I find it strange that a lot of people don't realize that unions are a natural outgrowth of laissez-faire capitalism. What I mean is that it would be natural for laborers to band together to garner a better deal for all rather than try to individually negotiate. It's in the laborer's best interests, it's literally the "invisible hand" at work.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
I find it strange that a lot of people don't realize that unions are a natural outgrowth of laissez-faire capitalism. What I mean is that it would be natural for laborers to band together to garner a better deal for all rather than try to individually negotiate. It's in the laborer's best interests, it's literally the "invisible hand" at work.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Santorum's 2012 stump speech about his coal mining grandfather's rugged hands were quite impressive and stirring. He was the only GOP candidate talking about poverty and the working class that year. Now the entire party has jumped on that wave, but it sounds more like pandering than anything specific. I remember even Ed Shultz was impressed with some of Santorum's views. Specially tax cuts for manufacturers.
Yup so how should we restructure the senate if possible?
makes for a better story than the last Paper Mario
Maybe it would help if your own dumbass stopped supporting the idea of cutting taxes for the rich?
Santorum supported the minimum wage back in like 1996 or something. Does he still do so? Would like to hear some reporters ask him about it and see him furiously backpedal.
Silly duck. Anything that inconveniences our benevolent job creators is considered anti-free market.
It really is depressing to think that so many working class people out there have been convinced that CEOs care more about your well being than your fellow workers.
Santorum has always been fairly populist in his messaging, even when it screws him over. That said I'd like to see someone ask it myself, I'd do it but I don't think he'll be coming to NYC.
I dunno. I don't really see much difference in Santorum's messaging than any other Republican's. They always say the same shit about how they're wanting to cut taxes on the rich and deregulate everything so that you, the American people, will benefit.
But he does (or did at one point) support the min. wage so that alone makes him seem like Teddy Roosevelt in comparison to any other conservative.
In other news...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-rand-paul-isis-exists-because-of-hawks-in-the-gop/
Oh yeah, he's definitely gonna pay for that one.
The Republican Party is ultimately just humoring Paul because it needs his supporters in the general to feel they had a shot/have a voice. If Paul were to get the nomination he'd almost surely get a hawkish Republican running as a third party with a veiled message that he's the real Republican in the race. That's why I want Paul to win the nomination the most, but I know if Paul won Iowa or New Hampshire there'd be a full-throated effort to consolidate around someone else to deny him the nomination.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
That's the argument, yes. Nobody's saying the Constitution requires that Senators be elected by relatively equal numbers of voters; that would be an absurd argument, since the Constitution explicitly provides otherwise. But, in the context of elected bodies the membership of which must be apportioned based on population, the argument is that "population" should be "voter population," not "total population." Otherwise, you end up with situations like that in Texas, where a vote in one district is 1.5x as potent as a vote in another district. As I said, the argument is based on a common-sense conception of fairness, which is why I'm so surprised at the vehement opposition to its mere reasonableness. (And, again, I'm not saying that I agree with the challengers that using the voter population is mandated by the Constitution; I recognize it as a valid argument, but I have yet to review the actual arguments set against it. Instead, I see things like ivysaur12 and impostor-APKmetsfan simply dismissing it out of hand. So, rather than discussing legitimate arguments against the challenge, we're left wasting time bickering over whether legitimate arguments need even be made.)
Notice how my quote did not say "sampling is more accurate," but that "it can be." As for your proposed standard of proof--"almost assuredly more accurate"--I think it's simply wrong. It makes more sense to use a method that is merely "probably" more accurate than another. Your arbitrary standard seems designed specifically to avoid answering the questions raised by the present case. Additionally, we know--with certainty--that the current metric is overinclusive and distorts voting power among districts; and we know that the Census Bureau's CVAP data are almost assuredly more accurate, even though, according to the 538 article, it is also overinclusive in that it counts felons ineligible to vote. It goes without saying that the population of voting-age citizens is a far more accurate estimate of the population of eligible voters than is the total population. If you're going to continue denying this, I hope you'll never dignify opinion polls again by discussing them as though they have some value.
Regarding that second paragraph, in fact the 9th Circuit has held that using CVAP would be unconstitutional, and the 5th Circuit has held that it's up to the state to decide whether to use total population or not. I'm not sure what Supreme Court case you're referring to, however.
