Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al [View all]

[Madam45for2923]

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 02:11 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

It’s 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, I’d ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasn’t CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, I’d 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