They get to vote 6 times a piece? HOW?
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
June 16, 2010 3:32pm CST
Well I had to read the article more than once because I could not believe it. Especially not here in the USA.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election
I always thought it was one person one vote. Doesn't this violate election laws? Also how does this show a "real" representation of the will of the voters? I don't think this solves any discrimination these people say is happening..if anything it causes more because whoever was elected was not elected due to a majority of voters wanting that person. If the majority of the hispanic voters are NOT showing up to vote than whose fault is that?
What do you think of this? Should it be taken to a higher court?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
16 Jun 10
Apparently, according to the article, "Cumulative voting has been used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill." I've never heard of it but it must not violate election laws.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
16 Jun 10
I still don't see how it is legal. It does not show a true representation of the voting public.
This is crazy.
1 person likes this
@dboman (457)
• United States
17 Jun 10
This is absurd. You know what this reminds me of? Disenfranchisement. While I have no problem with a Hispanic gaining office, I DO have a problem with changing the rules to help someone get elected for the sole reason that he/she is a Hispanic.
Not to mention this kind of voting will have a polarizing effect on an election. Those who feel strongly (most likely on the polar fringes) about a candidate will cast all their votes for that candidate, while those who are more moderate will more likely spread their votes out.
The judge who ruled that Port Charles must change their rules cited the Voting Rights Act. The explicit intention of his ruling (the intention of getting a person of specific race elected) contradicts the purpose for the Voting Rights Act. Why do judges feel they don't have to rule according to law? I can't stand judicial activism...pure arrogance.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
17 Jun 10
basically the judge made the election unfair and slanted toward favoring the hispanic candidates...which is discrimation against the other candidates.
If the hispanic community was upset that their candidates were not winning than they should have solved the problem the RIGHT way. Got out in the community. Got more hispanics registered to vote and then get them motivated to show up and vote on election day.
The problem here was voter turn out...not the election process. I don't know why the judge did not see that.
@Qaeyious (2357)
• United States
17 Jun 10
It looks similar to voting on stock proxies where you have the same number of votes as the number of shares you own. You can spread them out among the candidates or put all of them on one.
As long as everyone got six votes I don't see what the problem is.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
17 Jun 10
In stocks you get a vote for each share to make sure you get proper representation to how much of the company you are invested in.
But when it comes to our elected officials....one vote one person.Everyone gets an equal vote. If we did it like companies did it with stock than we would votes depending on how much taxes we paid. People that paid more in taxes would get more votes than those that did not.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
16 Jun 10
ya but by splitting up your vote you can actually cause the person you really want to win to acutally loose if the smaller minority does not split up their votes. So it is not a real respentation of the voter will.
You could have someone win and get fewer amounts of voters because of split up votes.
Very strange. I don't like it at all.
