Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
ok here goes,i personally will not be voting for juan figueroa-serville,neville james,positive nelson,usie richards,or ron russell,those are the 5 current stx senators that voted no on the diageo deal,i will instead be voting for Weber and JnBaptiste. Of the 2 wanna be's that are running we know michael springer would have voted no on the deal,he more or less came out against it in his editorials and then we know the other wannabe is the bigot peterson. Now we get to vote for 7 people but the old timers over here told me long ago to vote for only 2 so you don't dilute their chances. I really don't know anything about STT politics so i'll leave that up to the STT people and i have'nt really heard about anymore STX people running,i thought Nisky said he was and his slogan years ago was"lets put some color back in the senate" lol but i don't know a thing about him other than the fact that he has the friday night 7 pm talk show on paradise radio.
Posted : July 20, 2008 2:16 pm
Until there are numbered seats or districts, there will be no justice. And "bullet voting" I thought was made popular by a former Crucian senator. It seems to me that diluting one's voting strength has been found to be illegal. Class action suit anyone?
Posted : July 20, 2008 2:37 pm
Topic starter
EastEnder,please explain,are you saying that it's illegal to only vote for 2?
Posted : July 20, 2008 2:55 pm
How a senator voted on 9605 will have at least as much influence in my mind as how he voted on Capt Morgan.
Posted : July 20, 2008 5:59 pm
Topic starter
true but the senators that voted yes on act 6905 and no on the diageo deal kinda messed with us twice,don't you think?
Posted : July 20, 2008 6:17 pm
trw: No, I am saying you are allowed to vote for 7, but the only way you can make your vote count is to vote for ONE. That is the "bullet vote." Some candidates encourage people to vote only for them. At-large voting, which is what we have in each district, was made illegal in the states because it was being used to dilute minority voting power.
Posted : July 20, 2008 6:53 pm
Technically, at-large voting districts are not unconstitutional per se. However, if the arrangement was established or maintained for discriminatory purposes the federal courts, including the federal courts in the U.S. Virgin Islands, can stop the system if petitioners can show that the arrangement violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The major U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with this issue is: Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982). It is available in summary and written opinion are available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_2100/
It seems that the V.I. at large voting districts are, though probably unfair, constitutional because they lack a discriminatory purpose. However, that being said, creating voting-districts is certainly a good idea as it will a) increase delegate accountability; b) enfranchise more voters; and c) be a more democratic form of government.
Posted : July 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Topic starter
ok thanks EastEnder,i just did'nt know what the "bullet vote"meant,now i do
Posted : July 20, 2008 7:10 pm
I thought it meant to shoot the one you didn't like.:@)
JUST KIDDING!
Posted : July 21, 2008 1:08 am
Topic starter
i saw a springer banner tonight in a bar parking lot,rather garish looking thing,no taste involved at all
Posted : July 23, 2008 4:28 am
Topic starter
oh and the hanlon woman from the avis that wrote the puff piece on the bigot peterson never called me back, i mean really i did'nt yell that loud on the phone, just merely asked why she did'nt report the FULL story,lol another chickensh*t and probally looking for the next job and thinking a puff piece will get it,oh well politics as usual
Posted : July 23, 2008 4:32 am
