I suppose this is progress

Port Chester illegals elect their first representative with federal help.

The election of that member, Luis Marino, a Peruvian immigrant who ran as a Democrat, came in the first local election since a federal judge ordered Port Chester to adopt a new voting system to give Latinos a better shot at electing one of their own to the six-member board.

The unusual electoral system itself made news, allowing voters to use six votes however they chose — including casting all six for one candidate. One Republican who won, Joseph D. Kenner, was the first black elected to the board.

“I think the results are clear — that the new system worked,” Mayor Dennis G. Pilla, a Democrat, said Wednesday morning. “This is a fantastic victory for Port Chester.”

According to the most recent census data, from 2006 to 2008, Latinos make up 49 percent of the village’s roughly 28,000 people, though many are noncitizens; about 39 percent are non-Hispanic whites and 7 percent are black. Still, in past elections, the preferred candidates for the village board among Latino voters were usually defeated.

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

10 responses to “I suppose this is progress

  1. Stanwich

    How is this possible/legal? I thought the basic premise of American elections was 1 vote person…..didn’t we have a war over this (among other things)?

    Great for Port Chester that they finally managed to get minorities elected but did our over-active judiciary ever think that minority voters have chosen candidates based on merit, not race/ethnicity?

    The whole premise is that minorities should vote for minorities, instead of how they want. This thinking is inimical to any sort of democratic process…..another reason to look at Port Chester with disgust and disdain.

  2. Priapus

    Just get it over with and let the judges decide the elections , and save a bunch of money.

    Between Obama just hating this country and the rewrites of basis Constitutional law before our eyes, we’re done.

    USA.
    RIP.
    November, 2008.

  3. cos cobber

    I couldnt agree with you more Stanwich. With 49% of the population, “they” already have an excellent chance of scoring seats at the table. Its baffling why they hadnt to date other than i) the newly minted citizens don’t vote (whose fault is that!), ii) the population is mostly comprised of illegals/green card holders or iii) the minority population is overstated. Anyhow, this kind of electioneering is completely un-American and should be proven as unconstitutional.

    I look forward to the day latinos in Port Chester win elections under the same methodology all the prior officials won their seats and not something gerrymandered. With such a concentration, the problem for latinos in Port Chester in self organization and not the ballet system. They werent sufficiently organized to identify a candidate they all could rally around and get the same people out to vote.

  4. cos cobber

    furthermore, were does this kind of gerrymandering end? it doesnt? judges could go on and on identifying ‘under’ represented groups.

  5. Priapus

    American Indians at a ratio of 50,000:1?

  6. just_looking

    UNF**KING believable. What a country! Or, what has happened to our country? How could this ever be considered, none the less put into place. Someone has to correct this. How? With a lawsuit? Challenge the judge (disbar?) Chris, any ideas?

  7. The Duke of Deception

    The Duke fears greatly for the future of this Republic. What the fuck are we doing to Ourselves?

    National suicide is ugly to watch…

  8. peeps

    I disagree with the way the election was run, but at least know that Mr. Marino is a good man and I believe he will do what he believes is right for Port Chester and not just Latinos.

  9. just_looking

    @peeps – that hardly matters (although it is good to hear). The fact that this has happened, makes it ok for any and all and in any variation (10x for some, 50x for others). HAS to be illegal.

  10. James O'Boston

    there’s nothing inherently wrong with the way the election was conducted… the bigger problem is the idiotic and incorrect slant to the story.

    some years ago, someone paid a crapload of money for me to study, among other things, methods of conducting public elections to get results that accurately reflect public sentiment.

    The bottom line is that being able to rank candidates in terms of preference (either by casting multiple votes or just by ranking, say, your top 6 out of N) leads to a better outcome that more accurately reflects the preferences of the majority of voters. Really. And it takes away the otherwise very real risk that voting for an underdog candidate you really want is “throwing a vote away” even if it may happen to be the case that lots of people like the underdog.

    It is crucial to note that EVERY voter had 6 votes to allocate. To put it another way, if a voter gives all 6 “votes” to a candidate you don’t like, well, if you’re equally passionate about some other candidate to whom you give YOUR 6 votes, then it’s exactly the same as each of you casting one per candidate in the old system. However, it’s more likely that voters will allocate 1-5 votes per candidate and vote for more than one when a race will have more than one “winner”

    Bottom line : Preference-ranked voting is more fair to candidates and is mathematically proven to show which candidates are most preferred by the majority of voters. It’s a superior system, in use in many places (even the US) but often rejected by US voters because we’re damned retards when it comes to math.