The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 >
>>
Race-Based Voting: One Man, Six Votes Now Law of the Land In New York Suburb—I Now Vote To Eject New York From The United States

I am truly at a loss for words

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.

If race-based voting is truly the direction that the Federal Government wishes to take this nation, I truly think it's time we call it a day, and repeal the Constitution.

It's obvious at this point that our Federal government hasn't been following the document in years, so I'm pretty sure it's not going to be missed anyway. And I know for a fact that the Government of the Commonwealth of Virginia is actually looking out for my best interests.

This whole National experiment was fun and all, but if this is the future, I'll gladly pass.

  DailyFodder


Comments:

#1 DK_Ramakers 15-Jun-2010

I couldn't agree more.  This is disgusting.  We're now going to have affirmative action for elections?!  

I thought that representatives are for everybody, not just whatever color they are.  Apparently that's no longer the case.  We might as well just say that all elections must produce the same percentage of each race that each area has.

Remember that old saying "my country right or wrong?"  Well, now it's wrong.

#2 Jaime 15-Jun-2010

WTF?  I guess the city of Port Chester and the State of New Joke don't have the "cajones" to appeal the judge's blatantly unconstitutional order.  Someone should have been at the 2nd circuit the day the judge made the ruling with an emergency appeal and a request that their Lordships enjoin enforcement until they have ruled -- either that or take it directly to the Supremes while there is still a chance that you can get 5 justices to agree that Arthur can only vote once (assuming he is in fact a citizen and a properly registered voter to begin with).

Let me guess -- the federal judge who ordered this stupidity was appointed by a) Jimmy Cahtah or b) Slick Willie

#3 captainfish 15-Jun-2010

"I truly think it's time we call it a day, and repeal the Constitution."

Repeal?  Heck, its dead already, Jim!!  Time to bury the stinking rotting corpse of the thing that used to be the greatest most free nation on earth.

ever since the new deal, and the Immigration and Nationality Act of '65, started our nation towards death.  Recently, with the great leaps toward Socialism by this nation's statists, all laws don't matter.  Especially the constischmuscion.

 

#4 Adderall Apocalypse 16-Jun-2010

um... did any of you actually happen to read the entire article? Nowhere in it did anyone say that the ability to cast 6 votes was limited to Hispanics (or <b>any</b> particular demographic of the citizenry of that town...) :-|

#5 Brian C. Ledbetter 16-Jun-2010

The 6-vote system was implemented with the express intent of promoting a particular race to office—This seems to meet the description of "race-based voting" I used above. It is also still a complete outrage.

I've adjusted the headline to be more accurate, though. Thanks for pointing that out!

Regards,
Brian 

#6 captainfish 16-Jun-2010

In all actuality, it makes no difference to me who was voting, or allowed to vote, more than one single time.  That is the point of my outrage.  The foundation of our election systm is built on a belief, a trust, that each voter's vote carries the exact same weight as the next.  That our votes carry no favoritism or collusion.

While the fact that this action highlighted above is promulgated by a racial component makes this worse, the action of allowing and suggesting people vote more than one time is one of the nation's utmost evils.

And, in case you have not been paying attention of late, RACE is a component in almost every action taken by our government lately. (e.g. Arizona, Duke, welfare, the ObamaCare, etc)

#7 captainfish 16-Jun-2010

Update, for those who read the article unlike ADD adderall,

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson ... 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.'"

Even for the "hispanics" this new PC way of voting (can we call it voting-justice?) just leaves a bad taste in their mouths.

#8 G-man 23-Jun-2010

This should be unconstitutional.  ANd yes I believe in the Constitution, I took an oath 40 years ago to defend the constitutional against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I still hold to that oath.  I Personally believe that it should be one adult CITIZEN one vote.  I believe each voting district should be set on on county/parish boundrys and not to be changed by any state legislature or governor or the federal government.  Each county should then have equal representation in the state House based on the number of adult CITIZENS and equal representation in the state Senate with two senators per county.  This would give every citizen equal representation in the House and each county equal repsentation in the Senate preventing one or two over populated counties from controling the entire state as is happening in the State of Washington right now.  There would be no Gerymandering, not political boundry bargaining.  The chips would fall as they fall. 

I do not believe we should just lay down and cry like little babies, it is time to fight, in the courts, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box.  Kick everyone of the anit constitutional idiots out and put them in the bread lines.  Remember, Evil prospers when good men do nothing, it is time to stand up or go the slaughter house like sheep.

#9 Iowa Voter 04-Aug-2010

This is perfectly constitutional.  The constitution requires that we all have equal voting ... not one vote.


Cumulative Voting is a type of voting that is legal in the U.S., has been used, though uncommon, since the 1800's, and is democratic.  It allows the citizens in the district who are in the minority (and this minority could be along partisan lines, for example, not just race).  So if you are from a Political Party, lets say the GOP and make up only about a third of the populace you could elect your party member by casting all of your votes for just one or two GOP candidates.  As the hispanic population may do in this particular case.  As such, you may find 1 or 2 of those elected actually represent a portion of the population that normally does not get representation.

Very common in European democracies and was considered a remedy in this case under the Voting Rights Act which has undergone Constitutional scrutiny since it was made law in 1965.

Please stop turning this issue into something that it is not.  What it is, however, is a Constitutionally accepted means of ensuring "One Man, One Vote" equal protection in this particular case in which voting was done in an "At-Large" fashion rather than through districts.  By using a Cumulative voting process, the citizenry can be more properly represented, whatever the demographic may be -- Rich, Poor, Democrat, Republican, or racial minority.

#10 Iowa Voter 04-Aug-2010

Ah, and one more thing...

Isn't it worse to "racially divide" the current at-large voting into districts that would include a "hispanic" district?

Isn't that racial voting?  So of the two options, which would be better?  Remember, gerrymandering can get state and local governments in trouble if they use that process to draw lines that hurt one race over another. 

In this case, the Judge protects the non-hispanic voter that may be residing in the "hispanic" district.  

 

All-in-all, a better type of voting with a Cumulative system than in one that divides the races.


Kudos to the Judge in this case.

Powered by Snarf · Contact Us