Any overinclusive method would be subject to the same argument, of course. But that doesn't mean that a method that is less overinclusive than another is not superior to the other. The more overinclusive a method is, the more likely that it would distort voting power substantially. And note that the plaintiffs don't claim total population can never be used; they just claim that, when total population is used in a way that creates these significant distortions in voting populations, that violates the one-person, one-vote rule.
This is what most gives me pause with the plaintiffs' arguments. It isn't obvious, at least, that representation shouldn't be divvied up based on total population as opposed to the potential voting population, or that the Constitution flatly prohibits such division. Maybe it really should be a question left to the political process, like most other aspects of electoral policy. We'll just have to wait and see what comes of this case.
Everything's a conspiracy theory with you. No counties are involved in Evenwel.
EDIT:
For those interested, here are the Jurisdictional Statement of the plaintiffs, Texas' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm, and plaintiffs' Opposition to Texas' motion. (You'll note that the procedural posture of this case is unusual. This didn't go the usual district court-court of appeals-certiorari route. Instead, it was originally heard by a three-judge district court appointed by the Chief Judge of the 5th Circuit, and then directly appealed to SCOTUS.)
Also, the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or Affirm called the Court's attention to a similar case recently filed in Florida by the ACLU. Here's what the ACLU has to say about its own lawsuit:
No doubt the ACLU is blissfully unaware of its role as just another pawn in the conservative takeover of America.
Okay so this is what Santorum said about the min. wage last month:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...port-raising-the-minimum-wage/article/2563127
So the min. wage would be $8.75 by 2018. Well, I'm sold.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...port-raising-the-minimum-wage/article/2563127
So the min. wage would be $8.75 by 2018. Well, I'm sold.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I think i'm having a hard time accepting this case because it seems to suggest that ineligible voters not only don't get a chance to vote, but they even don't get to be represented at all. It's a way of looking at things that suggests government officials shouldn't care about non-citizens whatsoever, even though they're living in the district those politicians are supposed to represent.
When a politician wins an election, they're expected to represent their district as a whole, not just the people that voted specifically for them, not just the people that decided to show up to vote, and not just the people that decided to register to vote. So why are they not expected to represent the people that are ineligible to vote?
When I vote, I'm not voting for me, I'm also voting for my friends who can't find the time to follow politics and vote, I'm voting for my relatives that are too young to vote, I'm voting for my immigrant neighbors. My vote represents my community, and my elected officials represent my community, and you're diluting my community's power by giving it less representation because people don't like the makeup of my community.
In Reynolds v. Sims, the court decided that politicians represent people, not trees and acres, and that people need equal representation if they're going to get equal protection under the law. The 14th amendment doesn't say it gives all citizens equal protection, or all voters equal protection, but all people. People are what matter.
Using the 14th amendment to force states into treating one class of people as being more meaningful to democracy than another class of people seems very antithetical to the 14th amendment. When a state takes away a felon's right to vote, it's apparently constitutional because they're applying that law equally to everyone that broke that law, but why would it be unconstitutional for them to say felons still count as people worth representation as a human being, even though their vote is currently taken away?
When a politician wins an election, they're expected to represent their district as a whole, not just the people that voted specifically for them, not just the people that decided to show up to vote, and not just the people that decided to register to vote. So why are they not expected to represent the people that are ineligible to vote?
When I vote, I'm not voting for me, I'm also voting for my friends who can't find the time to follow politics and vote, I'm voting for my relatives that are too young to vote, I'm voting for my immigrant neighbors. My vote represents my community, and my elected officials represent my community, and you're diluting my community's power by giving it less representation because people don't like the makeup of my community.
In Reynolds v. Sims, the court decided that politicians represent people, not trees and acres, and that people need equal representation if they're going to get equal protection under the law. The 14th amendment doesn't say it gives all citizens equal protection, or all voters equal protection, but all people. People are what matter.
Using the 14th amendment to force states into treating one class of people as being more meaningful to democracy than another class of people seems very antithetical to the 14th amendment. When a state takes away a felon's right to vote, it's apparently constitutional because they're applying that law equally to everyone that broke that law, but why would it be unconstitutional for them to say felons still count as people worth representation as a human being, even though their vote is currently taken away?
Coriolanus
Banned
Collecting sex cards and crafting gear from monster spit and dog livers.
The sad thing is that it is still better than the current setup.
He's going to be the gatekeeper that you have to beat to get in the B-Team debate.
Welp I spent the time to actually do significantly more research on the policy suggestions of everyone currently running than the average American will and can say without a shadow of a doubt that Bernie Sanders is the the dude I agree with the most. In fact, I haven't found a single thing I disagree with him on.
jamesinclair
Banned
Hes breaking the one new candidate a week rule. We already had one this week
Hillary might be the first Democrat to never have the House for her party.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-clinton/
Well this sucks so bad. I just hope we can get a miracle between now and the next 4-8 years.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-clinton/
Well this sucks so bad. I just hope we can get a miracle between now and the next 4-8 years.
BertramCooper
Banned
One has to hope that Clinton will follow through on her pledge to rebuild the party infrastructure.
Democratic turnout will inevitably be a bit down in midterms as long as a Democrat occupies the White House, but there's no excuse for it being as totally fucking lousy as it's been during the Obama presidency.
This strikes me as a weird justification for apportioning voting power on the basis of total population, since what you're making is an argument that people who are not currently eligible to vote, but who aren't incapable of casting a considered vote, deserve political representation. Like, obviously the logic of your argument requires that we just let felons and non-citizens vote, right? It's bizarrely circuitous to try to achieve representation for non-citizens by giving more voting power to citizens who live more-or-less near them, and I really have a hard time seeing how to do otherwise suggests that politicians shouldn't care about non-citizens when apparently not letting non-citizens vote at all isn't sending that message.
But anyway, you're also leaning pretty heavily on voting districts being genuine communities where the interests of resident voters align with the interests of resident non-voters. This is often not the case. It probably works out well enough for many people who are incapable of voting, like children - parents can probably be trusted to vote with their childrens' interests in mind. And we don't have any better options, since nobody wants five year olds voting. But other groups of those ineligible to vote are going to have characteristically different interests than do the eligible voters in the same district.
Like, the basis of the ACLU's prison thing, IIRC, is that prisoners increase the voting power of the community the prison is built in even though the prisoners are from very different communities and aren't part of the community the prison is built in in any meaningful way. Probably you've got a lot of very black prison populations in very white voting districts, to name the most obvious difference. The voters in districts with prisons probably even benefit from "tough on crime" policies that add jobs, etc., to communities surrounding prisons. When you give districts with prisons in them relatively more power by virtue of their ineligible-to-vote prison population, what you're doing is reducing the power of districts elsewhere in the state that actually represent the interests of the prisoners.
I don't know man.
Northeast Republican that doesn't have crazy ties to the religious right and has been out of the spotlight long enough where he isn't mired in Tea Party or Bush mess.
Could have major money supporting him.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
In further support of the idea that The Onion need no longer exist, since reality has caught up:
Actual headline: "Herman Cain mocks Santorum's 'Doomed Presidential Bid'"
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...es-rick-santorum-2016-bid-118376.html?hp=l2_4
Actual headline: "Herman Cain mocks Santorum's 'Doomed Presidential Bid'"
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...es-rick-santorum-2016-bid-118376.html?hp=l2_4
Well, I mean, I think that's a pretty reasonable argument. I don't think there's a great justification for removing the franchise from felons. Obviously the "non-citizens" part is a little trickier, but in practice a lot of those people aren't citizens because of the failure of our immigration laws to handle them effectively. So shouldn't we just make them citizens and them give them representation?
Obviously that's not super practical, but if you want to get into practicalities, this whole discussion is practically inseparable from the political realities, which is, if this case wins, the outcome is going to be a transfer of political power from usually Democratic areas to usually Republican areas, and I think it's clear that that's WHY the case is being brought at this time and in this place. So, you know, I have a cynical hope that it fails regardless of the validity of its arguments, which I think pretty much matches the attitudes of the people bring the case.
In a perfect world, free of practical considerations, I think the main concern I'd have is that we count eligible population consistently across districts and states, rather than adopting a different approach for individual districts. That strikes me as a freedom likely to be abused! So this is really just more argument along the lines of "America has a basically lousy electoral system because we haven't really maintained it in a legal sense, and we should really have more federal control and regulation of the electoral process."
He'll have to go too far to the right to placate the GOP base. They won't trust him as much as someone like Santorum on social issues because he's from the Northeast, so he'll have to go the extra mile to reassure them. Santorum on the other hand doesn't need to go full culture warrior this go around because everyone already knows where he fits on that sliding scale.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Now that Dick Morris has said he expects Republicans to hold onto the Senate in 2016, I feel more confident than ever in saying Democrats will win the Senate in 2016.
