1 We are doomed.

2

Gotta say, I'm surprised that we haven't had a thread about this yet.  Or have we?

SCOTUS has confirmed and re-confirmed repeatedly that the Constitution allows for one person, one vote, and one person, one vote only.  It's too bad nobody on the NY Elections board has any balls here.

Furthermore, it is continually offensive to me that professional racists (which includes every Democrat in government) continnue to push the idea that a person can only be properly represented by another person who resembles them on the outside and/or has the same sex organs that they do.

3 ur right, we are doomed...with president propeller-head at the helm...

4 Is it still a system of voting if the only "votes" that count are the ones that yield a predetermined result?

 

5 So now the white candidates get 6 times the votes they'd normally have gotten.

Someone needs to toss this "judge" out on his fat dumb ass!

6 Well, it's right there in the Constitution, something about 5/3 of a man, etc. etc.  That means you should get more than one vote, right?

7 I want sixteen thousand votes per person, and my congressional district split into parcels of two-thirds of a person per district. Democracy rocks.

8

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.

Maybe people will begin to understand why that act was un-Constitutional, even though it made people feel good about themselves?  A federal judge doesn't even have any business mucking around in the voting and elections of a little village.

This nation is toast.

9 How can this possibly be Constitutional?

And how does the non-election of a candidate of s specific race automatically mean a violation if it can not be shown members of that race were  kept from voting?

Maybe Hispanics just never liked any of the candidates?

10 what happens when the desired result isn't obtained? Some people get more votes than others?

11 As I posted earlier:

OK Morons I thought we put this to bed yesterday. The courts have ruled on this score over 40 years ago. The ruling is one person = one vote. This latest round of crap will be struck down as soon as a "minority candidate is "harmed" by the current rules. The controlling case is Reynolds vs Sims; a case involving minorities being watered down.  It seems they are the only ones who can get standing

This will remain precedent until a minority gets standing and is "harmed" by one person = 1 vote.

12 This is Demunist at its most Commiecratic. Didn't they already end the at-large elections and replace it with by-district elections anyway?

13 Bah, I've been doing this for years - what's the big fuss?

14 Most voters were white, and white candidates always won. The unspoken, unwritten premise: When whitey wins, something is wrong, actual votes be damned.

15

This proves that liberals hate the Constitution and the country.  I fucking well question their patriotism.

_{There, I said it.}

16

Bah, I've been doing this for years - what's the big fuss?

Posted by: Some ACORN

 

Join the 'club'

17

"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.'"

Ahh. He forgot the last part of the quote, which is in effect in Latin America, Africa, most of Eastern Europe and a significant part of Asia...

One man, one vote, one time."

18 I thought that the judiciary was color blind, unlike you damn teabagging racists.

19 Well, since we are basically living on George Orwell's Animal Farm, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Obama declares some people are more equal than others.  Those who are more equal (minorities on a sliding scale with Asians being on the bottom of the scale, and whites below them) will get to vote more times than the less equal to make up for America's racist past sins.  He could do all of this by executive order before next November's elections.  (That could explain why he, Nancy and Harry seem strangely unconcerned by current polling and the deep dissatisfaction expressed by the American people.)

20 I wasn't aware that the Voting Rights Act mandated outcomes as opposed to mandating fair access to the ballot box.

21 One man, one vote?  or is that out?  If so, I'd like to suggest we stop screwing around and adjourn to consider a new constitution for a new nation.

22

One man, one vote, one time."

Posted by: The Thin Man Returns at June 16, 2010 12:34 PM (W3XUk)

And that man is Barack Obama.

23 By the Gods...what have we become?

So unless somebody belonging to a minority group gets standing to challenge this farce, it'll stand?

24 This is why the o will be elected again, to make a whole 8 years of terror.  Then biden will get 4 or 8 years. then at the end of all this the bill of rights and constitution will be rendered null and void for the children. It will be only fair for everyone.
also during this time 5 cities will be hit by islam with nbc, slaughtering tens of thousands of infidels.  I am just predicting.  If art bell can have a show about predictions so can I predict.

25
Dead voters good, live voters bad.

26 I thought that the judiciary was color blind, unlike you damn teabagging racists.

Posted by: WalrusRex at June 16, 2010 12:34 PM (xxgag)

No, Lady Justice hasn't been blind for a while, nor has she kept her thumb off the scales.  At least since the 1960s, she's decided that it's more important to treat us as part of larger collective groups rather than individuals -- in a variation of the adage, "if you want to make an omelette, you have to be willing to break a few eggs."

27

Port Chester is HALF HISPANIC!?!?

28 The unspoken, unwritten premise: When whitey wins, something is wrong, actual votes be damned.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 16, 2010 12:32 PM (AZGON) 

Sometimes even when blacky wins the actual votes are damned.

29 Seriously. 395 AD. Two-state solution. Everybody for Calughfornia on one side; everybody in the Republic of Texas on the other. Wish each other good luck, and either side propose and enforce any entrance qualifications and border controls, or not. It's not like demographics aren't fleeing/moving already, anyway. What embarrassing real-world rejection of which sociopolitical worldview do you think restrictive cap'n'tax housing regulations are designed to restrict?

30 The left isn't trying to give minorities more voting power, they are trying to dilute the voting power of whites. They believe minorities will vote en-bloc for the minority candidate (what was the % of black votes Obama got again?) while whites will split their vote.
And some animals will be more equal.

31 I remember reading this and thinking "oh geez, court approved cheating, right out there for everyone to see"

32 Phase II: One man, one vote. The one man being Barry Obama.

33

Hmmm... so the voters did not give the proper racialy defined result the COURT liked, ergo Democracy must be changed?

How... enlightening...

34 Perhaps all the hispanics are illegal and therefore do not vote.  so giving them representation won't really matter you need to give them immigration assistance.

35 I vote early and often too.  I takes the bus to each voting station and vote the way the dems pay me to.  I loves their stash.  They gots soo much money.

36 Seems she was only ahead of the curve.

I'm not sure that's the right way to put it.

Every awful idea any leftist has ever had (or ever will have) has been made law (or soon will be made law) somewhere.

It's physics or some shit. It's beyond them, personally, somehow. They metaphysically are Law, or something.

It sux.

37

Más Fairness!

Más Empathee!

38 BTW, this ruling by the idiot judge came about as a result of "at large" elections.  At large elections were ruled "bad" and unconstitutional in the old racist Jim Crow South over 40 years ago. So why are they still holding "at large" elections in NY?

NY is not subject to Title V of the VRA.  This is one of the major reasons that POS law IS unconstitutional.

39

Sí.

One - 'Tuck'.

and One - No Tuck?

40 OK.  So if a white person votes, which is his/her privilege, and someone else who may not be white, is entilited to vote, but does not for whatever reason, A federal judge will step in and say that the election was unfair to that person who lost; so a judge will determine who wins, not the people. a new cause for liberal judges activatism. Who cares if it is Constitutional by that State or federal laws.

41 If that candidate doesn't have the equal amount of melanin in his skin, well then something is just wrong if you vote for him.

/sarc

42 Judge Stephen Robinson pointed to the recent Senatorial Dem primary in South Carolina as an example of how voting should go.  If everyone would just vote like South Carolina dems do, he wouldn't have to fuck with our Constitution to force them to.

43

How's this for a radical proposal?  Preview for America?

Democracy could collapse in Greece, Spain and Portugal

Not reported at all in this country:

http://tinyurl.com/32xg59h

 

44 I'm still trying to figure out how this is so horrible that this solution must be imposed while the Black Panthers engaging in open voter intimidation is yawn worthy. 

45

The argument of "taxation without representation" doesn't work if you have the opportunity to gain representation and don't seek it out.

