The Cellar - What the heck is up with this?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - What the heck is up with this? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=22918)

There are several states that allow the opposing party to vote in primaries. There were several instances where the Dems were importing voters from all over to tip Republican primaries toward weak candidates. If memory serves me, New England was one area that happened in the past. Business as usual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon (Post 662276)

Republicans crossed over in TX (hell, Limbaugh encouraged it), OH and other states in fairly significant numbers during the last presidential primary.

I'm not aware of what you suggest happened in New England. Im not aware of any New England state with an open primary.

Its not the "right thing" to do for anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 662170)

Link

I'm still having trouble figuring out how this guy who ran virtually, if not literally, no campaign came out with 59% of the Democratic votes. Srsly??

Tell us a lot about the Dems, doesn't it? hey don't put any thought into their votes. They are on automatic D.

BTW, love your sig line. Check out this link:

Products to buy from Arizona
http://www.examiner.com/x-35976-Cons...roducts-to-buy

And this is from the San Francisco Examiner. Only the nutters in SF are boycotting AZ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skysidhe (Post 661978)

Maybe people were thinking politics are so full of crooks what does one more matter?

Did you vote for me when I was running for Governor of California?

Quote:

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. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday night.

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 663294)

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

Where did it say that most of "them" CHOSE not to vote?

Cumulative voting has been used as a remedy for Voting Rights Act violations in the past.

When a city/town that is majority white but may have one or more districts (or high population neighborhoods) that are non-white majority AND elects all of its council members on an at-large basis (rather than by district), it puts minorities at a distinct disadvantage and those minority voters can (and often will) be underrepresented on the governing body.

The judge choose the option of cumulative voting over changing to voting by district, which is what the DoJ evidently proposed.

added:
Not that you are reading this (right!), but for others to see the issue from another perspective.

I guess they are trying to hide the fact they are about to soak the taxpayers for another boondogle of a failed jobs stimulus since they have wastes so many billions to date.

Don't call it a stimulus package: Obama wants another $50 billion

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...her-50-billion

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 663294)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 663304)

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 663321)

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

Bullshit.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 663328)

Bullshit.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 663344)

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 663349)

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.

Quote:

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?