Dearest A,
My random thought for a Wednesday morning: Does the electoral college violate the one person-one vote principle laid out in Reynolds v. Sims?
Admittedly, I haven't read that case since Con Law I, and I took Election Law pass-fail. So I'm no expert. But here's what I'm thinking ...
The number of each state's electors equals the number of seats it has in the House of Representatives plus two (representing two Senators). We here in the District have three electors, equivalent to the number allotted to the smallest states, even though we ain't got no Senators, and no real congressmen (but that's another post for another day).
Since legislative districts are supposed to be allotted according to the one person-one vote principle, the number of electors equivalent to congressmen should be OK. It's the fact that we're using Senators -- which are distributed, Ark-like, by twos -- that makes me think we might be violating the principle. Doesn't this dampen the impact of the most populous states? Doesn't it give less-populous states more power?
There's also the problem of block-voting by state. The people in New York who vote Republican and the people in Texas who vote Democrat essentially aren't getting any votes when it counts. So we end up with this bizarre phenomenon of candidates winning the popular vote, but losing the election.
My final thought for the day: Can a practice mandated by the Constitution be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
There. I just blew my own mind.
Love,
Sammy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment