nwprophoto wrote:
The issue as I see it is handful of high density counties controlling the state and thus the EC.
A lot of polarizing legislation that has lead to separatist movements like California's "State
of Jefferson" and this year eastern Oregon has started a movement to join Idaho.
Also read also there in NY a lot of resentment towards NYC controlling the state politics.

In your example you point out how low density areas also want control. Isn't that exactly why Eastern Oregon wants to join Idaho and upstate NY resents NYC?   What we saw in the last 3 years 11 months has been a surge of polarizing legislation and executive fiat, more so than in the past, as evident by the phenomenal turnout for the elections.  Turn about may be fair play, but it isn't effective if you want to find a balance or consensus. 

Rural Pennsylvania resents the Philly metro region.  But if a Pennsylvania kid wants a good paying job, the chances of finding one in the private sector in many Pennsylvania counties isn't real good.  Same with upstate New York. Businesses want to locate where there is infrastructure, customers and a labor supply. 

The places that are the economic powerhouses benefit the entire state or region but the people further away don't see it in higher wages and they feel left behind.  Meanwhile, the economic engine areas are contributing in paying for their roads and bridges.

But let us not gloss over what the point is here.  The disproven comment that 5 or 6 cities could control American politics, and your examples, are indications of people having unrealistic attitudes towards "representative government."  For one office we have a manipulated voting system.  That is not true for city council, mayors, governors, state legislatures, Congress, county governments, etc..  So wanting to succeed, complaining about 5 or 6 cities, is people that are expressing frustration that their vote doesn't count more than someone else's vote.   

nwprophoto wrote:
I highly doubt the behavioral bell curve takes much notice of politics.
More prevalent because its easier to get away with in a rural situation?

Just wanted to add that people in the area I live peacefully coexist with
large number of critters that would totally freak out a city person.
Being aware of what is in your yard before opening your door is good practice here.

I don't see any widespread environmental abuse though I am sure some exists.

Sometimes the behavior bell curve is unrelated to politics.  Sometimes it is.  Politics enable or encourage or suppress expressions. 

How would you see the environmental abuses?  A timber sale that is a clearcut or a shelterwood cut looks horrible and therefore raise ire.  But in some instances a shelterwood or clear cut is exactly what is need for forest regeneration.  Or wildlife habitat.  Some species will not regenerate without intense fires and they evolved so that an entire stand of even age pines may be incinerated, but the intense heat is what triggers the fire resistant cones to eventually open and release their seeds. 

If you are driving past farm fields, how do you know if they are abusing pesticides or using farming methods that hurt the environment?  You can see the piles of trash in the woods.  They last for decades.  The city people dump in the city too.  The city can put up cameras to catch people.  Some rural people put up cameras now too. (Interesting aside- I knew an excavator on a job where there was an old farm trash pile in the woods of the site they were working on.  The contractor asked him to clean the pile up, and put it in a dumpster.  He crossed the limits of disturbance to do this.  The Conservation District did an inspection and saw they crossed the limits of disturbance and fined the guys thousands of dollars.  Made no sense.  Since I have to deal with regulatory and governmental agencies often, I get what people complain about.)

The biggest source of pollution in agricultural areas and suburban areas is nonpoint source pollution. 

Nonpoint source pollution can include: Excess fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas. Oil, grease and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and energy production. Sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and eroding streambanks.

I previously said that people don't care about the environment if it becomes inconvenient to care about the environment and the suburban lawn is an environmental disaster.  We used to have clouds of fire flies (lighting bugs) when I was a kid.  They are rare now.  Lightning bugs are a good thing.  The grubs are voracious predators, but the same insecticide that kills the Japanese Beetle grub kills lightning bug grubs.  I would prefer to do away with my own lawn but I am required by city ordnance to maintain a lawn and I must maintain it in a condition that isn't even optimum for turf grasses.  I do encourage clover and other beneficial plants and I tolerate "weeds" that won't draw a fine ( I have been threatened for including Daisies in a garden), but I am a micro dot in a sea of chemically modified landscape covered with chemically dependent worthless turf.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Sometimes the behavior bell curve is unrelated to politics.  Sometimes it is.  Politics enable or encourage or suppress expressions. 

How would you see the environmental abuses? sense.  Since I have to deal with regulatory and governmental agencies often, I get what people complain about.)

The state I live in and I assume every other state regulates agriculture, mining, forestry etc.
Sure everyone would agree that there is an axiom those rules are going to get violated.
Greed, accidents, ignorance or whatever.

