Pa. Supreme Court strikes down congressional map as unconstitutional

And if this was a state that was Blue at the time and gerrymandered (the legislature handles it BTW) you'd be complaining as much as everyone else is. Cut the crap.

 

wtf The supreme court has already ruled on this.

The democrats will cry again once it goes back to the supreme court again.

 

The maps are drawn by legislation.
No court can force a legislature to pass legislation; no court can force a governor to sign legislation.
And so, if the maps are not re-drawn, the existing map stands.

 

Legislators in the State House and Senate draw district lines.

 

Yes the SC has ruled that 'gerrymandering is bad, do it right this time'. You blame this on Dems. Had this been done to undo Dem gerrymandering, you'd be in full agreement with the SC's ruling. Cut the crap.

 

Democrats are very afraid... In every major urban democrat controlled city, it's unconstitutional not to have a seat for a democrat to win... Too funny. I can only imagine how bad you guys are gonna be after the primaries and leading up to Trump's reelection in 2020. Hopefully CA secedes or forfeits their votes for going against federal law and becoming a sanctuary city. I believe you people called the Confederacy treasonous for going against the feds, now look, y'all support it.

 

Predominately black or democrat makes it fair. Everything else is discriminatory.

 

Lemme guess... The entire state minus the southeastern section should be one district and the southeastern section should have 50 districts inside it.

Funny how the liberal controlled cities of every single state are the most crime ridden and have the highest percentage of welfare recipients. You libs never cease to amaze.

 

If they looked at the election results they'd see this. In the district that Pittsburg is in, Hillary won by 105,529 votes. In the district that Philly is in, Hillary won by 455,124. A few other counties went for Clinton by 62K and 90K. In the red counties, minus 1 or 2, Trump won by 60% to 90%. The liberals just don't like math if it doesn't benefit them.

 

You need to fire whatever **** drew out that district map of TX.

 

Yep. They weren't pissing and moaning about this until Trump won PA.

 

Actually, the case referenced "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" June 15, 2017. So you're claim is wrong.

 

Yea they're basically saying "people in these areas shouldn't get the Representation they want for their area because people in other areas got their Representation too easily".

Its insane.

 

So you're fine with extremely skewed maps where the politicians pick their voters instead of voters picking their politicians?

Yikes.

Corruption, all for the tribe right?

 

Where the percentage of representatives of a certain party from the state is as close as possible as the percentage of people who voted for that party.

 

That's neither fair nor the point of having districts.

Please see post #15 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...p-as-unconstitutional.524378/#post-1068581039

 

We have representatives to represent and if 89% of the representatives are democrat but only 53% are democrat there is a huge problem.

 

Didn't read whole joke of a thread. Sick of seeing this particular lie narrative repeated of late.

Short of it is, gerrymandering was created by DEMOCRAT judges pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. States were FORCED to draw wacky-zany districts to insure minority legislative representation. This worked really well for minority representation, but in the long run it turned out bad for Democrats overall, because the votes lost from prior sanely drawn districts worked against Democrats generally. Those are irrefutable facts of gerrymandering. Don't take my word for it, do your own research, but whatever you do, don't take the word of LW liars and lie narratives... on anything... this is just one example.

So, what do Democrats do now that they have minority representation (by clowns like Maxine Waters and Doody Hat as a side note)? They go to court and seek unfair advantage by slicing just enough minorities out of the guaranteed districts to shift the scales in the "lost" districts. All the while LYING through their teeth that they are countering Republican vote suppression tactics. In essence, it's just another crooked, Democrat scheme among many that they don't even have the guts to be honest about.

What do you think of people who LIE about the above facts and necessary context behind the gerrymandering issue? or ANY political issue? Personally, I don't think much of them, nor do most people, which is why they lose and keep losing.

 

Can you re-state that I don't quite understand.

 

The founders appointed representatives to actually represent the views of their constituents and for voters to choose their representatives. Instead with gerrymandering representatives pick their voters and the views of the people are not represented.

 

Gerrymandering is WAY older than that. By about 2 centuries. lol

 

But do you not see the flaw in your position?

You're saying representatives from one area should be chosen based on how another area votes.

That's NOT the point of having Congressional districts.

Under that mentality the voting habits of densely packed inner cities would take the choice of representation away from the sparsely populated rural areas.

There is quite literally no "fair" way to draw districts in the confines of the rules that we've chosen to adhere to.

There are unfair ways but here's the problem, the "solution" to the so called unfair ways is more often than not simply a mirror - aka its also unfair.

Trust me, you're going to be hearing about "gerrymandering" for the rest of your life.

And just wait till 2020, which is when then reapportionment process begins ...oh boy is it going to be a media shitstorm.

 

Completely irrelevant to how it originated in contemporary U.S. politics as a product of the Voting Rights Act and implementation by Democrats.

 

We are not a proportional representative system. Big cities go 90% for the Democrat. You are arguing that the cities should get more representation because they vote for 1 party?