• Supreme Court to weigh in on Political Gerrymandering
    23 replies, posted
[QUOTE] The Supreme Court declared Monday that it will consider whether gerrymandered election maps favoring one political party over another violate the Constitution, a potentially fundamental change in the way American elections are conducted. The justices regularly are called to invalidate state electoral maps that have been illegally drawn to reduce the influence of racial minorities by depressing the impact of their votes. The issue will be briefed and argued in the Supreme Court term that begins in October. [/QUOTE] [url]www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-hear-potentially-landmark-case-on-partisan-gerrymandering/2017/06/19/d525237e-5435-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html[/url] God Forbid politicans be forced to actually REPRESENT their constituents.
the sad thing is that gerrymandering probably isn't unconstitutional. Congress could pass an amendment to make it unconstitutional but good luck in today's political climate putting any pro-representation legislation through congress. The maine supreme court even went and found a pro-representation bill unconstitutional on a stupid technicality.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;52377804]the sad thing is that gerrymandering probably isn't unconstitutional. [/QUOTE] I think the argument could be made that it's a form of racial discrimination, given that it disenfranchises African-American voters disproportionately.
I fully expect them to rule in favor of gerrymandering on the basis that the supreme court shines a pretty shade of red these days, as do the offices of the politicians that benefit from gerrymandering.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52378664]I fully expect them to rule in favor of gerrymandering on the basis that the supreme court shines a pretty shade of red these days, as do the offices of the politicians that benefit from gerrymandering.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the democrats are no angels when it comes to gerrymandering. It's one of the reasons I dislike "VOTE THE PROBLEMS AWAY" stuff; sometimes, government shittiness is a [I]bipartisan[/I] pleasure. So it doesn't matter what party you vote in, they aren't interested.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52378664]I fully expect them to rule in favor of gerrymandering on the basis that the supreme court shines a pretty shade of red these days, as do the offices of the politicians that benefit from gerrymandering.[/QUOTE] Don't pretend that only Republicans contemplate it; Illinois has had a history with gerrymandering as well.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52378850]I'm pretty sure the democrats are no angels when it comes to gerrymandering. It's one of the reasons I dislike "VOTE THE PROBLEMS AWAY" stuff; sometimes, government shittiness is a [I]bipartisan[/I] pleasure. So it doesn't matter what party you vote in, they aren't interested.[/QUOTE] I think that most (as in above 50%) of the time it benefits republicans. This isn't necessarily because republicans are greedier or more corrupt or whatever, but probably more to do with the nature of the population dispersion of rural populations, their typical voting bloc. This makes it easier to draw lines that benefit them. [T]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2017/06/Brennan1.png&w=1484[/T]
[QUOTE=kharkovus;52378972]I think that most (as in above 50%) of the time it benefits republicans. This isn't necessarily because republicans are greedier or more corrupt or whatever, but probably more to do with the nature of the population dispersion of rural populations, their typical voting bloc. This makes it easier to draw lines that benefit them. [T]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2017/06/Brennan1.png&w=1484[/T][/QUOTE] 2 things, they controlled redistricting in 2012 pretty much nationwide, and they at the time declared righteously that they would systematically gerrymander everything with surgical precision never before seen to give them the ultimate edge and this is exactly what happened, they win without even trying now because they made almost all the house seats non compedative
Pennsylvania is also being sued for gerrymandering, we're one of the worst states in the country for it.
Here's hoping Neil Gorsuch will have enough wit about him to sway these sort of issues out of the Court's grasp. Nothing good can come of a SCOTUS verdict on this case, no matter which way it sways.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52379429]Here's hoping Neil Gorsuch will have enough wit about him to sway these sort of issues out of the Court's grasp. Nothing good can come of a SCOTUS verdict on this case, no matter which way it sways.[/QUOTE] On the contrary I think if they declare Gerrymandering unconstitutional it will be a net positive for the country.
