Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al [View all]
Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-all: #1p1vote
https://twitter.com/lessig/status/805426166433742850
The Equal Protection argument against winner take all in the Electoral College
Its perfectly clear that the Attorney General of New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. But based on that complaint, were I a citizen of California, Id ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasnt CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, Id ask my AG the same. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?
https://medium.com/lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.kyqhlyifa
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
36 replies, 6969 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (31)
ReplyReply to this post
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al [View all]
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
OP
Here's a thread about #1p1vote and urgent calls to action to protect our democracy
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#1
Here are numbers to AGs of states we need to call today to demand they enforce the Equal Protection
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#4
Winner take all for state electoral votes is NOT in US constitution. Enforce Equal Protection Clause
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#5
Start making the phone calls. We need just one state AG to take to supreme court, but the more AG's
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#9
Attorney General Phone numbers. Call! We just need one to take to Supreme Court
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#19
The concept is for the Supremes to invalidate winner-take-all across the country to comply with E.P.
JudyM
Dec 2016
#23
That's one way to look at it. Another is that that's right as long as it does not infringe on on
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#25
In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court ruled states don't have the power to recount
Eric J in MN
Dec 2016
#35
Called AG Beemer's office, spoke to H and she put me on with her supervisor, E.
Mc Mike
Dec 2016
#30
I could not gleam from this article how rounding can properly divide a state's EC vote count
Stargleamer
Dec 2016
#27
The Electors Trust provides free and strictly confidential legal support to any Elector who wishes t
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#34
Considering that some red state electors are saying that they won't vote for Trump
Thor_MN
Dec 2016
#36