Voting 6 times in one election?

[Riverwind (imported)]

PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_ ... s_election#). 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 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_ ... s_election#) 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.

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.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_ ... s_election#), and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.

Furano and his wife, Gloria Furano, voted Thursday.

"That was very strange," Arthur Furano, 80, said after voting. "I'm not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, 'one man, one vote.'"

It's the first time any municipality in New York has used cumulative voting, said Amy Ngai, a director at FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group that has been hired to consult. The system is used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill.

The judge also ordered Port Chester to implement in-person early voting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_ ... s_election#), allowing residents to show up on any of five days to cast ballots. That, too, is a first in New York, Ngai said.

Village clerk Joan Mancuso said Monday that 604 residents voted early.

Gloria Furano gave one vote each to six candidates. Aaron Conetta gave two votes each to three candidates.

Frances Nurena talked to the inspectors about the new system, grabbed some educational material and went home to study. After all, it was only Thursday. She could vote on Friday, Saturday or Tuesday.

"I understand the voting," she said. "But since I have time, I'm going to learn more about the candidates."

FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates. Two of the 13 Port Chester trustee candidates — one Democrat and one Republican — are Hispanic. A third Hispanic is running a write-in campaign (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_ ... s_election#) after being taken off the ballot on a technicality.

Results were expected late Tuesday night. The Department of Justice said Monday that federal observers would be at all polling places (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_ ... s_election#) Tuesday.

Campaigning was generally low-key, and the election itself was less of an issue than housing density and taxes.

Hispanic candidates Fabiola Montoya and Luis Marino emphasized their volunteer work and said they would represent all residents if elected.

Gregg Gregory gave all his votes to one candidate, then said, "I think this is terrific. It's good for Port Chester. It opens it up to a lot more people, not just Hispanics but independents, too."

Vote coordinator Martha Lopez said that if turnout is higher than in recent years, when it hovered around 25 percent, the election would be a success — regardless of whether a Hispanic was elected.

"I think we'll make it," she said. "I'm happy to report the people seem very interested."

But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but "to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice."

That could be a non-Hispanic, he acknowledged, and until exit polling (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_ ... s_election#) is done, "it won't be known for sure whether the winners were Hispanic-preferred."

The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row — some of them twice if they have two party lines — and then the same candidates are listed five more times. In all, there are 114 levers; voters can flip any six.

Besides the forums, bright yellow T-shirts, tote bags and lawn signs (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_ ... s_election#) declared "Your voice, your vote, your village," part of the educational materials also mandated in the government agreement. Announcements were made on cable TV in each language.

All such materials — the ballot, the brochures, the TV spots, the reminders sent home in schoolkids' backpacks — had to be approved in advance, in English and Spanish versions, by the Department of Justice.

Conetta said the voter education effort was so thorough he found voting easier than usual.

"It was very different but actually quite simple," he said. "No problem."

I think I understand what there trying to do I am not sure I like it, but then again they have been doing this in Chicago for years.

River

[Dharkbus (imported)]

meh its interesting and fair. I personally liked the idea where you had to vote for two different people. (don't know if the government ever did that but we did it all the time in high school).

[Dave (imported)]

Pennsylvania has township council, school board and a few other elections where you vote for four of how ever many candidates are running. I understand cumulative voting but never used it in a political election.

[Losethem (imported)]

I don't like the idea that you can vote multiple times for a single candidate. Very undemocratic in a democratic society.

Dharkbus notes the voting for more than one candidate, but I've only ever seen that in terms of there being two open positions (IE two city council seats) and you vote for the two people you would like to see in those seats. IE one vote for each seat.

If there is no Hispanic getting elected it means two things, 1. one isn't running, even though qualified, and 2. The hispanics are not voting.

If you're a citizen of the country and jurisdiction you are living in, you have the right to vote. It's not that hard, they actually make it pretty darn easy.

Multiple votes for a single candidate is just absurd, and it sounds like the court authorized a legal form of stuffing the ballot box.

[Dave (imported)]

I don't like the idea that you can vote multiple times for a single candidate. Very undemocratic in a democratic society.

...

Not necessarily, (and I will use six votes) the idea is that everyone gets six votes rather than one.

The USA says "one man, one vote" in the context of our history. Remember that the Constitution as ratified in 1788 did not have voting rights for all citizens. In fact, slaves were valued at 0.6 person. In the context of the Civil War, the 14th amendment and later suffrage, ONE MAN ONE VOTE is enshrined in our hearts and minds. That's a powerful context for decisions on voting.

But in another context, giving everyone multiple votes -- such as six votes apiece, is just as valid. As long as everyone gets the vote. That's a valid scheme for an election. Six votes are as fair as one vote. Provided everyone agrees.

That funky new referendum in California is a new election scheme. It says that anyone can enter and they all compete in the primary. The top two vote getters go to the general election. Now what if the top two voters are of one party? Two Democrats or two Republicans? How is the general election fair (or fairer than each party nominating one person) if only one political party is represented in the election? Someone could argue that the scheme of the primary election disenfranchises the voters of one party in the general election. Someone could argue that the general election is not one man one vote. However, it is still a valid election and a majority of voters agree on this method.

So getting multiple votes is just out of context and jarring in the USA. It's not necessarily un-democratic or wrong, just out of context.

[Dharkbus (imported)]

..

. Now what if the top two voters are of one party? Two Democrats or two Republicans? How is the general election fair (or fairer than each party nominating one person) if only one political party is represented in the election? Someone could argue that the scheme of the primary election disenfranchises the voters of one party in the general election. Someone could argue that the general election is not one man one vote. However, it is still a valid election and a majority of voters agree on this method.

off topic sort of but here goes. Isn't the whole party system a bane of democracy. As I was taught the founding fathers where dead set against it (not that necessarily means they where right).

voting along party lines seems like a horrible perversion of democracy. I'm not saying that like minded people shouldn't get together and talk about things, but an awful-lot of lobbying and voting because their party likes the idea seems to go on.

If the two most qualified candidates happen to be democrats or republicans, what of it?

[Dave (imported)]

off topic sort of but here goes. Isn't the whole party system a bane of democracy. As I was taught the founding fathers where dead set against it (not that necessarily means they where right).

Voting along party lines seems like a horrible perversion of democracy. I'm not saying that like minded people shouldn't get together and talk about things, but an awful-lot of lobbying and voting because their party likes the idea seems to go on.

If the two most qualified candidates happen to be democrats or republicans, what of it?

Cumulative voting either by giving (again the example) six votes to everyone voting and letting them vote for more than one person, or ranked balloting (Asking for a ranking of 1,2,3rd place) or giving a minority group two votes and everyone else one (this is like preferred and common stock voting) or what California did, removing the distinction between parties -- are all legitimate democratic procedures.

Democracy means everyone gets a voice and the rules are known ahead of times and the rules are followed. The first senators were "elected" by each state's governing body (Who in turn were elected by the people). That's not the direct vote we use today.

California is a prime example where two party rule has been disastrous for a state because of the way it got combined with referendum by the people. This combination hasn't work and has served to put a state into desperate straights. Neither practice is wrong it's the way they've been combined and used to restrict each other's powers (the people's referendum and the legislature/governor) to ugly results. I want to see how this new voting system works.

What if they gave each voter in California TWO votes in each primary and had the voters rank #1 and #2 and they used the combined total to pick the two candidates for the general election?

DO we want to forget that IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE hold presidential primaries first and the (arguably) two smallest states wield disproportionate influence on the presidential election. Isn't that a form of "cumulative" voting where you give a minority an edge they normally would not have?

Remember that the House of Representatives is elected on a per-capita basis and the Senate is elected by state.

Remember, we're discussing the methods and procedures of voting. We aren't discussing candidates tactics. How does voting represent multiple points of view and still create a workable government?

[Riverwind (imported)]

As I said when I started this post,

In the words of John Daily, vote early and vote often.

Somehow I believe this decision is a bit over the top.

River