Yes, I’m behind the curve on this story, which broke in June. But so what? That just means I can be outraged now. So. For those who hadn’t heard: Affirmative action comes to the ballet box in Port Chester, NY — and a judge rules it okay.
Behold!
Well, I guess it beats declaring white voters 1/6 of a person. Because that would be, like, racist.
Lani Guinier. Old leftists never die, they just fade from public view.
I imagine this would make voter fraud all that more difficult to detect.
Now if only we could figure out how to use the tax rolls to apply this weighted vote scheme. That way, the bottom 48% of taxpayers who pay like 3% of all income tax only count for 3% of the vote as well. What are the odds of finding a court sympathetic to the notion that the so-called rich (i.e. upper middle-class income earners) are an oppressed minority in need of legal protection?
So where is Judge Vaughn Walker to protect that concept of one person, one vote? Equal protection? Or is there a finding of fact that voting is no longer constrained by such notions.
Trout Fishing in America was actually good. This not so much.
Do you mean trout fisting and ballot box?
This cannot be true. It cannot be true. Is this a joke, Jeff?
You’d think this could never withstand judicial scrutiny. And yet —
Perhaps it will be ruled rational. That makes it okay I hear.
The best part about weighting votes according to tax brackets? It makes us more like Rome.
Crooked but rational is probably a subset of fake but accurate.
– Taxation without representation.
– Remind me again why we fled England.
– I doubt there’s an appellate court in the country that wouldn’t toss this out. Even liberal judges know there’s a line you don’t dare cross. Well Judges not named Walker that is.
i live next town over and I had no idea.
Port Chester is about 75% latino of varying stripes so is not toally surprising.
[…] the rest here: Trout Fishing in America Que Pasa Share and Delight […]
When you’re insane, irrationality is rational. I think we’re there.
The best part is how the town was sued by the Justice department in 2006 because they weren’t electing enough Hispanic people. I actually find that part more galling.
Talking an old story….Fox News reports a Cumulative voting story in June, when they have legally mandated since the 1960’s. It is absolutely not new.
It’s very common in local races in the South, especially those jurisdictions which have to report to the DOJ under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It guarantees proportional representation and has been around for hundreds of years, but en vogue to guarantee localities live up to the VRA since the 70’s.
You will be glad to know that Clarence Thomas absolutely hates it, but it it is very old SCOTUS precedent, see Namudno v Holder…losing 8-1 doesn’t bother him, but the precedents are absolutely clear
Well, then. I suppose that makes it alright then!
By the way, what’s the “proportion” of? Have we taken to electing marmots? Reptiles?
heh, was that the Tick?
So, even people who don’t vote, or perhaps cannot vote, get their votes counted anyway, and in a way that guarantees that they “voted” along ethnic lines? Justice!
No, cranky, all legal, registered voters get 6 votes and can divvy up their six as they please. In practice, minorities concentrate their votes on minority candidates and this means proportional representation, ie, the minorities are able to elect once councilman (like what happened in Port Chester) and he’s roughly one-fifth of the board (they are roughly one-fifth of the population).
Hell I thought we were talking about what was legal! I had no idea we branched into ethics and morality. Studies presented to Courts and to Congress show most people (including white folk) are tribalists and want someone of their ethnicity to represent them. Congress and the Courts found out throughout Jim Crow and the period right after the VRA that means minority groups might number 48% of the town, but the town council is 100% majority, because 48% of the population can’t elect one of their own. So, schemes like proportional representation are used to counter-act that.
Much like Clarence Thomas and Jeff, I’m uncomfortable with the idea that people vote “for their own,” but it has been demonstrated in a million court cases. It is the essence of “one man, one vote.”
From Wikipedia
Emphasis added
Proportional representation is the law and sometimes you need cumulative voting to get there.
As Jeff indicated, doesn’t mean it feels right.
Anyone recognize this one?
I’m votin’ Tick JD, ’til Jeff says otherwise.
Oh, you are spot on. You can smell it from a mile away. Its condescending pedantic arrogance oozes from its every keystroke.
I’d say it’s more than just not feeling right. Balkinization has risks to the republic just as real as these fixes towards feelings of disenfranchisement.
I’ve got this weird notion that all registered voters get 1 vote apiece, and that anything else is likely unconstitutional, whether or not some idiotic Supreme Court decision is in favor of it. I’m funny that way.
– So then I guess the old punch line “Vote early, vote often” isn’t a joke in some venues.
Haters.
So logically, a member of a minority with a population of n within a larger total population of N should receive N/n votes. If your minority makes up 1/6th the population, then each member of that minority gets 6 votes. As such, someone who can demonstrate that they are the lone member of a given minority should receive a number of votes equal to the total population, thereby enabling that person to garner at least 50% in any election should that person choose to run for office…
…which is why it’s time for me to go public with the fact that I’m a post-op transsexual lesbian Eskimo.