Voted this morning

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:56 pm

Won't bore people with my Governor / Senator selections, but I am excited about voting yes for prop 14:

If approved by voters, the proposal will require that candidates run in a single primary open to all registered voters, with the top two vote-getters meeting in a runoff. The new system would take effect in the 2012 elections


http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_14,_Top_Two_Primaries_Act_(June_2010)
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Voted this morning

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:56 pm

Registered in ... either party?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:31 pm

Yeah I'm a little unclear on that as well.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:36 pm

Im not registered in a party. I am excited about prop 14 because it will mean there will be only one primary going forward.

This means that you will not have Republican and Democratic primaries, but instead just one. The pandering to the far right and far left in order to win a polarized primary will be gone and centrist candidates will have a much better shot at being picked for the general election.

That make sense?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:43 pm

Would there still be a general election between a republican and a democrat? Or does the primary simply take the 2 most popular candidates from either party (for instance 2 democrats) and run them against each other in the general election?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Voted this morning

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:33 pm

Tanras wrote:Im not registered in a party. I am excited about prop 14 because it will mean there will be only one primary going forward.

This means that you will not have Republican and Democratic primaries, but instead just one. The pandering to the far right and far left in order to win a polarized primary will be gone and centrist candidates will have a much better shot at being picked for the general election.

That make sense?

Or being sabotaged by a party that doesn't want a serious candidate for their opponent.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:33 pm

Found the following in an article about Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman's California primary victories:

------
Also headed for a win in California was Proposition 14, a ballot measure that creates a primary-election system in which the top-two vote getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election. It had 60% support.
-------

I would echo Teflor's concerns that this primary method could be manipulated fairly easily. Not many people vote during primaries. Probably in the low single digit percentage points. An elaborate 'get out the vote' effort aimed at hardcore party loyalists asking them to essentially vote for a preferred opponent in the primary could be a great way to set up a straw man for your own guy to knock down during the general election. Especially if your own guy is running unopposed.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:08 pm

I hear that, but you have to understand how bad partisanship is in California. It is literally impossible for moderates to get elected here unless you are Arnold in a special election that has no primary. If there had been a primary, he would not have won because you have to pander completely to the edges.

This is a huge improvement. Nothing is perfect, but this is a step in the right direction.

At the end of the day, this is a big blow to the folks on the far left and the far right. That makes me very, very happy.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby kiryan » Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:24 pm

I dunno, its an interesting system. I'm really concerned about the # of people who vote in primaries... I'm not so sure your analysis is correct tanras... the radical element of the electorate may now have more power because so few people vote in primaries. I'd almost like to see this in conjunction with a compulsory voting law (yes I still hate the government forcing you to do anything).

I do like that it shakes up the 2 party system some... 3rd party candidates basically have 0 shot in any race anywhere. however I don't like the likliehood that you'll end up with 2 choices from 1 party.

I'd almost prefer to see parties done away with period... I really don't like the way you basically have 2 teams battling each other over every issue. I hate seeing party line votes, very very few votes should end up being party line if each person was really lookign at it from their own perspective and in terms of what is best for their state. You no longer have 50 states negotiating for their share, you have 2 parties negotiating. However, because of how the 2 parties have developed self serving structures to remain in power, you need the political machine of your party to get elected and re-elected. They're almost as bad as the mafia, they own you.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby kiryan » Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:38 pm

I think you are buying into a bad argument in california... partsianship is not the problem with the elections and certainly not the budget. I've heard that line used to justify a repeal of the anti tax measures/amendments, saying that it makes california ungovernable ect...

The problem is very simple the electorate doesn't want the state to have more money to spend, but the government wants to and has made itself obligated to (sometimes legally through court rulings) continue to provide more and more services (and raises). I know of no magic to reconcile this basic problem.

Oregon voters have rejected the sales tax for over 20 years now and capped property tax a decade ago, passed a law that made it easier to amend the constitution than to increase taxes and still every year the legislative session tries to pitch another tax increase. Couple years ago it was a constitutional amendment for $1.00 tax on cigarettes to support chip/schip. They did manage to get one this past year, raising the minimum corporate tax from something like $100 to a lot more. People across the nation have been saying for 20 years, government has enough money, you can't have anymore. But they keep spending, keep finding more they have to do and create these budget issues.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:48 pm

The problem in California is not simple.

One big problem is that there are almost no moderates in office. I would argue that is a problem the entire country has right now, but today, it is virtually impossible to get elected as a pro choice fiscal republican or as a democrat who might be against gay marraige.

That is just stupid. The idea that the only path to a successful state-wide bid is to pander completely to a party line is extremely distructive and, I believe, causes a huge chunk of our most qualified, gifted, and reasonable potential candidates to not consider a run at all.

I actually believe the country would benefit enormously from doing the same thing on the National stage.

I find it enormously distressing that it is almost impossible to find politicians who come close to my own personal views of:

[*]Small Government (low taxes, free market, anti-cap and trade, etc)
[*]Strong Military
[*]Anti-Labor
[*]Pro Choice
[*]Pro Gay Marraige

A candidate with those views simply cannot get through a primary 99.9% of the time, but he or she could win a primary that could draw from both sides.

I also believe that one reason you do see low turnout in primaries is that they are usually foregone conclusions because the party picks its horse and they are the one with the cash. I realize we bucked that trend a little (Nevada) during this primary, but it is the exception to the rule.
Last edited by Tanras on Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:07 pm

kiryan wrote:I think you are buying into a bad argument in california... partsianship is not the problem with the elections and certainly not the budget. I've heard that line used to justify a repeal of the anti tax measures/amendments, saying that it makes california ungovernable ect...

The problem is very simple the electorate doesn't want the state to have more money to spend, but the government wants to and has made itself obligated to (sometimes legally through court rulings) continue to provide more and more services (and raises). I know of no magic to reconcile this basic problem.

Oregon voters have rejected the sales tax for over 20 years now and capped property tax a decade ago, passed a law that made it easier to amend the constitution than to increase taxes and still every year the legislative session tries to pitch another tax increase. Couple years ago it was a constitutional amendment for $1.00 tax on cigarettes to support chip/schip. They did manage to get one this past year, raising the minimum corporate tax from something like $100 to a lot more. People across the nation have been saying for 20 years, government has enough money, you can't have anymore. But they keep spending, keep finding more they have to do and create these budget issues.


And frankly. . .saying partisanship is not the primary reason California is stuck in its current morass is simply not understandable to me. That statement is so completely wrong it makes my head want to implode. Partisanship is exactly the problem. The other problem is that California has not only been terribly partisan for a long time, but it has also been largely ruled by a single party which makes everything even worse.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:11 pm

The only legitimate argument against the proposition is the 3rd party argument made in this article:

http://cbs2.com/local/prop.14.primary.2.1740659.html

In my opinion, the upside far outweighs the downside.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby kiryan » Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:42 pm

Give me an example of partsianship being the big issue.

I agree that a big problem is it has been ruled by Democrats for at least the last 15 years... and the spending they legislate. Democrat Govenor Gray Davis was recalled out of office for mismanaging the electricity privatizing which was fiscally disasastorous for the state. Not to mention union cronyism. Republican Schwharnengger has had several battles over the years with the Democratic legislature over budgets?...

The problem is spending vs taxing. Lets not kid that a California Republican is a conservative... there are no legislative battles over abortion, the environment, immigration ect, those are non starters in the legislature whehter or not the GOP are inclined. GOP in california is anti-tax and pro-business. If you want to call that partsianship, I think you are missing the point. The partsian lines may be drawn over those two issues, but its not about being Republican or Democrat, its about taxes and spending. How can a fiscal conservative / Republican compromise when the compromise is defined as raise taxes not as much as the Dems want but not cut spending or pretend to cut it and fund it out of somewhere else. Either way you're still spending more and raising taxes more. Thats not partsianship, thats an irreconciable difference.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:56 am

What isn't caused by partisanship?

The budget impasse was caused by neither side being willing to compromise due to political ideaology. This happens every single freaking year and is far and away the biggest issue facing the state. Republicans will not tax and Democrats will not cut. There is no middle ground and everything grinds to a halt.

Basically every time you see a proposition in your ballot box, that is a failure for the lawmakers to agree. It happens constantly. They can't agree on prop 13, let the voters decide. Can't agree on school funding. . .voters. Can't agree on bond measures. . .yep voters. It is abusrd to be passing these kinds of high level financial decisions on to a horde of people who barely understand the issues, but it all happens because of partisanship and a complte inability to compromise at the state level.

I found this article pretty helpful:

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/atissue/AI_108MBAI.pdf

in recent years, when governors
with more centrist views than their parties (e.g., Wilson, Davis,
Schwarzenegger) were elected, they then faced major hurdles in
fi nding common ground with legislators—including those in their
own parties. The inability of the governor and legislature, and the two
parties in the legislature, to reach consensus results in increasing
use of the ballot box to circumvent the gridlock in the legislature.
Such evident failures of the two-party system tend to accelerate the
nonpartisan movement.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND OPTIONS

With no signs that the deep rifts between Democratic and Republican
voters are shrinking, Californians can expect to have state and federal
legislators who largely refl ect the liberal-conservative split of major-party
voters in the party primaries. The two-party system will continue to
refl ect the will of fewer and fewer people in the future, unless the parties
focus on expanding their base, on inclusiveness instead of ideological
purity and exclusivity.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby kiryan » Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:01 am

There is no middle ground to compromise on when it comes to spending and taxes. What would a compromise look like, more taxes and a smaller increase in spending than they want? That's not a compromise.

It'll be interesting to see how top 2 works. To see if it does free candidates from the extremist wings of their parties and result in more moderate candidates. Do you really think more moderate candidates can solve the budget problem? Even moderate candidates can believe strongly that taxes are too high and refuse to impose them on a state with massively high unemployment or that social programs are too important to cut...
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:06 am

There is always compromise. Some cuts, some taxes is a compromise.

I think more moderate candidates will be able to get along with each other better than polar opposites. I believe, eventually, that will help stop the complete political gridlock that has existed for a decade in California.

See, I am a fiscal conservative and would love to see no new taxes and a lot of cuts, but I would rather haefv a few taxes and some cuts than what we have had recently. . .which is absolutely nothing getting done until the State literally runs out of money and has a complete fire sale of the Education system and parts of the government that do not have strong union representation.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby kiryan » Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:04 pm

Now thats the problem, the perception that there is always room to compromise. Incrementalism, thats what has got our states into the mess they are in with their spending. We are already on the far left side of taxes as far as most conservatives are concerned. As far as the voters in many states who took steps to prevent their government from raising further taxes. Compromise would be moving back to the right, not a smaller step to the left every year.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:55 pm

Still trying to figure out how this is likely to result in more moderate candidates in the general election.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:17 am

You can only win primaries (this is especially true in California) by pandering to the extremes because independants are not allowed to vote in republican or democratic primaries and you cannot cross over if you wanted.

This means that extreme candidates tend to win party tied primaries in a big way. By moving to a single primary, I, a moderate republican might cast my vote for a moderate liberal who would have otherwise lost the democratic primary because he/she cannot appeal to hard core democrats.

That make sense? The result is that moderate candidates can pull from both sides because the artificial barrier is now gone.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby kiryan » Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:38 am

I think only time will tell if it gets politicians that reflect the will of the people who actually vote better... The danger of course is that "energized" typically extremists are more likely to vote than the rest.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pm

I think there is a reason that primaries tend to be dominated by partisans - and not necessarily because you are forced to vote for someone within the party you are registered for. There are plenty of moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, and yet when it comes to primaries the moderates stay home and the partisans come out to vote. I don't think that is going to change very much.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:01 pm

I hope you are wrong, but time will tell.

You can consider me an energized moderate who is sick of having to vote for polar candidates.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Voted this morning

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:25 pm

Tanras wrote:I hope you are wrong, but time will tell.

You can consider me an energized moderate who is sick of having to vote for polar candidates.

You could have gone to your normal primaries in the past!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:40 pm

Tanras wrote:[*]Small Government (low taxes, free market, anti-cap and trade, etc)
[*]Strong Military
[*]Anti-Labor
[*]Pro Choice
[*]Pro Gay Marraige


You sound more like a Libertarian to me than an energized moderate. Basically a Conservative Republican on the scope of government and military, and a Liberal Democrat on social issues. Or more succinctly, limited government intrusion into the personal and business dealings of individuals.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Voted this morning

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:48 pm

Corth wrote:
Tanras wrote:[*]Small Government (low taxes, free market, anti-cap and trade, etc)
[*]Strong Military
[*]Anti-Labor
[*]Pro Choice
[*]Pro Gay Marraige


You sound more like a Libertarian to me than an energized moderate. Basically a Conservative Republican on the scope of government and military, and a Liberal Democrat on social issues. Or more succinctly, limited government intrusion into the personal and business dealings of individuals.

Pro-business fiscally conservative nationalist that believes in social equality and killing babies before they're born.

Just like the rest of us.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:44 pm

I have considered libertarianism in the past, but while I believe in small government, I do not believe in no government, so I have never been able to align with those issues.

here is a longer list of where I stand:

I believe in a strong military
I believe in strong foreign policy
I do not want drugs legalized
I believe in anti-trust regulation
I believe in organized labor as long as its purpose is to promote safety and fair wages (what it has become is disgusting)
I believe in affirmative action (in case you wondered, I am a WASP)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:11 pm

I stand corrected. There isn't any real guiding philosophy underlying your political views. I'm not sure you could be described as a moderate though since a lot of your positions seem pretty strong individually - just that some are on the right and some on the left. I don't think you will ever be particularlly satisifed with the politicians chosen for a general election, as it would be very unlikely that any particular candidate would agree with you on a substantial majority of the issues. Any non-ideological candidate who (like yourself) picks and chooses without an underlying philosophy will sometimes choose with you and sometimes against you.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:38 am

I believe in a strong military (I don't believe in having so many bases all over the world)
I believe in a strong foreign policy (to protect our interests, not to tell everyone else what to do and pay them to do it)
I'd prefer to allow people to choose drugs for themselves (I don't want to be responsible for your hospital bills, detox and drug fueled crime)
I believe in anti-trust regulation (but not the manner in which it is applied in Europe)
I believe in organized labor (as long as they lose the coercive powers they have gained)
I don't believe in affirmative action. (poor dumb white kids in the ozarks should be eligible for the same level of help that poor black kids in the projects get)
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:57 pm

kiryan wrote:I believe in a strong military (I don't believe in having so many bases all over the world)
I believe in a strong foreign policy (to protect our interests, not to tell everyone else what to do and pay them to do it)
I'd prefer to allow people to choose drugs for themselves (I don't want to be responsible for your hospital bills, detox and drug fueled crime)
I believe in anti-trust regulation (but not the manner in which it is applied in Europe)
I believe in organized labor (as long as they lose the coercive powers they have gained)
I don't believe in affirmative action. (poor dumb white kids in the ozarks should be eligible for the same level of help that poor black kids in the projects get)


I do not believe you can have a strong military without the bases all over the world. Without them, our range and threat are basically non-existant.
I would love to see affirmative action be based on wealth rather than just on skin color / gender, but we are kidding ourselves if we think that all racism is gone, everywhere. I think these programs have been correctly diminished over the last ten years, but inequalities in higher education are still very real. . .whatever the reason.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Voted this morning

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:49 pm

Skin color should not be a qualification.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Sarvis » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:26 pm

In the eyes of many skin color is a disqualification, that is what affirmative action tries to correct for.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Voted this morning

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:51 pm

Tries and fails. Which is why it shouldn't be a qualification.
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:26 pm

I actually think that if you really look at the data, we can say pretty unequivocally that affirmative action has absolutely succeeded in its goal. You might not agree with the goal, but it has not been a failure.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Voted this morning

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:15 am

The only thing you can't do is link any statistics to affirmative action. You can't make the case for cause and effect.

Race is far more subject to affirmative action by the Federal government than gender.

Yet the meteoric rise of the American female far outpaced any performance by race. 60% of new college graduates are female.

You're not making the case that affirmative action has done anything. Sure, minorities are doing better, but there is no case that affirmative action programs or legislation has done any of the lifting.

Affirmative action programs are a failure of good governance not only in their nature, or what it tries to do, but in how it executes and what it does to people. When enforcing non-discrimination laws, people become statistics, defined only by their race and occasionally their gender.

There is nothing more wrong than that.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby kiryan » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:04 am

Affirmative action works when the metric is minorities hired period. How could you possibly fail at achieving that metric with minority quotas.

Where it doesn't work is in addressing the fundamental causes of racial inequality... the least of which is job discrimination. Let's just send them a check instead to solve the inequality. I mean why put them through the difficulty of actually having to improve themselves through education, hard work and more successful cultural values.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:11 pm

Affirmative action works at discriminating against qualified and competent people in favor of unqualified and incompetent ones. Very succesful.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Sarvis » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:35 pm

Corth wrote:Affirmative action works at discriminating against qualified and competent people in favor of unqualified and incompetent ones. Very succesful.


Prove it.

Prove that there are no, or even a very low percentage of, minorities who are qualified and got jobs only because of affirmative action.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:41 pm

Prove it?! It's self evident! If merit (GPA, SAT etc) was the sole basis for admission to college then why would that college need an affirmative action policy?! Affirmative action EXPLICITLY seeks to prioritize racial or ethnic quotas over other factors such as merit.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Sarvis » Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:03 pm

Corth wrote:Prove it?! It's self evident! If merit (GPA, SAT etc) was the sole basis for admission to college then why would that college need an affirmative action policy?! Affirmative action EXPLICITLY seeks to prioritize racial or ethnic quotas over other factors such as merit.


Prove that no one has ever been denied entry to college because of their skin color, even when they had a higher GPA, SAT, etc than other applicants.

EDIT: Hell, for that matter prove that the lowest GPA, SAT, etc rated applicants are all minorities. If there are non-minorities with lower ratings your argument is full of shit.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Voted this morning

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:10 pm

Well sure, on that basis, Bush managed to piss off liberals. SUCCESS.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Corth » Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:18 pm

Sarvis - I consider you a smart guy generally, just someone I disagree with a lot. But this is idiotic. If you have a scarcity of jobs or a scarcity of positions at a college, and you choose race instead of merit as the criteria that determines who gets those limited slots, then, (wait for it...) you aren't using merit to determine who gets those slots. Not exactly mind blowing stuff there - yet it's all the proof that is necessary. An otherwise qualified person is not getting a spot at that school or that employer solely because of his race. End of story.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Sarvis » Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:00 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis - I consider you a smart guy generally, just someone I disagree with a lot. But this is idiotic. If you have a scarcity of jobs or a scarcity of positions at a college, and you choose race instead of merit as the criteria that determines who gets those limited slots, then, (wait for it...) you aren't using merit to determine who gets those slots. Not exactly mind blowing stuff there - yet it's all the proof that is necessary. An otherwise qualified person is not getting a spot at that school or that employer solely because of his race. End of story.


No Corth, you're ignoring human nature. Without AA, the decision maker might easily prefer white people with a 3.5+ GPA while ignoring any minorities with a 3.5+ GPA. That's all there is to it. Unless you can show me that this doesn't happen.

Look, I know you WANT people to be logical but they are not. A racist is not going to pick a highly qualified black person over a less qualified white person. AA corrects for that. It might in some cases lead to a less qualified minority getting hired, but it will also in at least as many cases lead to a better qualified minority applicant getting hired when they wouldn't have otherwise.

Frankly, Corth, it's a bit racist of you to simply assume every minority applicant is less qualified!
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Pril » Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:06 pm

Sarvis wrote:Frankly, Corth, it's a bit racist of you to simply assume every minority applicant is less qualified!


Corth never said that they were. He just wants people to get hired on merit. If a minority is better qualified then hire them. If a majority is better qualified hire them. If both are equally qualified have them fight to the death and the winner gets hired.

EDIT: This process will also assist with the issue of overpopulation.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Sarvis » Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:23 pm

"An otherwise qualified person is not getting a spot at that school or that employer solely because of his race." - Corth

How do YOU read that, Pril? It says to me that Corth doesn't think the minority applicant can be equally qualified.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Pril » Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:35 pm

Sarvis wrote:"An otherwise qualified person is not getting a spot at that school or that employer solely because of his race." - Corth

How do YOU read that, Pril? It says to me that Corth doesn't think the minority applicant can be equally qualified.


Sorry let me rephrase Corth doesn't say that ALL minority applicants are less qualified. The issue is that sometimes a less qualified applicant gets a job that otherwise a more qualified applicant would get because of his race. That's how I read it.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:33 pm

What if universities are assigning applicants ID numbers to go through the admissions process? At that point I'm looking at #12030 with 3.5 GPA and #10304 with 3.45 GPA. Both play sports, both did the same hours of service, etc.

If this is the admissions process, should Affirmative Action still exist?
Tanras
Sojourner
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Tanras » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:06 pm

Corth wrote:Prove it?! It's self evident! If merit (GPA, SAT etc) was the sole basis for admission to college then why would that college need an affirmative action policy?! Affirmative action EXPLICITLY seeks to prioritize racial or ethnic quotas over other factors such as merit.


The issue is that minorities tend to have poorer teachers and go through poorer schools then us caucasians. That results in people of similar intelligence ending up with vastly different scores.

There is also an argument to be made (one I believe) that society benefits from increased diversity of highly educated people. Is it "fair"? No. Is the system that measures their success at age 18 fair? No.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Voted this morning

Postby Sarvis » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:02 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:What if universities are assigning applicants ID numbers to go through the admissions process? At that point I'm looking at #12030 with 3.5 GPA and #10304 with 3.45 GPA. Both play sports, both did the same hours of service, etc.

If this is the admissions process, should Affirmative Action still exist?


I would say no, but I don't think that is the process. Would need to hide a lot of info from an application, even knowing the school could lead the decision maker to think someone is a minority if it's in a known minority area.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Voted this morning

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:11 pm

Let me ask you a question, do you even believe that a majority of people are racist, bigoted, and prejudiced enough that they wouldn't hire someone just because they are from a racial minority?

The Irish were once discriminated heavily against in this country, but they managed to make it without Affirmative Action.

To me, the REAL racism is telling people that they NEED affirmative action to make it.

Let me tell you something: the Chinese made it perfectly fine on their own in this country. STOP preaching that people need Affirmative Action. It's racist, it's bigoted, and it's demeaning to the minorities that you insist need EXTRA HELP.

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests