I understand the point you are making, Dave. But I do not consider it strong. Thank you for acknowledging that the legal position can be correct.

I communicated with a number of political science professors, and I have not heard one that disagreed. I only received positive replies, including some that wanted more reform than just the local levels. For me, the local level is truly the place to focus our attention.

Also, there is no need for reform unless someone is damaged or harmed, and that is clearly the case here. District Voting harms the voters for they are not given the better form of representation. They must pick between macaroni and spaghetti and cannot have hamburgers, chicken soup or vegetarian hot curry on the menu.

Worse part is that District Voting lowers the quality of representation. The two best representatives can end up in one and the same district, and second best in the entire city is then simply tossed. At the bottom end, some districts will only have lousy candidates and the voters are unable to toss all of them; one will get in. In Proportional Voting, only the truly desired representatives are picked.

So, voters will be entitled to financial recompense when a City has received an Invocation (two so far, and counting) and when they did not change their voting system within a reasonable amount of time (they tend to make changes within one election cycle), then these voters can make a claim for recompense. Not changing their voting system could end up being a very expensive endeavor for cities.

--

If you dig into history, then you will know that the Founding Fathers had a hard time putting the Union in place. Making the 13 States equal at the Federal level was not their desired design. It took quite a bit of finagling. Then, once accepted and in place, the Founding Fathers made sure to capture their intent in the Bill of Rights.

Hence, an articulation exists in the highest document of the nation that turns three levels of government into three distinct layers -- all according to the US Constitution.

• The Federal level can indeed have separate-but-equal in place. It is called out, described in detail for the Federal level.
• The States should not have separate-but-equal in place, but they were given powers and freedoms and then it is hard to make it go away. States can change the way they vote, simply when the majority of the voters want that.
• The Local governments are the least empowered. As mentioned, the People are empowered. As soon as one single individual objects to the way voting is handled in a city, then the City must live up to the standards as described in the US Constitution.

That is where the money issue comes in. The People have entitlements whereas the Cities do not. The Cities exist one level below the People. Naturally, the People cannot just demand anything. Yet they can demand the City lives up to its Constitutional obligations.

I understand that this is not the case in Canada, but Amendment X is truly clear.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The fourth entity not mentioned, Cities and Counties, are carved out from the realm of the State and the People.

Sorry, Dave, your example of the queen is understood, but there are no conflicts expressed when the queen never vetoes any bill. If she were to do so, she would have that full right. I am certain that no Canadian would tell her that she did not have a right to do so.

In this case in the US, as long as individuals say nothing about the City's voting format, then all is fine. Yet as soon as a single person says, "Hey, wait a minute, you are not following the US Constitution," then the City has to fix up its voting system.

• The City cannot point to the US Constitution like the Federal government and say “Well, here it is, an exact description how we should go about and that’s what we do.” Not available.
• The City cannot point to the US Constitution like the State government and say “Too bad for all those nice words, but here it says we can do whatever the hell we want.” Not available.
• The Eligible Voter can stand up and say “Fix it, or else,” and there is nothing a City can do but comply with the highest document of the nation. If not, it can become very costly for a City.

There is no debate between District Voting and Proportional Voting. That one is won hands-down by Proportional Voting. Nice aspect in this is that it was a Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, who was the first person in the world to devise a Proportional Voting system.

I can't say it enough. The Founding Fathers are with us. Discriminating voting systems cannot be used at the local level in the United States; not even the ones discriminating in a benevolent manner.

All the Cities receiving an Invocation will likely end up paying handsomely to the voters if they dillydally on this.

I welcome any and all individuals to write me their city and state, and I will invoke on their behalves and publish that Invocation.