[picard102]

didn't she drop out of the race? is her name on the ballot?

Her name will still be on the ballot, she didn't officaly drop out in time.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Her name will still be on the ballot, she didn't officaly drop out in time.

what would happen if she got enough votes and won? does the person in second place become mayor? (provided she doesn't accept the role)

 

[RC8]

but if you say that non liberal gays usually commit suicide, doesn't that mean that the gays that survive are liberals? making the gay demographic mostly liberal? how can the gay demographic (living) be balanced between conservative and liberal values if the conservative gays usually end up committing suicide?, according to you.

as for your last sentence, you would sound less like an asshole if you simply said "homosexuality shouldn't be discriminated against and it shouldn't be a deciding factor for how you cast your vote."

shouldn't be encouraged? not a positive trait? that sounds like discriminating language. RC8, your views are in conflict. you say don't discriminate but then you discriminate. saying something is not a positive trait or that it shouldn't be encouraged is discrimination.

No it isn't. I think encouraging homosexuality is like encouraging pink flamingo suits for pizza vendors. It's ridiculous and pointless, but not necessarily negative. 'Not positive' means exactly that.

Homosexuality is a pretty neutral trait by itself - a bit like skin colour. That pathetic losers make an effort to look like a stereotyped version of what they're supposed to be is a completely different issue.

Homosexuals being less likely to discriminate against themselves doesn't make them more liberal, in the same way that a black man refusing to racially insult a fellow black man doesn't make him not-racist.

This guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Guzmán

For example, was a homosexual.

Most of the people who criticise homosexuals are just not educated and obviously haven't thought about the issue at all. Educated seemingly reasonable people positively stereotyping homosexuals is a much more worrying intellectual phenomenon.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

No it isn't. I think encouraging homosexuality is like encouraging pink flamingo suits for pizza vendors. It's ridiculous and pointless, but not necessarily negative. 'Not positive' means exactly that.

Homosexuality is a pretty neutral trait by itself - a bit like skin colour. That pathetic losers make an effort to look like a stereotyped version of what they're supposed to be is a completely different issue.

Homosexuals being less likely to discriminate against themselves doesn't make them more liberal, in the same way that a black man refusing to racially insult a fellow black man doesn't make him not-racist.

This guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Guzmán

For example, was a homosexual.

Most of the people who criticise homosexuals are just not educated and obviously haven't thought about the issue at all. Educated seemingly reasonable people positively stereotyping homosexuals is a much more worrying intellectual phenomenon.

RC8, the language that you used implied negativity, not neutrality:

Homosexuality shouldn't be discriminated against, but it shouldn't be encouraged either. It certainly isn't a positive trait you should be looking for in a mayor.

you could have worded it totally different. you said "Homosexuality is a pretty neutral trait by itself - a bit like skin colour" so lets apply the above quote to a trait like skin colour to try to understand by another example of how such language can be negative:

example: interracial relationships shouldn't be discriminated against, but they shouldn't be encouraged either. being bi-racial certainly isn't a positive trait you should be looking for in a mayor.

"shouldn't be encouraged" and "certainly isn't a positive trait" don't sound neutral. they sound negative.

this would sound a bit better:

"Homosexuality shouldn't be discriminated against, but it shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged. It certainly isn't a negative or positive trait you should be looking for in a mayor."

the best thing you could have simply said was:

"homosexuality shouldn't be a deciding factor for how you cast your vote".

 

[PinkLucy]

MetroMan, why doesn't your poll have an undecided choice? Because that's still where I'm at

 

[MetroMan]

what would happen if she got enough votes and won? does the person in second place become mayor? (provided she doesn't accept the role)

I'm sure she would gladly take it in the very unlikely event that she won. As a matter of fact, if she wanted to withdraw her support from Smitherman and get back in to the race, she has every right, as unlikely as that also is.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I'm sure she would gladly take it in the very unlikely event that she won. As a matter of fact, if she wanted to withdraw her support from Smitherman and get back in to the race, she has every right, as unlikely as that also is.

but what would happen if the winner actually said i quit as soon as they found out they won? does the second place person become mayor or do they have to have another election?

 

[GenerationW]

but what would happen if the winner actually said i quit as soon as they found out they won? does the second place person become mayor or do they have to have another election?

I would hope there would be another election. The second place person didn't win anything.

A situation like that would further bolster my contention that anyone "dropping out" after the cut-off date should be given a fair trial and then shot.

 

[gweed123]

But the polling might already reflect strategic voting. I don't think we know how people would vote if they ranked candidates. Either way, we're in a system where the mayor of this city might have only 1/3rd of the city's support (and that doesn't even factor in the % of people who don't vote). If the result is the same then that's fine. I don't care what the result is when we're discussing electoral reform. I just want to see elections that actually reflect the populace.

If we had elections that represented the populace, there would be no one in office because the general populace really doesn't care, and by extension doesn't vote. Seriously, in municipal elections, non-voters make up the majority of the eligible voting base.

 

[gweed123]

I just don't think it's fair that the first page of candidates appear right away on the screen without any user intervention. The second page requires the user to know that they can turn the page and that they know how to. To you and I, that may sound as simple as flipping a page in a book, but to many technophobes, they might not get that. I think that the long card works best.

As long as a group of seniors in Dade County, Florida aren't voting, I think we should be ok. But I agree, having 1 page would be more fair.

 

[gweed123]

You could say the same thing about ethnic candidates and ethnic voters who will vote for a candidate simply for being of the same background.

Being gay is a little different than having the same skin colour. Gays, in general, are more liberal and open-minded and less bigoted (although all those crazy gay Republicans in the States seem to suggest otherwise). But you know nfitz, if you didn't obfuscate and LIE and DECEIVE by cutting out parts of my post that didn't fit your argument you'd know Smitherman being gay wasn't my only reason for supporting him. But it's definitely a plus. And a city like Toronto deserves a gay mayor. Didn't Winnipeg already have one? WINNIPEG?

I would tend to agree with this. Views on homosexuality is just that: a view. You vote for or against a candidate because of his views on urban vs suburban, transit vs car, private vs public sector, etc etc etc. I don't think it's right to vote for a candidate because he IS something, but it's perfectly ok to vote for a candidate because he SUPPORTS something. And CC is right in saying that by and large, gay people are more likely to support gay rights. Same as an immigrant is more likely to understand the challenges faced by immigrants, and is more likely to propose and/or support legislation to help immigrants. Same as someone who grew up in social housing is more likely to understand the challenges faced by someone who grew up in social housing, as opposed to someone who grew up in a middle class suburb.

Just because homosexuality is a hot-button issue with some doesn't mean someone should be chastised because they support a gay candidate. In fact, I don't see Smitherman as a gay candidate, I see him as a pro-gay candidate. The values and beliefs that he holds on issues is much more important to me than what he is or isn't.

 

[RC8]

RC8, the language that you used implied negativity, not neutrality:



you could have worded it totally different. you said "Homosexuality is a pretty neutral trait by itself - a bit like skin colour" so lets apply the above quote to a trait like skin colour to try to understand by another example of how such language can be negative:

example: interracial relationships shouldn't be discriminated against, but they shouldn't be encouraged either. being bi-racial certainly isn't a positive trait you should be looking for in a mayor.

"shouldn't be encouraged" and "certainly isn't a positive trait" don't sound neutral. they sound negative.

this would sound a bit better:

"Homosexuality shouldn't be discriminated against, but it shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged. It certainly isn't a negative or positive trait you should be looking for in a mayor."

the best thing you could have simply said was:

"homosexuality shouldn't be a deciding factor for how you cast your vote".

You'd be right if I was making a comment without preceding context. But the poster I quoted, who said Smitherman being gay was a good reason to vote for him, didn't need to hear that being gay shouldn't be discouraged, but rather the opposite.

I'm sorry if I've caused the impression that I believe a gay mayor wouldn't be a good thing. Frankly I couldn't care less about the mayor's sexuality, and neither should any reasonable voter.

 

[nfitz]

You could say the same thing about ethnic candidates and ethnic voters who will vote for a candidate simply for being of the same background.

I could, would, and have. I'm from an ethnic background ... and the last time I voted when there was someone from my background I certainly wouldn't vote for him, because I didn't like his politics; it never crossed my mind I'd vote for him because of ethnicity.

I can't see why one would consider ethnic background when voting ... to do so would be very bigoted.

But you know nfitz, if you didn't obfuscate and LIE and DECEIVE by cutting out parts of my post that didn't fit your argument...

Surely one should cut out parts of a post that one isn't responding to ... to do otherwise seems rude.

No need to shout, BTW ... especially as it makes no sense.

 

[SlickFranky]

I haven't even seen him as pro-gay (I'm sure he is though obviously). He doesn't really make a big deal out of it, and neither does anyone else. It's an entirely irrelevant part of who he is and has no bearing on how he does his job.

It'd be one thing if all the other candidates were vocal homophobes, but they're not. If you're interested in having a gay-friendly mayor there are plenty of choices, not just the gay candidate.

 

[Dan416]

I could, would, and have. I'm from an ethnic background ... and the last time I voted when there was someone from my background I certainly wouldn't vote for him, because I didn't like his politics; it never crossed my mind I'd vote for him because of ethnicity.

I can't see why one would consider ethnic background when voting ... to do so would be very bigoted.

Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'd wager it happens all the time.