by Brian Brady
Commercial Real Estate Finance Expert
Structured Debt and Equity
Licensed Real Estate Broker in AL, CA, and FL
I wrote a satirical piece last August about how life might be if the Federal Government increased its power. I suggested racial balancing might be a consideration in elections:
President Menendez was elected by a sweeping margin when he ran against former Senator Mel Martinez in the first ever race-neutral Presidential election. Former President Obama signed the Neutrality in Elections Act of 2013 and it was agreed that Presidential elections would be held with a specific race/ethnicity as the qualifying factor, every eight years, so as to offer opportunity to all Americans. We The G.O.P originally nominated George P. Bush but his ambiguous ethnicity disqualified him for this particular election; he’ll have his chance in 16 years.
Crazy? One commenter thought I might have gone a bit too far:
There was a time when I was warned about my on line reputation. After reading this blog for the past couple of months I look tame.
race-neutral Presidential election? …Sheesha!
I’ll admit that I have an active imagination but sometimes life imitates art:
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.
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, 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.
You just can’t make this stuff up….even when you try.
Sean Purcell says:
This should be really interesting for the feds when they realize that the people who didn’t vote for an hispanic nominee before are still not voting for an hispanic nominee… except now they’re not voting for one six different times.
“I know how we’ll get out of this hole… we’ll dig our way out. Dig up, stupid.”
July 18, 2010 — 11:33 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Cumulative voting is not a new idea, and is no less democratic than a winner take all system (I could argue very well that a cumulative voting system would be much more representative in Texas than our current gerrymandered winner take all district system.)
I don’t know the details of Port Chester, but it sounds as though there were serious districting issues. We will know soon enough after the election results – if no hispanics are elected, then the districts were representative. If the hispanic community is now represented by hispanics, then the districts were obviously not representative.
Cumulative voting (or fractional voting, or single transferrable voting) is designed to empower third parties, or to fix misrepresentative systems. Personally, I like the idea of the single transferrable vote system better than cumulative voting, but I would be happy to see any system implemented that would give third parties more of a fighting chance.
July 19, 2010 — 9:20 am
Robert F. says:
I find it silly that people get so easily offended over satire on the internet. The internet exists to allow people freedom of speech and freedom of information. Satire exists to allow people a comedic framework to address tough issues.
July 19, 2010 — 11:37 am
Brian Brady says:
“I don’t know the details of Port Chester, but it sounds as though there were serious districting issues.”
No districts in Port Chester. The judge rejected a districting proposal.
Eric, I don’t understand the logic of cumulative or STF voting systems. Is the goal to start with an end in mind, then game the system until that end is achieved?
July 19, 2010 — 1:27 pm
Ben says:
In today’s politically correct world, everyone needs a voice. Everyone needs to be represented. Ok, ok, I get it, but still..
What I don’t understand is why this New York town needs a cumulative voting scenario. If Latinos are almost half the population, then shouldn’t they be a majority considering all races?
How have they not gotten someone of their race in office? Are they being rewarded for not voting?
I agree with Eric, though…there must have been some redistricting problems if they’ve had to go that method.
July 19, 2010 — 2:13 pm
Sean Purcell says:
In today’s politically correct world, everyone needs a voice. Everyone needs to be represented. Ok, ok, I get it, but still..
Just throwing this out there: who says everyone needs a voice? Why would we want the voice of someone who doesn’t want to vote? This reminds me of those “undecided” people in the midst of an important election. Undecided? With 2 weeks to go? I suggest we’d all be a lot better off if those people just stayed home.
If Latinos are almost half the population, then shouldn’t they be a majority considering all races?
It’s this kind of question, asked innocently even, that reveals the danger. Why is there any discussion at all about the race of the village trustees? Is there some evidence of polling intimidation? Rigged elections? If people are voting freely, then the results speak for themselves. And if people choose not to vote, that’s good with me too. Why is any of this being done? Oh that’s right: because the people who did get off their butts and vote didn’t vote correctly. Thank goodness we all live during an era where the feds know the “right” answer and aren’t afraid to make sure we all select it.
July 19, 2010 — 2:50 pm
Brian Brady says:
“there must have been some redistricting problems if they’ve had to go that method”
Again, Port Chester has no districts; all seat are “at large” (it’s in the article).
July 19, 2010 — 4:34 pm
Jim Klein says:
If I understood the story correctly, there are more Latinos than any other racial group (ugh…what a way to think!), but only a minority of those are legal residents and hence entitled to vote.
July 19, 2010 — 5:46 pm
Ralph Bredahl says:
Satire used to be an art form. Now you can’t write or say anything without offending someone. Kinda sad
July 19, 2010 — 6:47 pm
Peter says:
The judge didn’t reject districts. The Village rejected districts. It wanted to use cumulative voting instead and seems pleased with its choice. Turnout was up, the party balance was fair (winners were two Republicans, two Democrats and two non major party winners).
July 20, 2010 — 3:56 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Not at all. The goal is create a more representative democracy. Our current system favors those in power (gerrymandering, the 2 party system,) and cumulative or STF aims to give third parties a fighting chance.
Please explain how STF or cumulative voting (as systems) aim to “game the system.”
July 21, 2010 — 7:01 am
Brian Brady says:
“Please explain how STF or cumulative voting (as systems) aim to “game the system.””
I have no idea. That’s why I asked you the question.
Wouldn’t a requirement of a majority have the same effect?
July 21, 2010 — 9:51 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Brian –
Sorry for the late reply on this. Port Chester had at large members elected by winner take all. I’ve read a bit on the subject now, and can’t seem to find exactly how the old elections were run (everything online now deals with how the new elections were run.) However, typically you will have separate elections for at large members. This means that one party can effectively control the spectrum – a consistently voting, controlling party. Effectively, a minority party can remain unrepresented, even though there are 6 potential seats (it’s assumed the goal of multiple seats is equal representation.) So, the goal of equal representation isn’t met.
The traditional remedy for this situation is districting (which is very common.) Most of the time, likeminded people gravitate towards geographic areas, so this works quite well (except when majority parties gerrymander the districts.) The Department of Justice actually recommended districting in Port Chester, believing this would solve the problem. However, cumulative voting allows likeminded constituents the opportunity of representation, regardless of geo-location. Minority parties can throw their full (or less diluted) weight behind a candidate or candidates in order to achieve representation. If you lived in San Francisco, for instance, you would enjoy a cumulative voting system.
Single Transfer Voting is very intriguing to me. It allows you to rank the candidates in order of preference, thereby avoiding “wasting” a vote on a third party candidate unlikely to win. It’s not overly complex, but the details are more than I care to explain here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote In the case of single elections, I believe it’s superior a system to the popular vote (which is superior, in my opinion, to the electoral college.)
BTW – Port Chester election results: http://budurl.com/xvxd
July 23, 2010 — 5:55 pm
Brian Brady says:
Got it, thanks Eric.
So was the Judge’s goal was to consider the color of a candidates skin when designing the cumulative voting scheme?
July 25, 2010 — 12:38 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
I don’t believe so. It seems fairly logical to me that a community made up of ~49% Hispanics would have an Hispanic in elected office. The fact that there were no Hispanics in office wasn’t the problem, but was a symptom of the problem.
Reading more on the subject, I think that separate elections for at large members is an asinine system. I believe that fair districting could have solved the problem, but cumulative voting also seems to have performed well.
July 27, 2010 — 12:34 pm
Sean Purcell says:
I don’t believe so. It seems fairly logical to me that a community made up of ~49% Hispanics would have an Hispanic in elected office.
The very definition of racism.
July 27, 2010 — 1:03 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
That’s pretty funny, Sean. Here’s the actual definition of racism: http://budurl.com/473k
It always cracks me up when conservatives cry “racism” towards progressives – the leaps in logic are mind boggling. Recognizing ethnic groups is far from racism. I would venture to say that pretending ethnic groups don’t exist in order to perpetuate a system in which they remain unrepresented is racist.
July 27, 2010 — 4:48 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Eric,
You state the accepted premise that half (for ease) of the population is a particular race. You then review the outcome of an election and conclude the result (no Hispanics elected) is not logical. In fact, you said: It seems fairly logical to me that (given the premise, we) would have an Hispanic in elected office. There are only two possible justifications for this conclusion:
-Either you are suggesting that elections are a simple mechanism of probability and the make-up of the outcome is directly related to the make-up of the source. (E.g. My drawer is full of socks, half of which are black and half of which are white. Therefore, if I randomly select six socks, statistically speaking, half of them should be black and half should be white.)
-Or, you are suggesting that racial groups vote for “their own kind,” regardless of merit or capability. (In other words, you find this statement to be illogical: “Half the population is Hispanic and they vote for the best candidates regardless of race. The best of the current candidates were not Hispanic. Therefore, no Hispanics were elected.”)
The first option is false on its face. The second option is, by your own link, the definition of racism:
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
It is racial prejudice to look at the ethnic make-up of an election and assume (expect) it will somehow be connected to the ethnic make-up of the voters, rather than the intelligence of the voters to choose the best candidate.
July 28, 2010 — 2:24 am
Brian Brady says:
Eric,
Shouldn’t people vote for representatives based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin?
This issue interest me because these ethnic motives stifled upward mobility for “Irish-Americans” for so many years. When we started thinking of ourselves as “Americans of Irish descent”, and stopped selecting candidates based upon their ancestry or skin color, we thrived.
Maybe assimilation is a farce but history suggests that when a person embraces the American ideal, rather than clinging to tribal ties of the past, he/she thrives. The opposite is a sort of neo-Tammany Hall approach to politics.
July 28, 2010 — 10:22 am