Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering

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

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    63,857
    Likes Received:
    1,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well then you don't have anything, that would be a KEY consideration. Who is on the committee and who appoints them. What does this commission do different than the committees in the state legislatures that draw up the lines?
     
  2. ThorInc

    ThorInc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,166
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey, on this we totally agree.
     
    HB Surfer likes this.
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    63,857
    Likes Received:
    1,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK how are you going to do it then?
     
  4. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Create rules against partisan rigging of the districts. Look at the loopholes that are currently used by political parties to increase their advantage and shut them down.
     
    ThorInc likes this.
  5. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    63,857
    Likes Received:
    1,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Like what? The Constitution leaves it up to the states to draw their Congressional districts if at all, House members were elected at large previously. The citizens of the state elect their representatives with one of their duties being drawing district lines. There is no constitutional provision that says they must be drawn up equally between political parties, political parties are not even acknowledged in the Constitution.
     
  6. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Rules could be written to give a hearing to those who feel they are being cheated by obvious political hacks who are in power from either party at any given time to redraw congressional districts in a blatantly unfair manner in order to stay in power. These sleazy tactics which have been used by both political parties for over a century are a threat to our republic. Some sort of redress could and should be instated and enforced.
     
  7. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    63,857
    Likes Received:
    1,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can go to court now and sue if you believe something was untoward and there have been instances of long snake like districts trying to grab voters have been sent back to the state legislature. But those are rare the Constitution giving great deference to the elected officials of the state, the people's voice. Perhaps you could come up with a computer algorithm that would simply look at the population survey and create concise as uniform as possible districts based on population size alone. No inputs as to race, or income, or voting records, or gender. Just the number of citizens trying to equalize the just the numbers in each district. But then shouldn't some regional aspect come into play. People in a commonly defined region with regional interest. To split up a city into five other districts of suburbanites.

    It's always the party wins gets the upper hand in districting so that entices parties to deal with the interest of the citizens to get their votes.
     
    jack4freedom likes this.
  8. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    14,544
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or they may finally overturn the Warren era Baker vs Carr
     
  9. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,841
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think district should be drawn according the people who live in them not to try to get the dominant party in the state to win. Because of this I condemn the democrat's use of gerrymandering. We have computer algorithms that can draw districts according to this criteria, or we can find a non-partisan panel to draw the lines like in many states and other countries.
     
  10. Tijuana

    Tijuana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds like a nice idea. Now, run for office, and pass the law. Until then, **** and let the people from a state you don't live in do it the way THEY want to. You Liberals are amazingly dense. About a dozen of you keep putting forth this notion that there is a better way. It doesn't matter. This isn't Vietnam, Smoky. This bowling. There are rules. But Liberals never want to use the rules we all agreed on; they want to get what they want via the courts. It's win at all costs, by hook or by crook.
     
  11. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So what your saying is that politicians should choose the voters, and not voters choosing the politician.

    You keep assuming that their is no way way to randomize districts, which on its face is ridiculous. It also shows that you really don't understand what gerrymandering is, and how it is achieved. Gerrymandered districts are drawn based on voter registration, which give unfair advantage to those who draw the district. So once one party gets a majority, they gerrymander to keep that majority. How again is that democratic ? District are drawn in such a way to create one large district for one party, and 2 smaller districts for the other party. Although they may have the same geographical size, one side gets 2 representatives, while the other gets 1......

    The country is fairly evenly divided as democrat and republican, yet republicans hold the majority of state houses, and governorships. Thats not by accident. In 2006 the Koch brothers started very concentrated effort at the state level to win seats. They did this knowing that once they won a simple majority, gerrymandering would allow them to keep their "majority" at the federal level via gerrymandering.

    This is all achieved based on one simple concept, in America the popular vote means nothing. The most votes doesn't really mean anything when you can pick and choose who gets to vote for whom.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  12. Tijuana

    Tijuana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I get it more than you, based on your comments. One man's gerrymander is another man's perfectly fair district. It's factually impossible to make everyone happy. Districts being pleasing to the eye says nothing of where the people who feel a certain way randomly choose to live.

    And again, for about the 200th time in this thread, I am making no case for these lines in question, or to the general method that should be used.

    I'm just saying this should be handled via legislation, not activist judges writing law from the bench.

    Your fact about the country being divided equally, yet Republicans hold more state houses is missing a pretty key detail. MOST states are rural, and most rural areas have virtually no Democrats. There are probably more Democrats at an average Raider's game, then there are in the entire state of Kansas, to use our local example. (in this random Raiders game, they lose to the Chiefs)

    Lastly, to your point about gerrymandering being some insurmountable force, rather than a slight edge, consider how the GOP got control of these state legislatures. They got them, while gerrymandered against them, in a huge wave of anti-Democrat elections (thanks Obama). Since they were gerrymandered against the GOP, yet the GOP won (~1,000 seats), I find it hard to imagine the DNC cannot do the same. I also think it's always been this way.

    But, all that aside, my issue is with the people of a state having their right to choose their own districts, via the leaders they choose, being taken away from them by an un-elected body hundreds of miles away.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  13. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,841
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not being able to do anything about it doesn't change the fact that I am right.

    I am not a liberal.

    And I am expressing the opinion that the rules should be changed and that we should support politicians who want this.

    Conservatives don't either. They blatantly ignore the fact that the Patriot Act violates multiple parts of the constitution.
     
  14. Tijuana

    Tijuana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm all for changing the rules too, if that is what the people want. I'm against them having their rules changed against their will. If you support the opposite of that, you are factually a liberal. If you want laws changed via anything other than the legislators, you are certainly not a Conservative or a Libertarian.

    The Patriot Act is hated by BOTH sides, at least as far as voters are concerned. Get off that nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  15. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,841
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It doesn't matter if a rule change is against the people's will, we are a republic not a democracy. We vote for politicians we hope to do things we believe in and have every right to have opinions on what should happen. It is common knowledge that the vast majority of us oppose gerrymandering and only crooked politicians support it so we should demand that they strike this corrupt practice down and vote out those who refuse.

    Is this a response to my post or somebody else, because I wasn't talking about changing laws outside of normal processes.

    Not true, this law has people split down the middle, with democrats divided and republicans mostly supporting. Get your facts straight.
    http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided-over-the-patriot-act/
     
  16. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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
  17. Tijuana

    Tijuana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes Received:
    675
    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
     
  18. Tijuana

    Tijuana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes Received:
    675
    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
  19. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,841
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  20. ThorInc

    ThorInc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,166
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Touche'
     

Share This Page