What the heck is up with this?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Link
Whaaaaaaaaaaat?????? So because most of them CHOSE not to vote we have to change the system?

Why do you think the Dems want to make them all US citizens ASAP? They need to pad the elections. Remember nearly everything that happens or is said by the Dems between now and Nov is in an effort to stave off greater losses in the elections. Politics as usual.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why do you think the Dems want to make them all US citizens ASAP? They need to pad the elections. Remember nearly everything that happens or is said by the Dems between now and Nov is in an effort to stave off greater losses in the elections. Politics as usual.

This has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and making then citizens.

Using at-large elections to increase or maintain the influence of the White majority or conversely, decrease or discourage the representation of minorities in a community has been a long-standing violation of the Voting Rights Act under all administrations since it was enacted (well, except for Bush).

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

This has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and making then citizens.

Bullshit.

[Lamplighter]

Where are all the conspiracy theorists hiding ...

Wasn't this the ideal "proof-of-principle" experiment for re-wiring the touch-screen voting machines with no paper trail ?

I'm not usually among the CT crowds, but it seems more credible than multitudes of Republicans agreeing ahead of time that they should cross their votes over to this particular candidate.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bullshit.

I didnt expect you to understand the Voting Rights Act and you didnt surprise me with your typical bullshit response.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I didnt expect you to understand the Voting Rights Act and you didnt surprise me with your typical bullshit response.

Well done Comrade! Your party will be proud!

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well done Comrade! Your party will be proud!

Perhaps an education on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will help...but I doubt it.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act. Most of the cases arising under Section 2 since its enactment involved challenges to at-large election schemes, but the section's prohibition against discrimination in voting applies nationwide to any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 2 is permanent and has no expiration date as do certain other provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

In 1980, the Supreme Court held that the section, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, was a restatement of the protections afforded by the 15th amendment. Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Under that standard, a plaintiff had to prove that the standard, practice, or procedure was enacted or maintained, at least in part, by an invidious purpose.

In 1982, Congress extended certain provisions of the Act such as Section 5 that were set to expire, and added protections for voters who required assistance in voting. At the same time, it examined the history of litigation under Section 2 since 1965 and concluded that Section 2 should be amended to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the section if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the standard, practice, or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/sec_2/about_sec2.php

Are you one of those extremists who think we shouldnt have a voting rights act?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why do you think the Dems want to make them all US citizens ASAP?

They already are citizens, aren't they?
I find it odd that one group gets 6 votes each and the other only gets one. Unless I read it wrong and all the voters got 6 votes.

Originally Posted by classicman

They already are citizens, aren't they?
I find it odd that one group gets 6 votes each and the other only gets one. Unless I read it wrong and all the voters got 6 votes.

Of course you read it wrong...you rushed to judgment. Every citizen gets 6 votes and Merc's suggestion that it is to make them citizens ASAP is ludicrous.

But you're not reading this ...or my explanation of how it (at-large elections) is a fairly common Voting Rights Act issue and an issue of law despite Merc's attempt to make it a partisan political issue by somehow turning a Republican-appointed judge's settlement into a nefarious plot by Democrats.

added:
I think elections by district would have been better, with a far greater likelihood that an Hispanic would be elected to the town council, which is long over-due considering that the town is almost half Hispanic and the council has been all White for ever.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your making the assumption the white councilmen don't vote what's best for the entire town and not just for whites.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Your making the assumption the white councilmen don't vote what's best for the entire town and not just for whites.

No...I'm not. I'm just offering my understanding of the case.

The judge made the decision that it was a violation of the Voting Rights Act, based on a pattern over time that the at-large process has not provided for a "fair" opportunity for minority representation on the town council...ever....in a town that is nearly half minority (it would not be an issue if the minority population was very small).

Added
And, I still prefer district elections (or a combination of mostly district and one/two at large) over all at-large elections at the local level. IMO, they are more representative, not just of race, but neighborhood issues, fair distribution/allocation of resources, etc.

[glatt]

We're going through a version of this right now. Our county board members are elected at large for the entire county. The county is made up of roughly 75% Democrats and 25% Republicans. So the county board slots have always been filed by Democrats. It's basically a one party system here in Arlington.

There's a movement now to switch over to a district election system, pushed by the Republicans so they can get some representation on the board.

Originally Posted by glatt

We're going through a version of this right now. Our county board members are elected at large for the entire county. The county is made up of roughly 75% Democrats and 25% Republicans. So the county board slots have always been filed by Democrats. It's basically a one party system here in Arlington.

There's a movement now to switch over to a district election system, pushed by the Republicans so they can get some representation on the board.

DC had a similar issue with the city being 85% Democrat.

We have districts and at-large, with two at-large elected every two years; the catch being they cant be from the same party, so a Republican always gets one at-large seat on the Council.