Do these clueless fucks have any brain.  In their eyes is Obama only supposed to be the President of black Americans?  Is Nancy Pelosi only the representative of straight plastic old white ladies in San Francisco.  Where is the representation for all the gay dudes?    You must be the same ethnicity to represent people?  Really, they're going to argue that.

46

From the NYT article on this story:

"Latinos made up 46 percent of the villageÂ’s roughly 28,000 people in the most recent census, in 2000, though many were not American citizens. "\

I guess that's one of the reasons why they had to give instucciones en espanol

 

47 O/T:  Ok, how "bad" is the CEO of BP.....?
I'll tell you how bad, so bad that the prez has chosen to spend 75 minutes, 75 minutes lunching with Joe, Joe for gosh sakes, and only 20 minutes with the B CEO and rumor has it that BO doesn't even plan to be there for the entire 20 minutes.   But 75 minutes, 75 minutes with Joe....

and then I guess.....golf or tennis or basketball...or eating more....

48 Posted by: beedubya at June 16, 2010 12:49 PM (AnTyA)

If they are not American citizens they can't vote, right?   Unbelievable....

49 The kickass line from this story....

Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Really?  Wow, would have never guessed that outcome.

This is what happens when you play identity politics!

50 "Latinos made up 46 percent of the villageÂ’s roughly 28,000 people in the most recent census, in 2000, though many were not American citizens. "

Well, there's your problem.

51 Apparently everyone gets six votes, one vote for each trustee position.  This is classic, what it permits is vote loading so that "minorities" (though how a group constituting half the population of a town is a minority would seem to pervert the definition of minority) can put all their votes on one candidate, thus bettering the candidate's election possibilities. This unintended consequences promise to be great.

52

One of the GOP candidates vying for Jan Brewer's governor's seat is a guy by the name of Dean Martin..

...Jesus...imagine the votes he'd get on name alone if he were of the Democratic ticket in SC

53

Did IQ's go down suddenly while I was away?

54 "And how does the non-election of a candidate of s specific race automatically mean a violation if it can not be shown members of that race were  kept from voting?"

Disparate impact, my good man.  You're guilty until proven innocent.

Steve Sailer has a lot of good writing about this.  Here's the latest outrage.

55 I don't hear any whizzes, snaps or pops yet.. we must not be storming the castle at this time.

56 I told them not to tuck!

57 And the judge was appointed by G.W.Bush

58 How many of the 30,000 Port Chester hispanics are LEGAL and ENTITLED to vote? Maybe that basic question should have been asked before this atrocious judge fashioned an even more repellent 'remedy'. Maybe hispanics LIKED the non hispanic candidates that they voted for? Are all members of an ethnic group required to vote for a candidate of that ethnicity? If so, then why shouldn't that apply to white voters?
If the be all and end all of voting is to vote for the candidate of one's ethnicity, and not for the candidate who represents one's values/ideology, no matter the ethnicity, then this country is really sunk.

59 Latinos made up 46 percent of the villageÂ’s roughly 28,000 people in the most recent census, in 2000, though many were not American citizens. "

If we can count them, why aren't we deporting them?

60

 

since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair.

youwzers!

wow so many questions here...where do I start?

What part of the federal government?

Can the federal government deem a municipal election unfair?

61 I'm pretty sure my dog is an illegal alien, can he vote too?

62

_{Jesus...imagine the votes he'd get on name alone if he were of the Democratic ticket in SC}

I'd have a much better chance!

63 This is concerning cause I've noticed they "try it in NY first" and if everyone remains asleep then they move on to getting it on a national level.  NY had the 26 on your parents health insurance two years before they mandated it in the health bill.

64 This would seem to foster ethnic divisiveness, but, I am a US citizen, so what do I know?

65

 

**This would be like the NBA ruling that a white player's free-throw is worth 2 points instead of 1 point.

 

 

66 Did IQ's go down suddenly while I was away? No the idiots just got closer to the microphone.

67

 

fuckit, from now I'm Tonto Estevez.

gimme my casino and I wanna be mayor!

