Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If a state makes the weight of 4CDs population (0+ / 0-)

    less than 1/2 of the other CDs with the express intent of doing so and for the express purpose of reducing the weight of the 4CDs populations votes in the overall national election for President, is that not enough of a dilution for an e/p claim?  I believe it is more than enough.

    The differnece, as diarest says, is that these schemes are not writing on a blank slate.  They are changing existing law.  The intent and effect of that change is the only issue.

    Now, what is the difference bt reverse-winner-take-all and reverse-winner-take-almost-all?  For constitutional purposes there should be none.  The change causes a dilution (or burdens) the fundamental voting right of the 4 CDs population that is different only in degree and not kind in the 2.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site