Districting needs to be done by a machine with open-source (as in, publicly verifiable) code. No city or county lines, just arbitrarily sized districts based on contained population
[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;52379477]Districting needs to be done by a machine with open-source (as in, publicly verifiable) code. No city or county lines, just arbitrarily sized districts based on contained population[/QUOTE] I think there are problems with this. The districts would need to be very numerous if you want accuracy through pure arbitrary selection, and at that point why not just switch to a proportional representation system without elected representatives (party chooses.) It's a hard problem to solve and I'm not sure that would necessarily solve it altogether, since randomness can heavily bias results with a limited number of districts.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52379429]Here's hoping Neil Gorsuch will have enough wit about him to sway these sort of issues out of the Court's grasp. Nothing good can come of a SCOTUS verdict on this case, no matter which way it sways.[/QUOTE] nothing good can come out of another decade of using super-computer generated hyper partisan lines. think how much data analytics have evolved since 2012, in 2022 when redistricting kicks in, it will be worse than anyone can imagine [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=kharkovus;52379630]I think there are problems with this. The districts would need to be very numerous if you want accuracy through pure arbitrary selection, and at that point why not just switch to a proportional representation system without elected representatives (party chooses.) It's a hard problem to solve and I'm not sure that would necessarily solve it altogether, since randomness can heavily bias results with a limited number of districts.[/QUOTE] its not hard, dozens of proportional solutions have been generated over the years, its just the hands that make the districts do not want a fair playing field
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52378850]I'm pretty sure the democrats are no angels when it comes to gerrymandering. It's one of the reasons I dislike "VOTE THE PROBLEMS AWAY" stuff; sometimes, government shittiness is a [I]bipartisan[/I] pleasure. So it doesn't matter what party you vote in, they aren't interested.[/QUOTE] Perhaps, but at the end of the day Democrats won't stand in the way of abolishing gerrymandering
You will never get loyal conservatives to agree upon progressive or fair representation legislation because they would fucking lose with their policies that are geared to hurt the average citizen One of the main arguments against abolishing the electoral college is "but the majority of the population would vote left consistently" lol
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;52390195]One of the main arguments against abolishing the electoral college is "but the majority of the population would vote left consistently" lol[/QUOTE] Because urban populations are more and more numerous than rural populations, and the founding fathers wanted a system that didn't allow tyranny of the majority. Even then policy at the is largely put together with an urban mindset because politicians come from cities, campaign in cities, and meet within a city. Maybe if Hillary actually spent the last few months campaigning instead of gloating she would have won. Maybe if the Democrats didn't ignore rural America, they wouldn't vote for the only man who remembered we exist. I do not like Trump, but I will give him credit for targeting the glaring weaknesses in the Democrat's strategy to propel himself to victory. The Democrats need to get their shit together if they want to win.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52397494]Because urban populations are more and more numerous than rural populations, and the founding fathers wanted a system that didn't allow tyranny of the majority. Even then policy at the is largely put together with an urban mindset because politicians come from cities, campaign in cities, and meet within a city.[/QUOTE] How many times do we have to explain why this is a retarded argument?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52397606]How many times do we have to explain why this is a retarded argument?[/QUOTE] Go look at voting map, rural districts are usually red and urban districts are usually blue. It's way too many to be a coincidence.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52397626]Go look at voting map, rural districts are usually red and urban districts are usually blue. It's way too many to be a coincidence.[/QUOTE] If conservatives want to win over the blue states then they should update their antiquated ideology to something more palatable to centrist voters.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52397626]Go look at voting map, rural districts are usually red and urban districts are usually blue. It's way too many to be a coincidence.[/QUOTE] Lots of reasons for this. Bad quality of education in rural areas, more minorities in urban areas, as well as the demographics the parties pander to, Republicans pander to farmers and the like a lot. Colleges and universities are located in cities too and that has an affect on it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52397626]Go look at voting map, rural districts are usually red and urban districts are usually blue. It's way too many to be a coincidence.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying rural communities don't tend to vote to the right and vice-versa. I'm saying that claiming the electoral college is a valid system because it prevents a "dictature of the majority" is a flawed argument.
[QUOTE=The Vman;52397670]If conservatives want to win over the blue states then they should update their antiquated ideology to something more palatable to centrist voters.[/QUOTE] Same for the Democrats, as I said above. Dropping gun control would be a start. I know a few people myself included who agree with their platform, but hate that we're vilified by them.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52397494]Because urban populations are more and more numerous than rural populations, and the founding fathers wanted a system that didn't allow tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTE] So instead we have the tyranny of a random handful of swing states. That's just replacing the problem with the exact same problem, only now there's bullshit piled on top of it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.