It sounds like your a lot more knowledgeable on them than me.
I have no idea what the compliance is on those issues. What is your evaluation?

Can tell you I spend my fair share of time dealing with mandated noxious weed issues
and not mandated but recommended forestry management practices on my property.

Certainly no expert on behavioral science but from my limited understanding any time you
compare two groups you can expect some skewing on the bell curves but most the
time is not that large. That is why I am questioning that there is significant differences
between urban/suburban/rural  or liberal/moderate/conservative.
What do you think?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
"If a vote is a vote, then every vote is equal"

If one starts with a false premise one ends up with a false conclusion.
No where in the Constitution , or any of the supporting documents and discussion or in any Federal law is the principle of " one man one vote" ever discussed. IN fact at the time of the adoption of the Constitution very few people could actually vote so population didn't matter and even for the adoption of the Constitution it took the number of STATES , not popular vote to determine adoption. The Federal government gets it authority to govern for the STATES delegation of their authority to govern. The Federal Government is a creation of the States, not individual citizens

nwprophoto wrote:
The state I live in and I assume every other state regulates agriculture, mining, forestry etc.
Sure everyone would agree that there is an axiom those rules are going to get violated.
Greed, accidents, ignorance or whatever.

It sounds like your a lot more knowledgeable on them than me.
I have no idea what the compliance is on those issues. What is your evaluation?

Can tell you I spend my fair share of time dealing with mandated noxious weed issues
and not mandated but recommended forestry management practices on my property.

Nonpoint source pollution is difficult to enforce compliance.  And expensive.  Nor is it popular to fine farmers out of business.  There is ample availability in farming communities to get information on best management practices for a range of farming practices.  Getting them implemented is a different matter.  Much like a significant portion of the population refuses to even consider the human impact on climate.  Back in the 70s I read an article where a farmer was complaining that A cow poop in the stream didn't make a difference to anything.  (But will you drink the water straight out of stream 25 yards downstream from a herd of dairy cows wallowing in the mud and water?  Because the truth is we aren't dealing with the poop of one 1200 lb cow with a nutrient rich diet, one day.)  In order to solve compliance issues regarding non point source pollution, streams would need constant monitoring at points upstream and downstream of sources of run-off contributed pollution.  Then there has to be a reliable mechanism to discern the source.  Did the (i.e.) fecal matter in the water increase because of this farmer between these two monitoring stations refused to regulate his livestock or took some action or was there a residential septic system that overflowed and that overflow ran down a roadside ditch, past the farm and into the stream.  If there is a farm on one side of the river and another on the side of the stream or river, which one contributed the pollution?

Government has provided fund for doing things to reduce the pollution.  Of course that is socialism, so there is that problem and that the government is telling people that, yeah, there are actually limits on your freedom when it comes to damaging a resource for the rest of the population.  I am aware of projects where the government paid to fence off streams from livestock, with an adequate buffer zone of vegetation to absorb nutrients.  If you have a farm and you exclude a 50' buffer on either side of a stream from agricultural uses, then you sacrifice an acre of income potential for ever 435 feet of buffer, plus the acreage within the stream banks.  An acre here, an acre there and you start talking about real acreage.  Though I will point out that the bull during the Obama Administration where the right was claiming that farmers had to fence off mud puddles and dry drainage ditches was bull.  There are already exception in place for wetlands that are disturbed by agriculture.  Still a balance needs to be struck because there are still a lot of holsteins that spend hot days in streams and farmers that plow to the stream bank. Which means there isn't just a nutrient problem but also a temperature problem.

The aquatic life evolved according to local conditions.  In this part of the country, the default natural state is forest.  If you leave a field in this area unmoved for a few years, you will have small trees and bushes higher than the herbaceous vegetation.  These are the best places to go birding because it provides the nesting habitat for a wide range of species.  Generally, however, fields get mowed before they get "too bad," and from the perspective of the farmer, I would tell them to mow despite the cost and the wildlife benefits, because the regulatory issues they will encounter with many municipalities could prevent them from returning fallow fields to agriculture, despite the fact that the municipalities that enforce such actions are in violation of state law.  Because my area's natural state is forest, streams are naturally shaded by trees.  The shade reduces water temperatures, which is important because oxygen levels are impacted by water temperature, as well as decaying plant life such as algae, which grows more because of nutrition injected into the system by runoff.  So everyone of these upland actions impacts the fishing.  The trees really suck for fly fishermen, but without them, there will be no trout and fewer bass. 

