12 Comments

Brian
November 12th, 2012 | 9:44 am

Very few people realize how destructive the “one man, one vote” SC decision was.

I’ll pause here to allow those given to shrieking hysterical accusations of racism to get it out of their system.

Thanks to OMOV, states couldn’t apportion their senate seats the same way the feds do. The justification for this was asinine and absurd, of course, as is so much liberal jurisprudence.

If CA, for example, had a state senate based on county boundaries, as it always did before, that body would be quite conservative, and that state might still have some life in it, rather than being the shriveled up decaying corpse it is now.

What a shame.

Joseph Marshall
November 12th, 2012 | 12:49 pm

Take a look at the strip of red below Memphis and along the Mississippi River. It’s known among musicians as “the delta” and its one of the major birthplaces of the Blues.

As matters now stand in Mississippi and Arkansas, do you seriously think that anybody in that red strip is likely to be able to have any impact on political life, national, state, or local, if we abandon OMOV?

I don’t.

So why not go further and apply Grover Norquist’s loyalty oath as a test to determine who can vote at all, and simply bar all liberals from political life?

Really.

Ben
November 12th, 2012 | 1:06 pm

One acre, one vote!

Brian
November 12th, 2012 | 1:49 pm

Mr. Marshall: Yeah, you’re totally right. That region of the country was an economic hellhole prior to the late 1960s, but thanks to the Warren Court saving it from oblivion it is now a wonderfully prosperous region exemplifying the glories of progressive, liberal policies!

Be serious, man.

Nearly all power in the nation now is vested based purely on population. That has absolutely nothing to do with how things worked for most of the first two centuries of the country.

Patrick Cain
November 12th, 2012 | 2:01 pm

“But as States are a collection of individual men which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition. Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter. ”
– Alexander Hamilton

Dan
November 12th, 2012 | 2:12 pm

If rocks and trees were given the vote, then geographical illustrations of political allegiance like the one above would mean something. Absent that, I’m not sure what the point of this is.

Carl Eric Scott
November 12th, 2012 | 3:29 pm

I think the maps that show shades of purple color us more accurately.

James Stephens
November 14th, 2012 | 3:07 pm

What is the source of the map?

Northern Observer
November 14th, 2012 | 3:34 pm

Ah the famous county map… what false flattery it provides to comfort the righteous among us. Why don’t you come minister in the cities where we need you?

Kate Pitrone
November 14th, 2012 | 4:12 pm

I can’t afford to sell my house right now. Maybe when the market is better.

Charles
November 14th, 2012 | 10:30 pm

Why the switch in 2000 from right-blue, left-red to GOP-red, DNC-blue?

Robert Cheeks
November 15th, 2012 | 7:02 am

Ten acres, one vote, and you still need I.D.!