68

Maybe Hispanics just never liked any of the candidates?

As I understand it, most simply aren't eligible to vote. You know, gotta be a citizen to vote and all that.

69

How come nothing is ever settled when it comes to the law anymore?

70

fuckit, from now I'm Tonto Estevez.

gimme my casino and I wanna be mayor!

You gotta talk to jorge' Tony "Flying Crow" Derantoa first.

71 Shee-it......if I'da known that's all it took in South Carolina

72 Then biden will get 4 or 8 years.

Too old and too pale.

(check the date the shit was created.)

73

 

As pointed out on Jason Lewis' show lastnight: Title 9 didn't create more opportunities for women, as it was intended to do, it just reduced opportunities for men.

This is what the Left does (and Rush makes this point all the time). Their remedy for everything is to make everyone miserable.

Cumulative voting doesn't help hispanics; it fucks over the non-hispanics. 

74 Just to make this very clear - the federal government (Bush and Obama both) would rather give illegal invaders the vote than deport them.  They would rather deport you - native born American - than deport illegals.  America's native population is too free-minded, too difficult to control.  They want to get replace us with docile third worlders.

75 As I understand it, most simply aren't eligible to vote. You know, gotta be a citizen to vote and all that.

Hello!

76 It isn't just in NY, happened here in WY too. Not an exact parallel, but the feds threw out our at-large because Native Americans weren't being elected to the county commission. The inconvenient fact is that one was elected after the lawsuit was filed.

77

"fuckit, from now I'm Tonto Estevez."

I haven't got a chance in Hell.

78

What's the big deal? Everybody gets six votes in Cook County, Illinois. Even dead people.

Move on, nothing to see here.

79 As I understand it, most simply aren't eligible to vote. You know, gotta be a citizen to vote and all that.

Meh.  You don't have to be Constitutionally eligible to be Commander-in-Chief, so why would you have to be a citizen to vote? 

Welcome to the United States of the Third World.

80 Complete and utter BS.

If this becomes more widespread, there will be a revolution.

81 Hey, lets just save some time and not have elections here, we'll just let the palestinians vote and tell us who won each election.

82 You can thank G.W. Bush for this one.  He's the one who nominated this federal judge to the seat in 2003.

83

I think they are on the right track... however (there's always a 'however')

It should be one vote for every dollar of taxes you pay. On the city and county level it's one vote for every dollar of property, business, and sales tax. On the state level it's any share of the property tax and sales tax plus all the state income tax. On the Federal level it's the income tax (and the VAT if it comes to pass).

Them what pays the bills gets to decide how it's spent.

84 They are rendering law and the Constitution useless. It's as though we are living in an alternate universe run by idiots. God help us.

85 This is in the great American tradition of "one man, multiple votes, based on racial considerations." 

86 "Them what pays the bills gets to decide how it's spent."

You realize that's the exact opposite of their goal, right?

87 This is so treasonous that it should be a capital offense.

88 We need a majority in the Senate and a Republican vice president to start impeaching these twits. Presiding over impeachments of federal judges is one of the few duties a vice president has.

It's been a while since a federal judge was impeached ... high time we start doing it wholesale.

89 They believe minorities will vote en-bloc for the minority candidate (what was the % of black votes Obama got again?) while whites will split their vote.
And some animals will be more equal.

Posted by: kidney:SoCon,Bitches! at June 16, 2010 12:41 PM (ENRGu)

I get that this is the goal, but why would anyone believe this could possibly work?  If my brother and I have a disagreement and we have one vote each, we're split and we keep fighting.  Giving us 17 votes each doesn't mean we're still not at a tie.  I'm putting all my votes where I put my one vote before... because that's the outcome I want.

