I believe the sentiment is that Cherokees and other native american nations aren't sufficiently represented by their elected officials. in much the same way they have been marginalized for centuries.
The city of Yakima was found [1] to have violated the Voting Rights Act a few years back because they have a significant Latino minority and yet somehow no Latinos would ever be elected to city council. This is because every voter votes on every city council seat, and because the town's majority of white voters apparently has a preference for white candidates.
I don't remember what the solution was, I think they either split the town into districts, each with its own city council member, or used some kind of proportional representation system.
No, but do you think that is an accurate representation of US politics? From the outside it seems that "one dollar one vote" applies equally well (and is equally wrong).
They're probably referring to the fact that the Cherokee members are already represented by their US legislators in the same way that other US residents are. Providing them this vote would give them more representation, and they're asking if you believe that's a better solution.
Would it? I think it's possible that other laws may mean that they have one vote, and thus have to choose whether to have their vote apply in the congressional district they are physically in, or to the Cherokee representative seat they are alotted for a non-geographical district. That would retain one vote for one person. This isn't even all that weird, I assume. Do people with residences in multiple districts get to vote in each, or do they have to choose?
Relevantly - if their Cherokee delegate is a non-voting delegate, then while they may have two representatives on the floor of the house speaking for their interests, they only have one who can be involved in the formal exercise of said House's power.
