Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering

You are insisting other states adopt the method your state did. That is just bizarre. They have the right to choose as they see fit themselves.

 

I am saying it's the only fair way to district. You're defending enabling elected officials to choose their voters for future campaigns.

On what ****ing planet do YOU personally think that is a good idea?

 

But, as you just noted, the unearned advantage of Democrats did NOT keep them in power. Why do you presume the opposite for Republicans?

 

How do you explain Democrats losing, if gerrymandering is an insurmountable advantage? If Democrats can lose when gerrymandering is present, then so can Republicans. This is just another example of Democrats trying to use the courts to subvert the will of the people.

 

How did Democrats lose 1,000 seats, if gerrymandering guarantees victory?

 

Gerrymandering is a political question. I doubt they make any ruling that affects anybody but Wisconsin.

 

I always wondered how the lines meant anything considering that i've read that about 10-12% of people move every year.

Do Dem's only sell to dem's and GOP to GOP?

 

Again, not the issue. The republicans won for valid reasons.

Why do you excuse them packing and cracking districts to make sure there is a republican majority in the majority of districts?

You're choosing to ignore the argument and keep spewing the same BS.

 

This is not relative. It doesn't matter who does it. What matters is that when it is done in the manner of redmap, it enables an insurmountable misrepresentation of the people in those states.

Why are you against non-partisan panels determining districts?

 

Because there has never been a district that WASN'T gerrymandered. The party in power always does it, and it has never ensured their continued power. No matter how you draw the lines in say, Massachusetts, you can't draw the GOP to victory.

 

I'm for whatever the good people of any state want to use as a method of determining the lines. This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. The right wants the people to make all their own decisions, via the existing mechanisms. The left wants to sue and apply new interpretations to old laws to win. Republicans do not think that a few elites, in this case judges, should be able to undo the choices the people make. Republicans think these fights should be carried out at the ballot box.

 

Again, not the point. The point is - why enable the party to district at all?

Sheesh.

It doesn't matter who does it; if it is done for partisan gain it is wrong. Right now, the republicans have gerrymandered a ridiculous, absurd and nigh insurmountable majority. They won the seats initially - now they have constructed a gerrymandered district map that has fractured the democratic voter base and has nearly ensured them victory in the future.

You don't see a problem with that, of course, because it's clear you're an ideologue. But the reality is, non-partisan panels exist, can handle this in a fair way, and would be most honest to the will of the people, then enabling the reps to pick their voters.

Why are you against non-partisan boards redistricting instead of elected officials?

 

The people did not choose to fracture districts to construct fake voter blocs.

Why are you against non-partisan boards?

Answer the question, no more deflection.

 

I agree that it should be done fairly. We just disagree on what fair means. I think elections have consequences, and that at any time, the people can change the way this is done via the law.

Why is it that, you seem to presume that they are keeping their power unfairly, even though you admit they gained it fairly, against the grain of an unfair drawing of the districts? If gerrymandering can't keep Democrats in power, it can't keep Republicans in power. Do you really not see that?

I'm not an ideologue at all. I have some views that cause the Republicans to declare me a witch! LOL

What I do believe in, is the systems in place. I think all law should be the result of the people choosing representatives to enact them. I don't believe in a judge circumventing the people's choices, and putting him or herself above the people. The word "judge" does not mean "legislator".

 

I never said I was against non-partisan boards. I never once said that. What I am against, is changing the law via the courts, instead of via the legislature.

 

Spare me the soundbytes. I asked you a pointed question. Moreover, this is not LAW. Law does not say that legislators have to redistrict. Laws typically say that impartial panels are enabled to redistrict.

I'm not saying democrats or any other party can't win in the future. I am saying that republicans are unconstitutionally cracking, packing districts to shatter a voter bloc and misrepresent their constituencies. The moderate center has been pushed right out the window by these two arsonist ideologies gerrymandering these voter blocs that enable them to strangle power.

Again, I am not saying they didn't win legitimately at first. I am saying they are not winning legitimately now. I am saying that they have forced a voter bloc by using creative algorithms to ensure it is easier to win in the future.

I disagree with any political, partisan gain actions by either party.

Thus, I disagree with what the republicans are doing.

They have CREATED misrepresentation.

 

The left does not like gerrymandering because they do not want a counterbalance to their demographic vote harvesting schemes. The elimination of gerrymandering would help the Democratic party, hence raytri's support.

 

The legislature is the entrenched elitist right wing officials who themselves gerrymander.

Courts are our only recourse. When republican AND democrats themselves, the legislators, are against non-partisan panels, legislation will never succeed.

You fail.

 

And when the people demand a change, they will get it. Your notion that the public has no say is just...bizarre.

 

Gerrymandering provides an EDGE. It does not guarantee victory for all time. Get a big enough wave, and you can overwhelm the effects of gerrymandering.

But that doesn't mean gerrymandering is okay, or not a factor.

In a non-gerrymandered state, you would expect the Congressional delegation to generally reflect the electorate. So if Republicans get 40% of the vote, they would get 40% of the Congressional seats, more or less.

Now let's say Democrats gerrymander the districts, so that even though Republicans get 40% of the vote, they only get 20% of the seats. How is that representative?

To win in that environment, Republicans would need a hugely outsized portion of the vote to overcome the effects of gerrymandering. Indeed, they might win a large majority of the vote, and STILL only hold a minority of Congressional seats.

Is that fair? Is that healthy for democracy? Is there ANY GOOD REASON for it?

 

Yet, the Democrats did the SAME THING, and still lost. What makes you think that this small advantage is insurmountable, given that Democrats did it too, and still lost? How do you arrive at this logic?

 

That doesn't even make sense.

 

All districts are drawn unfairly, by someone's view. There is no way to draw them that pleases everyone.

Why can't Democrats just win at the ballot box, instead of trying to sue their way back in to power? At any point, does the reason for losing elections sit on the shoulders of the party?

 

I never said you could please everyone. But the WORST POSSIBLE WAY to draw districts is to let our current elected officials do it. They draw districts for their own benefit, not ours. It is a method that INVITES corruption.

Not everyone will be happy with a given nonpartisan method. But practically any nonpartisan method is preferable to a partisan method.

 

Sure it does. As minorities flood into Republican districts, voting Democrat (of course), Republicans try and keep the landscape as it is as much as possible.

If this move was bad for the Democratic party you wouldn't be in favor of it.