Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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.

WOW!....proof yet again that this country's days of glory are in the rearview mirror....

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

again, nothing new here

poll tax made illegal years ago

OSBF wrote:

Baldy wrote: Thanks for the history lesson, jon.

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.

again, nothing new here

poll tax made illegal years ago

Umm, no.

Said absolutely nothing about a poll tax.

Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

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


SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!

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.

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.

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.

I'd prefer to "vote" by being able to distribute my tax payments among different govt depts/agencies as I see fit.

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.

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?