The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Ichiban on June 15, 2010, 02:04:22 PM
-
I guess I don't understand what is "unfair" about one man/one vote. :-[
Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election
PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate.
Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.
Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday night.
Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election)
-
Un-F.u.c.k.ing believable...... What the hell has happened to our country...... and why am a I continually having to ask that question?
-
Un-F.u.c.k.ing believable...... What the hell has happened to our country...... and why am a I continually having to ask that question?
We raised a generation of idiots with no understanding of the Constitution. These fools are now indoctrinating our young people. They cannot teach what they do not know. And they only know "what feels good."
My advice? Along with guns, gold and groceries, stock up on ammo and kleenex. :'( :'( :'(
Submitted by Crusader who continues to weep for his country.
-
Hey, it worked! >:(
Using New System, Port Chester Elects First Latino Trustee
By KIRK SEMPLE
Published: June 16, 2010
PORT CHESTER, N.Y. — This Westchester County village elected a Hispanic member to its board of trustees for the first time on Tuesday, capping a bitter legal battle over giving its large Latino population a stronger voice in local government.
The election of that member, Luis Marino, a Peruvian immigrant who ran as a Democrat, came in the first local election since a federal judge ordered Port Chester to adopt a new voting system to give Latinos a better shot at electing one of their own to the six-member board.
The unusual electoral system itself made news, allowing voters to use six votes however they chose — including casting all six for one candidate. One Republican who won, Joseph D. Kenner, was the first black elected to the board.
“I think the results are clear — that the new system worked,” Mayor Dennis G. Pilla, a Democrat, said Wednesday morning. “This is a fantastic victory for Port Chester.”
According to the most recent census data, from 2006 to 2008, Latinos make up 49 percent of the village’s roughly 28,000 people, though many are noncitizens; about 39 percent are non-Hispanic whites and 7 percent are black. Still, in past elections, the preferred candidates for the village board among Latino voters were usually defeated.
A federal lawsuit, filed in 2006 by the Justice Department, charged that the village’s method of electing its trustees diluted the voting strength of Latino citizens. A federal court judge agreed and in 2009 ordered the imposition of a rarely used process known as cumulative voting.
-
I am going to try to be the voice of, if not reason, historical perspective here. I don't like afirmative action. However, that said a federal judge ordering a different voting system based on 15A grounds to deal with what was held to be racially discriminatory election rules is nothing new or shocking.
Quick poli-sci lesson. Assuming all is fair and above board, the rules do matter. If it weren't for the Electoral College and we just had a nation wide popular vote, Al Gore would have rwon in 2000 by a landslide. Louisianna's open primary system is an animal unique to itself. Some states require a majority of votes to win an election (thus mandating runoffs) others (and the feds) just require a plurality. If in 1992 there had been a requirement for a majority, Bush and Clinton would have had a runoff without Perot in the picture. Clinton would have lost and lost hard. Point is, the voting rules matter a lot.
Historically, it is no new thing for federal judges to change those rules to comply with the 15A. This goes back to 1868. Things like poll taxes, literacy tests, a "county unit" voting system (popular in the South for obvious reasons), single member vs at large districts etc., have all been considered under a "strict scrutiny" standard by federal judges for a very long time. Basically, this sounds like every voter was given six votes, for God knows what reason. Now, per the judge's order, they can spend those votes on as many or as few candidates as they choose. Its still one man one (or in this case six) votes and thus fair and racially neutral. As to early in person voting? Texas has been doing this for years and you could do it at your local gocery store.
I'm not saying that I agree with the ruling or the intent behind it. I am saying that this is not a crises and certainley nothing new or unusual in post-bellum US history. Its not like latinos got six votes, blacks three and whites one. All had an equal voice.
FQ13
-
So much for the bullsh!t from academe.
One person, one vote.
This government is no longer worthy of America's Veterans.
-
So much for the bullsh!t from academe.
One person, one vote.
This government is no longer worthy of America's Veterans.
No BS just fact. Who cares if its one persone one vote or one person six votes? Its all "fair". Thing is, it IS rigging the system. The idea is that whites will split their votes and latinos won't, thus dilluting white's power. It worked this time. Thing is, it just calls for stategic voting. Next time, expect whites to do the same. Hell, lots of folks do it all the time when they deliberately vote for divided government. I expect this in 2012. I think a lot of folks will say, "I don't like the GOP, but the Democrats have too much power" and vote accordingly. I personally hate cumulative voting as it punishes the honest and naieve and rewards the savvy and well organized. Generally a good thing, but not in electoral politics. Exhibit A is the advantage that small but well funded and focused interest groups have in our current system. Still, it does pass Constitutional muster, like it or not. For the record, I don't.
FQ13
-
So much for your touted "ethics".
-
So much for your touted "ethics".
How so?
FQ13
-
You are justifying the derailing of the electoral system.
We'll have a vote and the most votes wins, unless it goes against the wetbacks or the blacks or the queers or some other bunch of socialist scum, then we'll change the result.
You want equal numbers of representatives ?
Move some where else.
You justify sh!t like this, or excuse it, and then have balls enough to b!tch about pressing one for English ?
Get your money back for that waste they told you was an education.
-
You are justifying the derailing of the electoral system.
We'll have a vote and the most votes wins, unless it goes against the wetbacks or the blacks or the queers or some other bunch of socialist scum, then we'll change the result.
You want equal numbers of representatives ?
Move some where else.
All I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a "neutral" election system. The rules always favor someone. Why does New Hampshire get to go first? Why should my choice of candidates get to be whittled down by a bunch of grumpy Yankees? How about making Georgia or Oregon first in 2012? Why the electoral college? Why do I care what North Dakota or Alaska thinks? And what about county unit voting? We count the states votes as a whole, why not counties within a state? The point is this, the rules will always influence the outcome. You prefer rule A over rule B fine. Lets argue about that. Just don't pretend rule A is neutral and rule B isn't because we are both smart enough to know that that's a lie. If every one is treated equally its fair. The question comes down to this. Different rules applied fairly skew the results in different ways. Lets just be honest and argue about which way we want the skew to be and cut the PC bullshat. That way, I think there would be less disagreement than you might expect.
FQ13
-
Are you crapping me, or do you REALLY believe this sh!t ?
Why not just go with different colored ballots ?
Better yet, lets just go with what the "beaners" and black trash want and skip all that voting completely.
-
Are you crapping me, or do you REALLY believe this sh!t ?
Why not just go with different colored ballots ?
Better yet, lets just go with what the "beaners" and black trash want and skip all that voting completely.
Take your city. Assume 5 council seats. Two options. At large districts, or single member districts. How the candidates present themselves, and to which groups will vary widely. Same with Congressional vs Senate races. OR partisan vs non-partisan elections. Ban party funding in the latter. Again, you will see different concerns (eg winners and losers) being addressed. All I'm saying is that when it comes to election rules there is no such animal as "neutral". Any rule will favor one interest over another, cf Federalist 51. Its just a question of deciding what sorts of general principles you prefer and then choosing a fair set of rules that will favor them. This isn't ideology, its just fact. Is the hoop 6', 10', or 12' high? You'll see different players recruited. Ditto with football. Are we playing on an 80 yard, hundred yard or 150 yard field. Again, you'll see a different roster. Compare the looks and talent of radio vs TV stars. I'm surprised you are arguing against the fact that the choice of rules influences but does not wholly determine the outcome. I thought you were a realist. You're agrument in the quoted post actually agrees with me. I don't want to hand over power to those who are hostile to my vison of a race blind society by demanding racially skewed electoral systems. I want rules that diminish the power of divisive forces and make candidates appeal to a broad rather than a narrow segment of the electorate. (which sucks if you are a movement conservative or a a socialist, or a race based candidate, but is good for the country). Lets be honest. I don't like the ruling either. I think it advantages the Al Sharton's and David Dukes of the world. But lets not pretend to be poor innocents here. To quote Doc Holiday "My hypocrisy only goes so far". There are a number of ways to have a free and fair election. Each will favor an outcome. Choose accordingly. Madison sure as hell did and I don't recall him ever apologizing for gaming the system he created. In fact he was quite up front about it.
FQ13
-
You need help.
The only way to hold a fair election is one voter, one vote. The rest is socialist BS.
FQ, your problem is you wasted to much time reading Locke, Mill,Russo (sp check is no help with that one ;D )
And those other do nothing "thinkers" when you should have been studying the wars and their causes.
Instead of wasting time on "theorists" you should have concentrated on those who actually DID things.
-
least you can choose to vote or not
here we get fined if we don't vote for the Federal or State Elections :-\
-
least you can choose to vote or not
here we get fined if we don't vote for the Federal or State Elections :-\
Do you get the option of the null vote? Eg "none of the above"?
FQ13
-
Do you get the option of the null vote? Eg "none of the above"?
FQ13
yea however you still have to turn up on vote day to get your name checked off
or organise a postal vote before hand if you can not vote on the day if not you get fined
-
Phil, that's not actually a bad Idea.
We got to this point because of elections with 40% turn out.
-
Phil, that's not actually a bad Idea.
We got to this point because of elections with 40% turn out.
I think Greece has the best system of compulsary voting. If you don't vote, you can't renew your passport. Eg, you made this mess, you're stuck with it till the next election. ;D
FQ13
-
I think Greece has the best system of compulsary voting. If you don't vote, you can't renew your passport. Eg, you made this mess, you're stuck with it till the next election. ;D
FQ13
So how do you get back home if you are out of the country, miss the election, and your passport is due for renewal?
-
So how do you get back home if you are out of the country, miss the election, and your passport is due for renewal?
You probably don't want to go back any way. ;D
-
least you can choose to vote or not
here we get fined if we don't vote for the Federal or State Elections :-\
Phil, that's not actually a bad Idea.
We got to this point because of elections with 40% turn out.
+1, Tom.