The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

When "equality" means inequality.
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3236
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Rynar [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  When "equality" means inequality.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election

Quote:
Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jun 15, 4:08 pm ET
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.

Furano and his wife, Gloria Furano, voted Thursday.

"That was very strange," Arthur Furano, 80, said after voting. "I'm not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, `one man, one vote.'"

It's the first time any municipality in New York has used cumulative voting, said Amy Ngai, a director at FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group that has been hired to consult. The system is used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill.

The judge also ordered Port Chester to implement in-person early voting, allowing residents to show up on any of five days to cast ballots. That, too, is a first in New York, Ngai said.

Village clerk Joan Mancuso said Monday that 604 residents voted early.

Gloria Furano gave one vote each to six candidates. Aaron Conetta gave two votes each to three candidates.

Frances Nurena talked to the inspectors about the new system, grabbed some educational material and went home to study. After all, it was only Thursday. She could vote on Friday, Saturday or Tuesday.

"I understand the voting," she said. "But since I have time, I'm going to learn more about the candidates."

On Tuesday, Candida Sandoval voted at the Don Bosco Center, where a soup kitchen and day-laborer hiring center added to the activity, and where federal observers watched the voting from a table in the corner.

"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."

FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates. Two of the 13 Port Chester trustee candidates — one Democrat and one Republican — are Hispanic. A third Hispanic is running a write-in campaign after being taken off the ballot on a technicality.

Campaigning was generally low key, and the election itself was less of an issue than housing density and taxes.

Hispanic candidates Fabiola Montoya and Luis Marino emphasized their volunteer work and said they would represent all residents if elected.

Gregg Gregory gave all his votes to one candidate, then said: "I think this is terrific. It's good for Port Chester. It opens it up to a lot more people, not just Hispanics but independents, too."

Vote coordinator Martha Lopez said that if turnout is higher than in recent years, when it hovered around 25 percent, the election would be a success — regardless of whether a Hispanic was elected.

"I think we'll make it," she said. "I'm happy to report the people seem very interested."

But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but "to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice."

That could be a non-Hispanic, he acknowledged, and until exit polling is done, "it won't be known for sure whether the winners were Hispanic-preferred."

The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row — some of them twice if they have two party lines — and then the same candidates are listed five more times. In all, there are 114 levers; voters can flip any six.

Besides the forums, bright yellow T-shirts, tote bags and lawn signs declared "Your voice, your vote, your village," part of the educational materials also mandated in the government agreement. Announcements were made on cable TV in each language.

All such materials — the ballot, the brochures, the TV spots, the reminders sent home in schoolkids' backpacks — had to be approved in advance, in English and Spanish versions, by the Department of Justice.

Conetta said the voter education effort was so thorough he found voting easier than usual.

"It was very different but actually quite simple," he said. "No problem."

Author:  Müs [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
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.


So the answer is to give the latinos that *do* vote 6 times the representation?

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

No, all residents were given 6 votes, whether they were white or Hispanic or other. It's an odd system, but where exactly is the inequality?

Author:  Taskiss [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sounds like what they've been doing forever in Chicago.

Author:  Müs [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
No, all residents were given 6 votes, whether they were white or Hispanic or other. It's an odd system, but where exactly is the inequality?


So... why not just give each person one vote?

Author:  darksiege [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

because then the **** think their votes mean less.

Author:  Müs [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

I can get behind "Pick the top 6 people that you would like to have on the council" That kinda manes sense to not have to split into districts, etc.

But the "you have 6 votes to use however you want" just rubs me the wrong way. How can one person vote for another 6 times? Seems to go against the whole concept of democracy.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

I love how the courts see the problem as not enough Hispanic representation and then take the racist idea that giving everyone more votes will mean sophisticated whites will split up their votes but simple Hispanics will use all their votes for as Hispanic person regardless of issues.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Elmarnieh wrote:
I love how the courts see the problem as not enough Hispanic representation and then take the racist idea that giving everyone more votes will mean sophisticated whites will split up their votes but simple Hispanics will use all their votes for as Hispanic person regardless of issues.


Ah, so that's ow they think this will change things.

I was trying to figure out how in the hell multiplying everyone's votes by 6 would make a difference.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Gotta understand the mind of the leftists.

Author:  Xequecal [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: When "equality" means inequality.

So let me get this straight. According to how this is "supposed" to work, the white people will vote without regard to race, you know, how you're supposed to do it. Meanwhile, the Hispanics will vote only based on race. So by merely proposing this, you're labeling the entire Hispanic community as both incredibly stupid and racist. Then you justify this by saying that the stupid, racist actions you assume the Hispanics will take can't be racist simply because they're Hispanic, further insulting their intelligence.

