What the heck is up with this?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

OK, I misunderstood how this works. They give everybody 6 votes, not just some people. So they went from one man, one vote, to one man, six votes.


I still don't like it, but I'm less incensed.
The hispanics make up nearly half the 30,000 population, and the top 6 of 13 candidates get elected. Sounds to me like they never elected one before because they weren't trying very fucking hard. I also suspect they elected one of the two running, because of...

link

I think you still misunderstand.

Previously, all voters cast as many votes as there were seats up for election (2 or 3), but voters could only give one vote to each candidate.....

http://portchestervotes.com/

Thus, even if Hispanic turnout was the same percentage ("trying just as hard") as White turnout, the likelihood of a Hispanic winning one of the seats was very low.

Under the new system, all 6 seats were up for election at the same time and voters could cast multiple votes (up to 6) for one candidate, so if Hispanics rallied around one candidate, the likelihood of election increased...and that is what happened.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I still don't like it, and disagree they couldn't elect one of there own without rigging the election.
So now the council votes 5 to 1, what are the feds going to do next, go drag them to the polls, appoint hispanics?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I still don't like it, and disagree they couldn't elect one of there own without rigging the election.
So now the council votes 5 to 1, what are the feds going to do next, go drag them to the polls, appoint hispanics?

Ohhhhh like that discrimination enterprise known as Affirmative Action?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I still don't like it, and disagree they couldn't elect one of there own without rigging the election.
So now the council votes 5 to 1, what are the feds going to do next, go drag them to the polls, appoint hispanics?

The Bush DoJ that initiated the action, and the Bush appointed judge who approved the settlement, neither of which were big advocates of government intervention (or affirmative action), thought it was an appropriate remedy.

I agree with them. I get it that others dont like it.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ohhhhh like that discrimination enterprise known as Affirmative Action?

Quotas may be discriminatory....Affirmative Action is not, by any stretch of the law.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Quotas may be discriminatory....Affirmative Action is not, by any stretch of the law.

Affirmative Action is one of the most discriminatory policies every enacted. It should be outlawed. I wonder what the Supreme Court thinks about it? And in 50 years will you still support it?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Affirmative Action is one of the most discriminatory policies every enacted. It should be outlawed. I wonder what the Supreme Court thinks about it? And in 50 years will you still support it?

The Supreme Court has probably upheld more Affirmative Action cases than it has rejected...the rejections being of those that crossed the line on quotas.

When institutional racism or racial preference favoring the majority, either by design or default, is eliminated....then Affirmative Action and remedies like this one in Port Chester (where White voting blocks have, in effect, prevented Hispanic representation on the town council) will no longer be needed.

50 years? I hope it less than that.

At the same time, IMO, some Affirmative Action programs should never end.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

Quotas may be discriminatory....Affirmative Action is not, by any stretch . . .

It constitutes synthetic prejudice, even by the making of law to legalize prejudices. It is not more attractive than the homemade variety -- to those of us blessed with principle.

It should receive little to no defense.

The concept of "institutional racism" is devoutly believed in by -- certain people. It is promulgated by hustlers. This fact taints it.

People of principle neither practice nor credit "institutional racism." The hustlers cannot admit this without joining the swollen ranks of the unemployed. Their Jesse Jackson-style shakedowns would quit working as the leaves from the money-tree stop falling.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It constitutes synthetic prejudice, even by the making of law to legalize prejudices. It is not more attractive than the homemade variety -- to those of us blessed with principle.

It should receive little to no defense.

The concept of "institutional racism" is devoutly believed in by -- certain people. It is promulgated by hustlers. This fact taints it.

People of principle neither practice nor credit "institutional racism." The hustlers cannot admit this without joining the swollen ranks of the unemployed. Their Jesse Jackson-style shakedowns would quit working as the leaves from the money-tree stop falling.

I would agree that institutional racism has all but been eliminated, due in part to federal anti-discrimation legislation, administrative remedies, and effective AA programs. However, inadvertant or unintended discrimination still exists in the workplace and in various ways in communities across the country, as was evident in Port Chester, where the White majority effectively kept minorities off the town council.

The Voting Right Act provides reasonable remedies that give no additional rights to minorities or take any rights away from the White majority.

And just for the record, all affirmative action is NOT race based.

IMO, the most successful AA program has been the Title 9 program to end gender discrimination in higher education athletics.

High school girls now have reasonable (not equal) acess to athletic scholarships and womens college athletic programs now have more (not equal) funding.

As a result, some guys suffered...high school boys missed out on scholarships... and minor mens sports programs experienced program cuts.

Shall we return to the good ole days and send girls back to home ec class instead of the athletic playing field?

I am thankful that you dont represent the majority. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and other anti-discrimation legislation PROTECTS minorities and women from narrow-minded, backward-looking folks like you.

[Happy Monkey]

Greene is getting his wish for toys with his face!

[classicman]

bwahahahha - that is too funny!

[TheMercenary]

Did you see this guy give his first speech the other week? Holy crap, the SC electorate can't elect this guy.... then again.