Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by raytri, Jun 19, 2017.

  1. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,809
    Likes Received:
    9,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody is claiming they should be pleasing to the eye. What I am claiming is that they should be drawn SOLELY based on population, and not on certain demographics first and geography second.

    And they are, the problem is that in most states they were handled by independent committees NOT made up of politicians. Once someone has a vested interest in the outcomes of those "districts" they become tainted. Judges don't draw the maps, they just decide if they are constitutional.

    So that means unequal representation. Why should the 2.9 million people of Kansas have the same amount of representation, and Senatorial votes as the 39.1 million people of California? That rural vote has unfair advantage, and unfair power. That is NOT to say that they shouldn't have representation, but it has to be more equitable.

    In the house they have had the advantage since 1997 I think. But yes, the dems are no better than the republicans. I don't really like either one, I am a very rare bread, I am an issues voter.

    It is an unfair advantage once you have the power. I don't think that politicians themselves should decide districts. They need to have impartial bodies do that. And in most states they did do that for years, but once politicians (on both sides) became so corrupt, and power hungry they needed an advantage so they found ways to give it to themselves.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  2. Tijuana

    Tijuana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not unequal at all. California also has by far and away the most representatives, as well as more electors. Checks and balances are equal on the whole, not individually. Without giving each state two senators, there is no check against the 200 representatives and electors, or whatever California gets. People in different states have different local concerns, aside from politics. Those concerns must be given voice, or else states would leave the union, as they tried to before. The Constitution was drawn up in such a way to sell it to everyone, at the time of our founding. Without checks to keep high population states from steamrolling over the low population states, they never would have joined the union to begin with. I'm sort of astounded there are people that don't know any of this. You must have went to Kansas City schools, so you are forgiven. At least we can agree on the Chiefs. =D
     
  3. Tijuana

    Tijuana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course we are all against gerrymandering. My point is, show me a state where nobody thinks the districts are unfair. Go head. I'll wait. Who decides which districts are fair and which are not? That is my issue.

    You say you want a republic, but you want to take the power away from those elected to represent us. Do you not understand that is the very definition of a republic?

    The very thread itself is a thread about changing the law via unconventional means. When the SCOTUS steps in and writes law from the bench, that is not the normal course of business. The normal course of business, is for states to change their own laws, or not change them, as the people of that state see fit, via the legislature.

    You are refuting my point that both sides dislike the patriot act with a poll that shows both sides dislike the patriot act. What are you even on about? I never said it was unanimous support. I just said it's hated by both sides.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  4. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't matter what some random person believes, what matters is the truth. Many states have their districts drawn by independent commissions. Show me that districts drawn by comissions aren't any better than those drawn by politicians, and if you can't then what are we waiting for? Also, we have computer algorithms that draw districts.

    Not allowing politicians to draw districts isn't the same thing as taking away all their constitutional powers. I believe that as it stands that politicians have too much power and have even overstepped the bounds of the constitution in many cases.

    Actually the Judicial Branch is a normal course of business and is written right into the constitution. Basically this branch exists to strike down anything that crooked politicians do that violates the direct word or intent of our constitution. I don't know whether gerrymandering is constitutional or not but I welcome the Supreme Court debating and look forward to what they decide. Otherwise we should support laws against gerrymandering.

    Only 22% of Republicans believe it goes too far and 57% of then think its a necessary tool. My point is that it isn't just democrats who don't obey the rule of law.
     
  5. ThorInc

    ThorInc Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    19,183
    Likes Received:
    11,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Touche'
     
  6. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're right, you didn't.

    I did.

    And you retorted with some comment about me not knowing the constitution blah blah blah.

    Reading comprehension is important, especially if you're going to be a Johnny - tough - guy.
     
    ThorInc likes this.
  7. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,330
    Likes Received:
    39,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They have also been drawn by courts to create "minority majority" districts. Shall we end that gerrymandering too?
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017
  8. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm fine with that if that's where the chips fall. And have been for years. From my old blog:
    http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2007/07/redistricting-update.html

    But given that people tend to clump, a nonpartisan map could easily end up creating a minority-majority district -- and a nonpartisan process could ENSURE that if demographic representation were one of the criteria for drawing a map. I think a state's congressional delegation should more-or-less reflect the makeup of that state. Not EXACTLY -- no quotas or anything. But if a state is 15% black, then a black candidate should have a reasonable shot at 15% of the state's congressional seats. Drawing the districts to allow that is fine, IMO.

    There are other approaches, too. One interesting idea is to create "superdistricts", where you join three districts together, and send the top three votegetters to Congress.
    http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1429

    It's an idea from the Fair Vote project, drawing on a proposal from National Review's editor. Superdistricts make it easier for minority representatives (be it a racial, religious or political minority) to get elected, even if minorities don't add up to a majority in any of the three districts.

    It has some downsides -- I can see scenarios where both the Democrat and Republican candidates would routinely get elected, leaving the minority parties to fight for the third spot.

    But because superdistricts give minority parties a serious chance of winning at least one seat (especially if combined with ranked-choice voting), it changes the political calculus. We have a Dem/Rep duopoly because our winner-take-all system discourages third parties. It's easier to gain influence within one of the two major parties than to compete as an outsider.