What drug addled crackhead would split their votes to the point where their voting doesn't matter?  And if people get confused/stupid enough to counter their own votes; what makes anyone think that ONLY white people would do this?

IS the claim that there are no stupid minorities anywhere in the nation; and only white people are idiots?  I'm pretty sure I could find an example to prove that theory wrong if I had to...

90 94 I'm dumb can somebody explain to me how such vote-splitting is supposed to work to boost minority candiate chances?

Posted by: AlexD at June 16, 2010 01:38 PM (JcU1+)

Assume there are lets say 10 candidates for 6 seats.  One candidate is named Garcia.  The idea is that all the white people are going to spread the votes around, you know like using one vote per candidate they want or voting dividing their votes amongst a few.  Meanwhile all the hispanics use all 6 of their votes for Garcia.  Increasing the chances he'll wind up as one of the 6 victors, despite few people actually voting for him.

91 So now the white candidates get 6 times the votes they'd normally have gotten.

Someone needs to toss this "judge" out on his fat dumb ass!

Unless, you're banking on the fact that minorities behave more tribalistic.

Of course, they're too smart to explicitly say this out loud too much. But they know their audience.

92 "And how does the non-election of a candidate of s specific race automatically mean a violation if it can not be shown members of that race were  kept from voting?"

They're expanding disparate impact - the notion that any sort of inequality ipso facto is the result of discrimination.

93 America's native population is too free-minded, too difficult to control.  They want to get replace us with docile third worlders.

Posted by: the peanut gallery at June 16, 2010 01:05 PM (NurK6)

Exactly right.  Some vile puke in the British government actually got caught saying that exact thing.  That's why they maximize their importation of muzzies from the as*hole of the world.  Population replacement, which in the end is amounting to a slow genocide.  The productive natives are burdened such that they have few children, whereas the scum breed like rats.

 

94 -->It's been a while since a federal judge was impeached ...

And he's sitting in Congress, now.  On the intelligence committee, I believe.

-->high time we start doing it wholesale.

Posted by: Kristopher at June 16, 2010 01:36 PM (kCEOg)

Better start including the restriction on them holding federal office, which was left out of Alcee Hasting's.  Dems love to vote for criminals, so if we don't ban them from elected positions, it's all for naught.

95 Of course, equality only matters one way. If minorities are overrepresented, that's something to be celebrated, not tried under the notion of disparate impact.

Just because.

96 Fact: George Bush's Justice Department initiated this lawsuit, not the Obama administration. 

97 In the old days we used to use cumulative voting for the House of Reps in Illinois. There were three reps from each district and each voter had 3 votes to cast. If you only voted for one candidate that candidate received three votes in the tally. If you voted for two candidates in the district, each received 1 1/2 votes. Obviously if you voted for three, each received one vote in the tally. It usually guaranteed one Democrat rep in a Republican district (the Rs get two reps) and a Republican rep in a Democrat district (the Ds getting 2 reps).

98 Port Chester NY is now what is known in British politics as a "rotten borough".

99 There is nothing unconstitutional about cumulative voting.

We had it in Illinois for many many years, for the state legislature.

Each of the 59 districts elected one senator and three representatives.

Each party nominated two candidates for representative in each district.

Each voter got thre votes, and could vote for one, two, or three candidates.

Casting all three votes for one candidate was called a "bullet" vote.

The normal result was to elect two members of the stronger party and one of the weaker party. "Bullet" voting was often used to support one candidate over the other from the same party.

For instance, in my area. the Democrats were dominant, there was no chance of electing two Republicans, and the second Republican was usually a flake. I cast "bullet" votes for the sound Republican.

The system had some virtues: it guaranteed political minorities would have some representation everywhere. Some of the minority-seat members were very talented and honest but could never win a normal race.

OTOH the system was also subject to abuses: the dominant party could often dictate who the minority member would be.

The third seat and cumulative voting were abolished several years ago by referendum. (The referendum was promoted by Pat Quinn, who is now governor, having succeeded Blagojevich.)

