What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

so much for "one man, one vote"

Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election
AP

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer Jim Fitzgerald, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jun 15, 4:15 am 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.

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."

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.

Results were expected late Tuesday night. The Department of Justice said Monday that federal observers would be at all polling places Tuesday.

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."
 
Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act.

a perfectly legal election violates the Voting Rights act??? HOW exactly does that violate ANYthing??

this is exactly why liberals are going to destroy America..
"dont like the election results? no problem! just change the rules so "your" guy wins"!

Can this possibly be legal?
well, considering we are talking about NY state..sadly, it just might be..

Scot
 
and before someone bothers to say "yeah, but now EVERYone has 6 votes! so its still fair"
hold your breath..
because if that were true, why not just keep it one vote per person then?
it would work out the same right?

here is the REAL reason for giving everyone 6 votes..one of the comments on the yahoo story summed it up perfectly:

by BlakeR, The problem is that the are doing this to ensure a hispanic is elected. There is a population breakdown of 50% white and 50% hispanic. Of the 12 people running 10 are white and 2 are hispanic. Assuming the white voters split their 6 votes amongst the white candidates and the hispanic voters split their 6 votes among the 2 hispanic candiates, a hispanic candiate is likely to garner 5 times as many votes than any given white candidate. A hispanic voter who may have had a choice between two white candidates in his particular district is now encouraged to vote for a hispanic candidate who does not even represent him. This is social engineering, not fair voting.

Scot
 
Can this possibly be legal?
well, considering we are talking about NY state..sadly, it just might be..

Scot

Anything the group in power decides that does not violate federal laws is legal, you have no "right" to vote once or 12 times. Thats just a common incorrect phrase. There are lots of crazy thing you can do that "engineer" an election that are not discrimination or violate federal laws.
 
Anything the group in power decides that does not violate federal laws is legal, you have no "right" to vote once or 12 times. Thats just a common incorrect phrase. There are lots of crazy thing you can do that "engineer" an election that are not discrimination or violate federal laws.

pretty sure this violates federal laws......
 
If most of the people running are white in a 50/50 jurisdiction, giving minorities more votes won't change that. It'll just increase the likelihood of someone inexperienced being elected.
 
If most of the people running are white in a 50/50 jurisdiction, giving minorities more votes won't change that. It'll just increase the likelihood of someone inexperienced being elected.

If I'm understanding this correctly they gave everyone 6 votes not just minorities, so it would be completetly legal.

Here is there plan...


Gloria Furano gave one vote each to six candidates. They would hope these were white candidates. Each white candidate gets 1 vote.

Aaron Conetta gave two votes each to three candidates. They would hope these were minorities. Each minority candidates gets 2 votes.

Gregg Gregory gave all his votes to one candidate. Again hoping for minority candidates. This one has 6 votes!

Those 3 examples they listed show the potential of what they are "engineering". As listed in the article. The U.S. Department of Justice wants to elect a minority, and this is there plan to do so. I see no reason it would be illegal since everyone is getting the same (no discrimination) number of votes.

"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."

Now I'm not saying this will work or not work, but there intentions are clearly listed and the theory is there.
 
It smacks of Chicago politics, where even the dead possess enough civic duty and pride to vote -- as they did in great numbers for JFK . . .
 
the intention is to get around the system to get the candidates they want that would not get elected normally ......often its ability not skin color that means someone gets elected over another.....unfortunately some think skin color should take priority cause their ability is lacking......
 
  • #10
I don't understand when people automatically assume something is "racist". If one person is more qualified over another, it's not necessarily racial discrimination... Yet accuse someone of that, they almost have to do something about it.
 
  • #11
as a business owner i dont give much of anything to how an employee looks, nationality, sexual orientation....what i care about is performance.....dont care if your a transvestite Kenyan with a hunchback and 3 teeth, if yah can get the job done quickly and efficiently ill hire yah and pay yah.....just dont sneak up on me :D i hate affermitive action and the quota crap some colleges use to give spots to minorities......ability and work ethic should get yah ahead and nothing else.....

actually at my place of business i am the minority, im surrounded by women, several of whom are native and my wife is Irish so i really cant win......actually if yah look at hourly wages one of the native gals i pay nearly 25% more than me for a much easier job simply cause i dont want to do it, i hate selling advertising......also vote for minorities quite a bit.....infact most primaries i vote on the democratic ticket to help make sure one of my state representatives that happens to be native gets on the Nov ticket.....usually means ive got no say in the primaries over the presidential candidate i want but Frank usually does me more good in Helena than any idiot in DC....

---------- Post added at 01:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 PM ----------

btw i didnt assume anything is racist.....however it is racially motivated......they want someone that looks like them in office and are willing to tweak the rules to get that rather than getting someone with true ability to run that it just makes sense to vote for.....
 
  • #12
My town has a 9-person town council and, because of state law, no more than 6 can be from one party. Each voter can vote for 6, but can only give one vote to any particular candidate. That judge's solution, if applied here, would just say that we're free to use our six votes however we like; giving as many to a particular candidate as we want.

A better solution, and a change I've been wanting to see for a long time, would be for each voter here to be able to vote for one candidate, not 6. The top nine would win, whether they have more than 50% or not. That would take away the power of the D and R machines to stack the deck and we'd see some alternative candidates elected, including our share of flakes and wingnuts, no doubt. The term for that is representative democracy and it's something few of us have experienced. The judge doesn't have the nads for that, even though it more cleanly fits in with most people's concept of how a vote should be conducted. My guess is that his 6-vote system would elect more of the mainstream candidates than my 1-vote scheme, while allowing a token or two to be elected.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Bruce, we have similar for most elections......may have 10 ppl running for the school board but there are two open seats so we can vote for any two but only one vote per candidate....
 
  • #14
I agree... This reaks of Tammany Hall.

This is not fair in my opinion unless you can only vote once per candidate. Unfortunately unfair does not always equal illegal. Not so sure illegal equals illegal anymore. Really just depends on how the current courts are stacked. Another Tammany Hall teaching.

It allows one or more candidates to be unfairly lifted above other candidates because of thier appeal to a certain minority group.

The problem is that liberals have turned to the Judicial branch of the government to circumvent the checks and balances built into the consitution. Something it was never intended to do. What the Judge says, goes. How is this fair? Where are the checks and balances to this?
 
  • #15
Relax. That voting scheme will increase representation by people outside the mainstream and, given what the mainstream tends to do, I'm in favor of anything that does something different. There is nothing unfair about that system.
 
  • #16
I'd say what I think about the whole scheme but I'd get banned for the colorful words that would fly. rattler, do you have the link to the news story?
 
  • #17
Relax. That voting scheme will increase representation by people outside the mainstream and, given what the mainstream tends to do, I'm in favor of anything that does something different. There is nothing unfair about that system.

It is a corrupt act with the intent to get certain individuals elected. A scheme that gives someone an unfair advantage is deplorable.
 
  • #18
  • #19
*****************
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Anyone whose political views run outside the mainstream should be thrilled about such a system. And it's perfectly fair. Everyone gets the same number of votes and can use them how they wish. How is that unfair? In my town, I get six votes for town council but I have no choice but to evenly distribute them among a bunch of party-endorsed hacks. I'd much rather give all my votes to the one or two candidates who I'd especially like to have win a seat.
 
Back
Top