To vote or not to vote, to expand legislation and judicial branches. Those are the questions that seem to plague the progressive left in their search for power through the current governmental systems in place in America today.

It wasn’t any secret that Democrats wanted to make a point of expanding the now majority conservative Supreme Court when it started to be a hallmark question for the Democratic candidates in the primaries. It’s an excellent example of how the Democratic Party likes to manipulate numbers. If you don’t have the majority and can’t win it over, add more people that you can ensure will be on your side, then you’ll have the majority again.

If you don’t have enough money, print some more, and then you’ll have more money. Forget that it degrades the integrity of all to create a glut of something that should be precious and treated with care. Today, it assists with the cause to have more, therefore there will be more, no matter the cost.

Such seemed to be the assessment of the United States Supreme Court when they were faced with whether they should give a representative in Congress to the District of Columbia. According to a report in Axios, the Supreme Court rejected the effort on Monday that would have allowed Washington, D.C., residents a voting member in Congress.

“The court issued its decision without a hearing, citing a similar case from 2000 that concluded that D.C. is not constitutionally entitled to voting representation because it is not a state,” the publication reported.

Axios goes on to point out that the Capitol Hill area is currently represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting member, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D). This creates an interesting question, why ask for a voting member? Given the political makeup of the district, the political beliefs of their mayor, and the aforementioned delegate who associates herself with the Democratic party, it seems a fair assessment that the district of Columbia would go to the left, to the blue – away from the party that frees slaves, saves babies and lowers taxes.

Is one vote in the House a big deal? Well, the answer may be, “maybe.” Because of how close the majority in the House and Senate are currently, and the likelihood that one or both houses of Congress will flip to the right in the upcoming midterm election, one vote could be the difference between a Democrat in charge of the House and a Republican.

The position of speaker of the House is an important one. Not only are they third in line to take over the presidency, should something befall the president and vice president, but they’re also in charge of the agenda for the House of Representatives, calling sessions into order and one of the top leaders in the monumental struggle fraught two-party system the United States boasts.

The other possible answer is “absolutely.” Hopefully, the answer is “absolutely.” Because as Americans much of what we believe in is founded on the idea that every vote matters, that the richest man in the world’s vote matters exactly the same amount as the elderly neighbor with white hair and stories about the good old days.

In today’s world, with so much uncertainty surrounding how much the weight of a vote in the general election holds with the possibility of fraud, the idea of elected officials’ roles being tampered with or diminished is especially demoralizing.

So, hopefully, it matters a whole lot, and hopefully, we can all take hope from the Supreme Court’s decision to conserve the structure of our lower house of Congress.