Equal Protection and Voting, Reynolds v. Sims

[The Duke]

This ruling was unsound.  One man one vote does not mean that my state Senate must be apprortioned on population any more than it requires the US Senate be based on population.

[The Duke]

the decision sounds right (I don't know much about the constitutional law) so under this ruling the michigan state senate couldn't be elected by county (1 senator per county).  Although personally I think the districts should be equal at the state level for both houses.

In California we did just fine with Senators by county before Reynolds v. Sims.  Now, we have a legislature that only represents Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the rest of the state gets trampled on.

[The Duke]

the decision sounds right (I don't know much about the constitutional law) so under this ruling the michigan state senate couldn't be elected by county (1 senator per county).  Although personally I think the districts should be equal at the state level for both houses.

In California we did just fine with Senators by county before Reynolds v. Sims.  Now, we have a legislature that only represents Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the rest of the state gets trampled on.

Gee, isn't that too bad that the Senators now represent where the people are, instead of giving some worthless county with almost no people an entire Senator. There's already 900,000 people per Senator, your un-democratic ideas would make it worse. I believe in democracy. You do not. You are an extremist.

As A18 has pointed out, this thread is about constitutionality.  Its interesting though that you imply the American constitution is an un-democratic document.

[The Duke]

the decision sounds right (I don't know much about the constitutional law) so under this ruling the michigan state senate couldn't be elected by county (1 senator per county).  Although personally I think the districts should be equal at the state level for both houses.

In California we did just fine with Senators by county before Reynolds v. Sims.  Now, we have a legislature that only represents Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the rest of the state gets trampled on.

Gee, isn't that too bad that the Senators now represent where the people are, instead of giving some worthless county with almost no people an entire Senator. There's already 900,000 people per Senator, your un-democratic ideas would make it worse. I believe in democracy. You do not. You are an extremist.

As A18 has pointed out, this thread is about constitutionality.  Its interesting though that you imply the American constitution is an un-democratic document.

You were defending the system California used. That is very different from the argument over the constitutionality of this ruling. Of course, that's too complicated for a hack like you to understand.

Am I getting under your skin by any chance?

I believe the old California system is good policy AND Constitutionally valid.  Or is that too complicated for you to understand?