So what do you do?  You pay farmers to make changes and they still won't accept them.  You don't need an ag degree to farm.  Education is getting expensive and God forbid we do something to make education more available.  You depend on people learning and wanting to increase their profits by efficiencies, but equipment is expensive and, across the whole market, let's say dairy farmers make a change that increase their milk product by 3% a year.  Now you have 3% more product in a saturated market so the price goes down per 100 lbs..  Seems counter productive.  But if you don't do it, your price still goes down.

It is much easier in life to just ignore that part that says, "promote the general Welfare," and go with individual rights, until it is your individual rights that are trampled.  Not many of us aren't downhill from someone else.

nwprophoto wrote:
Certainly no expert on behavioral science but from my limited understanding any time you
compare two groups you can expect some skewing on the bell curves but most the
time is not that large. That is why I am questioning that there is significant differences
between urban/suburban/rural  or liberal/moderate/conservative.
What do you think?

We don't all have the same programming.  Use whatever dichotomies you want to use.  Some people are generous.  Some people are selfish.  Does it matter what political party we belong to?  The party doesn't create the disparity but there is the bird of a feather rule.  We mix thorough out the population but we congregate with those of like mind.

nwprophoto wrote:

Sorry. I just assumed with with your history of diatribes, comments like the "popular vote",
"overweighting in the Electoral College"  and "acres of cows deciding the fate of the country"
that you wanted a different political process that disenfranchised farmers and other
Trump apparatchiks.

Well, you assumed incorrectly, cherry-picking and distorting my response. I assume you consider disenfranchising urban areas normal and just.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
If one starts with a false premise one ends up with a false conclusion.
No where in the Constitution , or any of the supporting documents and discussion or in any Federal law is the principle of " one man one vote" ever discussed. IN fact at the time of the adoption of the Constitution very few people could actually vote so population didn't matter and even for the adoption of the Constitution it took the number of STATES , not popular vote to determine adoption. The Federal government gets it authority to govern for the STATES delegation of their authority to govern. The Federal Government is a creation of the States, not individual citizens

Is this an attempt to justify your desire to return to a time when only a privileged group could vote?

You are right Bob.  If one starts with a false premise one ends up with a false conclusion.  That is why you are wrong.  Regardless of how many people couldn't vote back then, those that did vote had one vote per person.  As different groups of people were recognized to have the same rights as others, they have had one vote per person.  When throwing around the Constitution, especially in a tone that rings of originalism, you really ought to have some concept of the times and what words meant and norms were.   Should the Constitution have  spelled out a process that had existed long before the Constitution and was common place and understood by the populace?  Do you think that one person having one vote is a 20th century phenomena?  No village in the colonies, or native people group ever called to gather their people and discussed a situation, then asking for the opinions of the people who indicated a yea or nea to the possible courses of actions?  Were the people so foolish that the guy that raised both hands got two votes?

I fail to see how the ratification process of the Constitution, which was in fact a departure from the current form of government at the time, to a new form government, our form of government, has any bearing on the discussion.  But feel free to support your claim. 

The conversation, in theory, has been about the electoral college and in such an instance there is not a one vote per person policy as has been widely acknowledged by participants because the EC changes the field.  But in apportionment to representation the Constitution called out, "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;"  And two senators per state regardless of size.  The subsequent amendments still strive to produce a representative ratio with the same caveat of proportionality.  The fact that you want to go back to a time that we don't live in, to make a point regarding what happens now, is mind numbing.  Especially considering that what we are living in now is the brick and stone that has been built from the foundation of the Constitution and no sane person would build a house and then dwell only at the foundation.  Bounded within the state, each voter within the state certainly had a Constitutional mandate that their vote was equal to anyone else's vote in regards to obtaining representation.  And in comparison, that one vote within a state is equal to the voting ability of any other voter within any other state in that they may vote for one person, one time, for each election cycle, for each office.

We have endured months of bombast about the mythological dead people voting, and ballots filled out by people that don't exist.  And you want to tell me, after every court case and investigation failed to uncover any kind of wide spread voter fraud, that we do not live in a country of one vote per person as the ideal and the norm?  If your premise is correct that one vote per person is not a matter of history for our free nation, then I am surprised that you did not link a source indicating which class or group of people had two or more votes while delineating who would have just one in any of the several states.

From the Declaration of Independence on, the laws of this country have laid out that the people are able to possess equality with their neighbors.  For 231 years there have been battles of the will and battles of war to protect the equality of the citizens.  I understand that you, as a Republican have yet to concede that any other person's right to express their will at the ballot box should not be subject to determinations made by others.  If we are to have equality, then how is any system other than one person, one vote rational?  It is a sorry thing that you feel a turn of phrase must be mandated to appear verbatim in the Constitution before you will recognize that "all men are created equal."

Prior to 1962, attacks in federal courts on the drawing of boundaries for congressional and legislative election districts or the apportionment of seats to previously existing units ran afoul of the “political question” doctrine. Baker v. Carr, however, reinterpreted the doctrine to a considerable degree and opened the federal courts to voter complaints founded on unequally populated voting districts. Wesberry v. Sanders found that Article I, § 2, of the Constitution required that, in the election of Members of the House of Representatives, districts were to be made up of substantially equal numbers of persons. In six decisions handed down on June 15, 1964, the Court required the alteration of the election districts for practically all the legislative bodies in the United States.

“We hold that, as a basic constitutional standard, the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. Simply stated, an individual’s right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with the votes of citizens living in other parts of the State.” What was required was that each state “make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable. We realize that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio … istricting

One man, one vote (or one person, one vote) expresses the principle that individuals should have equal representation in voting. This slogan is used by advocates of political equality to refer to such electoral reforms as universal suffrage, proportional representation, and the elimination of plural voting, malapportionment, or gerrymandering.

The British trade unionist George Howell used the phrase "one man, one vote" in political pamphlets in 1880.[1] During the 20th-century period of decolonisation and the struggles for national sovereignty, from the late 1940s onwards, this phrase became widely used in developing countries where majority populations sought to gain political power in proportion to their numbers.[citation needed] The slogan was notably used by the anti-apartheid movement during the 1980s, which sought to end white minority rule in South Africa.[2][3][4]

In the United States, the "one person, one vote" principle was invoked in a series of cases by the Warren Court in the 1960s, during the height of related civil rights activities.[5][6][7][8][a] Applying the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the United States Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses.[10][11] Some had an upper house based on an equal number of representatives to be elected from each county, which gave undue political power to rural counties. Many states had neglected to redistrict for decades during the 20th century, even as population increased in urban, industrialized areas. In addition, the court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) that states must also draw federal congressional districts containing roughly equal represented populations.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote

-
Federal court rulings are law.  Please tell me again how "No where in the Constitution , or any of the supporting documents and discussion or in any Federal law is the principle of " one man one vote" ever discussed." And your limits to the applicable records and documents are appalling since you seem to be unaware that our Constitution was built of far more than the possible documents which you put forth as eluding to proof of the realty of something that you cannot disprove by simply saying it was never mentioned by such and such at a point in time.

After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures. The trend in these states was to do away with the freehold requirement in favor of granting all taxpaying, free, adult males the right to vote. Since few men escaped paying taxes of some sort, suffrage (the right to vote) expanded in these states. Vermont's constitution went even further in 1777 when it became the first state to grant universal manhood suffrage (i.e., all adult males could vote). Some states also abolished religious tests for voting. It was in New Jersey that an apparently accidental phrase in the new state constitution permitted women to vote in substantial numbers for the first time in American history.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ … transcript

Read this:
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremeco … nolds.html

"The Federal Government is a creation of the States, not individual citizens."  Really?  So, 55 guys in Philadelphia didn't write the document in secret?  The states signed onto the provisions as they were laid out and abandoned the Articles of Confederation in doing so.  The states also agreed to the provisions laid out in the Constitution which gave the Federal Government sovereignty over the states in regards to all matter in which the Federal Government claimed jurisdiction.  State legislatures ratified the Constitution, but how did those legislatures come to be populated with representatives? Maybe some people voted? The federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were widely read and published.  Would such a thing have been required if the Constitution was above the people and the people were irrelevant? 

Your final statement may have credibility as a rallying cry for people that exclaim state's rights to be sovereign over the Federal Government, but it is really no more than a chicken and the egg argument.  It is of little importance because we have what we have, regardless of the amount of evolution that was required to bring us here.  Without significant worldwide catastrophe, we are not going back to the lifestyles of the days surrounding the ratification and implementation of the Constitution, with all its benefits and faults.  Nor is it a moral imperative to return to days where freedom was curtailed for some because of skin color or gender or for a lack of wealth.

I suggest that you do some reading outside of your right wing bubble.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
We don't all have the same programming.

Lacking any real data and based on my personal knowledge going with text book answer
for now and say it is a matter of opportunity rather than propensity. Might change my mind.
Will see.

For some fun going to challenge you with John B. Calhoun's classic study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Is this an attempt to justify your desire to return to a time when only a privileged group could vote?.

And one privileged group in particular, slave-owning plantation states, in return for ratifying the Constitution, demanded SLAVES be counted, at a compromise discount, of course, towards representation in the Congress, thereby solidifying rural (southern) artificial advantage at the expense of other (northern) interests in the Electoral College, yet another compromise to secure ratification. Thanks to the counting of slaves, the rural states have wielded power out of proportion to their population from the inception of the Republic, the deleterious effects of which are with us today.

Edited to add:

US Population 1790: ~4,000,000

Slave population: ~ 700,000

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
If one starts with a false premise one ends up with a false conclusion.
No where in the Constitution , or any of the supporting documents and discussion or in any Federal law is the principle of " one man one vote" ever discussed. IN fact at the time of the adoption of the Constitution very few people could actually vote so population didn't matter and even for the adoption of the Constitution it took the number of STATES , not popular vote to determine adoption. The Federal government gets it authority to govern for the STATES delegation of their authority to govern. The Federal Government is a creation of the States, not individual citizens

Is this an attempt to justify your desire to return to a time when only a privileged group could vote?

You are right Bob.  If one starts with a false premise one ends up with a false conclusion.  That is why you are wrong.  Regardless of how many people couldn't vote back then, those that did vote had one vote per person.  As different groups of people were recognized to have the same rights as others, they have had one vote per person.  When throwing around the Constitution, especially in a tone that rings of originalism, you really ought to have some concept of the times and what words meant and norms were.   Should the Constitution have  spelled out a process that had existed long before the Constitution and was common place and understood by the populace?  Do you think that one person having one vote is a 20th century phenomena?  No village in the colonies, or native people group ever called to gather their people and discussed a situation, then asking for the opinions of the people who indicated a yea or nea to the possible courses of actions?  Were the people so foolish that the guy that raised both hands got two votes?

I fail to see how the ratification process of the Constitution, which was in fact a departure from the current form of government at the time, to a new form government, our form of government, has any bearing on the discussion.  But feel free to support your claim. 

The conversation, in theory, has been about the electoral college and in such an instance there is not a one vote per person policy as has been widely acknowledged by participants because the EC changes the field.  But in apportionment to representation the Constitution called out, "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;"  And two senators per state regardless of size.  The subsequent amendments still strive to produce a representative ratio with the same caveat of proportionality.  The fact that you want to go back to a time that we don't live in, to make a point regarding what happens now, is mind numbing.  Especially considering that what we are living in now is the brick and stone that has been built from the foundation of the Constitution and no sane person would build a house and then dwell only at the foundation.  Bounded within the state, each voter within the state certainly had a Constitutional mandate that their vote was equal to anyone else's vote in regards to obtaining representation.  And in comparison, that one vote within a state is equal to the voting ability of any other voter within any other state in that they may vote for one person, one time, for each election cycle, for each office.

We have endured months of bombast about the mythological dead people voting, and ballots filled out by people that don't exist.  And you want to tell me, after every court case and investigation failed to uncover any kind of wide spread voter fraud, that we do not live in a country of one vote per person as the ideal and the norm?  If your premise is correct that one vote per person is not a matter of history for our free nation, then I am surprised that you did not link a source indicating which class or group of people had two or more votes while delineating who would have just one in any of the several states.

From the Declaration of Independence on, the laws of this country have laid out that the people are able to possess equality with their neighbors.  For 231 years there have been battles of the will and battles of war to protect the equality of the citizens.  I understand that you, as a Republican have yet to concede that any other person's right to express their will at the ballot box should not be subject to determinations made by others.  If we are to have equality, then how is any system other than one person, one vote rational?  It is a sorry thing that you feel a turn of phrase must be mandated to appear verbatim in the Constitution before you will recognize that "all men are created equal."

