Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Political discussions
Post Reply
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by Baldy »

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.

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.


:shock:
User avatar
Appaholic
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8583
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:35 am
I am a fan of: Montana, WCU & FCS
A.K.A.: Rehab-aholic
Location: Mills River, NC

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by Appaholic »

WOW!....proof yet again that this country's days of glory are in the rearview mirror....
http://www.takeahikewnc.com

“It’s like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.” - The Buffalo Beast commenting on Glenn Beck

Consume. Watch TV. Be Silent. Work. Die.
User avatar
Col Hogan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 12230
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:29 am
I am a fan of: William & Mary
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by Col Hogan »

One man, One vote
This principle was enunciated by the Supreme Court in reynolds v. sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964). The Court ruled that a state's Apportionment plan for seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must allocate seats on a population basis so that the voting power of each voter be as equal as possible to that of any other voter

I guess even Supreme Court decisions aren't worth the paper they are printed on these days... :ohno:
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 45627
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: He/Him
Location: Scottsdale

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by dbackjon »

This (cumulative voting) used to be done in Illinois before the size of the state Legislature was reduced in 1980 - they started doing it in 1870.

In Illinois, the House Districts used to have three representatives per district. Each voter could cast their ballot for either three different candidates (each candidate receiving one vote), two candidates (each getting 1.5 votes) or 1 candidate (that candidate got three votes).


So I have to laugh at the comments from you guys acting like this is something new...
:thumb:
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by Baldy »

dbackjon wrote:This (cumulative voting) used to be done in Illinois before the size of the state Legislature was reduced in 1980 - they started doing it in 1870.

In Illinois, the House Districts used to have three representatives per district. Each voter could cast their ballot for either three different candidates (each candidate receiving one vote), two candidates (each getting 1.5 votes) or 1 candidate (that candidate got three votes).


So I have to laugh at the comments from you guys acting like this is something new...
Thanks for the history lesson, jon. :thumb:

Maybe a similar system should be developed for national elections. Every eligible "man" (voter) gets one vote, but for every $10000.00 you pay the government in income taxes you should get an additional vote. For example, eligible voter "Harry" paid $0.00 in federal income taxes, he gets one vote, but eligible voter "Sam" paid $10,000.00 in federal income taxes so he gets 2 votes. "Susie" paid in $20,000.00 so she gets 3 votes, etc. etc. etc. and you can cap the number of votes to a set number like 5 or 6 or whatever.

This is a much more fair representation. It gives the people who pay the most to run the government more say in the decision making process. :thumb:
User avatar
OSBF
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:07 pm
I am a fan of: The Illinois State Univer
A.K.A.: old school bird fan
Location: Normal, IL

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by OSBF »

Baldy wrote:
dbackjon wrote:This (cumulative voting) used to be done in Illinois before the size of the state Legislature was reduced in 1980 - they started doing it in 1870.

In Illinois, the House Districts used to have three representatives per district. Each voter could cast their ballot for either three different candidates (each candidate receiving one vote), two candidates (each getting 1.5 votes) or 1 candidate (that candidate got three votes).


So I have to laugh at the comments from you guys acting like this is something new...
Thanks for the history lesson, jon. :thumb:

Maybe a similar system should be developed for national elections. Every eligible "man" (voter) gets one vote, but for every $10000.00 you pay the government in income taxes you should get an additional vote. For example, eligible voter "Harry" paid $0.00 in federal income taxes, he gets one vote, but eligible voter "Sam" paid $10,000.00 in federal income taxes so he gets 2 votes. "Susie" paid in $20,000.00 so she gets 3 votes, etc. etc. etc. and you can cap the number of votes to a set number like 5 or 6 or whatever.

This is a much more fair representation. It gives the people who pay the most to run the government more say in the decision making process. :thumb:
again, nothing new here

poll tax made illegal years ago
"It's hard to kiss the lips at night that chew on your ass all day."
Image
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by Baldy »

OSBF wrote:
Baldy wrote: Thanks for the history lesson, jon. :thumb:

Maybe a similar system should be developed for national elections. Every eligible "man" (voter) gets one vote, but for every $10000.00 you pay the government in income taxes you should get an additional vote. For example, eligible voter "Harry" paid $0.00 in federal income taxes, he gets one vote, but eligible voter "Sam" paid $10,000.00 in federal income taxes so he gets 2 votes. "Susie" paid in $20,000.00 so she gets 3 votes, etc. etc. etc. and you can cap the number of votes to a set number like 5 or 6 or whatever.

This is a much more fair representation. It gives the people who pay the most to run the government more say in the decision making process. :thumb:
again, nothing new here

poll tax made illegal years ago
Umm, no.

Said absolutely nothing about a poll tax.
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60519
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by Ibanez »

Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

I wonder why that is? Maybe the hispanics AREN'T VOTING!


SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by Baldy »

Ibanez wrote:Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

I wonder why that is? Maybe the hispanics AREN'T VOTING!


SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!
According to the judge, Hispanics not voting is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. :? :lol:
green&gold75
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:00 am
I am a fan of: WILLIAM & MARY

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by green&gold75 »

Baldy wrote:
dbackjon wrote:This (cumulative voting) used to be done in Illinois before the size of the state Legislature was reduced in 1980 - they started doing it in 1870.

In Illinois, the House Districts used to have three representatives per district. Each voter could cast their ballot for either three different candidates (each candidate receiving one vote), two candidates (each getting 1.5 votes) or 1 candidate (that candidate got three votes).


So I have to laugh at the comments from you guys acting like this is something new...
Thanks for the history lesson, jon. :thumb:

Maybe a similar system should be developed for national elections. Every eligible "man" (voter) gets one vote, but for every $10000.00 you pay the government in income taxes you should get an additional vote. For example, eligible voter "Harry" paid $0.00 in federal income taxes, he gets one vote, but eligible voter "Sam" paid $10,000.00 in federal income taxes so he gets 2 votes. "Susie" paid in $20,000.00 so she gets 3 votes, etc. etc. etc. and you can cap the number of votes to a set number like 5 or 6 or whatever.

This is a much more fair representation. It gives the people who pay the most to run the government more say in the decision making process. :thumb:
I'd prefer to "vote" by being able to distribute my tax payments among different govt depts/agencies as I see fit.
Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 26827
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by Ivytalk »

Cumulative voting for corporate directors is permissible for stockholders of Delaware corporations, but it's outmoded and hardly anyone uses it any more. What the judge did here is a joke. Ibanez got it right: if voters don't turn out when they have the numbers to effect change, the heck with them. :ohno:
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60519
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Post by Ibanez »

Exactly, they didn't care when they had the right, so now we are going to discriminate on the basis of race to get them to participate in democracy?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Post Reply