When I was growing up, I was taught that the purpose of the government (at least in the United States) was to serve the people, to create (or maintain) a situation in which most people could thrive with the most personal liberty and independence. It was to be a government by the people and for the people.
Sadly, though, as I’ve learned more and more about the way that politics and our Federal government, in particular, works, the idea of government actually trying to do the right thing has been removed from my thinking. Why? Because, too often, the government does what is in the best interests of politicians and bureaucrats and not in the best interests of the people. Simply put, for too many (maybe most) politicians and bureaucrats, the people are simply a tool to use for their personal ends. It’s despicable.
But the founding fathers intended that one branch of the government would be above that nonsense and would actually be able to do the right thing without any fear of losing their livelihood or being able to benefit personally from what they did. In other words, that branch would be able to do the right thing because they’d be as removed as humanly possible from personal considerations in their decisions.
What part of the government is that? The U.S. Supreme Court.
What we’re seeing, though, from our supposedly “independent” court is a stunning (and frustrating) unwillingness to deal with court cases intended to make sure that elections actually represent the people. And we have another example of that today. Jack Phillips writes,
The Supreme Court rejected a case that challenged California’s electoral process by claiming that the state’s “so-called winner-take-all system” dilutes their votes.
The lawsuit was filed by comedian Paul Rodriguez, Rocky Chavez, League of United Latin American Citizens, and California League of United Latin American Citizens, and it had asked the Supreme Court to look into whether the aforementioned “winner-take-all” approach to selecting presidential electors was constitutional.
Attorneys for Chavez and Rodriguez—who are both reportedly Republicans—argued […] that California’s system “results in the appointment of members of only one political party to the nation’s largest electoral college delegation.” Chavez previously served in the California State Assembly and ran during the 2018 midterm election in California’s 49th Congressional District.
They stipulated that such a process “is not within the Constitution” and “is instead a partisan invention by the states that has become the default for the nation,” according to their lawsuit, further asserting that it “severs the connection between voters and presidential candidates.”
Of course Democrats favor winner-take-all systems because these people are crowded into cities and those cities overwhelm the votes of all rural areas in a state. In fact, if you look at a county-by-county breakdown of elections, you’ll see that blue states are only blue in cities. Blue states go red in virtually all rural counties.
Some would argue that rural counties go red while blue areas go blue because rural counties learn about personal responsibility and natural systems while those who grow up and live in urban environments spend their entire lives in artificial systems that don’t reflect how the world really works.
Regardless of the reason, winner-take-all voting systems penalize voters who support integrity and personal responsibility.
And the Supreme Court’s decision to decline hearing this case (without explanation) only continues their refusal to deal with efforts to make elections in America fair and free from fraud and abuse.