Prior to 1962, attacks in federal courts on the drawing of boundaries for congressional and legislative election districts or the apportionment of seats to previously existing units ran afoul of the “political question” doctrine. Baker v. Carr, however, reinterpreted the doctrine to a considerable degree and opened the federal courts to voter complaints founded on unequally populated voting districts. Wesberry v. Sanders found that Article I, § 2, of the Constitution required that, in the election of Members of the House of Representatives, districts were to be made up of substantially equal numbers of persons. In six decisions handed down on June 15, 1964, the Court required the alteration of the election districts for practically all the legislative bodies in the United States.

“We hold that, as a basic constitutional standard, the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. Simply stated, an individual’s right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with the votes of citizens living in other parts of the State.” What was required was that each state “make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable. We realize that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio … istricting

One man, one vote (or one person, one vote) expresses the principle that individuals should have equal representation in voting. This slogan is used by advocates of political equality to refer to such electoral reforms as universal suffrage, proportional representation, and the elimination of plural voting, malapportionment, or gerrymandering.

The British trade unionist George Howell used the phrase "one man, one vote" in political pamphlets in 1880.[1] During the 20th-century period of decolonisation and the struggles for national sovereignty, from the late 1940s onwards, this phrase became widely used in developing countries where majority populations sought to gain political power in proportion to their numbers.[citation needed] The slogan was notably used by the anti-apartheid movement during the 1980s, which sought to end white minority rule in South Africa.[2][3][4]

In the United States, the "one person, one vote" principle was invoked in a series of cases by the Warren Court in the 1960s, during the height of related civil rights activities.[5][6][7][8][a] Applying the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court majority opinion (5–4) led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures, unlike the United States Congress, needed to have representation in both houses that was based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses.[10][11] Some had an upper house based on an equal number of representatives to be elected from each county, which gave undue political power to rural counties. Many states had neglected to redistrict for decades during the 20th century, even as population increased in urban, industrialized areas. In addition, the court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) that states must also draw federal congressional districts containing roughly equal represented populations.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote

-
Federal court rulings are law.  Please tell me again how "No where in the Constitution , or any of the supporting documents and discussion or in any Federal law is the principle of " one man one vote" ever discussed." And your limits to the applicable records and documents are appalling since you seem to be unaware that our Constitution was built of far more than the possible documents which you put forth as eluding to proof of the realty of something that you cannot disprove by simply saying it was never mentioned by such and such at a point in time.


Read this:
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremeco … nolds.html

"The Federal Government is a creation of the States, not individual citizens."  Really?  So, 55 guys in Philadelphia didn't write the document in secret?  The states signed onto the provisions as they were laid out and abandoned the Articles of Confederation in doing so.  The states also agreed to the provisions laid out in the Constitution which gave the Federal Government sovereignty over the states in regards to all matter in which the Federal Government claimed jurisdiction.  State legislatures ratified the Constitution, but how did those legislatures come to be populated with representatives? Maybe some people voted? The federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were widely read and published.  Would such a thing have been required if the Constitution was above the people and the people were irrelevant? 

Your final statement may have credibility as a rallying cry for people that exclaim state's rights to be sovereign over the Federal Government, but it is really no more than a chicken and the egg argument.  It is of little importance because we have what we have, regardless of the amount of evolution that was required to bring us here.  Without significant worldwide catastrophe, we are not going back to the lifestyles of the days surrounding the ratification and implementation of the Constitution, with all its benefits and faults.  Nor is it a moral imperative to return to days where freedom was curtailed for some because of skin color or gender or for a lack of wealth.

I suggest that you do some reading outside of your right wing bubble.

You are mixing apples and oranges.
the concept of one man one vote was in reference to election of representatives not election of Presidents and the core element of a Representative Republic, as opposed to a pure democracy is protection of the rights of the minority. That was the point in 1776, it is the point today.
You , and others here, have no understanding of any political viewpoint other than your own and the leap to the slavery issue illustrates that and is a straw man argument.
Without the 3/5 Compromise we never would have had a country and ironically the pro slave South was arguing for the recognition of the humanity of their property and the perpetuation of slavery while the non slave states were arguing for a way to limit slavery. You and other of like thinking want to argue both sides whichever suits your advantage. Classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and why the Cancel culture of the left will never be able to get anything done, as demonstrated by the French Revolution and how the leader were all introduced to Mr Guillotine's invention.

LnN Studio wrote:
Without the 3/5 Compromise we never would have had a country and ironically the pro slave South was arguing for the recognition of the humanity of their property and the perpetuation of slavery while the non slave states were arguing for a way to limit slavery. You and other of like thinking want to argue both sides whichever suits your advantage. Classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and why the Cancel culture of the left will never be able to get anything done, as demonstrated by the French Revolution and how the leader were all introduced to Mr Guillotine's invention.

'...the pro slave South was arguing for the recognition of the humanity of their property..."

The utter absurdity of this argument is only exceeded by the mindset required to make it.

LnN Studio wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges.
the concept of one man one vote was in reference to election of representatives not election of Presidents and the core element of a Representative Republic, as opposed to a pure democracy is protection of the rights of the minority. That was the point in 1776, it is the point today.
You , and others here, have no understanding of any political viewpoint other than your own and the leap to the slavery issue illustrates that and is a straw man argument.
Without the 3/5 Compromise we never would have had a country and ironically the pro slave South was arguing for the recognition of the humanity of their property and the perpetuation of slavery while the non slave states were arguing for a way to limit slavery. You and other of like thinking want to argue both sides whichever suits your advantage. Classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and why the Cancel culture of the left will never be able to get anything done, as demonstrated by the French Revolution and how the leader were all introduced to Mr Guillotine's invention.

I'm mixing oranges and apples?  I didn't discuss any subjects in my reply that you didn't bring into the argument.  No one has denied that we have a republic.  That doesn't mean we do not have a democracy.  A democracy does not have to be a system of government that is without representatives. 

democracy (noun): a system of government by the whole population OR all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives: capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world.

No Bob, the one person, the one vote rule isn't simply in deference to the representatives. It is still one vote person for the representatives and the president.  One person gets one vote no matter how you slice it, for any office on the ballot.  It is clear you don't understand the concept of the electoral college or apportionment.   The equalizer is applied to the state, not the voter.   

I don't consider the slavery issue a deflection, though it wasn't brought up in your previous post or my answer.  It isn't a straw man argument and there is no reason for someone else not to bring it up, because you brought up the argument regarding the situation at the time of the constitution.  The reality that the 3/5ths compromise was part of giving states with smaller WHITE populations more power in exchange for greater taxation, while at the time denying representation to the people in the slave portion of the population.  The slave states got representation for 3 WHITE people for every 5 slaves that were counted.  The slaves got zero representation.  Even though the south had extra representation in Congress, when the eligible people went to vote, they still had one vote per person.  The members of congress still had one vote per person.  It just wasn't one representative in Georgia for 30,000 white folks like it was in Massachusetts. 

This isn't even politics.  This is plain old fact and mathematics.  Once again, Bob, I ask that you show me anywhere in our history that one man got to raise both arms and other one didn't.

It is speculation that we wouldn't have had a country without the 3/5ths compromise.  Fact is, we already had a country under the Articles of Confederation and that system would have continued if the current Constitution hadn't materialized, or we would have had something different.  Maybe we wouldn't have come up with a solution until 1795 or 1800.  Maybe we would have remained a confederation.  Maybe we would have been like Europe with a bunch of states waging war against each other for 200 years.  Without the 3/5ths compromise, maybe we wouldn't have had a civil war because the slave population could have risen up and cleared the south of white men.   What we MAY HAVE become is irrelevant to the discussion, and that is one of  the dodges you are making, because the rest of us are talking about what WE ARE! 

"... ironically the pro slave South was arguing for the recognition of the humanity of their property and the perpetuation of slavery while the non slave states were arguing for a way to limit slavery."  I certainly agree that the south was looking out for their economic interests which was best served in their minds by the perpetuation of slavery, and the north was aware of the moral dilemma that slavery represented, I would love to hear some development of the argument that the 3/5ths comprise had anything to do with "humanizing" the slaves.  They were property.  The were beaten, murdered and raped.  They had dogs tear them apart to teach the others the cost of disobeying.  They were kept in line with the whip.  They were treated as animals and they were considered animals and I invite you to link writings from the south of the time period that said otherwise. 

property |ˈpräpərdē|
noun (plural properties)
1 a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively: she wanted Oliver and his property out of her house | the stolen property was not recovered.

• Law: the right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership: rights of property.

Seriously, Bob?  You want to talk about granting humanity to people, to humans, that were property, by law, when they were created by the same God that formed you from spit and dirt?  Who the fuck was it that decided to take away their humanity by making them slaves in the first place!!!?

If a human trafficker allowed his prisoners to be counted in the census, which probably happens when there is a captive in a home somewhere, does that humanize the people that are prisoners?  I mean, I am just trying to wrap my head around this immoral perspective that you put forth.

You have expressed some outrage in other posts that people are unduly considered racists.  Why does it bother you if someone calls you a racist when you feel that you aren't a racist but put forth racist arguments?  Maybe, because it is belittling and dehumanizing?  Which means that somewhere inside you, you know that the American institution of slavery/Jim Crow/ even today's suppression of voting rights, is the wrong side of history.  You are worried about being belittled and dehumanized because of a label, but you applaud the lie that slaves were being humanized by being considered 3/5th of a person?  Just what proportion of a person is lost because they are called a racist?  A tenth?  A fifth?  You still get to vote.  You have all the freedoms allowed by law and you are butt hurt for the implication that you are a racist, but untold numbers of slaves and their descendants, deprived of parts or all of their liberty because of their race, were counted as 3/5ths of a person and treated like animals while under slavery?!   THEY WEREN'T HUMANIZING THEM, THEY WERE EXPLOITING THEM.

Isn't the cancel culture really the right?  The right has for a century and half, since the end of the civil war, attempted to portray the south as fighting for state rights in a noble cause that had nothing to do with slavery, even though they wrote it into their constitutions and succession documents.  The right wants to cancel the immorality and evil of holding slaves and all that came with it and all the immorality of their current stance regarding race.  If the right wasn't canceling that, then why are there so many monuments to white men and so few depicting the true life of slaves? The right wants to cancel all implication that racism is inherently un-American. I know that not every slave holder was a monster that beat their slaves bloody on a whim.  But I know that there were people who were cruel and inhumane.  And no matter how kind some lady might have been to her slave, SHE STILL POSSESSED A HUMAN BEING AS PROPERTY AND THAT IS INHUMAN.

Your problem, and your lie is that the left wants to cancel the gallantry of the south.  There is no doubt that the south fought heroically for their values.  That doesn't make their values just.  We have no obligation to look back on history and agree that those people were morally right, whenever and regarding whatever- and how can we when have two diametrically opposing sides?  We may have an obligation to study history per the facts and the facts include that the morality of every time before ours, and every time yet to come, will have a different moral code.  But that does not mean that we need to accept the times in the 1930s, the 1860s, the 1400s, 100 BC as morally correct just because that is the way they lived and we certainly don't have to consider a lie that reconstructs a false history, as fact.

Many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the ideal of liberty that was so central to the American Revolution, but, because they were committed to the sanctity of private property rights, the principles of limited government, and the pursuit of intersectional harmony, they were unable to take bold action against slavery. Moreover, the Southern Founders’ thoroughgoing embrace of slave-based agriculture and their deeply ingrained racial prejudice solidified the barriers against emancipation. That the Continental Congress removed Thomas Jefferson’s statement regarding the injustice of the slave trade (and, by implication, slavery) from the final version of the Declaration of Independence is emblematic of the Founders’ resolve to subordinate the controversial issue of slavery to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States.
...
The matter of how to determine population was anything but trivial. Having failed to secure the abolishment of slavery, some delegates from the Northern states sought to make representation dependent on the size of a state’s free population. Southern delegates, on the other hand, threatened to abandon the convention if enslaved individuals were not counted.
...
Granting slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their population of enslaved individuals when it came to apportioning representatives to Congress meant that those states would thus be perpetually overrepresented in national politics. However, this same ratio was to be used to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. Provision was also added to the Constitution for a law permitting the recapture of fugitive slaves, along with a moratorium until 1808 on any congressional ban against the importation of slaves, though in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit slave imports if they so wished.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/three- … compromise

After worrying about giving slaves some measure of humanity by counting them as 3/5ths of a person to increase the political power of their owners, the south also caused a ban on prohibiting the importation of slaves to be created by the federal government because, they were 3/5ths human, after all.  /s

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
The cancel culture

Came across an interesting quote the other day  from Euripedes.

In The Phoenician Women, Polyneices says that the worst thing about exile is that ‘the right of free speech does not exist’; Iocasta responds: ‘That’s a slave’s life – to be forbidden to speak one’s mind’.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:

Should be 100% of those that stayed awake in grade school history class...tht is if they still teach grade school history what with all the woke PC BS propaganda the schools teach now

Hmmm....first attempt did not work correctly.

I'm sure I'd get censored if I said what's really on my mind after that crap. Why do people like you always go after teachers? Why? Seriously...I want an answer.