--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you can provide examples where the electoral college and senate > system (as well as jerrymandering, corrupt campaign finance and > lobbying, out-of-distric funding of local elections) etc, helps any > minorities in the US in substantive and sustained ways, I would give > your arguments more credence and support.
First all of, I'm still waiting for YOU to tell us where in the world the one-man-one-vote rule -- which you claim is the standard -- exists. As for jerrymandering, I specifically said I didn't support that...so why are you asking me for examples of it? As for the other things, I didn't mean to give you the impression that I thought they were for supporting minorities. I'm obviously NOT for corruption in campaign financing or any other area of life. But it's quite a subjective thing in the area of campaign financing to claim that this or that practise is "corrupt". I'm for laissez-faire in this area. I don't give a rat's ass how much is spent or by whom in any campaign. In this day and age of the internet, if people are going to be fooled by a TV campaign ad, then they will get the government they deserve. Campaign finance laws do more damage than good. > > A proposal that would actually be in the direction of protecting > minority rights (and one needs to first make a case that rights are > being violated) would be to guarantee all native americans of 50% or > greater NA heredity living on reservations 10-20 house seats. And > perhaps 30 seats to all living below 15,000 / income. Then the > structure would appear, at least on the surface to protect minority* > or more importantly, underpriveledged rights. i might tend to support > such a system, if we could reform the other non-democratic aspects of > US political system. > > * I don't see reasons to absolutely focus on "minority rights" if such > are not being abused. Asian indians or japanese imigrants are a > minority but seem to do quite well in the US. Why give a particular > minority class special priviledges if they are as a class already > quite priviledged? I'm not necessarily for or against minority protections. I brought up that example to counter your sweeping claim that one-man-one-vote was the "standard" for democracy when it clearly isn't. By the way, I'm still waiting for some examples of this standard. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > It's not so much a globbing on to power as it is a protection > > > against the misuse of power by a majority. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
