Monday, January 29, 2007

One Man, One Vote

"One man, one vote"--a concept I love to say because not using the more politically correct "person" drives the moonbats crazy--is the bedrock of the Constitution.

Of course, as George Will points out, the Democrats don't let a little thing like the plain language of the Constitution stand in their way. In this case, it involves giving voting rights in the House of Representatives to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia, and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico when the House is sitting as "the Committee of the Whole."

If these five votes decide the outcome of a vote in the Committee of the Whole, the matter at issue will be automatically revoted by the full House without those five participating. Still, these five faux members will have powers equal to those of real members on everything but final passage of bills, which often is more perfunctory than the process that leads to that. Almost always, all five delegates are Democrats. (Puerto Rico's current resident commissioner is the first Republican in 100 years.)

So, what's the harm? Well, the Constitution clearly designates this responsibility to representatives of "the several States," and by giving voting rights to non-States, it dilutes the power of the real representatives.
Members of Congress today represent, on average, 687,000 people. The population of Guam is 171,000; of American Samoa, 58,000; and of the Virgin Islands, 109,000. The 3.9 million Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens and have the right to vote for statehood, which they have rejected in three plebiscites (1967, 1993, 1998).

The 58,000 Samoans pay no federal income taxes, but their delegate will be able to participate in raising the taxes of, say, Montanans. Samoa's delegate will have virtually the same power as Rep. Denny Rehberg, who represents all 944,000 Montanans. Obviously the Democrats' reverence for the principle "one person, one vote" is, well, situational.

Obviously, Democrats don't mind this breech of the Constitution because the areas in question vote Democrat. I wonder if they would be as nonchalant about the Constitution if these delegates were Republicans?