[LS]

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, just a historian. My sense of the HISTORY of the Constitutional Convention is that the intent was to protect the states as institutions, even from themselves if necessary. Just as a state legislature (IMHO) can make no law infringing on the right to bear arms or on basic "civil rights," neither can a state legislature circumvent the Constitution by depriving ALL of its citizens their Constitutional right of one man one vote.

Now, strangely enough, in this case "one man one vote" means an electoral vote selected by a majority of the voters in that state when it comes to the electoral college. I realize Nebraska is different---but perhaps no one has yet brought a constitutional challenge to their system. I don't know. I just think that the SPIRIT of the constitution is such that a proportional system violates the principle of the electoral college.

[roamer_1]

I don't know. I just think that the SPIRIT of the constitution is such that a proportional system violates the principle of the electoral college.

Thank you. I see your point, and I tend to agree with you.

However, I find it hard to believe that the framers themselves, had they foreseen the mighty influence of the cities in state and federal politics, wouldn't have made some allowance to offset that power.

Something must be done, and soon, for we are desperately close to a point wherein the opinion of a few cities are going to be enough to control even the federal elections. When that happens we will see true disenfranchisement on a national scale.