How has our constitution managed to maintain proportion representation on all areas of the state
Answers
Answer:
Explanation:The Constitutional Imperative of
Proportional Representation
Two fundamental values underlie the Supreme Court's debate about
constitutional rights in voting: majority rule and minority representation.
The debate has taken the traditional system of winner-take-all single-
member districts as a given. Yet within the traditional system, neither
value is fully attainable, and gains in one are often traded off against
losses in the other. The achievement of minority representation is espe-
cially limited by the inability of a geographically districted system to re-
present all groups simultaneously. Although reapportionment has led to
an approximate fulfillment of the majoritarian value, gerrymandering, to-
gether with a strict reapportionment standard, continues often to deny
representation to racial or political minorities.'
The Court's inability to realize the minority representation value has
led it to create a false distinction between the right at stake in the reap-
portionment cases, said to be an individual right, and the right at stake in
the gerrymandering cases, said to be merely a group right. This false dis-
tinction has served to justify providing less protection against gerryman-
dering than against malapportionment, less protection for minority repre-
sentation than for majority rule.
The right at stake in the reapportionment cases is the right to an
equally weighted vote,2 strongly protected by the one person, one vote
standard. This right can be guaranteed within the existing system, even if
at some cost to minority representation. The right at stake in the gerry-
1. Reapportionment concerns the relative population sizes of districts. Malapportionment occurs
when districts are unequal in size. Votes are then unequally weighted: The votes of those residing in
smaller districts count more toward the election of a representative than do the votes of those in larger
districts.
Gerrymandering concerns the shape of districts and the structure of electoral systems. The term
encompasses the classical gerrymander, i.e. the oddly-shaped district, and the large multi-member
district or at-large election system used to achieve the same exclusionary result, see, e.g., City of
Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973). Their common
denominator is the dilution of votes through the denial of a meaningful vote to some voters and of fair
and effective representation to some groups.
The term "gerrymandering" often indicates discriminatory intent, but regardless of intent the pro-
cess of geographical districting necessarily has strong effects upon the amounts of representation dif-
ferent groups receive. In this sense, "all districting is 'gerrymandering.'" R. DIXON, DEMOCRATIC
REPRESENTATION: REAPPORTIONMENT IN LAW AND PoLmcs 462 (1968). For the purposes of this
Note, the term does not necessarily imply discriminatory intent.
2. Votes are equally weighted when the number of voters per representative is the same in each
district. Equal size districts guarantee an equally weighted vote. Assuming the representative "be-
longs" equally to all constituents, each voter then has an equal share of a representative. See also
infra note 63.
The Constitutional Imperative of
Proportional Representation
Two fundamental values underlie the Supreme Court's debate about
constitutional rights in voting: majority rule and minority representation.
The debate has taken the traditional system of winner-take-all single-member districts as a given. Yet within the traditional system, neither
value is fully attainable, and gains in one are often traded off against
losses in the other. The achievement of minority representation is especially limited by the inability of a geographically districted system to represent all groups simultaneously. Although reapportionment has led to an approximate fulfillment of the majoritarian value, gerrymandering, together with a strict reapportionment standard, continues often to deny
representation to racial or political minorities.'
The Court's inability to realize the minority representation value has
led it to create a false distinction between the right at stake in the reapportionment cases, said to be an individual right, and the right at stake in the gerrymandering cases, said to be merely a group right. This false distinction has served to justify providing less protection against gerrymandering than against malapportionment, less protection for minority representation than for majority rule.
The right at stake in the reapportionment cases is the right to an equally weighted vote,2 strongly protected by the one person, one vote standard. This right can be guaranteed within the existing system, even if at some cost to minority representation. The right at stake in the gerry-
1. Reapportionment concerns the relative population sizes of districts. Malapportionment occurs when districts are unequal in size. Votes are then unequally weighted: The votes of those residing in
smaller districts count more toward the election of a representative than do the votes of those in larger
districts.
Gerrymandering concerns the shape of districts and the structure of electoral systems. The term encompasses the classical gerrymander, i.e. the oddly-shaped district, and the large multi-member district or at-large election system used to achieve the same exclusionary result, see, e.g., City of
Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973). Their common
denominator is the dilution of votes through the denial of a meaningful vote to some voters and of fair and effective representation to some groups.
The term "gerrymandering" often indicates discriminatory intent, but regardless of intent the pro-cess of geographical districting necessarily has strong effects upon the amounts of representation different groups receive. In this sense, "all districting is 'gerrymandering.'" R. DIXON, DEMOCRATIC
REPRESENTATION: REAPPORTIONMENT IN LAW AND PoLmcs 462 (1968). For the purposes of this
Note, the term does not necessarily imply discriminatory intent.
2. Votes are equally weighted when the number of voters per representative is the same in each
district. Equal size districts guarantee an equally weighted vote. Assuming the representative "belongs" equally to all constituents, each voter then has an equal share of a representative.
Please mark me as brainliest. I have only 3 brainliest answers to become Genius.