Ontario teacher's union reduces weighting of votes cast by white people

[TomC]

They are mutually exclusive outcomes.

Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.

It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

In ‘Murka your vote has higher weight if you live in a smaller, more rural State. Smaller more rural States have more white people. Ergo racism.
Right wing whiners never mention stuff like that. And compared to teachers unions, that effect is YUUUGE.

But yeah, “racism against whites” in the weighting of teachers union votes is our Big Problem. You betcha.

 

[Patooka]

They are mutually exclusive outcomes.

Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.

It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom

Representation and having it ignore by being the minority is tyranny of the majority. If you want to look at the US as a case example, then I agree - America is fucked. But monkey see money do.

 

[Elixir]

Tyranny of the majority is the rallying cry of the wannabe tyrannical minority.
This country is fucked because a minority is determined to hang on to power by destroying representative government.

 

[laughing dog]

They are mutually exclusive outcomes.

Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.

It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom

Seems to me that "rigging the system" is pretty much endemic in democracies.

 

[TomC]

They are mutually exclusive outcomes.

Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.

It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom

Representation and having it ignore by being the minority is tyranny of the majority. If you want to look at the US as a case example, then I agree - America is fucked. But monkey see money do.

Imposing a tyranny of a minority isn't an improvement.
But it's a private organization, if I understand correctly, and has no requirement for democratic methods. I doubt that the members are doing themselves any favors with this policy.

But they aren't important to me so I don't care.
Tom

 

[TomC]

They are mutually exclusive outcomes.

Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.

It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom

Seems to me that "rigging the system" is pretty much endemic in democracies.

Doesn't make it a good thing.

At least ending democracy in this particular organization was voted on and passed by a substantial majority. Frankly, I just don't much care what they do.
Tom

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I honestly see it as a trust exercise more than anything. I think that it's not really a zero-sum game. I think that there is really a lot for an organization to gain by sending minority groups a message that they are not really at risk of becoming marginalized, which would greatly reduce tension.

While the technique might have its drawbacks, I think it would be a fallacy to focus on only the drawbacks of such a technique.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I honestly see it as a trust exercise more than anything. I think that it's not really a zero-sum game. I think that there is really a lot for an organization to gain by sending minority groups a message that they are not really at risk of becoming marginalized, which would greatly reduce tension.

While the technique might have its drawbacks, I think it would be a fallacy to focus on only the drawbacks of such a technique.

As a non-white person, I think that it's totally insulting.

 

[Metaphor]

They are mutually exclusive outcomes.

Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.

You wrote:

I'm all in favour of a governing body mirroring the constituents it represents without ignoring its minority members.

A vote outcome is one way or another, and who the 'minority' is depends on how you voted and whether the resolution passed.

Now, I interpreted 'ignoring' as 'allowing majority votes to stand as they are.' But maybe you didn't mean that-- I don't know what you mean by 'ignoring' minority members?

 

[Metaphor]

In ‘Murka your vote has higher weight if you live in a smaller, more rural State. Smaller more rural States have more white people. Ergo racism.
Right wing whiners never mention stuff like that. And compared to teachers unions, that effect is YUUUGE.

But yeah, “racism against whites” in the weighting of teachers union votes is our Big Problem. You betcha.

Actually, I've long been against equal representation of unequal-population states.

But, your analogy is a poor one. First, the American system does not weight votes toward white people by design. Hawai'i has never had a white majority and is ranked 40th in population among the states.

What's with your straw man? Who described this as 'our' 'Big Problem'?

 

[Metaphor]

They are mutually exclusive outcomes.

Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.

It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom

Seems to me that "rigging the system" is pretty much endemic in democracies.

Doesn't make it a good thing.

At least ending democracy in this particular organization was voted on and passed by a substantial majority. Frankly, I just don't much care what they do.
Tom

I understand that although the teacher's union has about 1,200 members, this resolution had about 70 people voting in total who were physically present.

 

[TomC]

I understand that although the teacher's union has about 1,200 members, this resolution had about 70 people voting in total who were physically present.

My interpretation of that is ~1130 members voted "whatever".
Maybe they regret it. Maybe not. Who knows? Who cares?
~1200 people picked a policy that I think is a bad idea. But they picked it, not me.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Now, I interpreted 'ignoring' as 'allowing majority votes to stand as they are.' But maybe you didn't mean that-- I don't know what you mean by 'ignoring' minority members?

A fair point. I meant a group that could never be a majority but is still sizeable and measurable and would be consistently ignored in a "first past the post" process. For example it is the reason a lot of American right wingers justify their Electoral College (which is bullshit, how their senate is organized fulfils that role) so that rural Americans aren't ignored because of the altar of majority rule.

Come on Metaphor, you're smart enough to know this.

 

[Metaphor]

A fair point. I meant a group that could never be a majority but is still sizeable and measurable and would be consistently ignored in a "first past the post" process. For example it is the reason a lot of American right wingers justify their Electoral College (which is bullshit, how their senate is organized fulfils that role) so that rural Americans aren't ignored because of the altar of majority rule.

Come on Metaphor, you're smart enough to know this.

I have a problem with the word 'group', I suppose.

When I vote, I vote on issues, not because I'm formally or informally a member of some group. And I think there is definitely room to consider the margin of victory on a straight yes/no vote. I think a measure that has 80% 'yes' support probably has less to concede to the 20% of people who voted 'no'. But a measure that has 51% support should probably listen to why 49% do not like the measure.

But I've got a real problem with votes being weighted on some immutable characteristic basis.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I honestly see it as a trust exercise more than anything. I think that it's not really a zero-sum game. I think that there is really a lot for an organization to gain by sending minority groups a message that they are not really at risk of becoming marginalized, which would greatly reduce tension.

While the technique might have its drawbacks, I think it would be a fallacy to focus on only the drawbacks of such a technique.

As a non-white person, I think that it's totally insulting.

*wing-shrugs* I do not care whether you personally are insulted or not. I have just met you.

As a queer, I would simply be amused if the straight people were to furnish me with a weighted vote. Ultimately, those things don't really matter. If the straight people thought enough of me to furnish me with a weighted vote, then I would trust them, whether or not they gave me a weighted vote. We either succeed at getting along peacefully with the straight people, or we fail at getting along peacefully with the straight people.

 

[Patooka]

I have a problem with the word 'group', I suppose.

Fair enough.

When I vote, I vote on issues, not because I'm formally or informally a member of some group

Good. I think that's a smart way to vote. I wish more people would vote that way.

I think a measure that has 80% 'yes' support probably has less to concede to the 20% of people who voted 'no'. But a measure that has 51% support should probably listen to why 49% do not like the measure.

That's one way to look at it. And I kind of agree. What I don't like about that principle is that it encourages fringe mentality and disenfranchisement . I know you don't like the word group and I'm sorry but if a group, not an individual but a sizeable body of like minded individuals are consistently ignored in what they are being told is a fair and democratic process; how do you think that will play out? You know because people are people. And just so we're clear, I'm not sure that is the case in the example you provided in starting this thread. I am saying that is a reason to put weighting into votes.

But I've got a real problem with votes being weighted on some immutable characteristic basis.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean when you say this. I don't think you mean it to be 1=1 so the people who are at the bottom ten can always go fuck themselves but I don't know what you are trying to say either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I honestly see it as a trust exercise more than anything. I think that it's not really a zero-sum game. I think that there is really a lot for an organization to gain by sending minority groups a message that they are not really at risk of becoming marginalized, which would greatly reduce tension.

While the technique might have its drawbacks, I think it would be a fallacy to focus on only the drawbacks of such a technique.

So shall we give the Nazis an equal vote with the non-Nazis?

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Loren Pechtel

The only valid application I can think of for eugenics is to breed racism out of people, and even that would make me unpopular.

 

[Metaphor]

but if a group, not an individual but a sizeable body of like minded individuals are consistently ignored in what they are being told is a fair and democratic process; how do you think that will play out?

But that's what I don't understand. Who are the people in this 'group' who are consistently ignored? How do people know they are in a 'group' that is consistently ignored? My workplace recently voted on a pay resolution. I discussed it with one person who was against the resolution. I was for it. The results were something like 87% of people voted on it, and the resolution had something like 80% support among the voters. So, how would my friend know he'd been consistently ignored?

It would be one thing for the teacher's union to have said "the following past votes were all passed by an overall majority as well as a majority of white voters. But the resolution would not have passed if only non-white people voted". That could put a spotlight on a potential issue. But I suspect that they didn't really have any such cases. But if they did, it would be interesting, perhaps, to explore why white people and non-white people saw the issue so differently. But to go from that to weighting votes against white people is simply racist.

You know because people are people. And just so we're clear, I'm not sure that is the case in the example you provided in starting this thread. I am saying that is a reason to put weighting into votes.

I can't think of any good reason to put weighting into votes - your vote should not be worth more just because you have an unpopular opinion.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean when you say this. I don't think you mean it to be 1=1 so the people who are at the bottom ten can always go fuck themselves but I don't know what you are trying to say either.

I don't think votes should count more or less based on an immutable characteristic like sex or race.