Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering

Shame you lot don't feel the same way about things like pot, then, huh?


Game....over?

 

The argument here is that whether these individuals are allowed to vote is irrelevant to the needs and desires of that particular district. Illegal immigrants still require resources and provide benefits to a given area and those must be taken into account in order to properly govern a given area.

 

Illegal immigrants need to get the **** out, is what they need. I am sick of this nonsense, and It is absurd to consider what they need at all.

 

I will never accept a partisan rag, or a music magazine as a reliable source. Just sayin...

 

Even if we stuck with such a simplistic notion, then you need to remember that law enforcement, attorneys, and judges are all required in order to force them out. Those are some of the aforementioned resources that need to be considered by census data.

 

My lot, Libertarians, are just fine with pot being legal, as they are ALL victim less crimes. My lot (sort of), Republicans are for state's rights. YOUR side is the side of authoritarian control via Washington, not mine. At least get your own ideology straight, before applying good and evil tags.

 

I sort of doubt this will go your way though. How can you guarantee that the lines in EVERY state are not drawn to disenfranchise say, the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party? This is a slippery slope, and the SCOTUS has a LONG history of not attempting to climb those.

 

No, that is not what is being said.

Gerrymandering occurs when lines are drawn to intentionally disenfranchise certain voters and give an edge to certain party or candidate. They intentionally lump republicans into a district, redrawing the lines, so that the democrat candidate will win, while simultaneously removing those republicans from republican controlled districts which reduces their availability to vote with like minded individuals who are in geographic proximity.

As an example, I live in a rural area about 42 miles south of Chicago. The entire south side of Chicago is heavily democrat.



See number 2. That little part that extends down, grabs only my town of 10K people. That town of 10,000 is EXTREMELY conservative, but doesn't stand a change against the remainder of district 2. It also reduces the conservative vote in district 11.

The drawing of that line was purely politically driven. Look at those districts, they are a mess and make absolutely no sense.

 

The intent is 1 to 1 PEOPLE representation, not just voters.

The idea is that the representative represents everyone in a given area, including people who can't vote -- slaves, children, non-citizens, etc.

 

I actually have no problem with gerrymandering as a concept. I see it as a benefit of controlling state politics.

I do have a problem with the way it is done. They arent taking a solid red district, then adding blue county or piece of a county to help make that second county blue or purple. They are taking random pieces of several counties to make these districts. A quick look a wiki shows most of the worst offenders.

The illinois 4th district is what I cant stand. I can live with districts like California 11th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

 

Sorry guy but, nowhere in the constitution does it say the will of the people must be subverted for artificial intelligence. The people of each state have a right to make the laws as they see fit, provided they are not in conflict with the constitution. While these other methods may be better, they are not the law of the land in the states in question. Therefore, they are invalid.

 

You are really stereotyping and lumping together to attempt to serve your argument.

I am staunchly conservative, and I oppose that my vote, here in the State of Illinois, means nothing at almost all levels of government. That's wrong.

 

Fine change the law. It's bullshit.

You, guy, still haven't quoted the part of the constitution regarding districting. I am waiting for that.

 

This is a hilarious post. Uh, I hate to break it to you, since you maybe didn't take a government class in high school. But, yeah....the constitution is a LIMITING document. It doesn't grant powers, it limits them. ANYTHING not expressly covered in the constitution, is a state right. Anything not expressly covered in a state constitution, is a county right, and on down the ladder. How can you not know that???

 

You don't understand the basic fundamentals of how the constitution works, which is hilarious. Any power not expressly defined in the constitution, is a state power.

 

It's not wrong at all. Majority rules. That is how it works. Your rights stop where your neighbor's rights begin.

 

I don't disagree with your point. Where we are in disagreement, is in the fact of who gets to decide. If the people of Illinois want a different law, then that is up to them to decide, not unelected judges in Washington. The only exception, is laws that are found to be unconstitutional.

 

Yeah... I get the constitution just fine. Your crappy aggressive attitude doesn't bother me. I simply makes you look desperate because your argument blows. You look really tough hiding behind the internet. Anyway, I digress.

Let's have a little conversation about the Constitution. Which is a limiting document, and why the Supreme Court is completely validated in hearing this case.

Section 4 - The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

Section 8 - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.​

So as I said. Let's pass legislation at the federal level to better prevent gerrymandering.

Uh oh. Your entire just crumbled. Your aggressive attitude just got shot down by something called facts.

 

You keep identifying with party. "Republican this, republican that." What I identify as evil are the republicans and the democrats and have said so many times in this thread, so don't presume as to label me, sir.

YOU chose to ignore this issue because it benefitted those whom, unknowingly, apparently, you agree with.

That's your problem.

Gerrymandering is an issue, and I am sick of these two parties doing it.

 

And now that you have devolved to name calling and ad hominem, we can end this discourse as you are incapable of honestly discussing the subject matter.

Mediocre!

 

I'm sorry if I made my case too strongly, snowflake. Next time I will give you time to run for your safe space. In case you had not noticed, aggressive is the trend of this forum, on both sides. Maybe a moderated forum is more you speed?

I never once said anything about congress stepping in. That would ALSO be a valid way to alter the state law. What I am against, as I have stated like a hundred times, is judges undoing the will of the people. I'm against our systems of government trampling upon each other.

Also, I have seen a lot of goal post moving on the internet. But you might be the first ever person to move the goal post, and then talk **** like you just crumbled my argument, via moving the goal post. I never said anything about federal lawmakers being able to impact state law. You just made that up, moved the goal post, then spiked the ball near the concession stand.

 

I think this may be the entire crux of the debate, and jcarl and I have disagreed on many, many topics in the past; but, this needed to be said.

His vote has been gerrymandered as to be useless. This is disenfranchisement.

Conservative, moderate, liberal; at all levels, gerrymandering as made many of our votes completely useless.

And it is truly sad.

 

Thanks for that riveting debate, where you never once were able to refute my basic facts, and never once even offered your own reasoning for your beliefs. Good game. /ass slap

 

Both parties gerrymander, that is undeniable, but Republicans control far more states so stopping gerrymandering will hurt them a lot more.

 

The simple solution is to do away with districts and have all offices be state-wide elections.