It's not complicated at all. First of all, you should love it because it eliminates gerrymandering. All candidates are "at large" with no minority districts created to insure minority election. Secondly it is a compromise. When people vote "at large" for multiple candidates and must vote for 6 different candidates, it increases the majority's prospects for landing all six candidates. When people vote must vote for 1 candidate only and they take the top six candidates, it also favors the majority. But by allowing voters to choose, the majority can maximize the potential for getting all 6 seats by voting for 6 candidates. But it costs them to ability to insure their top candidate gets seated. Conversely the minority can maximize their prospects of seating 1 minority candidate by placing all of their votes for him. But it costs them the ability to seat more than one. Everybody has gotten the same number of votes but each can use them to his own maximum effect and let it fall where it may. Nothing unfair about it.
exactly, it means you have to do a little strategizing and risk assessment. do i use all my 6 on candidate awesome? or 3 on him and the other 3 on candidates ok and decent. do i risk letting jose gomez get a single seat when i want all the seats held by edward worthington?
Okay, let us say you have an election with four candidates, 1 Dem, 1 Repub, 1 incumbent (Dem), and one Latino. Let’s just say 100 Hoonkies Voted: 25 used all 6 on the republican candidate: Total = 150 16 used all 6 on the Democrat candidate: Total = 96 34 split their 6 evenly between Incumbent and Dem: Total 102 respectively. 25 used all 6 on the incumbent: Total 150 Let’s say 50 Latinos vote. 49 used all 6 on Latino candidate: Total 246 1 used all 6 on incumbent: Total 6 Election Results: Repub:150 Dem: 198 Incumbent: 258 Latino: 294 Latino wins. Without cumulative voting the totals would have been: Repub: 25 Dem: 16 Incumbent: 90 (assuming all that split would have just went with the incumbent. Latino: 49 Incumbent wins. What is fair in my opinion is everyone gets a vote, majority wins. When you stack the deck so a “minority” can win it is unfair. Please forgive my gorilla math …my point remains the same. It is unfair to stack the deck in favor of anyone. If this was done so whitie can beat a blackie in a black district there would be outrage.
but there are 6 seats. the minority latins can pool their votes and get one latin guy in, but they cant stack all six seats with latins. assuming the latins are perhaps 1/6 of the population, then isnt it ok that they can pool their votes and get 1/6 of the seats? goofy ass honkeys and darkies still have 5/6 of the power. if there were only one seat, it would make less sense to give everyone six votes. but it kinda makes sense this way. with this system, you dont get entirely shut out. again, i think this is basically a form of what is called "proportional representation", and is fine by me.
I am for any voting change that favors white males. Not really But it always seams to me that other racial, national, social, or religious groups pretty much have that agenda and everyone seems ok with it. If this change is put in specifically to help Latinos get elected than it's wrong. Period.
If they are 1/6 of the population and they can legally vote, why can't they "pool" their 1 vote together to elect their token Latino. They were unable to get a Latino elected (and had a federal judge say they were violating the Latinos’ equal protection rights) then went to this system so they could. Therefore, the government is openly favoring one class over another, which is my whole problem with this.
because even if they are 49%, and they have one vote for each seat on this board or whatever, they lose 100% of the time, 51 to 49. so at 49% they would win 0% of the time. but this system creates proportional representation. its not that crazy, lots of places do it, mostly places not in america. both systems, this kind, and also the "winner takes all" kind, they both have their merits. for example, doesnt it suck when in LA we give 49% of our votes to a republican presidential candidate, and the democrat wins and all 8 or whatever of our electoral votes go to the democrat? that is called the "first past the post" style, where you make it to 50.01% and you win everything. its bad news for the minority. but yunno, thats the system sometimes. and it works ok. so does this system here with the 6 votes. if i lived there i wouldnt worry about it much because the little dirty latins probably wouldnt get too much power out of it, at least not relative to their % of the population.
You math is severely flawed, Bud. You don't get six votes for 4 candidates to elect one. That's not how it works. And the idea has nothing to do with Dems, Republicans, Independents and Latinos . . . As if latinos were a political party. It has to do with majority and minority voting. The town is almost 50% Latino and no latinos ever get elected because the old system had them electing 6 at-large candidates. They voted for their latino and five other candidates and the latino never made the top six because the votes were diluted. This is why at-large voting is often denied by the courts in desegregation settlement states. It dilutes the votes of minorities. On the other hand using districts leads to politicians gerrymandering the district to insure minority representation at a set ratio. Most of us think this is inherently unfair. Now, this compromise system allows anybody . . . majority or minority . . . the free choice to either maximize his support for a single candidate to insure a representative of his choice . . . or to support a broad range of candidate to insure a sure majority of his favorites elected. It gives more flexibility to the voters, all of whom get an equal vote.
The old law illegally diluted minority votes, which favored one class above the other. This law redressed both issues.
