Sorry "Y-Man" but if'n you ain't a vot'n citizen, or at least a citizen that can vote in the next election, then you takes what you gets and you got no voice. I'm not making any moral judgement on wiether that's right or wrong just that it is. You only have what the voters have said you can have through the laws their elected pukes have writen.

LOL - a point of dissent here JD - a votin elector dude thingy has the rights to say who get into the position that makes the decisions round abouts anyplace.

Now while I agree about votin citizens havin the rights to vote in a citizen who will vote what they wants into law - votin rights is clearly NOT what Yorrrick's post (what you quoted) is about. He expressed 2 points that you seem to think are addressed by the concern that he should go get on the electoral roll. The points he expressed were :

1)The laws of NYC are more my business than yours. By your argument, on the basis of elecitve power then neither Yorrrrrrick or the person he made that point to have elective powers in NYC - that makes it the business of neither. But on the "I live locally so local affairs and laws are my concern" front, Yorick clearly has more business being concerned over what is in place and what he must follow, and what he can expect other people to be following that does his earstwhile debator. Hence the statement remains a truism irrespective of electoral rolls.

2)The other point he makes is that he is perfectly entitled to voice his support for gun controls in the city he lives in. Now call me obtuse it you like, but I don't see how bein an elector denies one the right to agree with or support a position.

It is a bit glib to dismiss someones position on the issue (and in this case dismiss is a bit strong, so I will settle for "marginalise") simply because they are not on an electoral roll. You may not be trying to judge his position as you say, but being on an electoral roll (or in this case not) should not be seen as a means of making his points irrelevant.

Sorry "Y-Man" but if'n you ain't a vot'n citizen, or at least a citizen that can vote in the next election, then you takes what you gets and you got no voice. I'm not making any moral judgement on wiether that's right or wrong just that it is. You only have what the voters have said you can have through the laws their elected pukes have writen. </font>[/QUOTE]Davros, you are the man :D ;)

John, the laws in NYC affect me far more than they do Oblivion, so yes, they are my business than his. I support the laws, obviously to the point of moving here.

As far as not having a voice, that is simply untrue. Only 50% of Americans vote. If I through conversation, song or public speech influence just one voter, then I've "had my vote" percentage speaking.

"One vote one voice" is clearly a myth. Does Rupert Murdoch only have one vote? Or, through media manipulation, does he have millions?

Except your ridiculous (and ineffectual) gun control laws in NYC happen to directly affect me in upstate New York, where your laws are still in effect. The anti-gun crowd in NYC exerts its will on the pro-gun crowd of upstate NY, by being larger in number.

<font color=deepskyblue>I disagree, <font color=orange>Davros</font>. The electoral roll is relevant to the issue, because <font color=silver>Oblivion</font> is directly affected by the laws of NYC even though he doesn't live there. As he pointed out, the laws of NYC are applied statewide - even though the area <font color=silver>Oblivion</font> lives in probably doesn't even come close to the population density of NYC. So - while the gun control laws may make sense within the city limits of NYC - the conditions that led to those laws being passed simply do NOT exist in the rural parts of the state. Yet, NYC sets the standards for the laws that are applied to the entire state. So <font color=silver>Oblivion</font> does have just as much reason to be concerned with the gun laws of NYC as <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> does. Yet both are also equally powerless to have any direct affect on the laws there, because <font color=silver>Oblivion</font> isn't a resident of NYC and <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> isn't a citizen.

So I would say they both have an equal stake in the laws passed there. Both ARE affected by the laws of NYC - although the effect on <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> is much more direct and relevant in his daily activities. But the laws still have an indirect affect on <font color=silver>Oblivion</font> by preventing him from owning a gun even though he lives on the other end of the state.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>That is very true. <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> does have every right to voice his opinion on any issue he wishes to. He even has the right to make appeals to our lawmakers urging them to support or oppose legislation concerned with gun control (or any other issue for that matter). However, unless he decides to become a citizen so that he can actually vote on those same issues - his opinion will never carry as much weight as the opinions of those that can vote on the issues.

Please Note: I'm not saying his opinion is any less valid or any less important - just that his opinion will not carry the same weight as <font color=silver>Oblivion's</font> (or any other registered NY voter) unless he also decides to add his name to the electoral roll.</font>

Democracy at work. Deal with it. [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img]

And no they are neither ridiculous or ineffectual.

Have you visited New York City Oblivion btw?

I think "wieght" entirely depends on "influence". As I stated: Rupert Murdoch anyone?

Despite the mooning-smiley, this would be a fine statement in a pure democracy with simple majority rule. However, we in this country strive to preserve the rights of the minority viewpoint -- thus the constitution. Whether it be New Yorker City folk hijacking a New York State issue or Burlington folk dominating a Vermont issue, in this country the big city full of lots of folk dominating the much greater land space around them is a bit repugnacious to us.

So, to that end, it's a bit of an asshole-ish or asshole-esque (take your pick) comment to toss out there, Y-man.

<font color=deepskyblue>"Weight" does not depend entirely on "influence", <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>. The vast majority of people listening to Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, or any other political talk show host already agrees with the political views of the host - so the "influence" that host will have on thier viewers or listeners would not be that dramatic as far as changing their votes.

Besides, the point I was making is that you have every right to voice your opinion on any subject you wish to. But until you can back up that opinion at the voting booth, your personal opinion simply will not carry as much weight as those that are on the electoral roll.</font>

Cerek, for a man who always basically opens his posts by saying you are disagreeing with me, you certainly manage to do a good job of supporting the points I tried to make. In fact often you make my case much better than I do. If ever I get lazy I reckon all I have to do is say "nope that ain't right" with no facts at all to support me, and let you chime in with an "I disagree" post to fill in all the blanks. I almost feel like I should remove my post, then you can just change all the Davros's for JD's.

Not that I will be intentioning to be that lazy, but I must say "I dips me lid to ya guv'nor" ;) .