One man.....6 votes?!?!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This seems pretty stupid to me. I don't understand how giving everyone 6 votes will result in any advantage to a minority candidate, or how it will increase voter turn-out.

I'm curious about the electorial results.

Fern
The idea is that Hispanics will vote only for Hispanic candidates, whereas non-Hispanics will presumably vote for the candidate they think is best and therefore dilute their voting power. Doesn't matter, if this doesn't work I'm sure he'll revamp it again to get his pre-determined outcome.

We're about one step away from judges simply installing the candidate they think should be in the position.
 

kinev

Golden Member
Mar 28, 2005
1,647
30
91
The idea is that Hispanics will vote only for Hispanic candidates, whereas non-Hispanics will presumably vote for the candidate they think is best and therefore dilute their voting power. Doesn't matter, if this doesn't work I'm sure he'll revamp it again to get his pre-determined outcome.

We're about one step away from judges simply installing the candidate they think should be in the position.

I think that's the idea. I sort of came up with this analogy. To preface this, yes, this was only my experience.

Remember back in high school when the students would vote for something? Be it homecoming queen/king, some student government position, whatever... Well, I went to a fairly large public high school that had a somewhat diverse ethnic background. Probably 50% white, 30% black, 15% hispanic, and 5% other.

Anytime a student election came up and there was one black candidate and the rest weren't, you knew the black student would win. Sometimes it was warranted and sometimes it wasn't (I think our most likely to succeed is in prison). That's just the way it was.

What was happening was ~90% the black students would vote for the black candidate no matter what. That lead to the black student getting ~30% of the votes automatically. The rest of the student body would vote for whomever they wanted (including the black candidate) and the remaining ~70% would be split between 4-5 people. This lead to the black candidate winning. Everyone knew this was just how it worked.

I think the "judge" is hoping the same thing happens in this case. He is hoping the the Hispanic voters will automatically use all 6 votes for a Hispanic candidate while other ethnicities split their votes between different candidates. That's really the only rationale that I could come up with.

Ironically, by even thinking that that would work, the "judge" is stereotyping people based on race. He's got to assume that the Hispanic voters will only vote for the Hispanic candidate. That's the only way this would "remedy" the situation. In his mind, Hispanics only vote for Hispanics regardless of their ability to do the job.

So, in the end a racist looking "judge" is trying to manipulate an election in order to combat perceived racism. [Don King] Only in America! [/Don King]
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
That doesn't make sense.

If that could work with 6 votes, it could work with 1.

I still don't see how giving everyone 6 votes changes anything, other than inflating the vote count by a factor of 6.

If the Hispanic lost, but now has a vote count higher by 6x, well the White guy who won will also have his vote count increased by 6x too. Hispanic still loses.

IMO, the judge fails at math.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
Anyone who isn't a moron knows and understands that if you can't make it or don't think you can make it to the polls on ELECTION DAY - you can vote absentee.
What's next? Have ACORN(or the like) go around to people's houses to collect votes?

It's not that hard people - if you care about voting - there is ample opportunity for you to do so.

So in your opinion, anything that makes voting easier is a bad thing?

You have yet to make a logical argument against early voting. "People should be able to do it my way or they don't deserve to vote" isn't an argument, that's just you being an idiot.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
We have early voting in my area and I like it.

You can go to the County office of Elections and vote just as you would at your precinct.

What I like is that on actual election day the lines are much shorter now at my precinct than they were before. I no longer have to stand in line an hour or so, it's down to mere minutes now.

Personally I don't care so much about when people vote, rather I care that there is no fraud.

Fern
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
We have early voting in my area and I like it.

You can go to the County office of Elections and vote just as you would at your precinct.

What I like is that on actual election day the lines are much shorter now at my precinct than they were before. I no longer have to stand in line an hour or so, it's down to mere minutes now.

Personally I don't care so much about when people vote, rather I care that there is no fraud.

Fern

Exactly, early voting is great. I love going when no one else is there and zipping in and out. It's ridiculous that CAD would be against it.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
So in your opinion, anything that makes voting easier is a bad thing?

You have yet to make a logical argument against early voting. "People should be able to do it my way or they don't deserve to vote" isn't an argument, that's just you being an idiot.

No you twit. It's not a "my way" or "no way" thing at all - you're just too stupid to actually read and comprehend.
The FACT of the matter is there is plenty of time and availability to vote if you aren't going to be able to make it to the polls on ELECTION DAY (note the lack of an 's'). Adding more days and thus more time, resources, and people to the system is stupid. We deserve to have a secure voting system and adding more human elements(more days) to it, especially without an ID/etc check, doesn't provide that.
There is exactly ZERO reason a person who wants to vote needs 5 F'n days to do so. It's called an absentee ballot - moron.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I think that's the idea. I sort of came up with this analogy. To preface this, yes, this was only my experience.

Remember back in high school when the students would vote for something? Be it homecoming queen/king, some student government position, whatever... Well, I went to a fairly large public high school that had a somewhat diverse ethnic background. Probably 50% white, 30% black, 15% hispanic, and 5% other.

Anytime a student election came up and there was one black candidate and the rest weren't, you knew the black student would win. Sometimes it was warranted and sometimes it wasn't (I think our most likely to succeed is in prison). That's just the way it was.

What was happening was ~90% the black students would vote for the black candidate no matter what. That lead to the black student getting ~30% of the votes automatically. The rest of the student body would vote for whomever they wanted (including the black candidate) and the remaining ~70% would be split between 4-5 people. This lead to the black candidate winning. Everyone knew this was just how it worked.

I think the "judge" is hoping the same thing happens in this case. He is hoping the the Hispanic voters will automatically use all 6 votes for a Hispanic candidate while other ethnicities split their votes between different candidates. That's really the only rationale that I could come up with.

Ironically, by even thinking that that would work, the "judge" is stereotyping people based on race. He's got to assume that the Hispanic voters will only vote for the Hispanic candidate. That's the only way this would "remedy" the situation. In his mind, Hispanics only vote for Hispanics regardless of their ability to do the job.

So, in the end a racist looking "judge" is trying to manipulate an election in order to combat perceived racism. [Don King] Only in America! [/Don King]

Exactly. The difference here is that Hispanics were already free to vote only for the Hispanic candidate, but since that wasn't happening the judge feels free to force the equivalent to happen.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
So it's 5 days instead of 1... How is that in any way worse? Because it's not making it harder for some people who can't get to the polls on the 1 day? Because it doesn't benefit retired people?

This is the most stupid outrage I've ever seen from the wingnuts on this forum.... Never in my life did I think I'd see people complaining about early voting. It's just mind boggling.

I guess we cam now call it election week instead of election day. Seems pretty stupid to me??
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
No you twit. It's not a "my way" or "no way" thing at all - you're just too stupid to actually read and comprehend.
The FACT of the matter is there is plenty of time and availability to vote if you aren't going to be able to make it to the polls on ELECTION DAY (note the lack of an 's'). Adding more days and thus more time, resources, and people to the system is stupid. We deserve to have a secure voting system and adding more human elements(more days) to it, especially without an ID/etc check, doesn't provide that.
There is exactly ZERO reason a person who wants to vote needs 5 F'n days to do so. It's called an absentee ballot - moron.

You might be surprised by this, but not everyone can up and leave work to go vote. Sorry you can't comprehend this simple concept.
Then again, its in the rightwing's best interest to make voting as difficult as possible for most people.