Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: longeyes on June 17, 2010, 12:03:53 PM
-
So much for one man, one vote...
http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/06/17/in-new-york-whites-get-one-vote-hispanics-get-6-each/
In New York: Whites Get One Vote, ‘Hispanics’ Get 6 Each
June 17, 2010 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Democrats/Leftists, Education, Government, Government, Corruption, Judges, Law, New York, Vote Fraud, Warner Todd Huston |
-By Warner Todd Huston
Well, a federal judge has “fixed” Port Chester, New York’s “broken” electoral system by giving every Hispanic voter six votes to each white voter’s one. See. Isn’t that much better? It’s wonderful when the feds can come into a community and make everything all better like that.
You might think I’m joking about the six votes. Well, I’m not. Federal Judge Stephen Robinson reached into his back of penumbras and decided he had the magick fairie dust that would fix the elections in Port Chester because Hispanics were somehow being mysteriously and steadily disenfranchised there.
How did he come to that conclusion? Well, you see, as it happens the district is nearly 50% Hispanic yet no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee positions. So OBVIOUSLY Hispanics were being disenfranchised. QED, really. Of course, bothering to vote at all and get involved in their local government might have helped those Hispanics aspiring to serve, but who needs all the messy hard work of actually trying to get elected when some half-wit federal judge can blow into town and start “electing” Hispanics by federal fiat?
This is one of the most disgusting displays of leftist social engineering I’ve seen in quite a while. Instead of encouraging Hispanics in the area to undertake an interest in their own civic duties, this judge decides to just give the few Hispanics that bother to vote extra votes to even out the playing field.
There couldn’t be anything more American than the ages old democratic principle of one man, one vote, but here comes Obama’s federal government to throw away generations of democracy and to create a new system, one of “cumulative voting” to give any minority that claims to be underserved a six-times greater advantage than those that have taken the time to actually involve themselves in their community.
And do you want a quote from the AP story that shows one of the most glaring examples of how un-American this whole thing is?
“I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people,” Sandoval said in Spanish. “I don’t know, but I hope so.”
There is so much wrong with this indigent cretin’s quote that it’s hard to recount them all.
First of all the AP notes that this likely illegal alien delivered his quote in Spanish. That alone should disqualify him as a source for a quote, much less citizenship in this American nation. Secondly, this un-American bystander is hoping that if they get elected “Hispanics” will “do something“ for “Hispanic people.” I have an idea. Instead of that, Mr. Sandoval, how about we get some AMERICANS doing something for AMERICAN PEOPLE when they get elected?
Well, Mr. Sandoval, let me hope that your “Hispanic people” are always on the outside looking in as long as they consider themselves alien “Hispanics” and not Americans.
If these so-called Hispanics want to get representatives of their choosing elected, here’s an idea: let them start getting involved in America and its political system. Don’t sit around moping over your tacos and Dos Equis and whine that there are no Hispanics on your local city council, Mr. Sandoval. Find some folks prominent in your community, do some fund raising for them, run them as a candidate, and get them elected like everyone is supposed to do.
And for Lord’s sake stop calling yourself an alien “Hispanic” and become an American, one deeply in love with our philosophy, our culture, and our history. If you want to be a “Hispanic” do it in Guatemala, or Mexico City. We don’t want you here unless you want to be one of us. But if you sincerely want to join the United States of America, we’ll welcome you with open arms.
This whole idea was pushed by another one of those Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that want to seriously undermine the American system and weaken our nation. As such, FairVote.org is behind this little outrage. The organization touts itself as the “center for voting and democracy,” but what it really wants is to eliminate the U.S. system of elections and put in its half-baked, ever changing schemes angled to destroy democracy and turn over the nation to a tyranny of minorities.
The organization was started by 1980 presidential election loser John Anderson who was upset that his independent bid for the presidency had such a dismal outcome. Some of the other folks involved in this thing is pretty telling of the ulterior motives of the organization, though.
On the Advisory Committee, for instance, is radical gay activist Rashad Robinson, operative of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Ms Magazine editor Katherine Spillar, left-wing Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., radical enviro activist Erin Bowser, and other extremists. There isn’t a center right name in the bunch showing exactly what is really motivating them. Not a serious address of our electoral system, but a radical, left-wing redesign meant to empower other left-wingers and their special interests.
In the end, what we have here is a federally approved — nay federal mandated — destruction of our electoral system implemented to give power to people too stupid to bother to get involved in their own community. All orchestrated by an NGO that wants to destroy the country.
And of course, we know what the next step will be. Judges like this and their NGO co-conspirators will want to give the vote to illegals and non-citizens.
Obama’s Chicago Way style of federal politics continues down its sordid path.
____________
“The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it.”
–Samuel Johnson
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer. He has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 200 and before that he wrote articles on U.S. history for several small American magazines. His political columns are featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com, BigHollywood.com, and BigJournalism.com, as well as RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, StoptheACLU.com, AmericanDailyReview.com, among many, many others. Mr. Huston is also endlessly amused that one of his articles formed the basis of an article in Germany’s Der Spiegel Magazine in 2008.
Huston has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism” heard on BlogTalkRadio. Huston’s work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neil Bortz, and Michael Savage. He has appeared on the G. Gordon Liddy show, dozens of local shows from coast to coast, and many blogtalk radio shows.
Mr. Huston has appeared on local TV news to discuss his writing, has been a guest of CNN’s blogger lunch, and has appeared on Breitbart TV’s B-Team show.
Warner is also the editor of the Cook County Page for RedCounty.com and has a blog on the Tribune-Owned http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/ChicagoNow.com website. He is a well known writer on Illinois politics.
He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
-
Link error, page not found.
There is so much wrong with this that I'm rather speechless and not really sure where to start.
Wait a minute, yes I do: Run that bastard out of town on a rail!
Edit: A thought, now with this judicially dictated voting fraud in place all that remains is amnesty for a large crop of illegal hispanics, at which point it becomes numerically impossible to vote out bad legislation/legislators through "legal" means. At least for this particular town.
-
What does it take to impeach a federal judge?
-
This is a dumb idea, and it's pretty obviously trying to stack a vote, but it's not at all what that article says either.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election
I see nothing about "Hispanics get 6 votes and whites get 1". Everyone gets 6 to parcel out as they see fit. If you really like one guy vote for him 6 times, or vote for your 6 favorites 1 time each, or however you like. Top 6 vote getters win. It's seems kinda like basterdized range voting.
Not sure I'm for it, but it's definatly not what that blog described.
-
Everyone gets 6 to parcel out as they see fit.
Yeah, this doesn't register on my outrage meter at all.
-
This is a dumb idea, and it's pretty obviously trying to stack a vote, but it's not at all what that article says either.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election
I see nothing about "Hispanics get 6 votes and whites get 1". Everyone gets 6 to parcel out as they see fit. If you really like one guy vote for him 6 times, or vote for your 6 favorites 1 time each, or however you like. Top 6 vote getters win. It's seems kinda like basterdized range voting.
Not sure I'm for it, but it's definatly not what that blog described.
I partially rescind my earlier comment, but as I said, only partially...
Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act,
I fail to see how a free election is inherently wrong just because the people have consistently voted for a particular person, but if they want to run with that logic, what about those lifetime congressmen? Obviously it must be a voting rights act violation, only a single ethnicity (read particular person) keeps getting elected.
-
There was never any reason to impose a corrective solution. Because the elections didn't turn out as leftists desired?
Six votes per voter won't solve the real underlying "problem." For that it will take apportioning votes according to a Discrimination Index, and that is surely coming. Let disadvantaged people have more votes. Why not? History demands it.
This is just a first step, but we all should know by now that suffrage is the last institution the Left needs to undermine and transform.
-
Goodbye to One Man, One Vote
By Selwyn Duke
If you thought that "one man, one vote" reflected the full flowering of representative democracy, think again. In the village of Port Chester, N.Y., just a few towns north of my locality in Westchester County, there is a new system. It's "one (minority) man, six votes" -- brought to us courtesy of the U.S. Department of Injustice and a lunkhead of a federal judge named Stephen Robinson.
Here's the story: In 2006, the Injustice Department alleged that Port Chester's election system was "unfair." The problem? While the village is almost half Hispanic, no Hispanic had ever been elected as a trustee.
Now, how this hapless village got on the feds' radar screen, I have no idea. Were Hispanics intimidated into avoiding the polls? Were there literacy tests? Poll taxes? No, this story will not inspire a movie by the name of Port Chester Burning. Instead, it seems the problem Uncle Scam had was that the town's slim white majority -- who turn out to vote in greater numbers than their Latino neighbors (Hispanics also account for only about 20 percent of Port Chester's voting-age population), along with whatever Hispanics join them -- have thus far chosen to elect only white candidates. That pesky majority rule can be a real bummer, can't it?
So the Injustice Department -- using our tax money -- dragged Port Chester into court, which, presumably, cost the village tax money in litigation costs (ain't being a civil rights lawyer grand?). It's enough to make you wonder if the Injustice Department has too much time and money on its hands, except that it doesn't seem to have time to tackle real voter intimidation. Remember that this is the bureaucracy that refused to pursue the case against the Black Panthers who tried to scare white voters away from a polling place in Philadelphia.
This brings us to Federal Judge Stephen Robinson. He ruled -- get the Digitalis -- that the village's practice of having conventional at-large elections violated the Voting Rights Act. Now, let me put this in the simplest terms possible. The Voting Rights Act's purpose was to ensure that everyone would have the opportunity to vote. Yet this "judge" decreed that "one man, one vote," and the attendant majority rule, violate the act if they don't yield a politically correct result.
And the kicker is Robinson's remedy: He approved a plan to give every resident six votes, which they can apportion among the six trustees to be elected any way they wish. It's known as "cumulative voting." No, we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. Heck, I'm not even so sure we're in America.
What's the thinking? I suppose the idea is that many Hispanics will exhibit great ethnic patriotism and give all their votes to one Hispanic candidate, whereas whites don't vote as a block to the extent other groups do. Perhaps we're seeing an example of leftists nobly shouldering the Liberal White Man's Burden.
Judge Robinson also ruled that Port Chester must allow residents to show up on any one of five days to cast ballots, a system called "in-person early voting."
So first the left gave us quotas in schools and businesses, and now we have them in elections. I wonder, if there is a locality in which whites are almost half the population, with a black majority that has never elected a white candidate, will the feds roll into town and work the same voodoo? What if it's an area that's almost 50 percent female but that has never voted a woman into office? Maybe we should just mandate that public officials must reflect the demographic composition of their constituencies.
You could also say that this is the next step in the evolution of get-out-the-vote drives. It used to be that such endeavors were geared merely toward motivating the ignorant and apathetic to cast ballots, as we know that such people will make thoroughly stellar voting decisions if we can only somehow cajole them into the polling place. But this is so much simpler: Get out the vote by multiplying it. We don't need dead people in Chicago anymore -- we have deadheads in the Injustice Department.
Really, this scheme visited upon Port Chester is just another example of liberal bigotry. The leftist social engineers are again dividing people into groups, tacitly claiming that a person of one race cannot adequately represent a person of another, and changing the melting pot into a cauldron of ethnic tension.
So on Tuesday, June 15, there was an election in a village in New York. In preparation, the locality had six forums in English and six in Spanish to explain a new, federally mandated scheme to the voters. It created various ways of publicizing the election -- with tote bags, lawn signs, and tee shirts stating "Your voice, your vote, your village"; and reminders in the form of TV spots, brochures, and handouts given to schoolchildren, in both English and Spanish -- all of which had to be approved by the Department of Injustice. It also hired a "non-profit" election research and reform group called FairVote to provide consultation services (our tax money at work -- again). And when it came time to cast the votes, "federal observers" were on site...watching.
The left is Balkanizing us. I just wonder what their quota prescription will be when it comes time to partition the nation.
-
This is a cynical attempt to play on ethnic and racial favoritism. Tribalism is the future.
-
Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act,
What was the participation of the electorate by race? If the town is truly 50/50 or pretty darn close then either the Hispanics were voting for a white candidate or not voting at all.
-
warner todd houston makes my list of "journalists" who lie. i guess they count on folks reacting to the headline without reading the article its apparently a safe bet
-
Let's focus on the facts: six votes per voter.
Then we can address the motive in "solving" a supposed "problem" judicially.
-
Let's focus on the facts: six votes per voter.
Then we can address the motive in "solving" a supposed "problem" judicially.
How is six votes per voter a problem, as long as all voters get equally six votes?
-
funny that
-
As a fan of range voting, I also don't see the major problem, if people indiscriminately get 6 votes.
-
This is a dumb idea, and it's pretty obviously trying to stack a vote, but it's not at all what that article says either.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election
I see nothing about "Hispanics get 6 votes and whites get 1". Everyone gets 6 to parcel out as they see fit. If you really like one guy vote for him 6 times, or vote for your 6 favorites 1 time each, or however you like. Top 6 vote getters win. It's seems kinda like basterdized range voting.
That's nothing like range voting. Range voting would mean you vote every candidate on a 0-6 (or 0-something) scale.
A fixed number of votes (e.g. 6) that can be allocated over an arbitrarily large number of candidates is completely different. Actually I'm not sure what it's called. It's not a condorcet system, it's not Borda, it's not range or approval or IRV... it might actually be merely a variation of plurality, if the idea is still that the candidate with the most votes wins.
The properties are much closer to plurality than to those other systems. Strategic voting would still be in full force. To keep undesirable candidates from getting elected, I think the strategic choice is to allocate all 6 votes for the candidate you desire among the top 2 contenders. Then it degenerates into plurality, except with 6 times the vote count.
(Whereas range voting in pathological cases degenerates into approval voting, which is still vastly better than plurality.)
How is six votes per voter a problem, as long as all voters get equally six votes?
Because it doesn't actually change anything.
-
And the PURPOSE is?
-
That's nothing like range voting. Range voting would mean you vote every candidate on a 0-6 (or 0-something) scale.
A fixed number of votes (e.g. 6) that can be allocated over an arbitrarily large number of candidates is completely different. Actually I'm not sure what it's called. It's not a condorcet system, it's not Borda, it's not range or approval or IRV... it might actually be merely a variation of plurality, if the idea is still that the candidate with the most votes wins.
The properties are much closer to plurality than to those other systems. Strategic voting would still be in full force. To keep undesirable candidates from getting elected, I think the strategic choice is to allocate all 6 votes for the candidate you desire among the top 2 contenders. Then it degenerates into plurality, except with 6 times the vote count.
(Whereas range voting in pathological cases degenerates into approval voting, which is still vastly better than plurality.)
Because it doesn't actually change anything.
Ah, public choice theory. One of my areas of interest.
This type of voting is called "Cumulative voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting)."
It has been used in this country. It's just not our normal way of voting.
-
Not normal? Well, think again, because it is going to be the New Normal.
Those who wish to advance tribalism and ethnic enclaves can use this to further their cause.
And apparently they will find sympathetic minds even at APS.
-
*facepalm*
Again. In what way is six votes per voter somehow more racist and unfair than one vote per voter?
-
you need to go to wnd and infowars if you want to understand
this kinda thing is the caucasian version of "the plan" that black folks like to refer to.
-
This type of voting is called "Cumulative voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting)."
It has been used in this country. It's just not our normal way of voting.
When? Where? Most elections in this country are single-winner, and that seems to be a multi-winner method in its standard form; although it could be used for a single-winner election, I haven't found any real-world U.S. examples.
-
I think the outrage is not that this voting method was used. Rather, the outrage is that it was used "because the wrong people kept getting elected," based on political correctness.
-
this kinda thing is the caucasian version of "the plan" that black folks like to refer to.
intensely curious about this plan.
-
When? Where? Most elections in this country are single-winner, and that seems to be a multi-winner method in its standard form; although it could be used for a single-winner election, I haven't found any real-world U.S. examples.
They are apparently electing 6 council members at once. Except instead of just voting once each for the 6 people you'd like to be on the council out of a pool of (lets say arbitrarily) 20, you can concentrate all six of your votes on a single person to help make sure that person is in the top six and hence gets a place on the council.
The theory behind this method of voting being is if you put up a single Hispanic candidate, the Hispanic voters can just allocate all their votes to that candidate thus ensuring them a place on the council (and also propagating a separation between peoples along ethnic lines), whereas the white voters are (supposedly) more likely to spread their votes out among several candidates they like. Presuming the white voters do such, you wouldn't need nearly as many individual Hispanic voters to ensure that the one Hispanic candidate is elected.
Rather than sticking to one vote per voter per candidate and simply encouraging the Hispanic population to become more active in their city's affairs, while squashing the concept of racial difference/inferiority by simply treating them as any other voting body that should strive to become more active, a federal Judge decided to impose by decree a system specifically engineered to highlight those differences and skew an election along racial lines. A decree, by the way, changing the methodology of voting in that town, that shouldn't have been made by a judge but instead should have been passed through the town's own legislative process. Just because some people do not choose to vote, despite having the opportunity of doing so and having said vote count the same as anyone else, does not qualify as a violation of law and does not empower a member of the Judicial branch to legislate from the bench.
The short answer: No, I don't think what the judge did was appropriate because: I don't believe the judge's actions were instigated by any actual violation of law but rather by political correctness run amok, and I also don't believe the judge had the authority to impose a legislative change.
-
Okay. However, the article says close to 50% of the voters are Hispanic. So the problem seems to be that Hispanic voters are not preferring Hispanic candidates, or at least they are splitting their vote among way too many Hispanic candidates to get any of them elected. Either way I don't see how cumulative voting will help.
-
Vote system that elected NY Hispanic could expand
By JIM FITZGERALD
The Associated Press
Friday, June 18, 2010; 6:29 PM
PORT CHESTER, N.Y. -- The court-ordered election that allowed residents of one New York town to flip the lever six times for one candidate - and produced a Hispanic winner - could expand to other towns where minorities complain their voices aren't being heard.
But first, interested parties will want to take a look at the exit surveys.
The unusual election was imposed on Port Chester after a federal judge determined that Hispanics were being treated unfairly.
The 2010 Census is expected to show large increases in Latino populations and lawsuits alleging discrimination are likely to increase, said Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group.
"The country's been changing in a lot of places, with minority growth in exurbs and commuter cities, and there will be a realization that those minorities can't elect candidates of choice," Richie said.
That will leave minority groups, federal prosecutors and municipalities looking for ways to keep elections from violating the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities' constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
In Port Chester, trustees had been elected two at a time every two years, with conventional at-large voting. Most voters were white, and there were always six white trustees even though Hispanics made up half the population and nearly a quarter of the voters. Judge Stephen Robinson concluded the system violated U.S. law by diluting Hispanics' votes.
The standard remedy was to break a municipality into districts, with one district including many from the minority, thereby increasing the chances for a candidate backed by the minority group. The Justice Department proposed that solution for Port Chester.
But the village of about 30,000 objected to districts. It suggested instead a system called cumulative voting. All six trustees would be elected at once and the voters could apportion their six votes as they wished - all six to one candidate, one each to six candidates or any combination.
The system, which has been used in Alabama, Illinois, South Dakota and Texas, allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes behind specific candidates. Judge Robinson went for it, and cumulative voting was used for the first time in a New York municipality.
Peruvian immigrant Luis Marino, 43, finished fourth, making him Port Chester's first Hispanic trustee.
"It helped me get elected," said Marino, a Democrat who works in maintenance at the Scarsdale schools. "I will be representing all the people of Port Chester, but I am aware that I can help Hispanics bring their concerns to the board."
Voters also elected a black trustee for the first time: Joseph Kenner, a Republican who was already on the board as an appointee.
The village said Friday that 3,278 residents voted, about 31 percent of those registered, a slightly higher turnout than usual. Hispanic turnout had not been analyzed, but Richie said about a quarter of all votes went to Hispanic candidates.
Marino's victory might prompt other judges to consider cumulative voting as a remedy.
"The way this election was implemented in Port Chester can be an example for other jurisdictions with similar problems," said Randolph McLaughlin, a lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in several voters' rights cases, including Port Chester's. He cautioned, however, that the success was not just due to the unusual election system, but "was the result of the work that went in before the election."
That work - an extensive voter education program - was the principal subject of exit surveys. The questions, in Spanish and English, weren't about whom they voted for but about how well they understood the system and what strategy they used in voting.
The survey also asked which of Port Chester's outreach programs - a website, radio and TV commercials, voter forums, handouts - were helpful.
Voter education was a requirement of the settlement, but Port Chester officials believe they went beyond their obligation.
"We put so much emphasis on education - we may have spent $100 a voter - because we knew it would be critical to success," said village spokesman Aldo Vitagliano. "We also know that the next community can point to Port Chester and say `That's how it's done.'"
Two political science professors - David Kimball of the University of Missouri-St. Louis and Martha Knopf of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte - were hired to analyze the Port Chester data. Kimball said their report would take a few weeks.
"There's a very important issue here: Were voters comfortable? Did they understand how it works?" Kimball said. "Did they plump (give more than one vote to a candidate)? Did they know they could plump?"
Until there's a separate analysis of the votes, including who did well in Hispanic neighborhoods, it won't be known for sure if Marino was actually the preferred candidate of Latino voters.
"The election of a Hispanic candidate does not necessarily mean that a Hispanic-supported candidate was chosen," McLaughlin said. "But it's definitely a step forward."
-
But the village of about 30,000 objected to districts. It suggested instead a system called cumulative voting. All six trustees would be elected at once and the voters could apportion their six votes as they wished - all six to one candidate, one each to six candidates or any combination.
So it's not actually a solution a judge imposed out of the blue?
-
In Port Chester, trustees had been elected two at a time every two years, with conventional at-large voting.
All six trustees would be elected at once and the voters could apportion their six votes as they wished - all six to one candidate, one each to six candidates or any combination.
I wonder if they considered that there might have been a very good reason for staggering the terms before...or for nearly every elected body in the country to do the same. Granted, I'm in favor of the occasional full housecleaning, but the system was designed that way so nobody can stack the board too easily; it takes two separate elections to seat a majority of new members, and half of them will be fully in the public eye in the intervening period.
-
When? Where? Most elections in this country are single-winner, and that seems to be a multi-winner method in its standard form; although it could be used for a single-winner election, I haven't found any real-world U.S. examples.
From the article I linked:
Cumulative voting is used frequently in corporate governance, where it is mandated by many U.S. states. It was used to elect the Illinois House of Representatives from 1870 until its repeal in 1980 and used in England in the late 19th century to elect some school boards. As of November 2009, more than fifty communities in the United States use cumulative voting, all resulting from cases brought under the federal Voting Rights Act. Among them are Peoria, Illinois for half of its city council, Chilton County, Alabama for its county council and school board, and Amarillo, Texas, for its school board and College Board of Regents [1]. Courts sometimes mandate its use when they deem it necessary to provide fair representation; an example of this occurred in 2009 in Port Chester, New York.[2][3][4]
I grew up an hour away from Peoria.
Further, this seems to be a common response to Voting Rights act "problems".
-
And "fair representation" amounts to what exactly? Apportionment by race/ethnicity? To me that is un-American, but then I am, I admit, "old school."
-
And "fair representation" amounts to what exactly? Apportionment by race/ethnicity? To me that is un-American, but then I am, I admit, "old school."
How is six votes per person, equally, unfair?
-
You're right, but make it twenty.
Got to move more Latinos in there, man.
-
Again: the problem being solved...?
-
I can only see one point in this - marginalizing the undecided voters. They will, theoretically, negate their own votes (or most of them), thus reducing their power significantly - paving the way for true believers of either side to get elected.
-
Longeyes:
The world is not ending. The town's own government wanted this. It does not violate any precepts of equality (after all everybody gets the same vote). I see no reason why I should be emoting over this.
-
The "world" is not ending. Okay.
Can I take that to the bank?
But then I live here, not where you do. To me it appears that slowly but surely the foundation of civilized society, as I know it, is being eaten away by "the termites." They're slow eaters but they're determined.
I consider this judicial decision to be nothing more than a ploy to give one ethnic group power at the expense of others, and to me this is invidious.
-
I consider this judicial decision to be nothing more than a ploy to give one ethnic group power at the expense of others, and to me this is invidious.
In what way does it actually do that?
Everybody has the same six votes, do they not?
-
you keep going back to that fact and ignoring the visceral/emotional aspects it must be unfair somehow
-
you keep going back to that fact and ignoring the visceral/emotional aspects
Heaven forbid we'd simply look at the facts!
There's six positions up for election and everybody gets six votes. It's exactly how my local elections work for the township board here and I can assure you we don't do it that way to appease any minority group. It's just a sensible way of doing things.
Is there anything discriminatory in this new election style? No. Not unless the town is populated by white people that can't count to six. And I doubt that's the case.
-
My beef with this decision is not the what, but rather the why. If it'd been established as GigaBuist described, as just a logical way of electing 6 positions, I'd be ok with it. My beef is that this was done strictly for political correctness. The "wrong" people kept getting elected, and heaven forbid we let the "wrong" people get elected....
-
This sounds to me like trying to fix something that is not broken.
They got a hispanic elected,,, maybe that is from the 100$ per voter they spent on educating them?
EVERYONE gets six votes. (Maybe next year they will be allocated differently?)
I do think this is something that should have been voted on, not decided by a judge.
I see the smoke and mirrors, but I am not smart enough to see what is hidden there.
My BS detector light is flashing, and this flunked my sniff test.
-
AmbulanceDriver has reiterated my point. What is the WHY here? "NEH?" Not Enought Hispanics? Whose fault is it if Hispanics don't vote the way the elites think they should? But why also should every "Hispanic" be expected to vote "for Hispanics?" Do we expect white people to always vote for the interests of white people? Is that the America we want? It's sure as hell not mine.
-
just wait 'till some kkk idiot, is elected. after that, they will never admit they came up with this plan. [popcorn]
-
This way of voting makes it easier for the looters to vote in their strong man of choice. Seems pretty obvious to me.
Extrapolate this system to a presidential election with republican and democrat candidates having to run against a Chavista type reformer, one who is going to bring social justice to our inner cities and welfare dependents. The poor and the hard core progressives could easily swing an election and get a full blown communist elected.
-
AmbulanceDriver has reiterated my point. What is the WHY here? "NEH?" Not Enought Hispanics? Whose fault is it if Hispanics don't vote the way the elites think they should? But why also should every "Hispanic" be expected to vote "for Hispanics?" Do we expect white people to always vote for the interests of white people? Is that the America we want? It's sure as hell not mine.
The system, though, doesn't operate on WHY.
The system operates on HOW.
Have the rules been followed in passing this reform? The article say this option was promoted by the town's representatives themselves and that the court chose between several possible resolutions and chose the one favored locally.
Do the new rules violate anybody's rights? No. Everybody has an equal amount of votes. The new voting method not discriminatory in any way, except against the stupid.
-
Of course "the system" operates on WHY. There are motives behind everything. In this case, clear political motives familiar to all of us. Ignoring the Left's master plan for America, as we've been doing for decades, has brought us to this point. Time to wake up.
-
Of course "the system" operates on WHY. There are motives behind everything. In this case, clear political motives familiar to all of us. Ignoring the Left's master plan for America, as we've been doing for decades, has brought us to this point. Time to wake up.
What I mean to say is that political decisions are not made legitimate or illegitimate based on motive, but based on whether the rules are followed.
-
Girl that works for us is Black. Has multiple college degrees, and has taken alot of sociology and black studies. She told me that one thing she learned in those studies is that minorities often don't trust other minorities or even those of thier own race when it comes to business and government.
The thing being ignored by the powers that be here is that the Hispanics may very well be voting for someone who isn't hispanic. It'll be interesting to see if the results in future elections change at all.
-
Micro: you're ignoring the fact that the reason and stated purpose behind this law is electing more Hispanics, because there were,kt enough being elected to please the feds.
That's not hyperventilating, that's not speculation. That is the stated purpose of this decision.
-
As far as I can tell this is a case of the people wrangling a decent result out of a BS decision in a BS case.
I am worried about the new system's apparent tendency to marginalize moderate/undecided voters that ZOB pointed out, however.