Vote early, vote often.

[Ichiban]

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

[ericire12]

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?

[crusader rabbit]

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.

[david86440]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

So much for the bullsh!t from academe.
One person, one vote.

This government is no longer worthy of America's Veterans.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[tombogan03884]

So much for your touted "ethics".

[fightingquaker13]

So much for your touted "ethics".

How so?
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

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.