Home
It's been surprising to see how underplayed the gerrymandering case has been treated so far by the media. They talk about it, but I think a pretty good argument can be made that this is the most important SCOTUS case in generations, decades or maybe a longer period of time. Gerrymandering is the actual voter fraud and election rigging of our time. It's unfair to folks of both parties, rather than just hurting one. It allows leaders and politicians to choose their voters, rather than allowing voters to choose the leaders.
This case is more important than the ACA decision, or any decision from the court about abortion or birth control or whatever else, because without fairly drawn districts and a one person=one vote system, we live in a fake government with fake leaders. Abortion, ACA, gay rights, and all of the rest of it, needs to be decided and guided by a legislature that's been fairly elected. Illinois can draw districts to ensure blue dominance. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania can draw to ensure Red dominance even when more people vote blue.
Next up, one of these days, needs to be the unfairness of how electoral college votes are afforded. A Wyoming voter has approximately 3.7x the electoral power as a voter in California. California is afforded 1.39 electoral college votes per each of its 1 million occupants, whereby Wyoming is afforded 5.12 electoral votes per 1 million occupants.
California is a 55 electoral vote state. Wyoming is a 3 electoral vote state. California has 67 times as many in state population as Wyoming. That said, if Wyoming receives 3 electoral votes, California ought to be receiving 200 electoral votes if we want to subscribe to a belief that one voter ought to have one vote. Now, before someone tries making the argument that Cali is full of illegals and that much of their population is non-citizens, I'd say fine, base electoral college voting power on the number of citizens in a state. In that case, California would still receive 150-190 electoral college votes for Wyoming's 3.
The same is likely the case in reverse. I'll bet there's some small, blue state that's receiving an inordinate amount of electoral college power versus a larger, redder state. it's not a blue vs. red thing. It's a fairness thing. A vote in Cali ought to equal a vote in Texas ought to equal a vote in Rhode Island. Hopefully, they reconfigure the electoral college votes based upon state populations one of these days. Not sure why this isn't being addressed by the ACLU under the argument of Cali not getting equal protection under the law and constitution.
This case is more important than the ACA decision, or any decision from the court about abortion or birth control or whatever else, because without fairly drawn districts and a one person=one vote system, we live in a fake government with fake leaders. Abortion, ACA, gay rights, and all of the rest of it, needs to be decided and guided by a legislature that's been fairly elected. Illinois can draw districts to ensure blue dominance. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania can draw to ensure Red dominance even when more people vote blue.
Next up, one of these days, needs to be the unfairness of how electoral college votes are afforded. A Wyoming voter has approximately 3.7x the electoral power as a voter in California. California is afforded 1.39 electoral college votes per each of its 1 million occupants, whereby Wyoming is afforded 5.12 electoral votes per 1 million occupants.
California is a 55 electoral vote state. Wyoming is a 3 electoral vote state. California has 67 times as many in state population as Wyoming. That said, if Wyoming receives 3 electoral votes, California ought to be receiving 200 electoral votes if we want to subscribe to a belief that one voter ought to have one vote. Now, before someone tries making the argument that Cali is full of illegals and that much of their population is non-citizens, I'd say fine, base electoral college voting power on the number of citizens in a state. In that case, California would still receive 150-190 electoral college votes for Wyoming's 3.
The same is likely the case in reverse. I'll bet there's some small, blue state that's receiving an inordinate amount of electoral college power versus a larger, redder state. it's not a blue vs. red thing. It's a fairness thing. A vote in Cali ought to equal a vote in Texas ought to equal a vote in Rhode Island. Hopefully, they reconfigure the electoral college votes based upon state populations one of these days. Not sure why this isn't being addressed by the ACLU under the argument of Cali not getting equal protection under the law and constitution.
Good question.