"One person, one vote," an idea that is pretty much toast
    
 At the Berkeley-Albany Bar Association luncheon recently, we had a 
choice between three different desserts -- cheese cake, chocolate mousse
 or both.  I voted for both.  We also had a presenter who spoke on the 
subject of voting access and gerrymandering in America.  The speaker 
made some very interesting points.
    
 "The democratic concept of 'One person, one vote' has actually never 
been applied to American voters on the federal level.  Ever.  Perhaps it
 applies when we vote for members of the House of Representatives,
 but as for our vote for who will represent us in the Senate?  Not so 
much -- because voters in rural states such as Wyoming have far more 
voting power than voters in urban states such as California."  Or words to
 that effect.  
    
 So from the very beginning, our founding fathers made it impossible for
 "One person, one vote" to actually ever happen.  A New York voter, both
 then and now, only has 78% of the voting power of an Alabama voter due to Senate restrictions.  
Interesting for sure.
    
 "And Republicans are better at gerrymandering than Democrats.  In the 
2012 elections, Dems got 51% of the vote but only got 39% of the 
representation."  Then he talked about something called "the efficiency 
gap" -- which involved higher math so he sort of lost me.  "In 
Wisconsin, the voter efficiency gap was 10 to 13 percent, guaranteeing 
Republican wins even in a Democratic state.  Our system today is 
profoundly under-representative."
    
 However, we can't just blame it on the Repubs.  "If the Dems were the 
ones doing the gerrymandering, the Republicans' love of it would go the 
way of their hatred of the deficit."  Out the window in a New York 
minute.
    
 "And what about Citizens United?" I asked myself.  "That ruling gives a
 small handful of rich people a hecka lot more votes than the rest of us
 poor schmucks."  Citizens United should be illegal for that reason 
alone.  And apparently the US Senate should be illegal too -- from the 
perspective of keeping America a democratic country.  But if you want 
America to be an oligarchy, then it's hardly worth rocking the boat 
about any of this stuff.
    
 But even though the speaker didn't have time to discuss the effects of 
voter identification laws, the New Jim Crow laws or electronic vote-hacking, his message was still crystal clear.  The idea of one person 
and one vote in America?  That ship has pretty much sailed.
    
 There are all kinds of ways to make sure that Americans actually get 
"One person, one vote" -- and we can do this.  But the only real way to 
never ever allow "One person, one vote" to become an actual reality in America is 
to stay silent and do nothing.
_________________________________
Stop Wall Street and War Street from destroying our world. And while you're at it, please buy my books. https://www.amazon.com/Jane-Stillwater/e/B00IW6O1RM