I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
It's also puts the Dems in the spot where the morally right thing will necessarily handcuff them because we know the GOP is going to institute partisan gerrymanders everywhere and anywhere they have power. So either the Dems can do that so say, Illinois, New York, and California have like 12 Republicans between them or they can cede the House.
It's terrible for democracy, like Citizens United and Shelby County.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+27
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Except in states where a gerrymandered GOP can appoint, impeach, or hamstring state courts to their content with impunity from the voters
The same goes for ballot initiatives—an entrenched state GOP will just ignore the results the way they did in Florida with the voting initiative. What are you going to do, vote them out?
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
I agree with this, but it's another example of a situation where we need to fix it legislatively. This reminds me more of the eminent domain issue, where SCOTUS said "this shit is extremely fucked up, but you need to make your states fix it because we cannot" and then a bunch of states went and fixed it.
Also, note we're talking about political gerrymandering here. Racial lines could still be challenged under the 14th. I think it's some monumental hairsplitting and the dissent is compelling to me, but I'm not as outraged over this as others. One other solution to this problem is " candidates should be more broadly appealing" and all the counterarguments to that devolve instantly into "partisanship has fucked up the country", a thing SCOTUS rightly cannot fix.
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
I agree with this, but it's another example of a situation where we need to fix it legislatively. This reminds me more of the eminent domain issue, where SCOTUS said "this shit is extremely fucked up, but you need to make your states fix it because we cannot" and then a bunch of states went and fixed it.
Also, note we're talking about political gerrymandering here. Racial lines could still be challenged under the 14th. I think it's some monumental hairsplitting and the dissent is compelling to me, but I'm not as outraged over this as others. One other solution to this problem is " candidates should be more broadly appealing" and all the counterarguments to that devolve instantly into "partisanship has fucked up the country", a thing SCOTUS rightly cannot fix.
There's an obvious loophole to get around the racial gerrymandering question now. "We didn't do it because they were black, we did it because they were Democrats."
And mathematically at least it's almost literally the same argument. If you put that fig leaf on it (and Roberts is a big fan of fig leaves and hates VRA) I suspect SCOTUS will approve.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
What's insane to me about their gerrymander fix is how the fuck can you do that if your gerrymandered to fuck and back? Like this is asking a person to free themselves when they are shackled up!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
I agree with this, but it's another example of a situation where we need to fix it legislatively. This reminds me more of the eminent domain issue, where SCOTUS said "this shit is extremely fucked up, but you need to make your states fix it because we cannot" and then a bunch of states went and fixed it.
Also, note we're talking about political gerrymandering here. Racial lines could still be challenged under the 14th. I think it's some monumental hairsplitting and the dissent is compelling to me, but I'm not as outraged over this as others. One other solution to this problem is " candidates should be more broadly appealing" and all the counterarguments to that devolve instantly into "partisanship has fucked up the country", a thing SCOTUS rightly cannot fix.
Wisconsin Democratic candidates had very broad appeal going off of the vote tallies. They still lost seats overall because of the district lines rigging constituencies against them. SCOTUS can't fix partisanship, but it can fix who determines what constituencies get drawn together. Or, rather, it could if it wanted to hear it.
+7
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
I agree with this, but it's another example of a situation where we need to fix it legislatively. This reminds me more of the eminent domain issue, where SCOTUS said "this shit is extremely fucked up, but you need to make your states fix it because we cannot" and then a bunch of states went and fixed it.
Also, note we're talking about political gerrymandering here. Racial lines could still be challenged under the 14th. I think it's some monumental hairsplitting and the dissent is compelling to me, but I'm not as outraged over this as others. One other solution to this problem is " candidates should be more broadly appealing" and all the counterarguments to that devolve instantly into "partisanship has fucked up the country", a thing SCOTUS rightly cannot fix.
I mean, if those are the solutions, that's just it. Can't move forward until the minority is literally TOO SMALL a minority for this to work. And when that comes to pass, they will only have themselves to blame for how we're forced to respond politically.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
SCOTUS is taking up DACA. With these racist assholes, ugh.
I predict that while the constitution somehow doesn't empower a court to insist on free and fair elections that it somehow does empower it to deport hundreds of thousands of young Americans back to countries they have never been to.
