This story is unavailable.

Many bad arguments in your response here, but in particular you are missing the entire point of the Supreme Court’s “one person one vote” jurisprudence. People vote for the President, not counties, not districts, not “trees and acres” as the court put it. The number of counties is irrelevant, only the total number of people in those counties matters. Getting rid of WTA allocation via court decision would be a legal expedient because it would avoid the need for a constitutional amendment, which is politically infeasible. But the goal is to implement the ideal of “one person one vote” by getting as close as possible to the result of the popular vote.

There is no principled argument against using the result of the popular vote as the determining factor in electing the President. All the tortured “states rights” and “state sovereignty” and “community of interest” arguments are smokescreens for the denial of clear, fair and equal voting rights. States have sovereignty by definition and they already exercise that sovereignty at the local, state and federal legislative levels constantly. WTA for presidential elections does not enlarge or protect a state’s sovereignty, but it does deny all citizens a fair allocation of electoral power.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.