 Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | guess the vote last year was worthless the citizens voted yes to fiber and the courts are basicly saying your vote is worth shit.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 | shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR
| Re: guess the vote last year was worthless I learned a while back that our vote does not mean crap anymore. Heck people still don't get the fact that we do not elect the president our vote is a suggestion to the electorial college. Popular vote means nothing. Really really sad that they can not get this done. I would say to vote out the politicans but it would only mean putting in some other person that thinks that corps. are more important than a common person in thier distric sorry for getting off topic and ranting a little. It just makes me sick that an incumbant can say soem area is not profitable enough to give the people what they want but hell be damned if they do it for themselves. I would love to see a drunk driver in a mack truck go through the town and take out every single bit of telco equipment that was sticking out of the ground, And let the Telco eat that cost. And the drunk could cry they had no clue what they were doing sense they were under the influence of alcohol. That seems to work when they kill some people in the way so should work for the telco stuff they run over :0). | |
|
| | 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
 ·Bright House
| Re: guess the vote last year was worthless said by shoan :
Heck people still don't get the fact that we do not elect the president our vote is a suggestion to the electorial college. Popular vote means nothing.
There is a reason for the electoral college and our founding fathers new that. Read up and you will see.
I do agree it's not up to the judges to strike down or change laws, that suppose to be left up to our legislature. As we have seen and read, some judges take matters into there own hands. Judges are there to interpret and abide by the law.
--
America, The Greatest Country On Earth! | |
|
| | | emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
| Re: guess the vote last year was worthless The electoral college has nothing to do with anything except choosing the Prez.
A local public referendum has nothing to do with legislators, it's direct democracy - ask the people and if they say yes (and the measure is legal and constitutional) then the answer is yes.
wig | |
|
| | | | shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR
| Re: guess the vote last year was worthless see the electorial comment was just to show that most people don't know how the government even functions half the time. But i agree it is sad that when the majority speaks that is not good enough for the local area. It's shown every single day on all lvls of government that when something does not go the way that one side wants they will appeal it up the chain till it goes thier way and claim justice was done then the other side will go back to appealing it all until they find some judge to side with them so they can say justice was done. just really really tired of judges legislating from the bench. | |
|
| | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by viperpa33s  : said by shoan :
Heck people still don't get the fact that we do not elect the president our vote is a suggestion to the electorial college. Popular vote means nothing.
There is a reason for the electoral college and our founding fathers new that. Read up and you will see. There may have been a reason back then (such as the lack of real time communication). Thus you in essence supplied a proxy to the Elector to vote for the person who got the most votes and if there was a problem in getting a majority in the first round to keep voting until a majority was reached.
The problem is that there is NO VALID reason to keep it in place as is CURRENTLY constituted. I am not saying to eliminate it and go to direct popular vote but the way the system works should be reformed to make it fairer. By this I mean that the number of electoral votes a state gets is based on the sum of their Senators (ie: 2) plus their Representatives (variable) with a "Winner [of the State Popular Vote] Takes All" allocation. My reform is to only give the State's Senatorial 2 Votes to the State-Wide Popular Vote Winner and allocate the others on a Per-Electoral-District Basis. Since this system is good enough to elect Congress, it should be good enough to elect the President (especially since the number of Votes in the Electoral College is based on the Congressional Election system even though it counts the House Votes as if they were Senate Votes by allocating the House Votes to the winner of the State Popular Vote instead of on a Election District Basis).
In addition there should be UNIFORM Poll Closing Hours NATIONWIDE in Presidential Election Years. By this I mean that ALL Polls close at (lets say) 9PM ET on Tuesday (ie: 6PM PT, 3PM HT [Hawaii], and equivalent times in the CT/MT and Alaska Zones). To compensate for the early Closing Hours in the Non-ET Zones, we would either go to a 24 Hour Poll Hour System or [probably simpler] open the non-ET Zone Polls for a few local time Evening hours on Monday (to replace the "Lost" Tuesday Hours). Thus you could open them from 6PM to 9PM PT on Monday. This would eliminate the effect on the results and turnouts from premature release of East (and Central) Zones results while the West Coast and Hawaii/Alaska still have their Polls open and can still vote. | |
|
| tk7
join:2005-05-09
edit:
August 11th, @01:53PM
| said by Kearnstd :the citizens voted yes to fiber and the courts are basicly saying your vote is worth shit. No, the court didn't say anything like that. In fact, the court said that the bonds to be issued were not authorized by the voters (indirectly) because the method of repaying those bonds was not allowed by the law.