In fact it will be a full reversal of the 2014 results, net 9 seats pickup.
In fact it will be a full reversal of the 2014 results, net 9 seats pickup.
Two things: One, a political map of presidential election changes from 1968 to 2012:
Two: This has been making rounds on from my libertarian friends on Facebook re: Bernie's comments in his CNBC interview about deodorant choices and child hunger. Felt like for completion's sake, it deserved to be aired out here:
https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/videos/10152874828929117/
Two: This has been making rounds on from my libertarian friends on Facebook re: Bernie's comments in his CNBC interview about deodorant choices and child hunger. Felt like for completion's sake, it deserved to be aired out here:
https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/videos/10152874828929117/
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Thepotatoman actually has a good point. In fact, Texas' argument is that the courts should let states decide whether to apportion their districts to guarantee "representational equality" (i.e., equality of total population) or "electoral equality" (i.e., equality of voter population):
Texas Motion to Dismiss or Affirm said:
But the question in this case is really a second-order question of equality. The Court won't be deciding which is better between "representational equality" and "electoral equality." Instead, the Court will decide whether one or the other is constitutionally mandated. And a plaintiffs' victory in this case won't necessarily disqualify one or the other approach, as the plaintiffs argue in their Opposition to Texas' Motion:
Evenwel Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or Affirm said:
I don't think the bolded is true. The question in this case is abstract, so we really don't need to think about the practical consequences to answer it. But, even if we do consider the practical consequences, we can do so without taking into account the partisan nature of those consequences. I think--well, thought until yesterday--we can all agree that one person's vote should not carry more weight than another person's (at least with respect to elections to governmental bodies with members apportioned by population). But if we can agree on that principle, then the question in this case seems easy, because we have a clear violation of that rule. It shouldn't matter to us that equalizing voting power benefits Republicans or rural voters (which I'm willing to concede for the sake of argument); what matters is that we're equalizing voting power--that is, we're bringing our system more in line with our principles.
(But let's say that someone thinks that representational equality is also an important principle. As the plaintiffs note, this case is not one where electoral equality must be sacrificed to achieve representational equality. If we hold to both principles--that voters should have equal voting power and that districts should have equal total populations--the outcome here would still favor the plaintiffs, since (as Texas conceded) both ends can be achieved.)
Actually:
Richardson v. Ramirez said:
I might add that the 14th Amendment also clearly recognizes a distinction between "persons" generally and those "persons" who are also "citizens."
Brawndo Addict
Banned
This is just one of those issues where I really don't get the hubbub. Your vote in your district is worth the same as every other voter in that district, it's just that compared to an entirely separate district, your vote is not as influential in your respective elections. Just as a voter in a big city has a relatively less important vote for mayor than a voter in a small city. Should we redraw city and county lines to ensure equal voting share too? I would be more sympathetic if the complaint was not taking issue with the one sizing metric that is explicitly condoned by the US constitution, or if it was being applied generally and not specifically.
What this issue should really be about is the drawing of districts and not the metric we use to determine their size. After all, there's probably a dozen different metrics you could look at to determine their size (actual voting population in an election, likely voters, registered voters, eligible voters, total population, total citizen population, total citizen population over 18, etc), and each could be manipulated to cause the same inherent problem of systemic favoritism through biased mapping.
This is more of a sophistic argument because it assumes agreement or consensus over the meaning of population where there is none; there is no unified democratic understanding of the term, although the constitution explicitly supports the total population variant. There are a variety of political processes and election methods which one might favor, all of which are more complicated than the seemingly pure and unassailable mantra of "one person, one vote".
What this issue should really be about is the drawing of districts and not the metric we use to determine their size. After all, there's probably a dozen different metrics you could look at to determine their size (actual voting population in an election, likely voters, registered voters, eligible voters, total population, total citizen population, total citizen population over 18, etc), and each could be manipulated to cause the same inherent problem of systemic favoritism through biased mapping.
This is more of a sophistic argument because it assumes agreement or consensus over the meaning of population where there is none; there is no unified democratic understanding of the term, although the constitution explicitly supports the total population variant. There are a variety of political processes and election methods which one might favor, all of which are more complicated than the seemingly pure and unassailable mantra of "one person, one vote".
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Lol ron johnson posted a blog post defending his attacks on the "insidious" lego movie
http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/pu...-news?ID=32943183-c443-48ac-84de-11ee725a3c94
Can't wait for Russ to demolish this guy. We have the most embarrassing legislators in the world
Poor poor (millionare) job creators
Are rich business owners the thinnest skinned people on earth? I don't know if its a subconscious understanding they are the villains or just ignorance.
Aren't their penthouses, 5 cars, private jets enough for them to put up with being a villain in a fictional movie? (that by the way is based on a capitalist companies products, made by capitalists in hollywood and promotes said capitalist product and consumerism?)
http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/pu...-news?ID=32943183-c443-48ac-84de-11ee725a3c94
Can't wait for Russ to demolish this guy. We have the most embarrassing legislators in the world
Poor poor (millionare) job creators
Are rich business owners the thinnest skinned people on earth? I don't know if its a subconscious understanding they are the villains or just ignorance.
Aren't their penthouses, 5 cars, private jets enough for them to put up with being a villain in a fictional movie? (that by the way is based on a capitalist companies products, made by capitalists in hollywood and promotes said capitalist product and consumerism?)
Poodlestrike
Banned
The Lego movie is such a poor example of demonizing business owners, to boot. It's about
the son's relationship with his father, who he views as being distant because of his business,
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Not at all. It assumes agreement or consensus that each vote should carry equal weight. That says nothing about how "population" is defined.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
It absolutely does in:
If population was not "defined" in that sentence in a meaningful way, that is, to the particular metrics being discussed, than it could be removed for it would have no meaning or importance to the sentence. But to do so would reduce your parenthetical to redundancy, "with respect to elections to governmental bodies with members apportioned", and so itself would be removable. This would leave only:
This is a concealed false dilemma. It contrasts an ideal that no one would want to oppose with an unstated outcome in which we may justifiably not adhere to it. It presumes that this ideal is the first axiom from which we work and that no others can or should operate in parallel. But if that were true wherefore the Senate? Wherefore cities and counties? Then comes the Constitutional axioms, which merely proves that the OPOV mantra does not reign supreme in the first place, so why make the implication?
The guy who did the Infamous Obama "Hope" did an interview. Its very interesting.
^^This guy is so right with these two statements. We talk about this all the time in here.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/interviews/a35288/shepard-fairey-street-art-obama-hope-poster/
^^This guy is so right with these two statements. We talk about this all the time in here.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/interviews/a35288/shepard-fairey-street-art-obama-hope-poster/
Ben Carson will never replace the motherfuckin' CAIN TRAIN!
Alright. This story did it, I have moved over into "Cain is a plant/dem operative" territory.
I thought nothing would convince me, I was wrong.
EDIT:
Oh wait Cain isn't already running. Irony level minus 10,000
Revisit this if he throws his hat in. Bonus points if Santorum then takes the text and does a find and replace back toCain.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominichold...to-let-court-officials-opt?utm_term=.fsNzxXAk
Between Texas not passing its own SCOTUS-workaround law and now North Carolina avoiding a court fight here, I'll admit that I'm pretty surprised at how things are unfolding in this arena. At this point, it looks like Alabama could be the state most likely to provide resistance to a SCOTUS ruling.
---
And I really wish Cain would jump in, just for old time's sake. Add Bachmann while we're at it!
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Eh, I find this kind of talk too inherently demeaning. It fosters the idea of an intellectually and morally superior class of people who are being dragged down by the masses who are the cause of our political problems. The people least likely to vote aren't the people blaming Obama for everything. Those people vote. The people who don't vote are the young adults who think they are above the system.
Just turn his own words around and you see the problem. "There's a lot of finger pointing and very little action and very little research into the dynamics that created the situation that they're unhappy about". Okay, so where's the action and research into why the masses are so ignorant, so disengaged and apathetic? Why are we finger pointing at the end result and not the changes that brought it about? Blame schools for not teaching, not kids for not knowing (I mean this not literally, as obviously there are also reasons why schools reached this state).