    Superdistricts and ranked-choice voting change that. So you might see the Dem/Rep duopoly splinter into multiple parties, and then suddenly everything is up for grabs. For example, you could see a mainline Democrat, a Bernie Democrat, a mainline Republican, a Tea Party Republican, a Socialist and a Libertarian all competing. In such a situation, the mainline Dem/Rep candidates no longer have a lock on a seat.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017
  9. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,809
    Likes Received:
    9,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Courts don't draw districts. They only validate/invalidate them.

    Independent commissions are the only way to draw them. Commissions that are free from Political interference. Demographics should not be part of it, only geography
     
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,330
    Likes Received:
    39,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A distinction without merit. For years I had to drive by the polling place right outside the entrance to my neighborhood and then several miles down the road to our civic center to vote. Why? Because a federal judge ordered a black district be created by "gerrymandering" and that district voted at my former polling place.

    The city in which I grew up and still live next to many years ago had a federal judge order the open 3 member city council be abolished and 7 districts drawn up and 3 of them had to be miniority majority districts and not only that but that before the city council could pass any significant motions or budgets etc, at least one of the minority district council member had to vote for it giving the blacks in the city a more powerful voice.

    Courts do LOTS of things you wouldn't think they could.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,330
    Likes Received:
    39,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why should race have anything to do with it at all, white candidates should vie for black votes and black votes should vie for white votes. There is a thread I created several months ago documenting where the courts have ordered race NOT be a factor in drawing up districts and then REQUIRING race be a factor in drawing up districts. It should not be a factor at all.

    I want one person who represents my district who I can go to for my district if I need to. I don't care what race he, using the neutral he, is what gender he is.

    How about just supporting policies the majority of the citizens support and win on that basis?

    I see what happens in these splintered parliamentary systems and I don't like how that sausage is made, the two party is bad enough.
     
  12. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In an ideal world, you are correct. In the real world, we see that race still has significant effects. It is foolish to ignore that reality.

    Really? You shoot down the whole idea of a superdistrict because you're concerned about which office to call?

    The "majority of citizens" in any given district can support wildly different things than the majority of citizens in another district. It all depends on how you draw the district boundaries. Which is why gerrymandering is a thing.

    Draw districts through a nonpartisan process, and you would get your wish.

    *Shrug.* Parliamentary systems work very well for the most part. They are quite good at incorporating a wide range of views without threatening national stability. The big parties dominate; the little parties get some representation.

    There are instances where a system can be SO corrupt or SO splintered that either the government is ineffective (Italy) or small parties hold the system hostage (Israel, quite often). But those are exceptions. Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Canada ... all do just fine with a parliamentary system.

    Meanwhile, our two-party system is paralyzed because of polarization, driven in part by gerrymandering.

    I see no downside to getting a Congress with more than two parties in it. You claim to dislike the two-party system, and also dislike parliamentary systems. What I have proposed would weaken the two-party system without creating a parliamentary system. So what's the problem? What would you like to see instead?
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017
  13. tharock220

    tharock220 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've never really cared about gerrymandering. I guess because I live in a state drawn to keep the party I favor in office.

    Do any conservatives in blue states protest it? I know Massachusettes is drawn to keep Republicans out of power. Does anybody care about it as a whole, regardless of political view?
     
  14. Aphotic

    Aphotic Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,595
    Likes Received:
    6,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't worry, he reported that post. Glad you replied to it. It's a shame he isn't consistent.
     
  15. Aphotic

    Aphotic Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,595
    Likes Received:
    6,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do. I am on the board for my county and attend all our meetings.
     
  16. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,330
    Likes Received:
    39,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Like what?



    About a representative for my district not two others.

    I have mentioned a system using computers to draw them up based on population alone, regardless of race, party, sex, gender, etc. But then communities have community interest too that must be considered.


    And I think it would be even more so in a parliamentary system.
     
  17. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Like blacks have a hard time getting elected by white-majority areas, and whites have a hard time getting elected by black-majority areas.

    I discussed this idea above. An algorithm could easily take into account municipal and county boundaries. You could even do neighborhood boundaries if you wanted, but that starts getting granular enough to allow gerrymandering.

    So what do you want? You hate the two-party system, you hate parliamentary systems -- but you also hate anything that weakens the two-party system and makes it easier for third parties to get their candidates elected.

    Sounds like you don't want to change anything, you just want to kvetch.
     
  18. ThorInc

    ThorInc Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    19,183
    Likes Received:
    11,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    About nailed it ;).
     
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,330
    Likes Received:
    39,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I live in the DEEP South, we elected a black mayor twice and race should have nothing to do with it. Whites should compete for black votes and Blacks should compete for white votes.

    Yes as I stated those factors should be included as communities have community interest.

    And of course the bottom line is the state legislature is going to have the final say anyway.

    I haven't said I hated anything, I prefer the two party system than a system of lots of smaller parties.
     
  20. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,809
    Likes Received:
    9,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Courts do not have the power to "create a minority district". They can only validate or invalidate them. Courts do not have to power to legislate, only to validate or invalidate legislation based on current law. And they absolutely cannot force "minority districts" on anyone. That is discrimination plain and simple
     
    ThorInc likes this.
  21. ThorInc

    ThorInc Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    19,183
    Likes Received:
    11,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you ready for the side step or distraction dance coming soon? :)
     
    grapeape likes this.

Share This Page