100 62 18-1: If we can count them, why aren't we deporting them?

Because they are legal resident aliens?

Incidentally, there was a long history of at-large voting systems being adopted in the South to prevent blacks from electing anybody. This was in the 1960s and 1970s, when blacks could no longer be prevented from voting.

101 I'm sorry, did Rich just point to Illinois historical voting patterns as an example of why this decision is a GOOD idea?

102 103 Fact: George Bush's Justice Department initiated this lawsuit, not the Obama administration. 

Posted by: cinyc at June 16, 2010 01:58 PM (8LO7i)

Yes, because "at large elections are illegal".  But Bush did not rule with the equally illegal solution. The past "solution" mandated by the court is to create districts in which all candidates have an equal chance of being elected. IOW, gerrymander to get a "racial quota" in office.

103 The system had some virtues: it guaranteed political minorities would have some representation everywhere. Some of the minority-seat members were very talented and honest but could never win a normal race.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom at June 16, 2010 02:20 PM (mMAAC)

I guess "normal" is the operative word for you to ponder.  And having such a system imposed on you, specifically to insure that dipshit candidates of a certain ethnicity get elected in an abnormal race, because illegals are not "being represented" and a judge who thinks that race should be the determing factor for everything, is quite a different story.

104 There is nothing unconstitutional about cumulative voting.

The Supremes in Renolds vs Sims disagree with you.

105 Incidentally, there was a long history of at-large voting systems being adopted in the South to prevent blacks from electing anybody.

And yes everybody knows that Jim Crow and at large elections only happened in the evil South which is why they are still doing it in NY. 

106  

Although the Port Chester village of about 30,000 residents outside of NYC is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected as a trustee in conventional at-large elections BECAUSE Hispanics failed to participate by voting. As most voters were white, white candidates would win, a point in 2006 that the federal government, via Federal Judge Stephen Robinson, alleged made the existing election system unfair by somehow "violating the Voting Rights Act". Rejecting a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one of specific Hispanic population, Robinson instead determined to rig the system, lending his corrupt "solution" a nice ring, "cumulative voting" allotting each Hispanic SIX VOTES. 

Aside from the illegality of the judge's ruling, Robinson's decision is based on the premise that Hispanics either won't bother to vote without being given an illegal advantage of six votes each, OR that Hispanics can't log in their vote without six tries, insulting the intelligence of all Hispanics. 

107 Pray for Americans to read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, wake up to what is being done to them by these unelected judges, and fix the system.

I would shed no tears if every one of these petty tyrants  were repaid in full measure.  You can start with the authors of Kelo  and work your way down the list of every judge who made it up.

<treasonous and seditious comments redacted by the author>

108 Each voter got thre votes, and could vote for one, two, or three candidates.--Rich Rostrum

Point being, EACH VOTER got the same amount of votes in your example. Illinois didn't give Hispanics six votes each, did they? Or blacks three votes each, Asians two each, and whites only one vote each.

109 At-large elections are not per se illegal.  You're talking about a village that's a whopping 2 square miles.  Gerrymandering a two-square mile municipality makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - and most small New York villages elect trustees on an at-large basis, anyway.   Couple that with the fact that a large percentage of the voting age Hispanic population in the village isn't eligible to vote because they are not American citizens (gee, I wonder why!), and the current system pretty much worked as it should have for over a century before the Justice Department decided to meddle in something that it really shouldn't have.  Newcomers don't immediately take over small-town politics.  It always takes a while.

The Justice Department creates racist voting in places where it never existed with their idiotic schemes.

110 QUESTION: of all the Port Chester Hispanics now given six votes each, how many are not legal US residents?

At-large elections are not any more illegal than separate district elections. It isn't as if a winner of a district actually represents the views of all who reside there, or of all who voted in that district ANY MORE THAN an at-large candidate who campaigns on a platform attractive to a targeted population.

