one voter, one vote. What's the big deal?

In the current issue of Newsweek I've read that the late Morris B. Abram spent 14 years fighting for the principle "one voter, one vote" which was established 1963 by the US. Supreme Court. I'd like to know what this is about. Could you buy more votes prior to 1963? Or is this about racism, like black people didn't get any votes. Of course if that is the meaning I don't understand the "one voter" part because technically someone who doesn't have a vote isn't a voter. Please enlighten me about (yet another piece of) the dark (not so long ago) past of the country that claims to be the fighter for freedom and human rights all over the globe. MSB

---- USA: We have to enforce trade embargos against South Africa. They are evil racists! They have apartheid!

SA: What's the big deal? You have apartheid, too.

USA: WE have segregation. That is a completely different concept that is to the benefit of BOTH, blacks and whites.

It may have to do with the way districts are drawn. In the past, rural areas with few voters comprised a higher number of the districts. Urban areas had a lot more people, but the district was drawn at the same size.

The effect was that each voter in a rural area, who were white, had more impact per vote than each voter in an urban area, where voters tended to be black. This discriminated against black voters, and the Supreme Court made some ruling to change that.

Separately, now districts are redrawn to ensure that there are blacks represented in office. This is called gerrymandering. One negative effect of this has been to dilute black power, because although they elect blacks, they don't elect a high number because the minority voters are lumped into few districts.

Those in power have a lot of influence on how districts are drawn. The state representatives (not U.S. reps in Congress) of California have much influence over the drawing of the districts, and the next election will be important in determing how many Democrats and Republicans California sends to Washington, and this, in turn, could determine which party holds the majority in Washington.

If you want to go around saying the USA is racist, get a fucking education. Blacks are in poverty in Africa thanks to dictators, ethnic wars, and socialized economies.

You suck.

=============== Grachman, The "Fancypants Grachman"

On 25 Mar 2000 17:30:40 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

Thank you but I HAVE an education. You might have noticed the little word "past" in my post. And what I wanted to point out with my little dialog is not that the USA is racist (all countries are, because racism is human) but that they are sometimes too focused on policing other countries instead of fixing their own first. MSB

---- They couldn't conquer the world. Now they're out to corrupt our kids! Dirty Drawings from Deutschland...Next on

On 25 Mar 2000 17:30:40 GMT, [email] (Grachman Olajuwon) wrote:

D00D u sp3lt it r0ng. itz "U SUK."

Glenn Olson wrote:

LMAO@u l4m3rz!

MSB wrote:

This has to do with the system used in presidential elections in the US. Properly, the president isn't elected by the people. He (someday, she) is elected by the members of the electoral college. Each state has a certain number of members in this body; the exact number per state is determined by that state's population. The votes in each state are totalled separately. The candidate who gets the most votes from a state gets *all* the electoral votes from that state. Thus, in any election, there are two vote totals: popular (one vote per voter) and electoral (a specified numer of votes per state).

It is theoretically possible to win the election, by electoral vote, but lose the popular vote. It's never happened so far, but it's possible. That's why presidential candidates spend so much time campaigning in the larger states: they have a greater number of electoral votes.

This system applies to the presidential election only. Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) are elected by popular vote. For local elections within the 50 states, the rules vary according to that state's constitution.

Clear?

Peace Kevin

On 25 Mar 2000 13:37:12 GMT, [email] (KTrick45) wrote:

I'm pretty sure it has happened. Late 1800's, but I can't remember the exact year or date.

Kyle, he who means well The Shane Andrews of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Kyle said:

In 1876 (as I recall) Rutherford B. Hayes, Republican, lost the popular vote (by a hair) to Democrat Samuel Tilden, but won the electoral vote after the (Republican-controlled) Congress decided to award all the disputed electoral votes to him. Samuel Tilden did not challenge this, and thus a Constitutional crisis was avoided. To be fair to the Republicans, a lot of the voting in the Southern states was already tainted by (pro-Democrat) Ku Klux Klan terrorism.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On 25 Mar 2000 13:37:12 GMT, [email] (KTrick45) wrote:

What exactly has Morris B. Abram changed? What was the system before 1963? MSB

---- They couldn't conquer the world. Now they're out to corrupt our kids! Dirty Drawings from Deutschland...Next on