Posted on 06/18/2010 5:48:25 PM PDT by spaced
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Your comment is about irrelevant suppositions of yours.
The only factors are the number of actual voters and how they decided to distribute their EQUAL number of votes to which candidates.
Again...
When and where honest conservatives are a minority, cumulative voting can enable the minority of honest conservatives to elect at least one honest conservative instead of being shut out.
In other words,
If in a district with six elected seats to a board, one sixth of the voters can elect one of their people to one of those seats instead of being shut out.
The lefties win elections where they are over 50% of the voters.
The minority conservatives are outvoted.
But with cumulative voting, a district with one third conservatives could get two out of six seats.
Note that if Hispanics are one sixth of the voters
and they all cast all their votes for one Hispanic candidate,
though that candidate gets one seat,
the other five seats go to non-Hispanics.
The Hispanics won one seat but lost five.
Oh, and illegals don’t legally vote — except in Los Angeles and similar places.
“Some animals are more equal than others.”
It strikes me as a good system. It’s not just ethnic minorities that might benefit from that system, but all minorities. Conservatives might conceivably use it to elect a conservative councilman in New York or San Franscisco by casting all their multiple votes for one conservative candidate.
Single member districts is more affirmative action than cumulative voting.
You have to compare all three methods.
At large versus single member districts versus at large with cumulative voting.
Historically, when a minority group sues over at large voting, the courts have always imposed single member district voting.
With cumulative voting, the city/town can continue to use at large voting with out violating voting rights.
The problem I have is that Latinos think they are not represented because of the color of someone’s skin.
Why should they believe that they must be represented as an ethnic group rather than as individual Americans?
Good point.
But political minorities, such as conservatives in Hawaii, can also benefit from cumulative voting. The recent Congressional election there resulted in a Republican winning only because two Democrats split their side of the vote. Once the Democrats join forces, Republicans will again be shut out.
But with cumulative voting in multi-seat districts in liberal districts, conservative candidates could, if they stuck together and cast all their votes for the same candidate, win at least one seat.
Go ahead and give the country away to anyone that can figure out how to game the system.
cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates.
constitutional? norfolk n way.
So you are admitting that you can’t figure out how to take advantage of equal votes for all voters?
I can figure out that 6 votes per person is the one of the dumbest things that I have ever heard, well except for some one to claim that it's constitutional, that idiot judge should be removed from the bench and prosecuted for voter fraud.
When cumulative voting benefits conservative minorities, will you still object to it?
One vote-one person, so simple.
From someone rational:
“This issue isn’t about one man, one vote, which is the emphasis in the general media reports, for or against: It is profoundly more constitutional than that, and far more ominous: As I said earlier, Government has absolutely NO right to shape the outcome of elections to suit itself. Absent evidence of fraud or intimidation –and there was none, here– then neither the courts nor the DOJ should interefere. This is a dangerous, and ultlimately destructive road: If the government can decide to “enfranchise” one set of voters, then they can decide with equal facility to disenfranchise another.”
You willing to step up to be a “dis/franchisee”?
http://forums.wildbillguarnere.com/index.php?
“I can figure out that 6 votes per person is the one of the dumbest things that I have ever heard, well except for some one to claim that it’s constitutional”
In my town’s recent school board election I was given three votes to vote for three school board members. Was it unconstitutional that I got three votes? Would it have been a horrible communist plot if I had been allowed to cast all three of my votes for the one candidate I really liked?
Cumulative voting seems like a good idea to me.
There is too much panic and hysteria being expressed on this website. Things are actually bad enough without inventing any artificial problems.
Felons, ethinic double punching, Puerto Rico, DC, ACORN, Illegal Amnesty...
The Liberals will use our own laws to kill us slowly.
There is too much panic and hysteria being expressed on this website. Things are actually bad enough without inventing any artificial problems.
cumulative voting is not an artificial problem and I'm not sure what hysteria you see.
thanks for clarification Mr. head. i guess that’s
mr. dick head to you.
article said that half the population of village is hispanic.
about a quarter of those are voters. why is it irrelevant
to question legality of many of those in village?
there are thousands of illegals in my town. there are some
who are legal. a judge would look at composition of town and say
that hispanics were not represented.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.