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Nonsense. By, "governmental bodies with members apportioned by population," I didn't mean "governmental bodies with members apportioned by [total population]" or "by [voter population]." I'm not begging the question with that statement; I'm limiting the scope of my comment. So, the Senate is apportioned by statehood, not population, so it is excluded from the class of governmental bodies that my comment was directed to. But no state legislature can be apportioned by anything other than population, so they all fall within the class to which the comment is directed. And these are obviously two distinct questions, since we know that state legislatures must be apportioned by population, but do not yet know whether that means "total population," "voter population," or either as chosen by a state. The latter question is the one raised by Evenwel.
You ask about cities and counties, which I assume is an allusion to your earlier point that voters at the city and county level have different levels of electoral power. But that's not a comparable situation, because we're then talking about different governments governing different populations.
EDIT: If it's too much of a distraction, simply omit my limitation. We can affirm, at least for the sake of argument, that each person's vote with respect to any elected governmental body should be equal to each other person's vote.
Coriolanus
Banned
Pretty much. He's looking at a symptom and thinking "well, this is the cause".
Black Mamba
Member
I don't agree because this is an impossibility. There is always by some measure that one vote will "carry more weight" than another person's. It's unavoidable.
But the plaintiffs can't prove this in Texas because they don't have the stats to back up the claim. At least not reliably. That's my issue.
I'd like to state I'm not theoretically against the "eligible voter method," only the notion that the SCOTUS can tell states they cannot use total population even if there is a discrepancy, here.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
The common parlance of saying "at least" is that of a minimum that can go up in size. As in, you at least agree that OPOV should apply in this kind of situation if not more. Perhaps you meant to say something like "at most" or "insofar as it applies to". But if that was the intention, then a parenthetical was a mistake as the limitation was central to your idea and not an addendum or clarification (as a clarification should change comprehension not meaning). You either meant to speak generally or specifically, you can't have both. I will assume you meant OPOV applies only in a specific scenario.
Yes, you're limiting it such that your conclusion is the only possible outcome. You're creating the illusion of choice and then acting shocked that people don't accept the setup.
To say you're only looking at the general method of apportionment (by political body versus by population), as opposed to the execution of the method ignores the entire question of whether OPOV is a generally applicable ideal or a specific one.
Is OPOV supposed to apply before or after the apportionment method is chosen? If before then why do we eschew it in regards to the Senate? Any answer to that presupposes the existence of superior or countervailing ideals. If after, then OPOV can only kick in because of the particular method we have chosen. So there has to be something about apportionment by population that makes the mantra "one person, one vote" applicable in that scenario and not outweighed by alternative ideals or principles.
The problem is that the definition of population is intrinsic to this question. A body that is apportioned based on the number of voters is different than a body that is apportioned based on the number of total people. You can't say the meaning of population doesn't matter in the equation if it fundamentally changes the composition.
But this is the entire crux of the issue in the first place! If OPOV is supposed to be generally applicable, then we can't just ignore or exclude situations which contradict it in order to maintain a facade of generality. An exception disproves the rule.
Ignoring the "at least" issue from before, the fact that state legislatures must be population based doesn't tell us anything about the issue of the Senate. If the only thing that matters is whether the maxim is being upheld, then the apportionment of the Senate fails on a first pass. A vote for Senator in a big state is worth less than in small state. But the maxim is not the only thing that matters, which is the entire point.
As to the rest, we should simply look at the text.
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3:
Overridden by the 14th Amendment Section 2:
I don't see how any honest textual or historical inquiry could say that there is latent ambiguity regarding whether person means an eligible voter. I can see the argument for ambiguity regarding citizenship and persons. But American Indians were not granted citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, so I think the most reasonable reading is that the issue of non-citizenship turns on taxation. The language clearly excludes Indians not taxed, it doesn't include Indians taxed as an exception. The presumption was that the non-citizen Indians would be counted unless they were not taxed.
But as you said: "The issue is not the different ways we can decide to apportion, it's whether the "One Person, One Vote" maxim is being upheld." If different governments and different populations changes the applicability of the maxim, then so too would differing definitions of population impact its applicability, for they too would result in different governments and different populations. And if you are conceding that OPOV doesn't apply as a general maxim in every case and that it depends on the specifics of the scenario, then why the attempt to position it as if it was?
Now I don't even understand. You started off by complaining about how this reading of your post would not accurately reflect your intention and now you're saying it doesn't matter anyway. But that would just leave us where we were before this tangent with my original post as it was (with a slight reworking of your sentence)
RustyNails
Member
Dennis Hastert lol
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked