One-Man-One-Vote Violates Our Federalist Principles

One of the fears our Framers had when ratifying the Constitution was a judicial oligarchy. The pseudonymous author, Brutus of the famed “Anti-Federalist” papers wrote extensively about the potential abuses of judges who would use precedent and the general welfare clause to impose their will upon the American people. He envisioned a gradual increase of the powers of the federal government at the expense of the states. He believed our federalist system would be imperiled by a gang of unelected and unaccountable black-robed thugs. And boy, was he prescient.

Brutus had the Warren Court in mind when he wrote his prophecies. This gang of self-righteous pricks was filled with a bunch of activist judges. They set a precedent that fundamentally changed the political structure within states. To obtain that objective, they had to institute a one-man-one-vote electoral system. First came Baker v. Carr then Reynolds v. Sims. Because of judicial activism, long established coalitions that put a check on majority interest were destroyed. Today, we have factions within respective states that want to secede because regions no longer have adequate representation in their General Assemblies.

When liberals think of one-man-one-vote, they point fingers at the old South and the suppression of the black vote. They automatically assume that blacks live in urban areas; it’s been my experience that there are as many blacks in rural areas as there are in big cities. If their model is a raced based dichotomy then their hypothesis is based on a fallacy.

California is a case and point. As liberal as the Golden State is declared to be, they had many chances prior to the Supreme Court’s allocation cases to establish one-man-one-vote in the state senate. California is notorious for voting referendums. The years 1928, 1948, 1960 and 1962 one-man-one-vote was overwhelmingly turned down for the well established and proven one-county-one-vote doctrine. Even liberal bastions, such as San Francisco, wanted to put a check on massive urban areas such as Los Angeles. And even a faction within Los Angeles voted no on one-man-one-vote.

Some would ask, why would voters in Los Angeles vote for a one-county-one-vote doctrine? I can answer that from my own personal experience. I live in a libtard city within a libtard county. We have no conservatives, let alone Republicans, serving on the city council or the county commission. I do not want this idiocy spreading throughout the rest of the state. I want to isolate - dare I say quarantine - this stupidity within the confines of Mecklenburg County. So it makes perfect sense to me why a faction within Los Angeles voted for malapportionment.

Let’s face the facts, one-man-one-vote is a direct repudiation of the republic for which we stand. Having judicial oligarchs dictate congressional districts violates the federalist principles that makes us Americans.

Source:

http://www2.pitt.edu/~woon/papers/asw_apsa99.pdf