One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 02:29:18 AM
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, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means  (Read 7177 times)
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


« on: May 27, 2015, 10:25:50 AM »

Honestly, CVAP is the correct answer here. It makes no sense to base redistricting on people who are not allowed to vote (this should also be true for reapportionment purposes).

Regardless, the whole idea of mandated majority-minority districts, regardless of compactness and cohesiveness of communities, has been an utter failure for the US political system.

Switching to CVAP would be a bonanza for the Republican Party, you know.  And even besides that it would be morally suspect: even if immigrants and children cannot yet vote, they are still full human beings deserving of consideration, and are still affected by this policies of those who do vote.  (Mind you I would like to see the franchise expanded to 16-year-olds, green card holders, felons, etc.  That so many residents of America cannot have a say in its governance is the real problem here, and switching to CVAP is the exact wrong tack to take.)

One man, one vote, based on total population, is a moral imperative.  The Roberts court better not engage in a naked partisan power grab and tear it to shreds.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.021 seconds with 13 queries.