Politicking!
16/6/10 14:03![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo I was trawling YahooNews when this caught my eye...
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.
Personally I see two signifigant problems...
First off, unless the majority of voters start splitting their votes (2 for one canidate 4 for another) the results are going to be the same as if each resident had cast only a single ballot.
Secondly, the underlying premise seems inherently bigoted to me. It's as if someone came along and said "not enough Hispanics are voting so give the Hispanics that do vote an extra ballot(or 5)" wich shoots the whole idea of "equal representation" in the foot.
So is there anyone out there who sees this as a good Idea?
How would you go about rectifying such an issue?
Is there even an issue to rectify? (for all we know, the Hispanic canidates who did run were terrible)
Edit/Clarification:
I understand that everyone in the municipality recieves 6 votes, not just Hispanics. See the 1st of my two "signifigant problems", namely
unless the majority of voters start splitting their votes (2 for one canidate 4 for another) the results are going to be the same as if each resident had cast only a single ballot.
But there is an implied assumption on the part of the judge that Hispanics would not vote for a Non-Hispanic. and that rather than try to figure out why no Hispanics were getting elected. (for all we know, the Hispanic canidates who did run were terrible) He decided that he could change the rules game to favor his preconcieved notions.
Hmmm...
A clarification that is almost as long as the OP; I suppose that's what I get for posting in a rush.
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.
Personally I see two signifigant problems...
First off, unless the majority of voters start splitting their votes (2 for one canidate 4 for another) the results are going to be the same as if each resident had cast only a single ballot.
Secondly, the underlying premise seems inherently bigoted to me. It's as if someone came along and said "not enough Hispanics are voting so give the Hispanics that do vote an extra ballot(or 5)" wich shoots the whole idea of "equal representation" in the foot.
So is there anyone out there who sees this as a good Idea?
How would you go about rectifying such an issue?
Is there even an issue to rectify? (for all we know, the Hispanic canidates who did run were terrible)
Edit/Clarification:
I understand that everyone in the municipality recieves 6 votes, not just Hispanics. See the 1st of my two "signifigant problems", namely
unless the majority of voters start splitting their votes (2 for one canidate 4 for another) the results are going to be the same as if each resident had cast only a single ballot.
But there is an implied assumption on the part of the judge that Hispanics would not vote for a Non-Hispanic. and that rather than try to figure out why no Hispanics were getting elected. (for all we know, the Hispanic canidates who did run were terrible) He decided that he could change the rules game to favor his preconcieved notions.
Hmmm...
A clarification that is almost as long as the OP; I suppose that's what I get for posting in a rush.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 21:22 (UTC)This sounds more like social engineering more then a serious ruling. "Damn voters won't elect who we want them to, change the system!"
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 00:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 15:45 (UTC)Oh, it's definitely there. A lot of the crazier districts out there are actually created because the VRA requires a certain percentage of "minority-majority districts," or districts in which minority groups form a voting plurality (at the least). The AG can bring suit if that's not done. It's all a big clusterfuck IMO.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 21:29 (UTC)Because white people were winning?
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 21:30 (UTC)The way I understand it everyone gets six votes, not just Hispanics. You can then vote once for six candidates or six times for one. I am not sure if I am a big fan, but it is not undemocratic and it certainly doesn't give anyone more votes than any other. Many corporate boards are elected that way and its somewhat common in other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 21:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 00:37 (UTC)As
I didn't realize that the voting rights act included provisions on what the desired outcome of an election is....
This sounds more like social engineering more then a serious ruling. "Damn voters won't elect who we want them to, change the system!"
Perhapse "bigoted" was a poor choice of words, I have edited the post to clarify.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 00:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 21:36 (UTC)I'm with you, though, I'm not sure how this is going to help them any. In-person early voting and GOTV efforts seem more likely to help. Trying to have the few Hispanic voters they've got equal out the representation by giving them more votes just sounds like more work than doing a bilingual GOTV.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 21:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:18 (UTC)Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
does it say anything about elections. If anything this would require other states to recognize the elected leadership of other states(Public Acts) regardless of how they were elected unless congress had legislated otherwise.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:27 (UTC)I don't see anything in the constitution that would prevent something like this.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 00:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 00:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 14:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:45 (UTC)I do not think it means what you think it means.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 23:26 (UTC)Are you some constitutional law scholar, or just some 20-something who thinks he knows everything?
Pot meet kettle.......
Date: 16/6/10 23:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 23:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/10 22:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 00:54 (UTC)Now if it holds up against the bazillions of other laws, regulations, ordinances, legal precedents, conventions, and opinions, that's another story.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 00:56 (UTC)I wonder if anyone's tried to challenge it.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 01:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 03:11 (UTC)For example, a state could (especially if it had a very small minority population) pass a law stating that recipients of government welfare payments may not vote and it would be perfectly Constitutional.
Basically as long as you do not deny the right to vote for one of the handful of reasons specifically enumerated (race, religion, gender, etc.) reasons and the law does not artificially target specific individuals or groups you can have any method of voting and any definition of who is allowed to vote that you wish under the Constitution.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 03:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 15:48 (UTC)Just wondering...........
Date: 17/6/10 00:04 (UTC)Re: Just wondering...........
Date: 17/6/10 05:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 00:53 (UTC)From the article- the early voting helps, and maybe this at the very least raises awareness, so that's good. But I really don't understand how the 6 vote things helps.
"FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates."
You can do that with one vote too.
"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. "
This is the sort of thing that actually helps.
I'm really trying to understand how this makes things better, but I just don't see it.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 01:00 (UTC)Unfortunately, that is precisely why it will never be adopted.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 04:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/10 11:50 (UTC)