PDA

View Full Version : One Man, one vote?



Captdon
06-15-2018, 07:37 PM
From 538.com:

Most elections in the U.S. are what we call “first past the post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting)” — that is, you vote for one person, and the candidate with the most votes wins, even if it’s not with a majority. Not so with ranked-choice voting, also called instant-runoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) or preferential voting (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/explainer-what-is-preferential-voting). In races with more than two candidates,1 (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/maine-is-trying-out-a-new-way-to-run-elections-but-will-it-survive-the-night/#fn-1)Maine’s new ballots ask voters to rank candidates from their first to last choice. If no candidate receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated, and his or her supporters are redistributed among the remaining candidates based on whom they ranked second. If still no candidate has a majority, the candidate with the next-fewest first-place votes is eliminated, and so on until someone wins 50 percent plus one vote.


Whatever happened to SCOTUS saying one man, one vote. I remember an election when this ruling came out and we voted for all legislature candidates. It was one vote for someone until we used all our votes.

Peter1469
06-15-2018, 08:25 PM
The Constitution leaves voting issues to the States.

HawkTheSlayer
06-16-2018, 08:36 AM
Absolute stupidity.
Making things more complicated than they have to be.
Common core voting.

Captdon
06-16-2018, 10:29 AM
The Constitution leaves voting issues to the States.

No. SCOTUS requires the states to have House ans Senate districts in state legislatures to be as equal on population as possible.

From wikipedia
In the United States, the "one person, one vote" principle was invoked in a series of cases in the 1960s. Applying the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court majority opinion in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures needed to redistrict in order to have congressional districts with roughly equal represented populations. In addition, the court ruled that, unlike the United States Congress, both houses of state legislatures needed to have representation based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses