Is the Electoral College good for America?

[Texas]

The Eectoral College is in place to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". It is no more complicated than that. The Presidency is the ONLY nationally elected official of the government and to prevent the election of POTUS from being decided on popular vote totals skewed to large states such as Texas, California, New York etc. it allows for ALL states to have a proportional voice in the election.

 

[ronpaulisright]

Ron Paul is good for America. Get rid of the fed, CIA, bring the troops home, legalize drugs and get rid of the income tax!!

These things will SAVE the america that our founders imagined

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Wrong thread.

 

[Texas]

Ron Paul is good for America. Get rid of the fed, CIA, bring the troops home, legalize drugs and get rid of the income tax!!

These things will SAVE the america that our founders imagined

You really are into legalizing drugs aren't you?

 

[Cain]

The Eectoral College is in place to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". It is no more complicated than that. The Presidency is the ONLY nationally elected official of the government and to prevent the election of POTUS from being decided on popular vote totals skewed to large states such as Texas, California, New York etc. it allows for ALL states to have a proportional voice in the election.

Imagine, the Founders foreseeing California, Texas, and New York... We had the freaking Virginia dynasty almost from the birth of the republic. Speaking of which, the Virginia delegation had its own plans at the Constitutional Convention (which was supposed to reform the AoC). When I compare T. Buddha's post against Electoral College apologists, it's not difficult to see who is interested in the actual history versus vague appeals to what the "Founders" wanted.

Yes, we can agree most of the Founders feared the tyranny of the majority. Many at the Constitutional Convention favored some form of monarchy. I want to say 12 out of the 13 states had property restrictions on voting -- in addition to being a white male. I'm pretty sure we upended that glorious vision. If you're striving for all states to have a proportional voice in the election, then the Electoral College clearly fails. Resources will pour into Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and a handful of other states. Moreover, the charms of the tyranny of the few have always eluded me.

Kopji- Your arguments are reasonable sounding, and I'm sure that has a lot of appeal for self-identified moderates. You want nudge these institutions in the right direction. Yes, I think proportional allocation is a substantive improvement. I don't know about requiring a person to campaign in a state, but that also sounds like a positive change. Still, this training wheels democracy scheme still fails the basic "one person, one vote" standard.

As for this business about a national recount -- those concerns are overblown. Aside from the benefit of having competitive elections, it's going to be difficult to dig out 100,000 votes nation-wide versus a few hundred in one state. There are majority wins elections on the local and state levels all of the damn time, not mention abroad.

 

[Pookster]

How much do candidates spend on Alaska? How many trips do they make to that state? Or Idaho? Or Nebraska? Or Rhode Island for that matter?

Very likely much more than they would if it was just a national popular vote. My prior point still stands.

It's crazy. They're devoting time and attention to fairly large SWING states, like Ohio and Florida. The whole process leads to ridiculous, arbitrary politics. You have the crazy right-wing Cubans down in Florida influencing our foreign policy. In the freaking nomination process you have candidates pandering to Iowans and their stupid ethanol handouts.

Sure they are. They likely always will no matter what system is in place. But the candidates can't ignore the small States completely when you have an electoral college. I just don't see where it's a problem (not that it doesn't have contentious issues at times) either. In fact, you point out just how it can be a problem without it -- ignoring issues in Iowa and such. I still see it as healthy for the entire country.

Back that up. What did the Founders believe?

The Founders originally talked of allowing the Legislature to select the President. They then settled on the electoral college. Some delegates did want a national vote, but they settled on basically what we have today. I believe the Constitution accurately reflects the overall beliefs of the Founders. Granted, it's a compromise for many of them. Such is the case when so many are involved in such a process. So far, it hasn't been amended to change the process in any substantial way either. To more directly answer your question, the Founders believed various things. I give you the US Constitution as evidence of what they agreed to as a group.

I tire of these vague appeals. 1) The Constitution is for the living, not the dead. 2) You had many competing visions, which is why the Constitution is riddled with compromise (3/5, legislature construction, ending the slave trade in 1808, no export taxes, Bill of Rights, etc). Besides, Madison was wary of a sprawling country when we had four million people. While technology shrinks the world, today we have over 300 million people. Finally, Jefferson said we could use a revolution every generation.

I don't disagree. Vague appeals that the system is broken is very tiring too. If enough people view the electoral college as a serious problem, the Constitution can/will be amended. It hasn't been. A number of proposed amendments that have failed is evidence that this isn't viewed as a serious problem.

 

[Pookster]

I see some ways that the Electoral College could be made to work better, rather than simply eliminating it:

• A proportional allocation rather than winner take all seems more fair.

A few States have gone to this. It'll be interesting to see if more adopt it.

 

[Cain]

Before attending to recent replies, I do want to say something else on this silly "tyranny of the majority." Apologists for the Electoral College will say that the person who gets the most votes will usually win anyway -- so no big deal -- but if he wins the popular vote by -- oh, say... -- 500,000 votes, and loses the electoral college by one state (essentially 500 questionable votes) then there's all this foolish talk about the "tyranny of the majority." The last two Democratic presidents came from smallish states, Arkansas and Georgia, whereas (elected) Republicans have been coming from California and Texas.

What's so frustrating is that this position is not staked out according to moral principle -- with the notable exception of the general contempt for democracy -- but favoring a system because it is personally advantageous.

I am not without hope. While George W. Bush has been pissing off relatively affluent, educated, white America, the Republicans have stupidly ignored his attempt to embrace hispanics. Catholics who attend church regularly generally go with Republicans, but if Latinos can reliably swing Texas and Florida, so much so that the GOP consistently loses the Presidency, then we can begin to move toward reform. That is unlikely this year. There are also demographic changes in Virginia, Missouri, and New Hampshire (which Kerry carried).

Very likely much more than they would if it was just a national popular vote. My prior point still stands.

No, it doesn't. In a truly national election politicians will still have to appeal to voting blocs, it's just that each vote will count as one, and people in the midwest will not have their influence artificially inflated. Right now you have significant minorities in states that can be flatly ignored because it's a winner-take-all system (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska). You don't see a tyranny of geography against Alaska and Hawaii? Perhaps we should give each of them five more votes so that presidents have an incentive to visit and listen to their concerns?

Sure they are. They likely always will no matter what system is in place. But the candidates can't ignore the small States completely when you have an electoral college. I just don't see where it's a problem (not that it doesn't have contentious issues at times) either. In fact, you point out just how it can be a problem without it -- ignoring issues in Iowa and such. I still see it as healthy for the entire country.

Ethanol subsidies are not healthy for the country, or the planet for that matter. I forget who said it on this board, but imagine if 50,000 Taiwanese moved to New Hampshire and how politicians would take a different line on China. An election hinging on a few swing states corrupts the process.

I don't disagree. Vague appeals that the system is broken is very tiring too. If enough people view the electoral college as a serious problem, the Constitution can/will be amended. It hasn't been. A number of proposed amendments that have failed is evidence that this isn't viewed as a serious problem.

Historically it is difficult to get the Constitution amended, especially when promoting equal voting rights. Just because it has not been done does not mean there is no cause for concern.

 

[Pookster]

No, it doesn't. In a truly national election politicians will still have to appeal to voting blocs, it's just that each vote will count as one, and people in the midwest will not have their influence artificially inflated. Right now you have significant minorities in states that can be flatly ignored because it's a winner-take-all system (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska). You don't see a tyranny of geography against Alaska and Hawaii? Perhaps we should give each of them five more votes so that presidents have an incentive to visit and listen to their concerns?

Yes, my point still stands. I fail to see how any of what you wrote in this quote negates my point either. Also, if Alaska and Hawaii become less predictable with their voting, then they'll get plenty of attention from all the candidates without any need for additional electors. That was my point.

... An election hinging on a few swing states corrupts the process.

Versus an election that hinges on a few major population centers? I think I'll take the former. Thanks though. Even as a compromise, it's easy to see the wisdom of the Founders in all of this.

Historically it is difficult to get the Constitution amended, especially when promoting equal voting rights. Just because it has not been done does not mean there is no cause for concern.

I didn't say there wasn't cause for concern. There's inherent problems in any system. However, there have been several successful amendments related to the election process already. The electorate, as a whole, seems satisfied with the current process though. But, maybe there is a majority out there that is quietly unhappy and would like a change. And given that it is historically difficult to amend the Constitution, what with 3/4th of the States having to ratify it, maybe we should focus on changing the Constitution in order to have a national popular vote on amendments to the Constitution? Of course, that would be a tragic mistake if it ever happened. While a bit of a strawman, hopefully the point comes across, which is ...

Again, those who wrote the Constitution did it this way for a reason. It seems to have accomplished what they wanted, considering the type of federal government they sought. Even as a compromise, the Founders understood the inherent dangers of a pure democracy. That's why we have a federal republic comprising of fifty States.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Is the Electoral Collage not simple a relict from ancient times with bad cross country communication? To send a few trusted people to the capital was the simpliest method to get the votes of each state represented. And now all parties are to uncertain who would profit from each vote is equal? And to stubborn to risk a change?
From european perspective is the unability to make a simple voting system astounding.

 

[Cain]

Yes, my point still stands. I fail to see how any of what you wrote in this quote negates my point either. Also, if Alaska and Hawaii become less predictable with their voting, then they'll get plenty of attention from all the candidates without any need for additional electors. That was my point.

Versus an election that hinges on a few major population centers? I think I'll take the former. Thanks though. Even as a compromise, it's easy to see the wisdom of the Founders in all of this.

People vote, cows do not. That's how elections are run, and I should hasten to add that your point -- even if correct -- is moot. Should California farmers get two votes each because candidates who do deign come out here largely ignore them?

It's funny because conservatives are supposed to be hostile to social engineering, but that's exactly their racket in national elections. It's all about clinging to institutional biases in order to artificially inflate the power of certain voters because it gets their guy elected.

I didn't say there wasn't cause for concern. There's inherent problems in any system. However, there have been several successful amendments related to the election process already. The electorate, as a whole, seems satisfied with the current process though. But, maybe there is a majority out there that is quietly unhappy and would like a change. And given that it is historically difficult to amend the Constitution, what with 3/4th of the States having to ratify it, maybe we should focus on changing the Constitution in order to have a national popular vote on amendments to the Constitution? Of course, that would be a tragic mistake if it ever happened. While a bit of a strawman, hopefully the point comes across, which is ...

Again, those who wrote the Constitution did it this way for a reason. It seems to have accomplished what they wanted, considering the type of federal government they sought. Even as a compromise, the Founders understood the inherent dangers of a pure democracy. That's why we have a federal republic comprising of fifty States.

It did not accomplish what was intended. As previously noted, the Founders did not take into account the rise of a two-party system, which is another bane of American politics (factionalism warned against in Washington's famous farewell address). Now, I forget the ratio, or even where I read it, but the Founders had predicted that in most elections (3 out of 4?) nobody would win a majority of the Electoral votes and it would be thrown to the House.

Again, I do not care what the Founders wanted. The holy Founders are dead and we're not executing an estate. The "will" of the Founders is only relevant inasmuch as it promotes Justice, which we can argue over. Do you have any idea how long it took to get direct election of Senators?

I also think you're missing the point of my argument by saying "Go Amend the Constitution." I understand the Electoral College is stupidly written into the Constitution and it will probably need to be Amended (though there's some Maryland(?) plan that says each state agrees to go to proportional voting once every other state agrees, which is still far from ideal). The point is people do not even want to reform the Electoral College largely because of self-interest, which impedes chances of getting any momentum on the issue.

gambling_cruiser:

From european perspective is the unability to make a simple voting system astounding.

See, from one European perspective, which I bet is fairly common, our election procedure is "astounding." If you believe the Founders were true Enlightenment figures, then you should not fear reason and progress. But nooooooo, we have to vote the first Tuesday after the first Monday and all of this other crazy ********.

 

[fuelair]

Ron Paul is good for America. Get rid of the fed, CIA, bring the troops home, legalize drugs and get rid of the income tax!!

These things will SAVE the america that our founders imagined

two hundred + years ago. Nothing has changed since then that would make that a touch out of touch, of course

And, say, I would still like to hear/read the details on the raid by colombia that you keep mentioning but neglecting to describe completely in another thread!

 

[Ladewig]

Very likely much more than they would if it was just a national popular vote. My prior point still stands.

No, switching will not mean those states will receive less attention because those states are already completely ignored in the current system. In the last eight weeks of the general election no candidate visits those states - heck, no candidate even mentions issues important to those states.

 

[Pookster]

People vote, cows do not. That's how elections are run, and I should hasten to add that your point -- even if correct -- is moot. Should California farmers get two votes each because candidates who do deign come out here largely ignore them?

You've still failed to address the point. If you have an extremely close election (which most tend to be), and Rhode Island shows as a toss up, the candidates aren't going to pay that State any more attention than normal? Seriously?

It's funny because conservatives are supposed to be hostile to social engineering, but that's exactly their racket in national elections. It's all about clinging to institutional biases in order to artificially inflate the power of certain voters because it gets their guy elected.

I have no clue why you posted this to me. It's irrelevant and a strawman at best.

Again, I do not care what the Founders wanted. The holy Founders are dead and we're not executing an estate. The "will" of the Founders is only relevant inasmuch as it promotes Justice, which we can argue over. Do you have any idea how long it took to get direct election of Senators?

Which is exactly why they provided a means to amend the Constitution. Go for it. The election process has been amended several times already.

I also think you're missing the point of my argument by saying "Go Amend the Constitution." I understand the Electoral College is stupidly written into the Constitution and it will probably need to be Amended (though there's some Maryland(?) plan that says each state agrees to go to proportional voting once every other state agrees, which is still far from ideal). The point is people do not even want to reform the Electoral College largely because of self-interest, which impedes chances of getting any momentum on the issue.

I just read sour grapes in the above. Sorry, but I do. I see no substance as to why the electoral college is stupid and should be amended from the Constitution in favor of a national popular election. Be careful what you ask for. If anything, going to a national popular vote would likely create a situation where you could easily have regional candidates that are mainly concerned about catering to their own specific area to the detriment of the country as a whole. You don't think ... oh. lets say ... the Southern States wouldn't rally together as a group to their mutual benefit? With an electoral college, this type of thing is far less likely to ever happen when it comes to a Presidential election. It's a part of the reason why the Founders compromised on an electoral college.

Again, I fail to see where the system is broken. Yes, many of the reasons considered by the Founders for the compromise are now mute. Also, States are already moving toward proportionately allocating their delegates. The system seems to be working just fine for the type of government the Founders intended.

 

[Pookster]

No, switching will not mean those states will receive less attention because those states are already completely ignored in the current system. In the last eight weeks of the general election no candidate visits those states - heck, no candidate even mentions issues important to those states.

They don't visit them ... why? Because they're small? Or because they already know how they will vote? Do you think Obama or McCain will totally ignore Rhode Island if it's considered a toss up? The same thing happens to larger States as well. If California is in the bag for one candidate, why would either spend much of any time with it in a close electoral college vote when Rhode Island is still up for grabs? Switching to a national popular vote would make a State like Rhode Island's roughly 500,000 votes insignificant in every election when you have other major population centers where you can focus on.

 

[varwoche]

If anything, going to a national popular vote would likely create a situation where you could easily have regional candidates that are mainly concerned about catering to their own specific area to the detriment of the country as a whole. You don't think ... oh. lets say ... the Southern States wouldn't rally together as a group to their mutual benefit? With an electoral college, this type of thing is far less likely to ever happen when it comes to a Presidential election. It's a part of the reason why the Founders compromised on an electoral college.

<pondering> I don't see why this scenario is made more more likely by popular vote. Good chance I'm overlooking something but it seems like the opposite would be true because of winner-take-all.

 

[Cain]

You've still failed to address the point. If you have an extremely close election (which most tend to be), and Rhode Island shows as a toss up, the candidates aren't going to pay that State any more attention than normal? Seriously?

"Most" elections tend to be "extremely close" now? In a popular election candidates will have an incentive to pick up votes where-ever they can. A Republican could grab people from MA, and ad-buys in Boston are probably broadcast to Rhode Island already. If anything, conservatives would still have a natural advantage. It's easier to go knocking on doors, to get people to come out, when they're already clustered together.

I have no clue why you posted this to me. It's irrelevant and a strawman at best.

It's more of a general observation, an afterthought not really posted "for" you. It's not irrelevant. Look at the poll: the people favoring the Electoral College tend to be more conservative. It's not a straw man, either.

I just read sour grapes in the above. Sorry, but I do. I see no substance as to why the electoral college is stupid and should be amended from the Constitution in favor of a national popular election. Be careful what you ask for. If anything, going to a national popular vote would likely create a situation where you could easily have regional candidates that are mainly concerned about catering to their own specific area to the detriment of the country as a whole. You don't think ... oh. lets say ... the Southern States wouldn't rally together as a group to their mutual benefit?

You. do. not. even. know. Where do you think Super Tuesday comes from? The Southern States moved toward holding their primary on the same day to influence elections at the nomination process. A national popular vote would put more voters into play. I have opposed the Electoral College for as long as I can remember, certainly before the 2000 election (where I proudly voted Green, and did so again in 2004).

With an electoral college, this type of thing is far less likely to ever happen when it comes to a Presidential election. It's a part of the reason why the Founders compromised on an electoral college.

Where does this stuff come from? Where did the Founders say or hint anything like the above? Factionalism used to be a whole lot worse, we even had a rather bloody event called the Civil War to sort things out.

Again, I fail to see where the system is broken.

Which is undoubtedly the problem, and which, to address an above snipped comment, goes to your insouciant encouragement to simply amend the Constitution.

Yes, many of the reasons considered by the Founders for the compromise are now mute. Also, States are already moving toward proportionately allocating their delegates. The system seems to be working just fine for the type of government the Founders intended.

States do not have an individual incentive to move towards proportional allocation. I can guarantee you that if Ohio split its delegates by popular vote, then it would become much, much less important. Though I have not done the electoral math, or seen any articles that do because, again, the whole idea of reform is scandalously off the map, there might be a problem with having so many states with only three Electoral votes. McCain knows he probably cannot get Vermont, and Obama cannot get Wyoming. Since a delegate cannot be subdivided, a person still need only win 50% of the smallest states in order to maximize their delegate count. Larger states are different in that more campaigning is rewarded with more delegates. It might be better, but it's another foolish compromise that will get things half-wrong, and only serves as a stepping stone for free elections.

 

[Pookster]

<pondering> I don't see why this scenario is made more more likely by popular vote. Good chance I'm overlooking something but it seems like the opposite would be true because of winner-take-all.

With the Electoral College, you need a majority to win - 270 electoral votes. All you'd need in a national popular vote election is a plurality, unless you're going to have a runoff election sometime afterwards between the two candidates with the most votes. Right now with the electoral college, the "South", as an example, couldn't win the election with it's own candidate without a lot of help from other States outside the South. There is no real incentive to band together as it stands now.

 

[Pookster]

"Most" elections tend to be "extremely close" now? In a popular election candidates will have an incentive to pick up votes where-ever they can. A Republican could grab people from MA, and ad-buys in Boston are probably broadcast to Rhode Island already. If anything, conservatives would still have a natural advantage. It's easier to go knocking on doors, to get people to come out, when they're already clustered together.

Yes, they do tend to be extremely close. Again, why would I (as a candidate) spend dollars and time in Maine when I can get a bigger bang for the buck in NYC or Boston? You won't be seeing many if any town hall meetings and such in the future in Maine if all I'm likely to gain is a few hundred thousand votes.

It's more of a general observation, an afterthought not really posted "for" you. It's not irrelevant. Look at the poll: the people favoring the Electoral College tend to be more conservative. It's not a straw man, either.

The poll you posted? You seriously don't want to start appealing to numbers ... especially those.

You. do. not. even. know. Where do you think Super Tuesday comes from? The Southern States moved toward holding their primary on the same day to influence elections at the nomination process. A national popular vote would put more voters into play. I have opposed the Electoral College for as long as I can remember, certainly before the 2000 election (where I proudly voted Green, and did so again in 2004).

Not even the same thing. I'm talking about regional candidates, not regional influence on candidates.

Where does this stuff come from? Where did the Founders say or hint anything like the above? Factionalism used to be a whole lot worse, we even had a rather bloody event called the Civil War to sort things out.

Many of the Founders were very concerned about regional candidates with a national popular vote. It was not viewed as being good for the country as a whole. You even help make my case with your very own words above.

Which is undoubtedly the problem, and which, to address an above snipped comment, goes to your insouciant encouragement to simply amend the Constitution.

Hardly. I just know better than to throw the baby out with the bath in this case. You nonchalantly present a national popular vote as the answer as if it doesn't carry it's own significant problems for the country, some that I view as worse than what we have ... and so did the Founders as a whole in their own time. Their wisdom, while very much dated and a compromise, is much more apparent than in the approach you take here in pushing for a national popular vote election.

 

[Cain]

Yes, they do tend to be extremely close. Again, why would I (as a candidate) spend dollars and time in Maine when I can get a bigger bang for the buck in NYC or Boston? You won't be seeing many if any town hall meetings and such in the future in Maine if all I'm likely to gain is a few hundred thousand votes.

That's nonsense. You won't be seeing any town hall meetings?? You're crazy. Of course you will because so-called town hall meetings are all theater anyway. What do you base your prognostications upon? Seriously, do you pay any attention to how other countries conduct their elections? These speculative concerns of yours are farcical, rooted in a particular history; you have your blinders on.

Admittedly, I have not paid much attention to European elections, and my lame excuse is that I'm an American. Europeans, however, are undoubtedly in a better position to make a more informed comparison and they always seem to conclude that our politics are whacky, and what I do know supports that contention. America was not always so inward-looking. Remember that Thomas Jefferson was in France during our Constitutional Convention. It's crazy how so many Americans' first impulse is to look at what the freaking Founding Fathers wanted or intended. Geez. Some traditions ennoble us, but this ancestor-worship, this fetishization of the past shares more in common with the most backward forms of Islam than the Enlightenment.

Yes, there is going to be a "bias" toward where people live because, again, people vote in elections. What makes this so impossible to understand? One person, one vote.

The poll you posted? You seriously don't want to start appealing to numbers ... especially those.

Well, this is surely one way to pussyfoot around the issue. Do you dispute my contention that conservatives are more in favor of the Electoral College? If so, say so. I do not need to appeal to any Internet poll, and this one is obviously not representative of the American public, which everyone on this board surely knows. I used it only as an immediate, concrete example because, in this respect, it reflects the reality.

Not even the same thing. I'm talking about regional candidates, not regional influence on candidates.

and here is what you said:

If anything, going to a national popular vote would likely create a situation where you could easily have regional candidates that are mainly concerned about catering to their own specific area to the detriment of the country as a whole. You don't think ... oh. lets say ... the Southern States wouldn't rally together as a group to their mutual benefit?

Ridiculous. Do you not see how a "regional candidate" appealing to "their own specific area" of the country" has something to do with regional influence? It biases the selection procedure. The last three Democrats to win national election -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore -- all came from southern states. But here we're talking about a lot of overlap: it does not matter where the candidate comes from but the policies the candidate advocates; it just so happens the policies a candidate advocates tracks with where she comes from, especially since in modern elections the governorship is the usual route to the White House.

Many of the Founders were very concerned about regional candidates with a national popular vote. It was not viewed as being good for the country as a whole. You even help make my case with your very own words above.

Again with the Founders this and the Founders that. Spare me. If "regional candidates" are bad, provide free-standing arguments why regional candidates are bad. Tagging something with the endorsement or disapproval of the Founding Fathers is secondary at best, and must include the arguments behind the Holy Founders' belief.

What's just so unbelievably effed up about your argument is that the Electoral College AS IT STANDS favors regionalism? Have you looked at the blue-red maps? Kerry needed to pick Edwards because homeboy is "Southerner." My previous argument does not help your case at all. A large part of the problem with the civil war was exactly a state identity rather than a national identity.

Hardly. I just know better than to throw the baby out with the bath in this case. You nonchalantly present a national popular vote as the answer as if it doesn't carry it's own significant problems for the country, some that I view as worse than what we have ... and so did the Founders as a whole in their own time. Their wisdom, while very much dated and a compromise, is much more apparent than in the approach you take here in pushing for a national popular vote election.

The path to free, democratic elections involves more than any single reform. In addition to popular vote we should probably have something like weekend/holiday voting, instant run-off voting, campaign financing and some other things I cannot remember at the moment. Starting with the Founding Fathers we have a rich history of discrimination: property ownership, race, gender, age. Well, now it's time to ferret out another arbitrary distinction: the number of neighbors you have. One person, one vote.

-------------------------

I did find the state case where a small number of people were elected a disproportionately large number of legislators. The Supreme court case was Baker v. Carr (1962). The New York Times carried an op-ed discussing it a couple years back because Alito apparently rejected the court's reasoning. Here are fun facts:

The one-person-one-vote principle traces to the Supreme Court's 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr. At the time, legislative districts had wildly unequal numbers of people, and representatives from underpopulated rural districts controlled many state legislatures. In Maryland, 14 percent of the voters could elect a majority of the State Senate, and 25 percent could elect a majority of the State House. In Alabama, the county that includes Birmingham, which had 600,000 people, got the same number of state senators - one - as a county with barely 15,000 people.

In Baker v. Carr, Tennessee voters challenged their state's unequal legislative districts, which had not been redrawn in 60 years. The Supreme Court had rejected a similar claim out of Illinois in 1946, saying it did not want to enter the "political thicket." But in 1962, the Warren court decided it had to enter the thicket to vindicate the rights of Tennesseans whose votes were being unfairly diluted. It ordered Tennessee's lines redrawn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/opinion/03tues3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin