Six votes per person

In the most recent election in Port Chester, NY, a federal judge allowed each local voter to cast up to 6 votes. This was a system put into place to help Latino candidates: this is a New York City suburb with a 50% Latino population (though only 25% of the local voters) that has never elected a Latino trustee. With the new system, the election results did change: a Peruvian immigrant came in fourth in the voting and will become a trustee (and the first black trustee was also elected).

It remains to be seen if this method will spread to other suburbs. There are many suburban municipalities that now have large minority populations and likely a good number that also have not elected many minority local officials.

Some relevant material from The Washington Post:

“The 2010 Census is expected to show large increases in Latino populations and lawsuits alleging discrimination are likely to increase, said Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group.

“The country’s been changing in a lot of places, with minority growth in exurbs and commuter cities, and there will be a realization that those minorities can’t elect candidates of choice,” Richie said.

That will leave minority groups, federal prosecutors and municipalities looking for ways to keep elections from violating the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities’ constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

In Port Chester, trustees had been elected two at a time every two years, with conventional at-large voting. Most voters were white, and there were always six white trustees even though Hispanics made up half the population and nearly a quarter of the voters. Judge Stephen Robinson concluded the system violated U.S. law by diluting Hispanics’ votes.”

An innovative method – and perhaps one that will continue to be in the courts in the years to come.

Financial prospects dim, lottery sales up

While the financial markets may be tense, lottery sales in Illinois are expected to go up for the seventh consecutive year. Besides consistent marketing campaigns, another dynamic may be at play:

“Lottery’s a dollar — it’s like buying a lipstick during a recession versus a whole new outfit,” said Jodie Winnett, acting superintendent.”

So it seems like a small outlay – just a dollar or two – but the odds of winning a major prize are astronomically low. Keep adding up those dollars or two, multiple across thousands of people, and the lottery has rising sales.

Lawmakers don’t like cameras in their face

Interesting look at how many federal legislators don’t like having cameras stuck in their face. Doing this often prompts angry reactions – that are then spread across the Internet and media and may require apologies from the legislators.

A response that one lawmaker has found useful – simply film them back:

“Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) said he has the answer to aggressive guerilla-style video crews, and he’s shared it with his colleagues. He films them right back using his iPhone’s Qik program, which uploads the video directly to his website.

“I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had bloggers approach me on the street to interview me and my response is I’m always happy to visit with them; however, I always pull out my Qik camera, and I film them filming me,” he said.

“And then I notice the tone changes of the person filming me — they become much less aggressive and more polite and conversational. I’ve actually had bloggers with cameras turn 180 degrees away and leave. I used to have it on my hip, and say, ‘C’mon, it’s OK, c’mon. I’m a Texan.’ ”

The rules of officiating: consistency and openness

Two rules regarding officiating I have witnessed in recent days: consistency and openness.

The other night, I provoked a 5-minute argument in the middle of a pick-up basketball game. The other team claimed I was consistently setting moving screens. (Ironically, before the game both teams were discussing how both the Celtics and Lakers set moving screens that are not called all the time.) But they were unwilling to call it as a foul. One of the key rules of pick-up basketball: players call their own fouls.

Perhaps another rule: be somewhat consistent in calling your own fouls. Don’t just complain about things you don’t like – you can call the foul and no one will argue. For many professional athletes, they also desire this consistency from officials. They may disagree about the validity of certain judgment calls (and most sports have judgment calls to be made on almost every play) but if they know both teams are playing by the same rules, they can handle it. Even the appearance of impartiality is enough to get players, fans, and coaches up in arms. Coaches like Phil Jackson have been recognized as masters of playing this game – criticize the officials in hopes of drawing better calls for your team in future contests.

Additionally, officials should be able to explain and be held accountable for their calls. This was not the case in the past, particularly in baseball. If you read baseball history, umpires often acted like dictators who saw no need to every offer any apology. But technology and league reviews now in most sports have reduced these traits. Scrutiny of every call is easy – plenty of replays, media outlets, and websites to discuss every decision. Witness the lauded efforts of umpire Jim Joyce who sincerely apologized to the Detroit Tigers pitcher whose perfect game was ruined by a bad call. Leagues are now willing to penalize officials based on bad calls. It doesn’t change the outcome of the game but it can bring a small measure of piece of mind.

Thus, the anger even a day later from the US Men’s National Team after a disallowed goal from their match against Slovenia. The issues:

1. A perceived lack of consistency, particularly in the second half. Players being mugged in the box are ignored. Phantom fouls are called.

2. The referee has not explained his call. What exactly did he see? Does he now see it as a bad call?

FIFA seems ready to admit the poor call as they are looking to remove the official from any further World Cup matches. I’m sure this will be of little solace to the US team but it does indicate we live in a new world of officiating.

Best home improvement payoff: a little less junk

A look at the returns sellers can expect from certain home improvements. The best: decluttering. The worst: a family room addition. And deeper in the article: “All this is anathema to retailers like Home Depot, Lowe’s, Bed, Bath & Beyond, Williams-Sonoma and Lumber Liquidators. They all benefit from the myth that pumping money into your house pays off later on the auction block.”

One soccer match = World War II battle?

Great headline from The Sun regarding England’s 0-0 draw with Algeria earlier today in the World Cup: “Never in the field of World Cup conflict has so little been offered by so few to so many (with apologies to Winston Churchill).”

Apparently, it is the 70th anniversary of Churchill’s famous speech during the Battle of Britain. For many fans around the world, soccer/football might truly be on the scale of wars between nations. For many Americans, even with all-out coverage this year from ESPN/ABC, it is merely a diversion.

Odds not good for IL and CA finances

From CNNMoney.com:

“How ugly are the state budget problems?

Nasty enough that traders are betting that two big U.S. states, California and Illinois, are just as apt to default on their bonds as Portugal — and almost as likely as Iraq…

The going rates in the CDS market say traders believe there is an equal chance — about 1-in-4 — that California, Illinois, Portgual or Iraq will default on their obligations within five years.”

David Brooks defending the liberal arts

David Brooks takes a run at defending the liberal arts. Perhaps not an easy task in this financial milieu. According to Brooks, the benefits: improved reading and writing, increased knowledge of the language of emotion, providing a wealth of analogies, and a better understanding of “The Big Shaggy.” Seems like a typical defense…though I question the use of the term “The Big Shaggy.”