In particular, the bonds pledged to repay the debt from proceeeds other than those from the activity for which the bonds were issued, i.e. the communications system, in the even of a credit event. The credit event was defined as a failure to deposit funds into some account WAY BEFORE the due date of the payments. The law only allows usage of proceeds from other activities in the event of a default, i.e. when you don't pay ON the due date. Hence the communications system could have been subsidized from another activity by simply missing the deposit date, but still paying before the due date using funds from the other activity.
The whole idea behind this law is that you don't unfairly offer cheap communications system by charging more for, say, water. Simply stated, if a local government offers a communications system, the communication system must pay for itself or be scrapped as soon as possible. | |
|
| |
| | 
tkprojects
join:2003-06-12
Schenectady, NY
edit:
August 11th, @02:37PM
| Re: guess the vote last year was worthless said by TK Junk Mail :Yes, that is what courts do, when a public utility tries to sell bonds and not follow state law. ... But unless the Supreme Court starts overruling lower courts and starts letting the legislature and executive branches have more power, that is the way things are. This is not a matter for the Supreme Court of the U.S. AFAICT because it purely concerns a matter of state governance. I guess some kind of a Commerce Clause argument could be made, but I doubt that the Supreme Court would bite. Thus, the only place it is likely to go is the Lousiana Supreme Court. Having read the opinion, I doubt that the LSC would take up any of the questions. | |
|
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| Setback This is definitely a major setback for the city of Lafayette. I was hoping they would prevail in their appeal but it wasn't to be.
I wonder where it will go from here? I suppose another appeal from LUS? Why not just give the people what they want in the first place? | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: Setback I would like to know who is fronting the legal fees for this Naquin person. | |
|
| | shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR | Re: Setback I bet you would not have to put that person/company in a room by themselves to point them out. | |
|
| | CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA | Why dont you call her and ask her...I believe her address and phone number were posted in a previous thread | |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| that's the way telecom bizness is done in the US This is our telecom industry at work in the U.S. - instead of building out/updating their systems, telecom companies sue cities, counties and states to prevent them from providing services (which will usually be cheaper and better).
I wonder how much fiber could be deployed with the money the telcos spend on lobbying and lawsuits? | |
|
| 
Coxlad
@bls.com | Re: that's the way telecom bizness is done in the US Why should the government regulate Telecommunications and yet enter the market themselves? Conflict of Interest.
Don't believe what the media wants you to hear. There's more to the story. | |
|
| | 
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: that's the way telecom bizness is done in the US said by Coxlad :
Why should the government regulate Telecommunications and yet enter the market themselves? Conflict of Interest. Why should Telecommunications Companies run the market and write (excuse me) "suggest" telecom law? (which is happening with many of these telecom bills on the state and federal level).
THAT'S a conflict of interest. | |
|
| | 
mr sean
Professional Infidel
Premium,ExMod 2001-07
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
clubs:
| said by Coxlad :
Why should the government regulate Telecommunications and yet enter the market themselves? Why should Telecommunications keep going to the government asking them to regulate everyone else?
--
How you can make the world a Better Place | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| said by Coxlad :
Why should the government regulate Telecommunications and yet enter the market themselves? Conflict of Interest.
Don't believe what the media wants you to hear. There's more to the story.
Heh, the media is what we're talking about here; or the control of it. It's a different government that regulates internet service providers.(Local governments don't regulate telecommunications) Personally I don't think municipals should provide service, just infrastructure, that way they don't need to go through the mess of revenue bonds. Plus an even playing field of service providers (one in which a competitor doesn't own the infrastructure) will provide a more ideal service to constituents. | |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | City should do it anyway The city should say, there is nothing unconstitutional with what the people voted for, so we're going ahead with it. | |
|
| 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: City should do it anyway said by Nuts :The city should say, there is nothing unconstitutional with what the people voted for, so we're going ahead with it. And the courts would throw the elected official in jail. And no politician is going to go to prison for broadband access.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
|
|
|
Lafayette Hits Another Roadblock