"One person, one vote," an idea that is pretty much toast
At the Berkeley-Albany Bar Association luncheon recently, we had a
choice between three different desserts -- cheese cake, chocolate mousse
or both. I voted for both. We also had a presenter who spoke on the
subject of voting access and gerrymandering in America. The speaker
made some very interesting points.
"The democratic concept of 'One person, one vote' has actually never
been applied to American voters on the federal level. Ever. Perhaps it
applies when we vote for members of the House of Representatives,
but as for our vote for who will represent us in the Senate? Not so
much -- because voters in rural states such as Wyoming have far more
voting power than voters in urban states such as California." Or words to
that effect.
So from the very beginning, our founding fathers made it impossible for
"One person, one vote" to actually ever happen. A New York voter, both
then and now, only has 78% of the voting power of an Alabama voter due to Senate restrictions.
Interesting for sure.
"And Republicans are better at gerrymandering than Democrats. In the
2012 elections, Dems got 51% of the vote but only got 39% of the
representation." Then he talked about something called "the efficiency
gap" -- which involved higher math so he sort of lost me. "In
Wisconsin, the voter efficiency gap was 10 to 13 percent, guaranteeing
Republican wins even in a Democratic state. Our system today is
profoundly under-representative."
However, we can't just blame it on the Repubs. "If the Dems were the
ones doing the gerrymandering, the Republicans' love of it would go the
way of their hatred of the deficit." Out the window in a New York
minute.
"And what about Citizens United?" I asked myself. "That ruling gives a
small handful of rich people a hecka lot more votes than the rest of us
poor schmucks." Citizens United should be illegal for that reason
alone. And apparently the US Senate should be illegal too -- from the
perspective of keeping America a democratic country. But if you want
America to be an oligarchy, then it's hardly worth rocking the boat
about any of this stuff.
But even though the speaker didn't have time to discuss the effects of
voter identification laws, the New Jim Crow laws or electronic vote-hacking, his message was still crystal clear. The idea of one person
and one vote in America? That ship has pretty much sailed.
So what can we do to save the American ship of state from being run
aground by vote-pirates? Make sure we are the ones who count the
votes? Use only paper ballots? Don't let dead people vote? Make voting a legal requirement if you
want to get a driver's license or whatever? Reconfigure the US Senate to represent all of us? Go after the oligarchs with
torches and pitch forks?
There are all kinds of ways to make sure that Americans actually get
"One person, one vote" -- and we can do this. But the only real way to
never ever allow "One person, one vote" to become an actual reality in America is
to stay silent and do nothing.
_________________________________
Stop Wall Street and War Street from destroying our world. And while you're at it, please buy my books. https://www.amazon.com/Jane-Stillwater/e/B00IW6O1RM
