It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Multiple votes to "boost hispanic representation"

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

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.



Read more


What. The. Hell?????????

Another quote from the article:



"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."



Why shouldnt one hope they do something for everyone, not just hispanics?

This crap is getting way out of hand.




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Sounds to me like your trying to get the Hispanic hysteria going.

I ask you, who set up the system this way?

IMO, it should be one vote only and may the winner prevail no matter what color the person is.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Nothing to do with hispanic hysteria.

From the article:



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.


If most voters were white, that isnt indicative of a problem with the system. Its a problem of hispanics not getting out to vote, which would lead one to ask about the immigration status of said hispanics.

Simply because there arent any hispanics on the council doesnt warrant changing the entire election process to make sure some hispanics are on the council.

Afterall, race shouldnt matter right?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


More from the article:

"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.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is still wrong, no matter what the reason that no Latino
had been elected. Whatever happened to one man, one vote concept? It's like the judge is making a mockery of our voting system.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I've been following this story since it was in Federal court a while back.

This was the solution a judge came up with. Basically, instead of having six districts, where one person is elected from each district to the board of trustees, and you only vote for your district, you get 6 votes (one for every district) to be cast for whichever trustees you want. It's in leiu (sic) of redistricting.

I don't agree or disagree with the system.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 



Afterall, race shouldnt matter right?


No, it shouldn't matter.

But did Hispanics change the system?

I agree with you that the system shouldn't have been changed.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Nope, a full of politically correct BS federal judge changed it.

He should be removed from office.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Though you all bring valid points to the table, I have to wonder not so much on the voting process itself, but the judge who allowed this. What is his background? Could there be a kick back of some sort? What is his record?
For a judge to decide against "one man, one vote" would suggest this "judge" no longer embraces the constitution, furthermore doesnt acknowledge the supreme law of the land.
I certainly believe in one man one vote, thats how it should be. But we all know that the voting process in general is corrupt. So who knows whats really going on?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Theoretically, if a voter is allowed to use all six votes on one person, a candidate could get 100% of the votes, with the others receiving zero.
Not likely, but possible. Certainly a candidate could get elected with 2-3% (since we have a field of 6 in this example)
of the vote under these rules, unless there is an automatic runoff if none of the rest have over 50%. But then, the next round could give another candidate 90 plus percent, and then what, another runoff?
This makes it easier for someone with really radical ideas to get elected, as all they need is that minority to use all of their votes on him/her.
This is not a representative system, it only (practically) guarantees you have at least one of "your" kind in there, appealing to the minorities whether it be race or ideology.

Edit for clarity


[edit on 15-6-2010 by Stewie]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Stewie]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
More than one vote per person is patently illegal. Not saying it never happens, but it's illegal.

This decision needs to be challenged. It shouldn't be hard to reverse.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
This is unbelievable. No, they don't have 6 votes to spread around 6 districts because the judge rejected the idea of breaking it up! They actually get 6 votes to use however they want. You really like this guy? You can give him 6 votes.

Here's a quote:



"Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas."

______________________________________________________________

Yeah, this is racism alright, racism designed to outrage (rightfully so!) white voters. I'm sorry if hispanics don't vote, I'm sorry if no hispanic has been elected there. It does not violate the federal voting act because no hispanic has been elected.

If you want to be hispanic, go to Hispaniola. If you want to be American, then your welcome to stay. This is just bald-faced WRONG

WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST BE AMERICANS??


That judge should be thrown out of the country, literally. If he wants to travel by air that's fine too


[edit on 15-6-2010 by Asktheanimals]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by indianajoe77
I've been following this story since it was in Federal court a while back.

This was the solution a judge came up with. Basically, instead of having six districts, where one person is elected from each district to the board of trustees, and you only vote for your district, you get 6 votes (one for every district) to be cast for whichever trustees you want. It's in leiu (sic) of redistricting.

I don't agree or disagree with the system.


Since you've been following it... Does this mean that all voters get 6 votes or just Latino voters?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
All voters get 6 votes, there are six districts. You can vote for ONE candidate six times, effectively (with some help from your "kind") getting your kind in office.
But, you are surrendering any influence on the rest of the field.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


I'm going to have to think on this one... I'm not sure how I feel about it yet. At first blush, it's sound ok since everyone get equal votes, but then after your example, I'm not so sure anymore.

Hmmm... Thanks for the info.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
The only ones to blame for not getting Hispanic elected are the Hispanics candidates themselves.


Historically, Hispanic residents, many of whom feel marginalized by the village’s power structure, have registered and turned out to vote at lower rates than non-Hispanic whites. And some experts say that voters who mistrust the new system and the idea of Latino trustees may mobilize against the Hispanic candidates.


www.nytimes.com...

Ignore all the excuses in the above except for the low voter turn out. The Hispanic candidate inability to get Hispanics to votes as well as their inability to convince other Americans where they stand on the issues in the town is the reason they don't get elected.

From what I understand all voters get 6 votes. All I see here is 1million plus legal bill and even then Hispanics may still not get voted in.


In 2006, the Justice Department sued the village under the Voting Rights Act, saying its system of electing six at-large board members denied the Latino population fair representation. A federal court judge agreed and ordered Port Chester to come up with a more equitable process.

The Justice Department pushed for voting districts that would each elect its own member, giving more power to Latino voters, who predominate in a few neighborhoods. But the judge approved the village’s proposal: a rarely used process known as cumulative voting, in which each voter has six votes to cast any way he likes — say, one vote each for six candidates or six votes for only one candidate.


www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
"one man, many votes depending of colour of a skin" this is the future folks!



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
From the article:


FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates.


WTH - exactly - is the difference between this judicial outrage and the traditional one person one vote way of voting? In both instances, people "focus" their voting on the candidates they like or want giving the one liked most the victory.

And what is to stop whites from also "focusing" their 6 votes - assuming whites also get 6 votes like hispanics - on white candidates, so having the elections still come out the same way they always have?

What's next, whites only getting to vote in every other election?




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
The only ones to blame for not getting Hispanic elected are the Hispanics candidates themselves.


Historically, Hispanic residents, many of whom feel marginalized by the village’s power structure, have registered and turned out to vote at lower rates than non-Hispanic whites. And some experts say that voters who mistrust the new system and the idea of Latino trustees may mobilize against the Hispanic candidates.


www.nytimes.com...

Ignore all the excuses in the above except for the low voter turn out. The Hispanic candidate inability to get Hispanics to votes as well as their inability to convince other Americans where they stand on the issues in the town is the reason they don't get elected.


First, if hispanics just don't want to vote, they just don't want to vote and there really is no way to make them vote.


Also, do hispanic candidates try to assimilate to the point where whites would want to vote for them? Do they campaign in spanish instead of english, so that no white voters know their positions on any of the issues?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Cant wait for some crackpot system handed down by some moron judge to artificially give a group more power than it would otherwise trickles out to help win seats for something like the National Socialist Party of America.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Just wait till congress hears about this. They are going to drool over the idea of being able to cast multiple votes. They can finally vote for both sides and no matter what the outcome can say they voted for or against.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join