PDA

View Full Version : "One Man, One Vote" - yeah, right



Quantum
15th June 2010, 09:53 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election

Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer Jim Fitzgerald, Associated Press Writer

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."

Ash_Williams
16th June 2010, 11:14 AM
That's inflation for you.

the riot act
16th June 2010, 12:53 PM
That's inflation for you.


Wished I had thought of that!

wildcard
16th June 2010, 10:01 PM
What the fuck???

k-os
16th June 2010, 10:12 PM
I am so confused. This makes no sense to me.

wildcard
16th June 2010, 10:13 PM
I am so confused. This makes no sense to me.


You forgot to say it six times. ;D

k-os
16th June 2010, 10:13 PM
I am so confused. This makes no sense to me.


You forgot to say it six times. ;D


Nice!

striped_bear
17th June 2010, 02:13 AM
Holy shit. That is blatant corruption.

Ash_Williams
17th June 2010, 09:25 AM
I am so confused. This makes no sense to me.

It sounds as if you use your 6 votes to give a percentage of how much you support the candidate.

For example, if this was in the federal election, and we had Obama, McCain, and Ron Paul, you might give Ron 3 votes to show your support, and McCain 3 just to prevent Obama from winning. Under normal circumstances you probably would just give 1 vote to McCain.

It's more like judging that voting... like figure skating judges that hold up a "7.2" or "5.5" sign and the highest total of those wins, the judges don't just vote once for the best skater.

Seems to me like a pain in the ass.

k-os
17th June 2010, 11:25 AM
I am so confused. This makes no sense to me.

It sounds as if you use your 6 votes to give a percentage of how much you support the candidate.

For example, if this was in the federal election, and we had Obama, McCain, and Ron Paul, you might give Ron 3 votes to show your support, and McCain 3 just to prevent Obama from winning. Under normal circumstances you probably would just give 1 vote to McCain.

It's more like judging that voting... like figure skating judges that hold up a "7.2" or "5.5" sign and the highest total of those wins, the judges don't just vote once for the best skater.

Seems to me like a pain in the ass.


Under normal circumstances I would certainly give my one vote to Ron Paul. Or six votes if I had them to give. ;D As a country, I don't think we're ever going to have the potential to get out of our political funk unless we vote for the best person for the job, instead of person A who has a chance to beat person B.

And thanks for explaining it to me. I could not understand why someone would vote a fraction for one or another, and you have explained why someone might.

Ash_Williams
17th June 2010, 12:04 PM
Well it was a generic "you", not you specifically.

I also vote for those who have no chance of winning. Otherwise they will simply stop running. Some people suggest not voting, but unfortunately that appears to the outside world as approval of our politicians rather than rejection of the system. Every vote for someone with no chance in hell gets published and shows someone was at least passionate enough to get off their ass for 15 minutes to cast a ballot to say "F U" to the big parties.

Brent
17th June 2010, 12:48 PM
Democracy is retarded unless you have only White male property owners voting. And even then it barely works.

When a 70 IQ moron has the same amount of power as a 140 IQ genius I think that there is a problem.

America needs a Hitler type ASAP.

k-os
17th June 2010, 01:09 PM
Well it was a generic "you", not you specifically.

I also vote for those who have no chance of winning. Otherwise they will simply stop running. Some people suggest not voting, but unfortunately that appears to the outside world as approval of our politicians rather than rejection of the system. Every vote for someone with no chance in hell gets published and shows someone was at least passionate enough to get off their ass for 15 minutes to cast a ballot to say "F U" to the big parties.


I know that you meant a generic "you", that's why I put the smiley in there.

Your reason for voting rogue is very good. But for myself, if I felt I was better represented by one of the big parties, I would vote that way.

Ash_Williams
22nd June 2010, 09:35 AM
Democracy is retarded unless you have only White male property owners voting. And even then it barely works.

I would base it on land owned. That is the country, after all, the real country. Other methods look at the country as a mass of people or as a business.

The land method allows people to increase their political power if they wish, or sacrifice it to spend it on TVs and rims if they want. It should also result in lower property tax. It would allow those with long term vision to have influence instead of those who breed the most.

Quantum
22nd June 2010, 02:23 PM
I would base it on land owned.


So, in other words, if you prevent the common folk from owning land, you continue to rule, de facto dictatorship, de jure "democracy."

Voting should be based upon contributions to society. That would mean a lot of the rich would have no votes, since they pay no taxes. I agree that those on welfare, including the wealthy landowners sucking up farm subsidies and corporations taking any sort of benefits, should have no votes/influence.

Twisted Titan
22nd June 2010, 02:36 PM
I would base it on land owned.


So, in other words, if you prevent the common folk from owning land, you continue to rule, de facto dictatorship, de jure "democracy."

Voting should be based upon contributions to society. That would mean a lot of the rich would have no votes, since they pay no taxes. I agree that those on welfare, including the wealthy landowners sucking up farm subsidies and corporations taking any sort of benefits, should have no votes/influence.




You know how much theft of work would take place???


The much venerated Thomas Edison was one of the biggest theifs on the planet.........

Quantum
22nd June 2010, 02:45 PM
I would base it on land owned.


So, in other words, if you prevent the common folk from owning land, you continue to rule, de facto dictatorship, de jure "democracy."

Voting should be based upon contributions to society. That would mean a lot of the rich would have no votes, since they pay no taxes. I agree that those on welfare, including the wealthy landowners sucking up farm subsidies and corporations taking any sort of benefits, should have no votes/influence.




You know how much theft of work would take place???


The much venerated Thomas Edison was one of the biggest theifs on the planet.........


The current system is predicated upon theft of value from labor. The working people create, and the leisure class enjoy the fruits.

Billionaires do not "earn" their holdings.

And yes, I know about Edison. Tesla created most of his work.

Ash_Williams
23rd June 2010, 11:25 AM
So, in other words, if you prevent the common folk from owning land, you continue to rule, de facto dictatorship, de jure "democracy."

Common folk already own land though. There are some rich people out there with thousands of acres of land, but its the exception rather than the rule.

What I'm talking about is a basic return to the constitution where voting power is determined by land ownership rather than breeding.

What we see right now is a constituent cloning process - the big parties know that the more babies their supporters can pop out, the better it is for them, so they ensure even the worst among us continue to have kids. Breeding is encouraged by many minority groups to get more political power. It has to stop. The litter from two unhealthy and stupid people has little chance of contributing anything to society. We have kids born fat and stupid and addicted to drugs and each one of them counts as a vote in 18 years.

A human is seen as too stupid to do anything for himself, and yet smart enough to elect a leader to run his life. Even a person truly too stupid to do anything for himself is valued as a headcount.

So the problem there is the vote putting value on every head. And at the same time, we have the problem of property rights being trampled on. Headcounts can vote that a farm is taxed at an incredibly high rate because the city has moved near it. Then if that doesn't run the farmer off, they can vote that his land be taken to make a wallmart. Then they need to vote to subsidize his crops because with all the farms being turned into wallmarts, the price of food goes up.

It needs to be left alone. The farmers aren't the problem. The farmers would stay in business with subsidies or not, as people will pay whatever they have to to eat. Headcounts wanted those subsidies, they wanted cheaper food. The farmers are the only necessary contributors to society - everything else comes after food.

Put the power in the landowner. The farmer is way more important to everyone than the family that's crammed their apartment with 6 little idiot kids.

As for the rich - they may not pay as high a percent of tax than the others, but they pay a hell of a lot. I'm not what I'd call "rich" yet but I was poor as hell many years ago and these days I pay several times more tax each year than I even made back then.