[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The Supreme Court couldn't apply it to the U.S. Senate because of the clause in the U.S. Constitution that said no state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, as far as I can guess (from Article V, if I remember correctly). It's a good thing, too, because otherwise, the Congress would be dominated by California, Texas, and New York. While Texas doesn't bother me, California and New York definitely do. Equal suffrage is the only thing the small states have left to their advantage in the Congress.

[fieldmarshaldj]

No, I understand that. You know what I’m getting at, though, if you were to similarly apply such a ruling at the federal level. I understand the justifications for applying it at the state level, but in doing so, in many of those states, it rapidly eliminated GOP dominance that kept the states from going moonbat or (as you put it) being overwhelmed by urban interests. Each state should’ve been within their rights to have a population imbalance with respect to the State Senates if they so chose (such as having 1 member for each county, regardless of population). But I don’t think that genie is gonna be put back in the bottle.