So basically, a white judge proposes a system that first presumes that the white people are intelligent and fair and that the Hispanic people are stupid and racist, and then gives the political power to the stupid side. This is supposed to be a step forward for equality. A system that is guaranteed to choose the worst possible candidate every single time.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

A system that is guaranteed to choose the worst probably democrat every single time.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
No, all residents were given 6 votes, whether they were white or Hispanic or other. It's an odd system, but where exactly is the inequality?


yeah this doesn't make any sence, what stops the white voters from voting six times for Whitey McWhitestein?

Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: When "equality" means inequality.

Xequecal wrote:

So basically, a white judge proposes a system that first presumes that the white people are intelligent and fair and that the Hispanic people are stupid and racist, and then gives the political power to the stupid side. This is supposed to be a step forward for equality. A system that is guaranteed to choose the worst possible candidate every single time.


Yep, pretty much how I see it.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Rorinthas wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
No, all residents were given 6 votes, whether they were white or Hispanic or other. It's an odd system, but where exactly is the inequality?


yeah this doesn't make any sence, what stops the white voters from voting six times for Whitey McWhitestein?


Because whites, by and large, aren't racist?

Author:  shuyung [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

So how many of you looked up what cumulative voting is?

Author:  darksiege [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

Shuyung,

I did as a matter of fact. I still think this is wrong.

Author:  shuyung [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Why? There are six seats that require filling. Rather than six individual races for the seats either on an at-large basis or on a district basis, they are awarded to the top six vote-getters out of a pool of candidates.

It is amusing to imagine the House of Representatives filled according to this method. Except that it's difficult enough to get people to vote on one seat, let alone 435 of them.

Author:  darksiege [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:18 am ]
Post subject: 

I think it is wrong because it is hard enough to get someone to research one candidate that they want for a position.

Let alone trusting the general populace to try and stay informed about enough candidates to remember anything other than a Tag line to vote for someone on.

It may work for corporate environments, but when there is a possibility that people can just place all 6 votes for one person... it taints the pool.

And the common person is not going to be as well informed as a person who is willfully involved in a corporation at a level to have a voting share.

Author:  Slythe [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: When "equality" means inequality.

In 2010, the most racist people in the U.S. are not white, by far.

Author:  Timmit [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: When "equality" means inequality.

Slythe wrote:
In 2010, the most racist people in the U.S. are not white, by far.
No, they're probably my Cuban/Puerto Rican in-laws ;)

Author:  Taskiss [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:16 am ]
Post subject: 

I'd bet that people who have been treated as second class citizens have a tendency to find other minorities to treat as third class citizens...

No proof, just a gut feeling.

Author:  shuyung [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

darksiege wrote:
I think it is wrong because it is hard enough to get someone to research one candidate that they want for a position.

Let alone trusting the general populace to try and stay informed about enough candidates to remember anything other than a Tag line to vote for someone on.

It may work for corporate environments, but when there is a possibility that people can just place all 6 votes for one person... it taints the pool.

And the common person is not going to be as well informed as a person who is willfully involved in a corporation at a level to have a voting share.

Apathy is simply a foregone conclusion of universal suffrage. It doesn't really matter what voting method is used, they are all prey to the underlying problem.
As for tainting the pool, it really doesn't. It changes some of the calculations, but it all shakes out.
Again, the person with a voting share in a corporation is invested, while universal suffrage requires no investment, so the two scenarios are not comparable.

Author:  Vladimirr [ Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:29 am ]
Post subject: 

The only advantage I can see in giving everyone 6 votes is that you allow people who are on the fence to divide their numbers up. Normally if you can't decide who to vote for, you can't vote 0.5 one way and 0.5 another.

If you really can't decide which candidate to vote for that's a whole nother issue, but anyway...

Author:  Diamondeye [ Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: When "equality" means inequality.

The hilarity of this is that the article comes right out and says "most voters [in the village] were White."

That's the whole reason for this - Hispanics not voting. So apparently even though they choose not to vote, they need to have a Hispanic candidate to represent them whether he's in their district or not.

This is the same problem on a much smaller scale as the Congressional Black Caucus. It's a basic failure to understand [or ignoring it on purpose] that there's no entitlement to representation by someone of your own racial or ethnic group, and that just because someone of your ethnicity is in a governing body does not necessarily make them your representative.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/