Henry Vilas wrote:That decision affirmed one person, one vote as a constitutional mandate. Stare decisis and all that.
Ever read the decision, Henry?
I don't think it says what you think it says.
Try reading it.
In any event, I do not say that there may not be some legal and perhaps even Constitutional obstacles to multiple voting. These would have to be overcome and it would take a massive support across a state and perhaps the US as a whole.
Part of this will be overcoming the myth that the US was founded as or ever intended to be a democracy.
This is why it is so critical that Obama not let this election slip away from him as it seems in danger of doing. We need to keep the pot on the boil, so to speak.
I still think that letting people who contribute more have more say in how the country is run is a splendid idea. Whatever the obstacles along the path might be.