One man, 6 votes?

[subdjoe]

Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election

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.

[/i]

OK...help me out here...because Hispanics/Latino didn't get out and vote at the same rate as whites that somehow violates the Voting Rights Act? Does that mean that since, in general, young people vote at a lower rate than seniors that there is some violation of the VRA too?

Maybe the village should have herded the Hispanics to the polls at gun point and made them vote. How the hell does people making the choice to not vote violate the VRA?

And, does everyone get 6 votes? Or is it just the Hispanics? Because if everyone gets 6 votes, and say 10,000 whites but only 3,000 Hispanics vote, and they all vote for only white candidates, won't the results be the same? Will the judge throw out the results of the election if no Hispanics win?

Too much of this kind of crap going on.

[jimster]

I would not get too deep into this, this is called legislating from a judicial bench is all.  Happens a lot these days.

Will the judge throw out the results of the election if no Hispanics win?

Yes, that is also called legislating from the bench.

[myronman3]

i agree, there is no way in hell this should be allowed to stand.   sadly, it will.   

[Dand]

Have any of you read the classic "Animal Farm"?  This sure seems to follow the crazy rule changing that went on in that book.

I sure hope some groups appeals this. It seems crazy.

I have to laugh at it being called a village. Here in Alaska, a 30,000 population would be considered a relatively large city.

[powderman]

  . Too bad we don't have a puke smilie. POWDERMAN. 

[ironglow]

  Didn't hear anything about the judge questioning how many of the Latinos living there were actually U.S. citizens, with a right to vote. Perhaps an inquiry into that may explain the low voter turnout on the part of the Hispanics..DUH

[crustylicious]

Cumulative voting is not new and is used all the time in the American, freemarket, capitalistic, corporate world.
If you don't like it you may be a socialist.

[subdjoe]

Cumulative voting is not new and is used all the time in the American, freemarket, capitalistic, corporate world.
If you don't like it you may be a socialist.

The problem is the judge imposing it to try to right a perceived wrong.  How was Latinos exercising their right to not vote a violation of the VRA?  Plus, I don't recall being able, as the article seems to state, being able to cast all 6 votes for the same person.  If there are 6 seats to fill, you vote for 6 different people, not one person 6 times.

[ironglow]

  Crusaty;
  Noticed your tag-line..please take note of mine..

[wreckhog]

Is this like the amp in Spinal Tap that goes to 11?

If you are electing 6 seats, shouldn't there always have been 6 votes to be cast per person.

[powderman]

Is this like the amp in Spinal Tap that goes to 11?

If you are electing 6 seats, shouldn't there always have been 6 votes to be cast per person.

Only if you're a dumcrap, they don't have to be alive ya know.  POWDERMAN. 

[wreckhog]

Ya know, I used to keep a boat in Portchester. Interesting Hispanic enclave. It is a stone's throw (100'?) across the river from Greenwich, CT. You have heard of Greenwich, it is where Letterman and Ivan Lendl live, and the headquarters of most of the country's hedge funds. The kind of town with $5 million starter homes. Probably the richest suburban town on the East Coast. Portchester, with its far lower dockage fees, was the kind of town where you could buy a $3 sandwich in a bodega before heading out to fish. More my speed.

Any way, if you are voting in 6 guys for 6 spots, why shouldn't you get 6 votes?

[powderman]

White Americans get 6 votes too??? Sure, why not. POWDERMAN. 

[billy_56081]

Is this like the amp in Spinal Tap that goes to 11?

If you are electing 6 seats, shouldn't there always have been 6 votes to be cast per person.

AHH, no you vote for the one in your district here? 

[powderman]

Is this like the amp in Spinal Tap that goes to 11?

If you are electing 6 seats, shouldn't there always have been 6 votes to be cast per person.

Well yeah, but you aint mexican. POWDERMAN. 
AHH, no you vote for the one in your district here? 

[crustylicious]

In cumulative voting you can vote six times for the same person. It is different than having six votes for six seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting

It would be my opinion that any minority (including far right uber-conservative strict constitionalists) should pay attention to it as it provides an opportunity to have more like minded cadidates candidates elected.  This judge is using it to get more Hispanics into office.

[subdjoe]

Any way, if you are voting in 6 guys for 6 spots, why shouldn't you get 6 votes?

Yeah, you vote to fill the spots.  BUT - it sounds like they can put all 6 votes on one person (another article said a guy gave two votes each to three people).  that is wrong.

Plus, a judge decided how the town should do its voting in order to correct a perceived wrong.  No one was keeping Hispanics from running for office or from voting.  So, in order to make up for them choosing to not go to the polls, the judge, rather than letting the town set up districts each with a representative, decided to impose cumulative voting. 

If a town, city, or county does that on its own, fine.  But for a judge to say "you will do it this way" is just wrong.

[beerbelly]

  This judge is using it to get more Hispanics into office.

The judge is not suppose to get anyone in office! The people voting are! Seems back before the socialists took over there was suppose to be something known as one man one vote
                              Beerbelly

[ironglow]

Ya know, I used to keep a boat in Portchester. Interesting Hispanic enclave. It is a stone's throw (100'?) across the river from Greenwich, CT. You have heard of Greenwich, it is where Letterman and Ivan Lendl live, and the headquarters of most of the country's hedge funds. The kind of town with $5 million starter homes. Probably the richest suburban town on the East Coast. Portchester, with its far lower dockage fees, was the kind of town where you could buy a $3 sandwich in a bodega before heading out to fish. More my speed.

Any way, if you are voting in 6 guys for 6 spots, why shouldn't you get 6 votes?

  Probably what most of us remember Greenwich, CT for is that Kennedy clan member who killed the little neighbor girl years ago...and almost got away with it !
      It did appear he was going to get away with it...until Mark Fuhrman came to town. Great detective/author, that Mark Fuhrman..

   Say, that killer is still in jail isn't he, or did the Kennedys get him sprung already ?

[ironglow]

In cumulative voting you can vote six times for the same person. It is different than having six votes for six seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting

It would be my opinion that any minority (including far right uber-conservative strict constitionalists) should pay attention to it as it provides an opportunity to have more like minded cadidates candidates elected.  This judge is using it to get more Hispanics into office.

  There was a law in the US about 1.5 centuries ago which stated essentially tha when vote tallies were added up, it was permissable for states if they wished, to count 5 votes of  black persons to count as 3 votes by others. The rule was overturned, urged on with the slogan, " one man, one vote"  (see, "the three fifths compromise").
   Now we have a crooked, activist judge trying to legislate (in a bigoted way) from the bench..   ..And he flying in the face of the US Supreme court decision, insisting on "one man, one vote" (see, Baker vs Carr)

  But since when does that mean anything to a liberal/activist judge ?