One Person One Vote: Unless you are a Democrat!

[Peter_Puget]

Stolen from the web. Where are the protests by liberals over this. There is none because they really do not care about one-person one vote but rather they care about keeping themselves in power! Come on Gore let's see some action!

 

For many years the Supreme Court has imposed a so-called "one person, one vote" requirement on most United States election apportionments. While "one person, one vote" has a nice sound to it, the results of this slogan are often perverse because not every person can vote. Legal and illegal aliens, many convicted felons (in many states) and children are the most obvious examples. One consequence of the "one person, one vote" rule is that voters in districts that also include a disproportionate number of people not eligible to vote enjoy disproportionate voting power. Indeed, the "one person, one vote" rule in principle allows for creation of standard sized election districts containing a tiny number of eligible voters.

 

A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies states that there are nearly 7 million illegal aliens and 12 million other non-citizens counted in the 2000 Census and that as a result of the interplay of the "one person one vote" rule and recent immigration four states lost a congressional seat in 2000 because of illegal aliens and an additional five states lost a seat because of the presence of lawful non-citizens.

 

The "one person, one vote" rule has been paraphrased as expressing the fundamental principle that nobody's vote should count less than anybody else's just because of where the voter happens to live. But the "one person, one vote" rule itself is creating exactly that problem - in general and now in with respect to House apportionment. The simple fact is that a vote from a district in which few ineligible people reside will count less than a vote from a district that includes a lot of people ineligible to vote - just because of where the voters happen to live.

 

The Supreme Court should refine its "one person, one vote" rule to allow apportioning agencies (usually state legislatures) to create districts which include equal numbers of persons eligible to vote. That is, the correct rule should be "one voter, one vote" - not the increasingly perverse and internally inconsistent "one person, one vote" aberration.

 

PP

 

[whirlwind]

we should just count mexico's population, add it to cal's and call it good, then let em vote, hopefuly chech gets and they legalize weed

Edited October 20, 2003 by wirlwind

[mattp]

???????? I don't see your connection here, PP.

[Peter_Puget]

Whirlwind -

 

My favorite sayiong when I wimp on a hard move is "I need more emotional content"

 

[chelle]

So what's your point Peter? That the voting districts are determined including illegal aliens and legal non-citizens and this is skewing results? I find that hard to believe.

[whirlwind]

Peter_Puget said:

Whirlwind -

 

My favorite sayiong when I wimp on a hard move is "I need more emotional content"

"i said emotional content not anger"

 

[Peter_Puget]

Whirlwind -

 

You Da Man!

[catbirdseat]

Does this skew the results worse than Gerrymandering?

[whirlwind]

i think i get what hes sayin..

the more people in a district the more the power the vote from that district so if the district counts thousands more in it than are eligable to vote, the vote is worth more than another district with the same amount of eligble voters

[whirlwind]

Peter_Puget said:

Whirlwind -

 

You Da Man!

nah Bruce was and is the man

[mattp]

Even if PP showed how some liberals have in the past manipulated the supreme court to maintain that rule because states with high alien populations tend to vote liberal, isn't he ingoring the fact that the republicans have much more actively shown themselves willing to manipulate election results -- at least in the last couple of years? Hell, recent stories about the new "state-of-the-art" computer voting machines suggest they may even be seeking to be able to program election results.

[whirlwind]

i dont know every one wants a bigger piece of the pie.

[Peter_Puget]

mattp said:

Even if PP showed how some liberals have in the past manipulated the supreme court to maintain that rule because states with high alien populations tend to vote liberal, isn't he ingoring the fact that the republicans have much more actively shown themselves willing to manipulate election results -- at least in the last couple of years?

 

Mattp -

 

The point has nothing to do with gerrymandering or the Supreme court being manipulated.

 

PP

[mattp]

What exactly WAS your point here, PP?

[scott_harpell]

wirlwind said:

we should just count mexico's population, add it to cal's and call it good, then let em vote, hopefuly chech gets and they legalize weed

 

i dotn want their weed. lets assimilate B.C.

[Peter_Puget]

mattp said:

What exactly WAS your point here, PP?

 

Ok here is an admittedly extreme example which should clarify the point:

 

First the size of the House is fixed and the distribution between states is adjusted if needed after each census. See this link for a summary of the process. To the extent illegals are included in the census and to the extent they are disproportionally located in certain areas the votes of the “voters” there count more than regions with lower illegal populations. Imagine if you will a district with only one voter but a boatload of illegals. This voter would have complete control over one representative. This is of course a nonsense example serving to illustrate a real problem.

 

 

PP

[mattp]

OK but you still haven't made the connection here. I assume you are saying that the states with more illegal aliens are more often than not states which vote democratic? And I guess you think that democratic politicians have been aware of this for years and years and they are counting on it to remain that way, so they have been steadily manipulating the Supreme Court over this? Or is there some other conspiracy at work here?

[Dan_Harris]

FWIW, a little while back here in wacky CA, our outgoing Gov signed legislation to allow illegal immigrants the right to obtain a drivers license. We also have the motor votor law where you register to vote at the DMV. To register all you need are a social security card and answer the question, "are you a resident of the U.S.?" Potential for voter fraud here? You tell me. Hipanics generally vote democratic. Well except in the recall. The Dems pushed this through at a time when thay have the majority but see the tide changing.

[Peter_Puget]

States which either are democratic or turning democratic but I would also note that it isn't the states but rather the districts that matter. Since this is a quantifiable phenomenon, I think that anyone squawking about voter rights would be concerned. The Democrats as experts in voting thus I can only assume that since they benefit most from this their silence speaks volumes about their true interests.

[Jim]

Peter_Puget said:

States which either are democratic or turning democratic but I would also note that it isn't the states but rather the districts that matter.

 

WTF??