« | »

One Man, One Vote – Except For Latinos

From an elated New York Times:

The ballot for the election of six village trustees, in Port Chester, NY.

First Latino Board Member Is Elected in Port Chester

By KIRK SEMPLE

Published: June 16, 2010

PORT CHESTER, N.Y. — This village in Westchester County has elected a Hispanic member to its board of trustees for the first time, capping a bitter legal battle over giving its large Latino population a stronger voice in local government.

In what way was the Latino population of Westchester County previously denied a voice in local government? Did they not have the same rights as everyone else? The same access to the voting box?

In fact, maybe even more so, since many do not even seem to be citizens and yet they get to vote.

That member, Luis Marino, a Peruvian immigrant who ran as a Democrat, was among the victors Tuesday

Given that The Times only notes that Mr. Marino is an immigrant and does not mention whether he has been naturalized, is it safe to assume that he is an illegal alien?

[I]n the first local election since a federal judge ordered Port Chester to adopt a new voting system to give Latinos a better shot at electing one of their own to the six-member board.

In other words, a judge forced Port Chester to overturn the ‘one man, one vote’ rule, which is the very foundation of representative democracies.

The electoral system itself made news, letting voters use six votes however they chose, including casting all six for one candidate

It should have “made news,” it is as despicable as it is revolutionary. This is what is known as ‘cumulative voting.’ Under this scheme residents are given multiple votes to apportion as they wish among the candidates.

This allows a political minority or faction to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates. It is a ‘community organizers’ dream.

But ‘cumulative voting’ is exactly the opposite of the purpose behind the rule of ‘one man, one vote.’ It is simply a way to rig the system to allow some minorities or factions to have more power over others.

“I think the results are clear — that the new system worked,” Mayor Dennis G. Pilla, a Democrat, said on Wednesday…

This statement alone proves that the “new system” is in direct violation of the concept of fair and open elections. It shows that people are judging elections by their outcome, their results. So that when their preferred candidates win, then they say it worked.

That is not how elections should be judged. This is the death knell of republican government. (With a small ‘R.’)

According to the most recent census data, from 2006 to 2008, Latinos make up 49 percent of the village’s roughly 28,000 people, though many are not citizens;

So what is the number of Latinos who are legally allowed to vote and who are registered to vote? We suspect it is a good bit smaller.

[A]bout 39 percent are non-Hispanic whites and 7 percent are black. Still, in past elections, the preferred candidates for the village board among Latino voters were usually defeated.

So now we are required to have quota systems for our representatives? Where is that mentioned in the Constitution?

A federal lawsuit, filed in 2006 by the Justice Department, charged that the village’s method of electing its trustees diluted the voting strength of Latino citizens.

In other words, our own US Justice Department declared that the concept of ‘one man, one vote’ was not fair to Latinos. And this was the Justice Department acting under George Bush. (Which, come to think of it, isn’t too surprising after all.)

But, perhaps shockingly, according to Wikipedia, as of November 2009, more than fifty communities in the United States use cumulative voting. 

Among them are Peoria, Illinois for half of its city council, Chilton County, Alabama for its county council and school board, and Amarillo, Texas, for its school board and College Board of Regents.

And even more shockingly, all of these systems were resulting from cases brought under the federal Voting Rights Act.

By the way, this lawsuit costs the citizens of Port Chester more than $1 million dollars to fight.

A federal court judge agreed, and in 2009 ordered the imposition of a rarely used process known as cumulative voting.

Besides, the outrageous illegality of this voting system, it cost Port Chester a further $300,000 to implement it.

Port Chester’s election began with early voting last week and culminated on Tuesday, with the vote count extending into early Wednesday.

That is to say, on top of being given six votes instead of one, the citizenry locals were given five days to vote, instead of just one – like in old fashioned times.

According to preliminary estimates, the mayor said, voter turnout may not have topped 3,000, or about a quarter of registered voters — similar to the participation rate in other recent local elections

So at the end of the day (or rather, week) this “new system” did not affect voter turn out at all, which was its purported purpose. (Though, obviously, its real purpose was to allow minorities to ‘pool’ their votes and elect more Latino candidates.)

According to preliminary results provided by the mayor’s office, Mr. Marino, a volunteer firefighter who works in the maintenance department of the Scarsdale school system,

In other words, Mr. Marino is a school janitor.

[R]eceived 1,962 votes, which put him in fourth place among 13 candidates on the ballot…

Mr. Marino said on Wednesday that he believed he had benefited from cumulative voting, especially since his strongest supporters were able to cast most of their votes for him. “I am very excited, very happy,” he said. “I just have to see what’s in front of us, and I’m ready to do the work.”

Meanwhile, we have the Democrat Party up in arms because one of its own candidates won an open and honest primary in South Carolina.

Two other Latino candidates — Fabiola Montoya, a Colombian-American who ran on the Republican slate, and John Palma, an Ecuadorean-American who ran as a write-in independent candidate — came in 10th and 13th, respectively.

Again, notice that The Times refrains from informing its readers as to the legal status of these other Latino candidates.

Why is that, do you think?

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, June 17th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

15 Responses to “One Man, One Vote – Except For Latinos”

  1. TerryAnne says:

    Holy crap! So can we expect American Idol-style voting in November?

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “I think the results are clear — that the new system worked,” Mayor Dennis G. Pilla, a Democrat, said on Wednesday…

    When the rules don’t fit your desires, change the rules.

    When you do that, there are no rules. The wheels are truly falling off our system.

    Bye-bye representative government, bye-bye nation of laws, bye-bye Constitution.

    So long United States.

    Hello effed up society.

  3. Rusty Shackleford says:

    The judge’s name is Stephen C. Robinson

    http://pc.westmorenews.com/atf.php?sid=11841

    I think he needs lots of “cards and letters”.

  4. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Ever notice how such manipulations of the right to vote, i.e. cumulative voting, Jim Crow, poll tax, etc, have historically favored Democrats? It is almost like they have a deep seated hatred for free and fair elections, markets, peoples, etc. I guess the moniker democrat is an Orwellian description as the rest of their titles. After all, we are living in the age of Obama, and a new “error” of responsibility.

    Oh wait, I forgot, I’m a racist.

    • heykev says:

      “Democrats…have a deep seated hatred for free and fair elections, markets, peoples, etc.”

      Democrats preferred method is to win illegally. MN is a good example. Now they also want to throw out the results of the primary election in SC.

      This is now their latest method for “winning” elections.
      RIP – One Man, One Vote.

    • Right of the People says:

      Bingo! To the democraps it’s only fair when they win. The ends always justify the means not matter how sh*tty the means may be.

    • proreason says:

      I think there has alway been a ton of voting fraud, but now it’s reached an entirely new level.

      LBJ stole his first election by getting more than 100% of the registered voters in a Hispanic country that was exceptionally corrupt.

      He was a criminal, but a local one. He wasn’t a member of an organized crime enterprise that was stealing elections on a national basis. There were plenty of others in his day, Republicans as well as Democrats, and they essentially cancelled each other out.

      Now, we have a large group of professional frauds who operate nationally, and violently, to steal elections in a coordinated manner throughout the country, replete with lawyers, thugs, corrupt judges, decadent election officials, payola, bribes, coverup, threats, technicians, strategists, front men, purchased media sychopants and violence. There are thousands of people whose job is to undermine the election process as one element of the overall strategy to bring down the country.

      The colloquial name for them is the Democrat Party. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Communists and Facist elements in this country.

  5. mr_bill says:

    The article mentions that 7% of the local population are black. Does this voting scheme scam not apply to them, shouldn’t they each get 25 votes to “even things up?” What if there is only one Austrailian Aboriginee living in Port Chester, should he be given 13,000 votes so he can have a chance of being elected?

    Diversity for the sake of diversity is a dangerous thing but the liberals would have us cast aside the merit system and “one man, one vote” in favor of a more dangerous policy, so long as they can feel better about themselves at the end, regardless of the damage such policy inflicts on the rest of us.

    But this whole cumulative voting scheme is based on an assumption that is a fallacy. The reasoning for giving hispanics and only hispanics 6 votes lies in the belief that those hispanic people are as racist as Judge Robinson. The presumption is that all hispanic people will vote only for hispanic candidates and not vote on the merit and qualifications of each candidate. Surely, there are hispanics that care more about having the best possible candidates elected than they care about having more elected officials with the same skin color. What about them, will those hispanics be stripped of their 6 votes and be returned to the “one man, one vote” standard? They should be, they aren’t holding up their end of the bargain. They could help elect non-hispanics and further the injustice of “one man, one vote.”

    Is it just me or is the democrat party starting to leave its black constituency behind in favor of hispanics? The democrats have always been condescending to blacks but they seem to be more so lately and more open about it (see South Carolina). All the while the democrats have started centering their (usually-reserved-for-black-constituents) pandering on hispanic people. Why is that? Perhaps it has something to do with their immigration policy goals.

    • Right of the People says:

      “Is it just me or is the democrat party starting to leave its black constituency behind in favor of hispanics? The democrats have always been condescending to blacks but they seem to be more so lately and more open about it (see South Carolina).”

      There a lot more hispanics now than blacks so the dems need to spend their money and favors wisely where it will do them the most good.

      This is just freakin’ wonderful, affirmative action at it’s worst.

  6. JohnMG says:

    …..”In other words, Mr. Marino is a school janitor…..”

    Further, he is a public employee sucking at the government teat. Put another way, he’s a drain on productive society. Without taxes, he’d likely starve to death. Why doesn’t his elevation to office constitute double-dipping?

    Oh, I forgot. He’s a democrat……that makes it OK.

  7. joeblough says:

    Real live Nazi style race based voting.

    Has nobody brought a suit yet?

    ============

    So I suppose this makes all the non-latino voters into 1/6th of a person.

  8. canary says:

    This accumulative voting could also possibly lead to even another muslim getting elected as President after Obama.

  9. joeblough says:

    When people complained about racial balkanization in the early days of the multiculturist movement they were called crazy.

  10. bobbys says:

    Izz no my job mon!!!


« Front Page | To Top
« | »