So a town of only 20K people hold an at-large election, the top vote counts win. If the Hispanics were truly interested in electing a Hispanic, all they had to do was run an enthusiastic campaign that "mattered" to the Hispanic voters. With half the population Hispanic, there could easily have been at least ONE Hispanic candidate elected successfully given the legal one vote per citizen.

111 cinyc
exactly

112

hey Maverick muse, everybody gets six votes, white, black and hispanic in the Port Chester at large elections.

I don't have a particular problem with the cumulative voting method except for the fact in that it is handed down from on high. Hell, this is NY were talking about, certainly the super liberal PC legislature could have rectified the problem, if, indeed there was a problem to begin with.

The actual problem appears to be that the Federal Government will not enforce its own immigration laws and allow people to reside in the country illegally.

BTW, I would not implement this for the election of Federal congressional representatives.

113 At-large elections are not any more illegal than separate district elections.

This site discusses the case history and interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which was amended in 1982 to explicitly get around the use of "at large" elections.

http://tinyurl.com/2525equ

While the case history is not cut and dried it is rather obvious if history shows you have a minority and they fail to get elected then you have a violation. Not only that but if you lose in court you have to pay all the legal fees.

Also please note that it doesn't matter if the district is only 2 square miles. That just means that the 6 districts will be very small.

This is the bottom line legal synopsis:

However, one ironclad rule can be observed in the at-large electoral system cases: if under the old election system no blacks, or few were ever elected to office, that system will not stand constitutional muster . The corollary is that if under a proposed election system it is likely that no blacks, or few blacks will be elected to office, the system will not stand constitutional muster .

There is a reason all "at large" elections were eliminated in the South years ago. 

114 So, if your city is 51% Democrats and 49% Republicans, it's ok for the city council to be 100% Democrats and 0% Republicans? That's the kind of result that at-large voting tends toward. Cumulative voting isn't as novel as some folks think, btw--lots of companies use it in board-of-directors elections. There is an embedded assumption that voters are smart enough to understand the concept, an assumption more valid of stockholders collectively than voters collectively. Personally, I'm a single-transferable-vote guy, in moderately sized regions (somewhere between three and seven seats apiece). By the way, 62, it is possible to be in the United States legitimately and not be a citizen...

115

This proves that liberals hate the Constitution and the country.  I fucking well question their patriotism.

_{There, I said it.}

I don't question what is clearly not there.

116

How come nothing is ever settled when it comes to the law anymore?

It's "settled" the moment the lieberal position is ruled as controlling by the Lawgivers-In-Black (LIBs for short), and not a moment after.

117 Vic-

That interpretation of the law might be technically correct, but it is morally wrong and, quite simply, racist.  A voting system that has been in place for over a century and was put in place for no discriminatory purpose simply should not be overturned because new people move to town and don't have the political power to elect the people they'd prefer - yet.  Voting strength comes from numbers and time, not some jerk in a black robe.  The race of the newcomers should NEVER change the result any more than if the reason that the newcomers cannot elect their preferred candidate is due to political party or anything else.  Especially when one reason the newcomers keep on losing is that many of them can't legally vote.  Like I said before, gee, I wonder why?  And why are some laws enforced by the "Justice" Department but not others - you know, like the immigration laws?

118 And they got their Latino - http://bit.ly/am97Z2

119 WTF?

It's almost like they're purposely poking the tiger. Problem is the tiger is going to wake up one day and rip arms and legs off. I hope I'm there when it happens.

120 "One person, one vote" doesn't mean you need to use a ballot that only lets you tick off one candidate, it means every vote counts equally.

Incidentally, Single Transferable Votes are better.

121 We no longer live in a democratic republic. We live in a judicial dictatorship where judges just make it up as they go along. In the effort to avoid racial discrimination, the courts have banned elections in favor of social experiments.

122 xxx

123 hello