City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:32:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21
Author Topic: City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny  (Read 63412 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #250 on: September 10, 2015, 11:24:22 PM »

A one vote margin between 2nd and 3rd in the Democratic Primary for Ward 4 alderman, and the apparent winner specifically mentioned campaigning at Westwind.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #251 on: September 11, 2015, 01:15:15 PM »
« Edited: September 11, 2015, 06:08:48 PM by Torie »

Yes, I may be retained to file a lawsuit. I was texted last night about it. You do keep up on things don't you Jim?  Smiley

I might add that but 60 votes or so were case in the 4th ward. There are 20 absentees remaining, almost all from the Fireman's Home, all old and often senile people, white and working class. Who controls the Fireman's Home vote controls the 4th ward basically. No wonder team Scalera was so adamant about not fixing the voting rolls. Election outcomes ride upon it. Politics is a contact sport. Who knew?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #252 on: September 11, 2015, 11:43:26 PM »

Yes, I may be retained to file a lawsuit. I was texted last night about it. You do keep up on things don't you Jim?  Smiley

I might add that but 60 votes or so were case in the 4th ward. There are 20 absentees remaining, almost all from the Fireman's Home, all old and often senile people, white and working class. Who controls the Fireman's Home vote controls the 4th ward basically. No wonder team Scalera was so adamant about not fixing the voting rolls. Election outcomes ride upon it. Politics is a contact sport. Who knew?
In Texas, a vote cast in the incorrect precinct is not considered a valid vote, and therefore is not subject to ballot secrecy. In an election contest, lawyers may depose "voters" about the marks they made on a sheet of paper that looks like a ballot.

Has the Common Council ever made any sort of official representation that the current location of the Firemen's Home is not in Ward 4?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #253 on: September 12, 2015, 07:57:51 AM »

Yes, I may be retained to file a lawsuit. I was texted last night about it. You do keep up on things don't you Jim?  Smiley

I might add that but 60 votes or so were case in the 4th ward. There are 20 absentees remaining, almost all from the Fireman's Home, all old and often senile people, white and working class. Who controls the Fireman's Home vote controls the 4th ward basically. No wonder team Scalera was so adamant about not fixing the voting rolls. Election outcomes ride upon it. Politics is a contact sport. Who knew?
In Texas, a vote cast in the incorrect precinct is not considered a valid vote, and therefore is not subject to ballot secrecy. In an election contest, lawyers may depose "voters" about the marks they made on a sheet of paper that looks like a ballot.

Has the Common Council ever made any sort of official representation that the current location of the Firemen's Home is not in Ward 4?

No, the Firemen's Home is subject to some dispute as to where it should vote, unlike Crosswinds. It is not clear whether the BOE has discretion to put it in one ward or the other.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #254 on: September 12, 2015, 02:32:29 PM »

I might add that but 60 votes or so were case in the 4th ward. There are 20 absentees remaining, almost all from the Fireman's Home, all old and often senile people, white and working class. Who controls the Fireman's Home vote controls the 4th ward basically. No wonder team Scalera was so adamant about not fixing the voting rolls. Election outcomes ride upon it. Politics is a contact sport. Who knew?
Has the Common Council ever made any sort of official representation that the current location of the Firemen's Home is not in Ward 4?
No, the Firemen's Home is subject to some dispute as to where it should vote, unlike Crosswinds. It is not clear whether the BOE has discretion to put it in one ward or the other.
Since the city has the sole authority to set ward boundaries, and initial authority to set precinct boundaries, I'd expect them to make the decision. Since it was the building that moved, rather than a new building erected on a line, my inclination would be to keep the Firemen's Home in Ward 4.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #255 on: September 12, 2015, 02:54:43 PM »

I might add that but 60 votes or so were case in the 4th ward. There are 20 absentees remaining, almost all from the Fireman's Home, all old and often senile people, white and working class. Who controls the Fireman's Home vote controls the 4th ward basically. No wonder team Scalera was so adamant about not fixing the voting rolls. Election outcomes ride upon it. Politics is a contact sport. Who knew?
Has the Common Council ever made any sort of official representation that the current location of the Firemen's Home is not in Ward 4?
No, the Firemen's Home is subject to some dispute as to where it should vote, unlike Crosswinds. It is not clear whether the BOE has discretion to put it in one ward or the other.
Since the city has the sole authority to set ward boundaries, and initial authority to set precinct boundaries, I'd expect them to make the decision. Since it was the building that moved, rather than a new building erected on a line, my inclination would be to keep the Firemen's Home in Ward 4.

No, the BOE has power to determine where voters vote, based on the ward lines set by city ordinance.
A majority of the rooms are in the 5th ward, but whether when a property is bifurcated, the BOE has complete discretion to put it in one ward or the other, rather than where the majority of the residents live, is not clear to me. Initially, I was told it was where a majority of the residents lived, but then Virginia Martin backed off of that. Whether there is an opinion from the state BOE, and whether if there is, it has the force and effect of law, are open questions.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #256 on: September 12, 2015, 08:41:38 PM »

No, the Firemen's Home is subject to some dispute as to where it should vote, unlike Crosswinds. It is not clear whether the BOE has discretion to put it in one ward or the other.
Since the city has the sole authority to set ward boundaries, and initial authority to set precinct boundaries, I'd expect them to make the decision. Since it was the building that moved, rather than a new building erected on a line, my inclination would be to keep the Firemen's Home in Ward 4.
No, the BOE has power to determine where voters vote, based on the ward lines set by city ordinance.
A majority of the rooms are in the 5th ward, but whether when a property is bifurcated, the BOE has complete discretion to put it in one ward or the other, rather than where the majority of the residents live, is not clear to me. Initially, I was told it was where a majority of the residents lived, but then Virginia Martin backed off of that. Whether there is an opinion from the state BOE, and whether if there is, it has the force and effect of law, are open questions.
The city creates the wards. Surely they have the authority to determine which ward people reside in,  since such a decision determines the population for equality or weighting purposes. The BOE is an administrative agency.

Does the CBOE comply with ELN §  4-100(3)(b), particularly with regard to the two election districts in Ward 5?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #257 on: September 18, 2015, 07:58:45 PM »

I might add that but 60 votes or so were case in the 4th ward. There are 20 absentees remaining, almost all from the Fireman's Home, all old and often senile people, white and working class. Who controls the Fireman's Home vote controls the 4th ward basically. No wonder team Scalera was so adamant about not fixing the voting rolls. Election outcomes ride upon it. Politics is a contact sport. Who knew?
Has the Common Council ever made any sort of official representation that the current location of the Firemen's Home is not in Ward 4?
No, the Firemen's Home is subject to some dispute as to where it should vote, unlike Crosswinds. It is not clear whether the BOE has discretion to put it in one ward or the other.
Since the city has the sole authority to set ward boundaries, and initial authority to set precinct boundaries, I'd expect them to make the decision. Since it was the building that moved, rather than a new building erected on a line, my inclination would be to keep the Firemen's Home in Ward 4.
No, the BOE has power to determine where voters vote, based on the ward lines set by city ordinance.
A majority of the rooms are in the 5th ward, but whether when a property is bifurcated, the BOE has complete discretion to put it in one ward or the other, rather than where the majority of the residents live, is not clear to me. Initially, I was told it was where a majority of the residents lived, but then Virginia Martin backed off of that. Whether there is an opinion from the state BOE, and whether if there is, it has the force and effect of law, are open questions.
Interesting development in River City.

Sept 18, 2016, Democratic Primary: It Isn't Over Until It's Over

"Right here in River City.
Trouble with a capital "T"
And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for polling places."

Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #258 on: September 19, 2015, 03:28:52 PM »
« Edited: September 19, 2015, 03:34:28 PM by Torie »

Carole Osterink, Victor Mendolia, and I sat next to each other watching the count. I was ready to sue to get a court order to keep the challenged ballots from being counted, by serving the BOE with a temporary restraining order on Monday if Volo had been ahead after the ballots not challenged were counted. But he slipped to five votes behind, so game over. Victor and I went over the ballots to be challenged carefully. Rick Scalera and Bill Hughes complained about the Crosswinds votes already counted, and I pointed out that they were a separate category of ballots, not absentee ballots, but yes, it raised an interesting legal issue to be adjudicated, but the court would not deem the appropriate remedy to be counting more illegal votes, but rather either hold the milk had been spilt, and too bad, or order a new election, or ala Texas (per Jimtex's remark), maybe depose the crosswinds voters (there were not many of them). Rick said he didn't think that had happened in NY before. I told him there was always a first time.

And there you have it. Oh, Nastke also ruled that despite a police report that someone who had secured an absentee ballot because he was going to be out of the county on election day, was actually in the county, and thus his absentee vote was invalid, would be counted anyway because everybody gets to vote. He didn't care about the law, unless it helps his team, rather than hurts it. The guy challenging the ballot, said, well, my guy is going to win anyway, so we are not going to spend thousands of dollars going to court. So then Virginia Martin allowed the challenged ballot to be counted, after the objection was withdrawn. Volo however was prepared to go to court, with me representing him. I had all my research done, including finding some interesting law on how to handle buildings bisected by district lines (the action was mostly about the Firemen's Home absentee ballots), and that the failure to sue prior to the election to expunge the illegal vote rolls, was not a legally fatal waiver.  I may go to the Board of Supervisors to suggest that Nastke be removed. We shall see.

Law and order will come to Hudson and Columbia County at last, after its long history of being lawless. That is my mission, and I am going to make it happen.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #259 on: September 19, 2015, 10:13:11 PM »

Law and order will come to Hudson and Columbia County at last, after its long history of being lawless. That is my mission, and I am going to make it happen.
Livingston was originally Livingston Manor and was a grant from, IIRC, Queen Anne, after the British took over from the Dutch. As such it was farmed by tenant farmers who could not secure a freehold, and were usually in arrears on their rent, and would either be kicked out or abscond.

Around 1840 or so, some tenant farmers started a protest in the Taconic Mountains and the militia was called out. It appears that most of the militia was from Hudson, so it was very much a city vs. country dispute. Eventually the protesters were subdued, but New York also changed the laws so that tenant farmers could secure freeholds.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #260 on: September 20, 2015, 06:52:55 AM »
« Edited: September 20, 2015, 06:55:17 AM by Torie »

Is it was called the renters' rebellion. I read and asked about it at the Livingston mansion, which is in Clermont actually. The Poet's Walk is on land they cleared.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #261 on: September 20, 2015, 08:14:34 AM »

Carole Osterink, Victor Mendolia, and I sat next to each other watching the count. I was ready to sue to get a court order to keep the challenged ballots from being counted, by serving the BOE with a temporary restraining order on Monday if Volo had been ahead after the ballots not challenged were counted. But he slipped to five votes behind, so game over. Victor and I went over the ballots to be challenged carefully. Rick Scalera and Bill Hughes complained about the Crosswinds votes already counted, and I pointed out that they were a separate category of ballots, not absentee ballots, but yes, it raised an interesting legal issue to be adjudicated, but the court would not deem the appropriate remedy to be counting more illegal votes, but rather either hold the milk had been spilt, and too bad, or order a new election, or ala Texas (per Jimtex's remark), maybe depose the crosswinds voters (there were not many of them). Rick said he didn't think that had happened in NY before. I told him there was always a first time.

And there you have it. Oh, Nastke also ruled that despite a police report that someone who had secured an absentee ballot because he was going to be out of the county on election day, was actually in the county, and thus his absentee vote was invalid, would be counted anyway because everybody gets to vote. He didn't care about the law, unless it helps his team, rather than hurts it. The guy challenging the ballot, said, well, my guy is going to win anyway, so we are not going to spend thousands of dollars going to court. So then Virginia Martin allowed the challenged ballot to be counted, after the objection was withdrawn. Volo however was prepared to go to court, with me representing him. I had all my research done, including finding some interesting law on how to handle buildings bisected by district lines (the action was mostly about the Firemen's Home absentee ballots), and that the failure to sue prior to the election to expunge the illegal vote rolls, was not a legally fatal waiver.  I may go to the Board of Supervisors to suggest that Nastke be removed. We shall see.
Election contests are quite interesting. When you start scrutinizing a close election, there are always irregularities that ordinarily would go unnoticed. An example is all the discrepancies we have discovered in Hudson.

In Texas, at least, election contests are definitely legal proceedings, and I suspect that are lots of precedents that are specific to individual states, and a court in one state might not accept a precedent from another. In Texas, the burden of proof in an election contest is more akin to a criminal case than a civil case - "clear and convincing evidence".

The Richards-Frost gerrymander from 1992 was intended to produce a Hispanic opportunity congressional district in Houston. The Democratic primary was closely contested between then state senator Gene Green and city councilman Ben Reyes. The primary runoff was extremely close. Texas doesn't have party registration, but doesn't permit voting in both primaries, are cross-over voting between the primary and runoff. It turned out that a number of voters had voted in the Republican primary and the Democratic primary runoff.

When these "voters" were questioned as part of the election contest, one voter told the judge something like, "I'm 75 years old, I worked hard, own my house, raised a family, and have had a good life, but you might as well put the handcuffs on me now, because I'm not going to tell you who I voted for."

Before a decision was made on the cross-over voters it was discovered that some voters had been excluded from the district, and other voters had been included, and the runoff was rerun. Green won the re-runoff in 1992 and is still in Congress from the district. A graduate student from Taiwan had been mapping the results, and discovered the misplaced precincts. Apparently, neither candidate had noticed, perhaps relying on the list of precincts from the county.

=====

The supervisors from Hudson are elected from the wrong areas and their votes misweighted. Columbia County probably is not going to want to switch to a legislature elected from equal population districts. So instead they should adopt the Saratoga County system where voting weights are identical to the population of each town, and thus 0% deviation from the population. The largest towns (or cities) have an extra supervisor such that the deviation between Banzhaf voting power and population is reasonable.

In Columbia County, this would result in two supervisors from Hudson and Kinderhook. In Saratoga Springs, the two supervisors are also non-voting members of the city council. One town also has two supervisors, one is the town supervisor, and his head of the town board and a supervisor, while the county supervisor is only a member of the county board of supervisors.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #262 on: October 04, 2015, 01:41:36 PM »

In the Hudson weighted voting, ward realignment saga, Rick Scalera moves a pawn, resulting in countermoves by others, including myself. Carole asked me for the population data, which I provided to her, and she put up a post on her blog, to which I replied.  Rick is getting rather tired of me I suspect. I keep showing up where I am not wanted. Tongue
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #263 on: October 14, 2015, 09:43:52 AM »

This is the previous attempt to switch to equal population districts.

March 18, 2003 Common Council minutes. Resolution for equal population wards is at Page 15 of PDF

Gossips of Rivertown has suggested that it was a vote to switch to 6 districts, and has produced a map drawn by the city clerk, which was indeed based on 2000 census numbers, but I have not found any official record. There is a glitch in the common council minutes beginning in about August of 2003, with a couple of months missing, so it is conceivable that there was a replacement in the few months before the November election. The results of the referendum are on the Columbia County BOE web site.

This is my interpretation of the text.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #264 on: October 14, 2015, 06:34:51 PM »

Friedman's remonstrances and grievances without substance

"Whereas the U.S. Supreme Court has held that weighted voting is a constitutional manner of voting in order to preserve historical jurisdictional boundaries such as towns within a city."

This is not true. Abate v Mundt was not about weighted voting. Rockland County apportioned whole numbers of county legislators among the five towns in the county. It would be the equivalent to Hudson apportioning 4 aldermen to Ward 5; 2 aldermen to wards 2 and 3 each; and 1 alderman to each of wards 1 and 4.

In making its apportionment, Rockland County was slightly outside the 10% deviation range that was just emerging at that time. IIRC, Rockland County was at 12%. The SCOTUS ruled that the burden was on Rockland County to to justify its slightly excessive deviation. It found that the county had met that burden based on the historic relationship between the town and counties, and that town officials could concurrently serve in the county legislature.

In later decades, the deviation increased. When it was over 20%, Rockland County lost. They could not justify that amount of deviation - in a sense representation was no longer based on population. In addition, the federal court found that there was a stronger identity in the suburban county between villages and school districts, which in no way conformed to town boundaries; and that town officials could no longer concurrently serve in the legislature.

In Hudson, you would have to first show that Hudson was outside the 10% safe harbor. This would be impossible to do if 2nd Circuit bozo math is used; but Hudson can probably get inside the 10% safe harbor using weighted voting, or be just outside.

But Hudson's rationale of not wanting to always be redistricting may be reasonable justification. The fact that Hudson does not administer its elections based on the chiseled-in-stone 19th Century ward boundaries; or calculate the weights based on the actual populations of the wards (per the charter or the BOE) will not matter.

If you were to file a lawsuit claiming:

(1) Weighted voting is unconstitutional;
(2) The BOE doesn't administer elections according to the charter; and
(3) The city didn't calculate the ward populations correctly, and therefore the weights are wrong.

A court will agree on points (2) and (3), and (1) will not even be considered.

If Hudson is inside the safe harbor, a legal challenge will be difficult. That is at issue in the Arizona legislative redistricting case that the SCOTUS will hear this December. And weighted voting has a lot more merit than partisan gerrymandering.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #265 on: October 14, 2015, 10:00:59 PM »

You forgot about voting power and the deviations involved in that, and the assumption that alderpersons elected at the same time from the same ward will vote randomly from each other, and that all of the precedents you cited are with respect to counties, where the rationale for having districts hew to town and city lines is far more compelling, in internal to a city where there are no political subdivisions. There is no public policy reason for weighed voting in a city, other then never needing to change the ward lines. As it is, it so happens, that because the 5th ward is diverse, having it be too big, is now a subtle form of gerrymandering, which is why it is so contentious an issue.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #266 on: October 15, 2015, 04:28:27 AM »

My approach would be:

(1) Correct the current Hudson weights. This does not require a referendum, and the populations for the wards were so badly calculated that there is a clear equal protection violation, and possibly due process. Changing voting weights based on an improved estimate of the populations does not count against the once-per-decade change (it would if it were a switch from equal population districts).

(2) Reform the county board of supervisors. It makes no sense that Hudson has more voting weight than Kinderhook, given that Kinderhook has a larger population. In addition, the supervisors from Hudson are paid by the county. The town supervisors are ex officio members of the board of supervisors.

(a) Banzhaf-Papayanopoulos weighting violates equal protection since it mathematically requires that some combinations of supervisors who represent a minority of the population can prevail, and the complementary combination that represent a majority of the population will lose.

Simple weighting, where each supervisor has a number of votes equal to the population they represent (or perhaps divided by 10 so that weights are smaller) solves this problem.

(b) If there is a concern that the variation in the Banzhaf Power is too great, this can be resolved by adding supervisors for the smaller entities. In Columbia County, this would give two supervisors each to Kinderhook and Hudson. This is the same situation as in Saratoga County.

Saratoga Springs city elects two supervisors at large. They are also ex officio, non-voting members of the Saratoga Springs city council. The town of Clifton Park also has two supervisors. One is the town supervisor who is a member of the town board as well as the board of supervisors, while the other is designated the county supervisor and sits on the board of supervisor

(3) Switch to equal population wards in Hudson. The Home Rule law permits structured referendums, so there could be a 5x2 plan, and a 8x1 or 6x1 plan, which could appeal to those who favor a smaller council. Set out specific maps, since it will be updated by 2021.

(4) Keep the redistricting committee as a separate item. It makes it too complicated a measure to bundle the two.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #267 on: October 15, 2015, 07:36:43 AM »
« Edited: October 15, 2015, 09:22:02 AM by Torie »

I agree with some of the above. However:

1. The attorney general has opined that the council without a referendum can redraw the alderman ward lines, so that can be done to equalize population, and then weighted voting goes away. The council must equalize population of the supervisor wards within a 5% variance under the Home Rule Law. Local law says the supervisor districts must match the alderman wards, so between local and state law, there must be population equalization within the 5% variance of the alderman wards without ever reaching federal Constitutional issues.

2. A structured referendum has some appeal but it's complicated. And there is a risk that nothing will get passed as those who favor 3 wards (that seems to be where the Scalera faction is going) will vote against a 5 ward proposal, and those who favor 5 wards will vote against a 3 ward proposal, and nothing will get passed. Maybe it is possible to vote first on whether equal population wards should be adopted, and if that passes, then the proposal with the most votes wins as to the structure, with both questions on the same ballot. That would mitigate that concern admittedly.

3. The proposed referendum drawn by Friendman has language that is in the form of a question, so if it passed (it won't even make the ballot), a question would be inserted into the charter (very odd), and assuming a court interprets that mess as requiring the council to have equal population districts, given that no number is specified, I am not sure that the court would find that the matter is subject to remedy, unless it concludes that in the absence of action the default choice for the court is to keep five wards. So we have an unneeded referendum proposal that is a mess.

4. Hudson does not have more voting strength than Kinderhook. The 11% of whatever the percentage is of Hudson's share of the board of supervisors vote is split between the 5 Hudson supervisors, so each Hudson supervisor has his or her allocable share of the 11% based on the population of the ward (using erroneous numbers admittedly). Kinderhook's lone supervisor has  about 15% of the vote, or however the math plays out based on its population share of the county. It's no accident that he is the chairman of the board of supervisors.

5. Beyond the population counts being wrong, we also have folks voting in the wrong wards. And the Mayor vetoed filing a lawsuit by the city against the Board of Supervisors, so the illegal voting will continue.  

Fun stuff! Smiley

PS: The mayor debate was last night, and Hallenbeck said he is against gentrification and wants it to stop (a clear effort to secure the black and poor white vote where there is concern about that). That is the big headline in the news. I feel like such a class enemy.  Tongue  It's kind of ironic, because the mayor was helpful in securing a variance for me for my project - which was gentrification personified. The political game in Hudson is always about one faction getting the support of a second faction against the third (the three factions being the gentry, old Hudson lower middle class and poor whites (Scalera faction), and blacks and Bangladeshis). The Scalera faction here was making its play for the blacks and Bangladeshis, and it just might work. This still registered Pub (until after the coming election), had dinner after with Hallenbeck's Democratic opponent, her father, husband, sister and one of her
two close advisors. Her Daddy was buying the drinks, so we all had a bit too much to drink. Who would have thought that this was my destiny a couple of years ago?  Smiley
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #268 on: October 15, 2015, 11:41:24 AM »

You forgot about voting power and the deviations involved in that, and the assumption that alderpersons elected at the same time from the same ward will vote randomly from each other, and that all of the precedents you cited are with respect to counties, where the rationale for having districts hew to town and city lines is far more compelling, in internal to a city where there are no political subdivisions. There is no public policy reason for weighed voting in a city, other then never needing to change the ward lines. As it is, it so happens, that because the 5th ward is diverse, having it be too big, is now a subtle form of gerrymandering, which is why it is so contentious an issue.
I have provided a simple weighting (0.0% deviation between population and weights), that has a 8.4% deviation between voting power and population; and a plan that has a 10.4% deviation between voting weight and population, and 5.1% deviation between voting power and population.

The 10% safe harbor applies to state and local governments generally.

"As you can see, judge, the deviation between population and voting weights between voting weight and population is well within the norms promulgated by the SCOTUS. The plaintiff Torie has suffered no cognizable injury, and doesn't even have standing."

Summary dismissal would be granted.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #269 on: October 15, 2015, 11:52:20 AM »

You forgot about voting power and the deviations involved in that, and the assumption that alderpersons elected at the same time from the same ward will vote randomly from each other, and that all of the precedents you cited are with respect to counties, where the rationale for having districts hew to town and city lines is far more compelling, in internal to a city where there are no political subdivisions. There is no public policy reason for weighed voting in a city, other then never needing to change the ward lines. As it is, it so happens, that because the 5th ward is diverse, having it be too big, is now a subtle form of gerrymandering, which is why it is so contentious an issue.
I have provided a simple weighting (0.0% deviation between population and weights), that has a 8.4% deviation between voting power and population; and a plan that has a 10.4% deviation between voting weight and population, and 5.1% deviation between voting power and population.

The 10% safe harbor applies to state and local governments generally.

"As you can see, judge, the deviation between population and voting weights between voting weight and population is well within the norms promulgated by the SCOTUS. The plaintiff Torie has suffered no cognizable injury, and doesn't even have standing."

Summary dismissal would be granted.


What plan is that? I need my "expert" to examine it. Smiley  I assume this is assuming one alderperson per ward, right (to nix the business of the random voting of alderpersons from the same ward)?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #270 on: October 15, 2015, 12:32:33 PM »
« Edited: October 15, 2015, 12:35:54 PM by jimrtex »

I agree with some of the above. However:

1. The attorney general has opined that the council without a referendum can redraw the alderman ward lines, so that can be done to equalize population, and then weighted voting goes away. The council must equalize population of the supervisor wards within a 5% variance under the Home Rule Law. Local law says the supervisor districts must match the alderman wards, so between local and state law, there must be population equalization within the 5% variance of the alderman wards without ever reaching federal Constitutional issues.
Supervisor is not a city position. Hudson does not pay their upkeep nor the cost of their election. It is the county's decision to make.

2. A structured referendum has some appeal but it's complicated. And there is a risk that nothing will get passed as those who favor 3 wards (that seems to be where the Scalera faction is going) will vote against a 5 ward proposal, and those who favor 5 wards will vote against a 3 ward proposal, and nothing will get passed. Maybe it is possible to vote first on whether equal population wards should be adopted, and if that passes, then the proposal with the most votes wins as to the structure, with both questions on the same ballot. That would mitigate that concern admittedly.
The home rule law appears to anticipate that proposals may be structured. If proposals for 5 wards electing two alderman, and 6 or 8 wards electing one alderman, then if multiple proposals were passed, then the one with the most support would take effect.

3. The proposed referendum drawn by Friendman has language that is in the form of a question, so if it passed (it won't even make the ballot), a question would be inserted into the charter (very odd), and assuming a court interprets that mess as requiring the council to have equal population districts, given that no number is specified, I am not sure that the court would find that the matter is subject to remedy, unless it concludes that in the absence of action the default choice for the court is to keep five wards. So we have an unneeded referendum proposal that is a mess.
Was that the complete proposal? I figured he had just written the whereases?

4. Hudson does not have more voting strength than Kinderhook. The 11% of whatever the percentage is of Hudson's share of the board of supervisors vote is split between the 5 Hudson supervisors, so each Hudson supervisor has his or her allocable share of the 11% based on the population of the ward (using erroneous numbers admittedly). Kinderhook's lone supervisor has  about 15% of the vote, or however the math plays out based on its population share of the county. It's no accident that he is the chairman of the board of supervisors.
The voting weight of the supervisors from Hudson is calculated independently based on the population of the ward they represent.

Kinderhook, Claverack, and Ghent have a smaller share of the total votes, than their share of the population. The Hudson supervisors collectively have a larger share of the total votes than Hudson's share of the population.

5. Beyond the population counts being wrong, we also have folks voting in the wrong wards. And the Mayor vetoed filing a lawsuit by the city against the Board of Supervisors, so the illegal voting will continue.  
If a direct challenge were made to weighted voting, this might have an impact on the decision. "We want to keep the 1885 boundaries, but we don't want to use them."
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #271 on: October 15, 2015, 12:41:50 PM »

You forgot about voting power and the deviations involved in that, and the assumption that alderpersons elected at the same time from the same ward will vote randomly from each other, and that all of the precedents you cited are with respect to counties, where the rationale for having districts hew to town and city lines is far more compelling, in internal to a city where there are no political subdivisions. There is no public policy reason for weighed voting in a city, other then never needing to change the ward lines. As it is, it so happens, that because the 5th ward is diverse, having it be too big, is now a subtle form of gerrymandering, which is why it is so contentious an issue.
I have provided a simple weighting (0.0% deviation between population and weights), that has a 8.4% deviation between voting power and population; and a plan that has a 10.4% deviation between voting weight and population, and 5.1% deviation between voting power and population.

The 10% safe harbor applies to state and local governments generally.

"As you can see, judge, the deviation between population and voting weights between voting weight and population is well within the norms promulgated by the SCOTUS. The plaintiff Torie has suffered no cognizable injury, and doesn't even have standing."

Summary dismissal would be granted.


What plan is that? I need my "expert" to examine it. Smiley  I assume this is assuming one alderperson per ward, right (to nix the business of the random voting of alderpersons from the same ward)?
See 2nd and 3rd plans

I don't see how you are going to convince a court that the calculation of voting power should be calculated in a different manner than it has been.

Did you ever come up with agreed populations for the existing 5 wards (provide numbers based on the Firemen's Home being in Ward 4 and Ward 5).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #272 on: October 15, 2015, 03:36:54 PM »

Everyone Wins Electoral System

Current ward boundaries are maintained. Each voter may vote for two candidates. If they only vote for one, it counts as two votes for that candidate.

The top vote-getter in each ward is elected. In addition, the top five among the remaining candidates will also be elected as aldermen.

The remaining candidates, up to a maximum of ten will be designated alternate aldermen.

In common council votes, each alderman and alternate alderman may cast as many votes as they received when elected. The Common Council will exercise 1/10 of the total votes cast for all alderman candidates.

If there are additional candidates not in the Top 20, they may transfer the votes they received to any of the elected aldermen and alternate aldermen.

The role of alternate aldermen is to vote on formal motions before the Common Council. They would not be paid, or perhaps only a nominal amount. They could participate in council discussions on the same basis as any citizen. Quorums would be based on the full alderman and council president.

Advantages

Representation will likely be more pluralistic. Larger wards will have more representation in terms of voting strength, and possibly in terms of elected members, but that representation will be reflective of the diversity of those wards. Voter turnout is incentivized since the votes cast determine voting strength.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #273 on: October 15, 2015, 04:26:17 PM »

You forgot about voting power and the deviations involved in that, and the assumption that alderpersons elected at the same time from the same ward will vote randomly from each other, and that all of the precedents you cited are with respect to counties, where the rationale for having districts hew to town and city lines is far more compelling, in internal to a city where there are no political subdivisions. There is no public policy reason for weighed voting in a city, other then never needing to change the ward lines. As it is, it so happens, that because the 5th ward is diverse, having it be too big, is now a subtle form of gerrymandering, which is why it is so contentious an issue.
I have provided a simple weighting (0.0% deviation between population and weights), that has a 8.4% deviation between voting power and population; and a plan that has a 10.4% deviation between voting weight and population, and 5.1% deviation between voting power and population.

The 10% safe harbor applies to state and local governments generally.

"As you can see, judge, the deviation between population and voting weights between voting weight and population is well within the norms promulgated by the SCOTUS. The plaintiff Torie has suffered no cognizable injury, and doesn't even have standing."

Summary dismissal would be granted.


What plan is that? I need my "expert" to examine it. Smiley  I assume this is assuming one alderperson per ward, right (to nix the business of the random voting of alderpersons from the same ward)?
See 2nd and 3rd plans

I don't see how you are going to convince a court that the calculation of voting power should be calculated in a different manner than it has been.

Did you ever come up with agreed populations for the existing 5 wards (provide numbers based on the Firemen's Home being in Ward 4 and Ward 5).

OK, then you think the court will probably accept the assumption that two alderpersons from the same ward elected at the same time will vote randomly from each other. I think the opposite. That's OK. There really isn't much justification for weighted voting other than not having to move the lines every ten years, and I just don't think that's going to fly. That is particularly given the history of how screwed up the lines are, and the population counts.

Yes, the city clerk and I have some to agreement on the population numbers. The Firemen's Home ward placement is open to dispute, but having found and read some court decisions on it, odds are it's going in the 5th ward, (60% of the rooms are there), particularly if the eating facilities are also there, for those who don't eat in their rooms.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #274 on: October 16, 2015, 04:50:35 AM »

What plan is that? I need my "expert" to examine it. Smiley  I assume this is assuming one alderperson per ward, right (to nix the business of the random voting of alderpersons from the same ward)?
See 2nd and 3rd plans

I don't see how you are going to convince a court that the calculation of voting power should be calculated in a different manner than it has been.

Did you ever come up with agreed populations for the existing 5 wards (provide numbers based on the Firemen's Home being in Ward 4 and Ward 5).

OK, then you think the court will probably accept the assumption that two alderpersons from the same ward elected at the same time will vote randomly from each other. I think the opposite. That's OK. There really isn't much justification for weighted voting other than not having to move the lines every ten years, and I just don't think that's going to fly. That is particularly given the history of how screwed up the lines are, and the population counts.

Yes, the city clerk and I have some to agreement on the population numbers. The Firemen's Home ward placement is open to dispute, but having found and read some court decisions on it, odds are it's going in the 5th ward, (60% of the rooms are there), particularly if the eating facilities are also there, for those who don't eat in their rooms.
Federal court or state court?

A federal court is only going to care about population equity. Federal court decisions assume that the representatives elected from an area represent the entire area.

See the decisions concerning the New York City Council and the Board of Estimate.

The city council was elected from single member districts, some of which crossed borough boundaries; in addition there were two members elected from each borough, plus the city council president who was elected citywide. The two borough members were elected in a manner that would ensure political minority representation (ie Republicans).

The representation for a borough was calculated using the number of districts within a borough, plus a pro rata share of the districts that crossed a borough boundaries. For example (numbers totally made up), Brooklyn might have 10 districts, plus 23% of the population of district that crossed into Queens. Brooklyn would be treated as having 10.23 + 2 = 12.23 members. The representational share (12.23/City Council Size) was compared to the population share (borough population/city population). Since the 2 member bonus for Staten Island was relatively large, it put the deviation outside the safe harbor. The 2nd Circuit did not include the city council president in the calculation - but this was likely an error, and would not have made a difference in the decision.

In the Board of Estimate decision, the SCOTUS suggested that the 3 at-large members should have been included in the calculation of borough representation, including their voting weights, distributed on a pro rata share. That is the borough representation =

1 (for borough president) + 3 at-large x 2 votes x (borough population / city population). Again, the SCOTUS found that using the "correct" calculation was way outside the safe harbor. The 2nd Circuit had not included the at-large members, citing their city council decision. The SCOTUS rejected that part of the 2nd Circuit Board of Estimate decision, suggesting that the city council president should have been included in the earlier decision (though this would have no material effect on the result).

For Hudson:

Ward Voting Weight:  president_weight x (ward_population/city_population) + 2 x (alderman_weight)

Ward Representation Share: ward_voting_weight / city_total_voting_weight
Ward Population Share: ward_population / city_population

The deviation is the relative difference between Representation_Share and Population_Share.

Hudson is inside the safe harbor. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that equal protection is somehow violated.

Are you going to get a federal court to rule that the Banzhaf Power Index was miscalculated, because of the two aldermen from each ward?  Is the Banzhaf Power Index even the proper metric to be used? You will have dueling mathematicians, and the court will give up and decide that the population deviation is de minimis.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 13 queries.