, but fortunately the swing voters in the middle usually see
> through them and vote their way. Would you have said in Summer of 2008
> that Obama's was a platform to "appeal to the majority"? No - it was
> Magoo and Barbie that tries to do that, and got dumped.

They both tried to appeal to the majority.

We have a growing disaster in our society: we're spending a lot of money
and getting less and less back for it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If 5 guys on a street corner "vote" to "redistribute" the wealth of
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > sixth, we usually call that a mugging...
> > > > >
> > > > > But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
> > > > > call that "democracy"? I don't think so.
> > > >
> > > > You're assuming that he'll have that power. I'm not talking about
> > > > making
> > > > money the only vote and I don't pretend to know where the balance point
> > > > should be, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't necessarily be some
> > > > counterbalancing.
> > >
> > > I don't follow. Giving any one individual the right to disenfranchise
> > > another, and that is what this will do, is asking for anarchy.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but you're making that part up. I'm not suggesting that
> > anyone be disenfranchised and that is not automatically what this will
> > do.
>
> Yes, if you give any one person more votes than the other, then you are
> effectively disenfranchising those on the bottom end. Instead of my
> vote canceling out Bush's for example, he will be able to cancel out me,
> and several others, and still have a vote that counts. It is nonsense.

No. That is not disenfranchising anyone. Sorry.

I don't know that it will work, but so far, your only "example" has been
a society whose problems you haven't shown were caused by their version
of the same idea.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Frank Ketchum on

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-EA28F9.19091307022010(a)news.shawcable.com...
> In article
> <clark-D65648.22083507022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <tTHbn.75092$JE2.71270(a)newsfe09.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 7-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
>> > > call that "democracy"? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > eviction is a result of not meeting one's contractual obligations and
>> > not of
>> > some vote taken.
>>
>> No, it can also be the result of someone buying out and tearing up a
>> valid contract of a fully paid up tenant.
>>
>> You need to get out more.
>
> Give a concrete example.


I love how some people like to pretend that we don't already have in place a
legal system to handle such problems.


>
> And then deal with the fact that you've assumed that those tenants will
> have no vote...

Perhaps we need to cut William some slack on this. Given that this is just
a theoretical excercise we are kicking around in here he is not able to log
onto any left wing blogs to learn why he is against it.