CountryPlans Forum

Off Topic => Off Topic - Ideas, humor, inspiration => Topic started by: bayview on June 16, 2010, 06:18:16 AM

Title: Reverse Discrimination?
Post by: bayview on June 16, 2010, 06:18:16 AM

Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election)

   Why even have an election. . .   Just put a Hispanic in office.   It seems like a good lawsuit for the opponents.

/
Title: Re: Reverse Discrimination?
Post by: StinkerBell on June 16, 2010, 09:43:58 AM
IMO it just bastardizes the electorate system.
Title: Re: Reverse Discrimination?
Post by: Native_NM on June 18, 2010, 09:55:02 AM
I read yesterday that several other cities were looking to both implement and/or challenge the practice. Last time I checked rednecks were underrepresented in Boston.  Perhaps rednecks in Boston should get six votes.  It would be easy for this practice to get out of hand, and I bet the Supreme Court will get involved soon.   
Title: Re: Reverse Discrimination?
Post by: Pox Eclipse on June 18, 2010, 09:57:55 PM
If all residents get six votes, how does it change anything?  I saw nothing that indicated only hispanics got six votes.
Title: Re: Reverse Discrimination?
Post by: MountainDon on June 18, 2010, 11:42:14 PM
It's called cumulative voting and is often used in electing corporate directors.

http://www.uslaw.com/library/article/bcocumulativevoting.html?area_id=43

and an article on the NY election

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iuYztkfrDc_f76DaA40jU-IXWS9AD9GDV6JG0

Title: Re: Reverse Discrimination?
Post by: Native_NM on June 19, 2010, 08:12:19 AM
Maybe the reason the Hispanic's were under-represented is because many were illegal and could not vote.   This just gave the illegals a vote. 
Title: Re: Reverse Discrimination?
Post by: Woodsrule on June 20, 2010, 07:01:10 PM

Just a few disturbing quotes from the article. What say you?

Most voters were white, and white candidates always won. Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act. EXACTLY HOW IS THIS A VIOLATION?

"I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don't know, but I hope so."  SO, HOW ABOUT ALL OF THE OTHER RESIDENTS?

But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but "to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice." SO RANDOLPH BELIEVES THERE MUST BE QUOTAS IN REGARD TO POLITICAL OFFICE? HOW ABOUT ASIANS, INDIANS, AND ESKIMOS?
Title: Re: Reverse Discrimination?
Post by: bayview on June 20, 2010, 07:07:15 PM
Quote from: Woodsrule on June 20, 2010, 07:01:10 PM

   SO RANDOLPH BELIEVES THERE MUST BE QUOTAS IN REGARD TO POLITICAL OFFICE? HOW ABOUT ASIANS, INDIANS, AND ESKIMOS?


      What's wrong with voting in the candidate that is most qualified, regardless of race.   I thought that we were past all of this . . .

/
Title: Re: Reverse Discrimination?
Post by: Woodsrule on June 21, 2010, 12:47:26 PM
Bayview,

That is my point exactly. I really thought that Obama's election would slow down some of the quota people, but I was mistaken. It's too bad that there are folks who continually want to divide down racial lines.