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
I agree with this, but it's another example of a situation where we need to fix it legislatively. This reminds me more of the eminent domain issue, where SCOTUS said "this shit is extremely fucked up, but you need to make your states fix it because we cannot" and then a bunch of states went and fixed it.
Also, note we're talking about political gerrymandering here. Racial lines could still be challenged under the 14th. I think it's some monumental hairsplitting and the dissent is compelling to me, but I'm not as outraged over this as others. One other solution to this problem is " candidates should be more broadly appealing" and all the counterarguments to that devolve instantly into "partisanship has fucked up the country", a thing SCOTUS rightly cannot fix.
There's an obvious loophole to get around the racial gerrymandering question now. "We didn't do it because they were black, we did it because they were Democrats."
And mathematically at least it's almost literally the same argument. If you put that fig leaf on it (and Roberts is a big fan of fig leaves and hates VRA) I suspect SCOTUS will approve.
The solution to that is for Democrats to be more broadly appealing and etc. It's a political solution. Black People aren't permanent democrats and ignoring the distinction as a matter of law is concerning at best. Political alignments aren't permanent, things have changed a lot just in the last 10-15 years.
I get where you're coming from and I'm very concerned about the real-world impacts here, but as a matter of law I'm not at all convinced the majority was wrong.
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
I agree with this, but it's another example of a situation where we need to fix it legislatively. This reminds me more of the eminent domain issue, where SCOTUS said "this shit is extremely fucked up, but you need to make your states fix it because we cannot" and then a bunch of states went and fixed it.
Also, note we're talking about political gerrymandering here. Racial lines could still be challenged under the 14th. I think it's some monumental hairsplitting and the dissent is compelling to me, but I'm not as outraged over this as others. One other solution to this problem is " candidates should be more broadly appealing" and all the counterarguments to that devolve instantly into "partisanship has fucked up the country", a thing SCOTUS rightly cannot fix.
Wisconsin Democratic candidates had very broad appeal going off of the vote tallies. They still lost seats overall because of the district lines rigging constituencies against them. SCOTUS can't fix partisanship, but it can fix who determines what constituencies get drawn together. Or, rather, it could if it wanted to hear it.
This is predicated on 'constituencies' being immutable, like land features, and that's not at all the case.
I wonder with the court punting the gerry mander question back to the federal courts can they now use that one guys emails as a reason to kick it back to scotus "pay attention this time you fuckers its partisan as shit."
They have said federal courts have no authority to judge those cases, so...
It'll depend entirely on how those papers word it. This decision was about political gerrymandering. If there is any evidence in those emails about racial motivation then it is still a federal thing. It did involve places in the South so they might have said something really stupid and racist in there. That's one of the few ways I see winning a gerrymander case now.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
I agree with this, but it's another example of a situation where we need to fix it legislatively. This reminds me more of the eminent domain issue, where SCOTUS said "this shit is extremely fucked up, but you need to make your states fix it because we cannot" and then a bunch of states went and fixed it.
Also, note we're talking about political gerrymandering here. Racial lines could still be challenged under the 14th. I think it's some monumental hairsplitting and the dissent is compelling to me, but I'm not as outraged over this as others. One other solution to this problem is " candidates should be more broadly appealing" and all the counterarguments to that devolve instantly into "partisanship has fucked up the country", a thing SCOTUS rightly cannot fix.
Wisconsin Democratic candidates had very broad appeal going off of the vote tallies. They still lost seats overall because of the district lines rigging constituencies against them. SCOTUS can't fix partisanship, but it can fix who determines what constituencies get drawn together. Or, rather, it could if it wanted to hear it.
This is predicated on 'constituencies' being immutable, like land features, and that's not at all the case.
No, it isn't, because district lines are not immutable either. They change, and as a Texan you are aware that the change doesn't have to stick for a full decade if things start to shift in ways that the mapmakers dislike.
+4
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
The solution to that is for Democrats to be more broadly appealing and etc.
Broadly appealing in what way? Demographically they are more diverse than Republicans by a long shot.
To white people. He means be more appealing to white people.
I don't think thats fair to spool and i'm interested in what he feels broadly appealing is, if not the majority of voters and a more diverse demo of voters.
The solution to that is for Democrats to be more broadly appealing and etc.
Broadly appealing in what way? Demographically they are more diverse than Republicans by a long shot.
I mean broad politically. This idea cuts right to the heart of the political challenges we have and our problems with partisanship, as well as our tendency toward recency bias.
I'm reminded again of the early 2000s when Dem lawmakers from Texas fled to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum, sure in the knowledge that the OK legislature and governor would do nothing to help Texas apprehend them - because OK had a Dem majority.
The question "what is it about us that makes the people in red_district vote R, what can we do to get them to move" is essentially political. I'm not convinced that our answer should be "nevermind why, SCOTUS says redraw lines so it doesn't matter."
Again, this is entirely aside from racial gerrymandering as an idea.
The solution to that is for Democrats to be more broadly appealing and etc.
Broadly appealing in what way? Demographically they are more diverse than Republicans by a long shot.
I mean broad politically. This idea cuts right to the heart of the political challenges we have and our problems with partisanship, as well as our tendency toward recency bias.
I'm reminded again of the early 2000s when Dem lawmakers from Texas fled to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum, sure in the knowledge that the OK legislature and governor would do nothing to help Texas apprehend them - because OK had a Dem majority.
The question "what is it about us that makes the people in red_district vote R, what can we do to get them to move" is essentially political. I'm not convinced that our answer should be "nevermind why, SCOTUS says redraw lines so it doesn't matter."
Again, this is entirely aside from racial gerrymandering as an idea.[/quote]
Spool, this is basically enshrining permanent minority rule, not broadening their appeal.
+1
Options
Blackhawk1313Demon Hunter for HireTime RiftRegistered Userregular
The solution to that is for Democrats to be more broadly appealing and etc.
Broadly appealing in what way? Demographically they are more diverse than Republicans by a long shot.
I mean broad politically. This idea cuts right to the heart of the political challenges we have and our problems with partisanship, as well as our tendency toward recency bias.
I'm reminded again of the early 2000s when Dem lawmakers from Texas fled to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum, sure in the knowledge that the OK legislature and governor would do nothing to help Texas apprehend them - because OK had a Dem majority.
The question "what is it about us that makes the people in red_district vote R, what can we do to get them to move" is essentially political. I'm not convinced that our answer should be "nevermind why, SCOTUS says redraw lines so it doesn't matter."
Again, this is entirely aside from racial gerrymandering as an idea.
The problem is that for at least a statistically significant number, appealing to them would mean making minorities suffer, force manufacturing and other jobs to be subsidized and exist that don’t require anything beyond a high school diploma at best while still paying well, and pretend climate change doesn’t exist. Reaching across the aisle for a large number of them simply isn’t tenable because it means actively harming others and the planet.
So then what, the Democrats should stillhave to win while the other team is cheating? And just hope they don't keep cheating even harder?
At what level do we get to call bullshit and say "yo these are not democratic elections??"
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Spool you've had a lot of concerns in the past that things would damage the Republic. Well, left unchecked partisan gerrymandering will end it. The GOP is already losing by millions of votes, and you want the Dems to go right instead to chase their voters. So. What happens then?
Well, the GOP is concerned about power, so the moment they seem to be losing it they change the rules *again* to favor even harder right candidates. Since the Dems are no longer appealing to their former voters (EDIT: or those voters can't vote, because the GOP loves that too), they lose. Now they have to go right AGAIN.
The end result is a death spiral that ends in either a fascist state or mass riots as the people who are not represented and oppressed decide they've had enough.
Phoenix-D on
+4
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The solution to that is for Democrats to be more broadly appealing and etc.
Broadly appealing in what way? Demographically they are more diverse than Republicans by a long shot.
I mean broad politically. This idea cuts right to the heart of the political challenges we have and our problems with partisanship, as well as our tendency toward recency bias.
I'm reminded again of the early 2000s when Dem lawmakers from Texas fled to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum, sure in the knowledge that the OK legislature and governor would do nothing to help Texas apprehend them - because OK had a Dem majority.
The question "what is it about us that makes the people in red_district vote R, what can we do to get them to move" is essentially political. I'm not convinced that our answer should be "nevermind why, SCOTUS says redraw lines so it doesn't matter."
Again, this is entirely aside from racial gerrymandering as an idea.
There is a lot to that, and we are underserved with getting our message to poor white people, but from a pure game theory standpoint, where we only have so many moves, and so much in terms of resources (person capital, money, attention span). The most bang for the buck so to say, is not flipping the GOP. The most bang for the buck is getting Millennials and minorities to the polls. Their voter turnout was fucking terrible in 2016, but millennials showed up in 2018, and we did well. There is a 27% Democratic advantage for Millennial and Gen Z? voters. They are also the largest voting block now, and in 2020 will be roughly 37% of the electorate.
If Gen Z and Millennials voter turnout is 70%, we will run the board.
Gen X is kinda about 50/50 in terms of party because we fucking suck.
And the boomers while largely conservative will only be about 28% of the electorate.
Getting people to flip is less important than getting our own people to show up.
Spool you've had a lot of concerns in the past that things would damage the Republic. Well, left unchecked partisan gerrymandering will end it. The GOP is already losing by millions of votes, and you want the Dems to go right instead to chase their voters. So. What happens then?
Well, the GOP is concerned about power, so the moment they seem to be losing it they change the rules *again* to favor even harder right candidates. Since the Dems are no longer appealing to their former voters (EDIT: or those voters can't vote, because the GOP loves that too), they lose. Now they have to go right AGAIN.
The end result is a death spiral that ends in either a fascist state or mass riots as the people who are not represented and oppressed decide they've had enough.
Well.
I don't want the Democrats to "go right" - I feel like that's the same as saying voters are immutable landforms and you just have to conform to them. Democrats could also convince more people that their ideas are better, or offer plans that appeal to voters on a state level that they normally don't, or they could convince people that regardless of what they believe about the ideas, the political thumb on the scale is unacceptable and districts should be drawn by nonpartisan commissions...
As an aside, the lack of outrage over Maryland's 7-1 Dem split further suggests that this is an essentially political problem that requires political solutions. I don't think that political gerrymandering is good or that we should do nothing to prevent it - I'm focused on whether SCOTUS is the right place for a remedy and I'm not convinced it is.
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
The solution to that is for Democrats to be more broadly appealing and etc.
Broadly appealing in what way? Demographically they are more diverse than Republicans by a long shot.
I mean broad politically. This idea cuts right to the heart of the political challenges we have and our problems with partisanship, as well as our tendency toward recency bias.
I'm reminded again of the early 2000s when Dem lawmakers from Texas fled to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum, sure in the knowledge that the OK legislature and governor would do nothing to help Texas apprehend them - because OK had a Dem majority.
The question "what is it about us that makes the people in red_district vote R, what can we do to get them to move" is essentially political. I'm not convinced that our answer should be "nevermind why, SCOTUS says redraw lines so it doesn't matter."
Again, this is entirely aside from racial gerrymandering as an idea.
There is a lot to that, and we are underserved with getting our message to poor white people, but from a pure game theory standpoint, where we only have so many moves, and so much in terms of resources (person capital, money, attention span). The most bang for the buck so to say, is not flipping the GOP. The most bang for the buck is getting Millennials and minorities to the polls. Their voter turnout was fucking terrible in 2016, but millennials showed up in 2018, and we did well. There is a 27% Democratic advantage for Millennial and Gen Z? voters. They are also the largest voting block now, and in 2020 will be roughly 37% of the electorate.
If Gen Z and Millennials voter turnout is 70%, we will run the board.
Gen X is kinda about 50/50 in terms of party because we fucking suck.
And the boomers while largely conservative will only be about 28% of the electorate.
Getting people to flip is less important than getting our own people to show up.
In fairness
Getting people to flip implies that they weren't your people to begin with
The Blue Wall was a thing for a long time - time enough to have that name - because they were our people, until they got flipped
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Spool you've had a lot of concerns in the past that things would damage the Republic. Well, left unchecked partisan gerrymandering will end it. The GOP is already losing by millions of votes, and you want the Dems to go right instead to chase their voters. So. What happens then?
Well, the GOP is concerned about power, so the moment they seem to be losing it they change the rules *again* to favor even harder right candidates. Since the Dems are no longer appealing to their former voters (EDIT: or those voters can't vote, because the GOP loves that too), they lose. Now they have to go right AGAIN.
The end result is a death spiral that ends in either a fascist state or mass riots as the people who are not represented and oppressed decide they've had enough.
Well.
I don't want the Democrats to "go right" - I feel like that's the same as saying voters are immutable landforms and you just have to conform to them. Democrats could also convince more people that their ideas are better, or offer plans that appeal to voters on a state level that they normally don't, or they could convince people that regardless of what they believe about the ideas, the political thumb on the scale is unacceptable and districts should be drawn by nonpartisan commissions...
As an aside, the lack of outrage over Maryland's 7-1 Dem split further suggests that this is an essentially political problem that requires political solutions. I don't think that political gerrymandering is good or that we should do nothing to prevent it - I'm focused on whether SCOTUS is the right place for a remedy and I'm not convinced it is.
It's a Good Government problem. I'm not happy when Democrats do it either. (Especially the ward map for Chicago) Aside from it hopefully spurring change since principled unilateral disarmament won't bring about change, an issue has to hurt both parties for them to consider it a bad thing rather than a benefit to their side. See also, the electoral college.
Spool you've had a lot of concerns in the past that things would damage the Republic. Well, left unchecked partisan gerrymandering will end it. The GOP is already losing by millions of votes, and you want the Dems to go right instead to chase their voters. So. What happens then?
Well, the GOP is concerned about power, so the moment they seem to be losing it they change the rules *again* to favor even harder right candidates. Since the Dems are no longer appealing to their former voters (EDIT: or those voters can't vote, because the GOP loves that too), they lose. Now they have to go right AGAIN.
The end result is a death spiral that ends in either a fascist state or mass riots as the people who are not represented and oppressed decide they've had enough.
Well.
I don't want the Democrats to "go right" - I feel like that's the same as saying voters are immutable landforms and you just have to conform to them. Democrats could also convince more people that their ideas are better, or offer plans that appeal to voters on a state level that they normally don't, or they could convince people that regardless of what they believe about the ideas, the political thumb on the scale is unacceptable and districts should be drawn by nonpartisan commissions...
As an aside, the lack of outrage over Maryland's 7-1 Dem split further suggests that this is an essentially political problem that requires political solutions. I don't think that political gerrymandering is good or that we should do nothing to prevent it - I'm focused on whether SCOTUS is the right place for a remedy and I'm not convinced it is.
The maps are specifically designed to favor voters who vote for the things the GOP wants. Right-wing voters, usually very hard right voters. Exactly what "broad" appeal do you think is going to work here? You're trying to pretend that this is just the Dems not appealing to to the voters, when it's been pointed out over and over that they are winning massive majorities. In order to appeal to the rigged maps you have to go right, because that's what the maps are designed to do. The only other option is to turn out your own base so much it floods the map. Appealing to the conservatives will never work. You lose more than you gain.
And yeah there's a lack of outrage because that's like one state and it's not being done to the extent the GOP does it *and they don't do the horrible shit with it the GOP states do*. It should be illegal! Quit with the both sides crap. If it was really a big problem on both sides the SCOTUS would not have ruled like they did.
If political gerrymanderig is legal the actual solution is for every blue state to do it so hard that no Republican ever wins office again, because the risk just isn't worth it. That's not healthy.
And none of this speaks to whether the SCOTUS should have acted, because "well the Dems could just do X" is not a valid response to "That's not Constitutional."
+8
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
@spool32 How much should one party have to win in terms of vote share over the other party for the two parties to be equally represented in state government? 50%? 60%? 70%?
@spool32 How much should one party have to win in terms of vote share over the other party for the two parties to be equally represented in state government? 50%? 60%? 70%?
This isn't a legitimate question, except in states that just take a popular statewide vote then apportion candidates according to the %result, which is to say none of the states.
The question "should district lines be drawn such that the likely outcome is one party ending up with more representatives than the other?" is probably NO in most cases.
The question "Can the SCOTUS force states to conduct their internal elections such that a certain political outcome is less or more likely?" is probably also NO. That's the question before the Court, and while I don't like the ramifications of that decision any more than I liked Kelo v City of New London I'm just not sold on the idea that it was wrongly decided.
Does a state with districts that effectively result in one party rule have a "republican form of government." That's the clause *I* would use to overturn partisan gerrymandering.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Does a state with districts that effectively result in one party rule have a "republican form of government." That's the clause *I* would use to overturn partisan gerrymandering.
I haven't dug into meat yet - was that question considered?
Does a state with districts that effectively result in one party rule have a "republican form of government." That's the clause *I* would use to overturn partisan gerrymandering.
I haven't dug into meat yet - was that question considered?
I don't think so, which bothers me.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Does a state with districts that effectively result in one party rule have a "republican form of government." That's the clause *I* would use to overturn partisan gerrymandering.
If the one party is the Republican Party then yes -Chief Justice John Roberts
@spool32 How much should one party have to win in terms of vote share over the other party for the two parties to be equally represented in state government? 50%? 60%? 70%?
This isn't a legitimate question, except in states that just take a popular statewide vote then apportion candidates according to the %result, which is to say none of the states.
The question "should district lines be drawn such that the likely outcome is one party ending up with more representatives than the other" is probably NO in most cases.
The question "Can the SCOTUS force states to conduct their internal elections such that a certain political outcome is less or more likely?" is probably also NO. that's the question before the Court, and while I don't like the ramifications of that decision any more than I liked Kelo v City of New London I'm just not sold on the idea that it was wrongly decided.
I guess I disagree with that narrow a definition of what 'political outcome' means. Particularly in respect to Article IV, Section IV
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
The nexus of first past the post winner take all district elections combined with partisan legislature derived gerrymandering of district lines infringes on my ability to engage in participatory self government. Alter some of those systems (which are all feasible) and the interlinking deprivation of fundamental rights disappears. Leave them in place and my rights continue to be trammeled. Claiming that the problem is nonjusticiable and the solution is to loosen the gordian knot while being tied by it is just bullshit.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
@spool32 How much should one party have to win in terms of vote share over the other party for the two parties to be equally represented in state government? 50%? 60%? 70%?
This isn't a legitimate question, except in states that just take a popular statewide vote then apportion candidates according to the %result, which is to say none of the states.
The question "should district lines be drawn such that the likely outcome is one party ending up with more representatives than the other?" is probably NO in most cases.
The question "Can the SCOTUS force states to conduct their internal elections such that a certain political outcome is less or more likely?" is probably also NO. That's the question before the Court, and while I don't like the ramifications of that decision any more than I liked Kelo v City of New London I'm just not sold on the idea that it was wrongly decided.
The Court ruled that racial gerrymandering is subject to federal courts, where partisan gerrymandering is not. Isn’t the effect the same in terms of the relationship between the voter and her representation (or lack thereof) in government whether the secret plan to distort the election is titled “How We’re Going to Screw Non-White Voters” or “How We’re Going to Screw Democratic Voters”?
Posts
"You say you want to do this, but you can't give a reason *why* you want to do this."
The administration said they "had" to end DACA because it was "unconstitutional".
And it is not unconstitutional, so they don't have to end it.
You could also win in state courts, where SCOTUS will just defer to the state.
Yeah, it's just that fair representation shouldn't be a patchwork quilt. Self Government is what our government is, and to claim it is unjusticiable to make sure it exists is just such an abdication of responsibility.
It's also puts the Dems in the spot where the morally right thing will necessarily handcuff them because we know the GOP is going to institute partisan gerrymanders everywhere and anywhere they have power. So either the Dems can do that so say, Illinois, New York, and California have like 12 Republicans between them or they can cede the House.
It's terrible for democracy, like Citizens United and Shelby County.
Except in states where a gerrymandered GOP can appoint, impeach, or hamstring state courts to their content with impunity from the voters
The same goes for ballot initiatives—an entrenched state GOP will just ignore the results the way they did in Florida with the voting initiative. What are you going to do, vote them out?
I agree with this, but it's another example of a situation where we need to fix it legislatively. This reminds me more of the eminent domain issue, where SCOTUS said "this shit is extremely fucked up, but you need to make your states fix it because we cannot" and then a bunch of states went and fixed it.
Also, note we're talking about political gerrymandering here. Racial lines could still be challenged under the 14th. I think it's some monumental hairsplitting and the dissent is compelling to me, but I'm not as outraged over this as others. One other solution to this problem is " candidates should be more broadly appealing" and all the counterarguments to that devolve instantly into "partisanship has fucked up the country", a thing SCOTUS rightly cannot fix.
There's an obvious loophole to get around the racial gerrymandering question now. "We didn't do it because they were black, we did it because they were Democrats."
And mathematically at least it's almost literally the same argument. If you put that fig leaf on it (and Roberts is a big fan of fig leaves and hates VRA) I suspect SCOTUS will approve.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Wisconsin Democratic candidates had very broad appeal going off of the vote tallies. They still lost seats overall because of the district lines rigging constituencies against them. SCOTUS can't fix partisanship, but it can fix who determines what constituencies get drawn together. Or, rather, it could if it wanted to hear it.
I mean, if those are the solutions, that's just it. Can't move forward until the minority is literally TOO SMALL a minority for this to work. And when that comes to pass, they will only have themselves to blame for how we're forced to respond politically.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
I predict that while the constitution somehow doesn't empower a court to insist on free and fair elections that it somehow does empower it to deport hundreds of thousands of young Americans back to countries they have never been to.
The solution to that is for Democrats to be more broadly appealing and etc. It's a political solution. Black People aren't permanent democrats and ignoring the distinction as a matter of law is concerning at best. Political alignments aren't permanent, things have changed a lot just in the last 10-15 years.
I get where you're coming from and I'm very concerned about the real-world impacts here, but as a matter of law I'm not at all convinced the majority was wrong.
This is predicated on 'constituencies' being immutable, like land features, and that's not at all the case.
Want to focus on this: they are! This is the Wisconsin result from November:
I can tell you the Michigan results were the same, I just know where this handy graphic is for Wisconsin.
EDIT: Or in the case actually before the court, the Congressional vote in North Carolina was 52-48 (GOP edge). Dems won 3 of 13 seats in Congress.
Broadly appealing in what way? Demographically they are more diverse than Republicans by a long shot.
ie - the genesis of the "Wisconsin is no longer a Democracy" thing
No, it isn't, because district lines are not immutable either. They change, and as a Texan you are aware that the change doesn't have to stick for a full decade if things start to shift in ways that the mapmakers dislike.
To white people. He means be more appealing to white people.
I don't think thats fair to spool and i'm interested in what he feels broadly appealing is, if not the majority of voters and a more diverse demo of voters.
White hyper conservative racists specifically. Because that's who the GOP gerrymanders to favor .
That's really not being fair to Spool
I mean broad politically. This idea cuts right to the heart of the political challenges we have and our problems with partisanship, as well as our tendency toward recency bias.
I'm reminded again of the early 2000s when Dem lawmakers from Texas fled to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum, sure in the knowledge that the OK legislature and governor would do nothing to help Texas apprehend them - because OK had a Dem majority.
The question "what is it about us that makes the people in red_district vote R, what can we do to get them to move" is essentially political. I'm not convinced that our answer should be "nevermind why, SCOTUS says redraw lines so it doesn't matter."
Again, this is entirely aside from racial gerrymandering as an idea.
I mean broad politically. This idea cuts right to the heart of the political challenges we have and our problems with partisanship, as well as our tendency toward recency bias.
I'm reminded again of the early 2000s when Dem lawmakers from Texas fled to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum, sure in the knowledge that the OK legislature and governor would do nothing to help Texas apprehend them - because OK had a Dem majority.
The question "what is it about us that makes the people in red_district vote R, what can we do to get them to move" is essentially political. I'm not convinced that our answer should be "nevermind why, SCOTUS says redraw lines so it doesn't matter."
Again, this is entirely aside from racial gerrymandering as an idea.[/quote]
Spool, this is basically enshrining permanent minority rule, not broadening their appeal.
The problem is that for at least a statistically significant number, appealing to them would mean making minorities suffer, force manufacturing and other jobs to be subsidized and exist that don’t require anything beyond a high school diploma at best while still paying well, and pretend climate change doesn’t exist. Reaching across the aisle for a large number of them simply isn’t tenable because it means actively harming others and the planet.
At what level do we get to call bullshit and say "yo these are not democratic elections??"
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Well, the GOP is concerned about power, so the moment they seem to be losing it they change the rules *again* to favor even harder right candidates. Since the Dems are no longer appealing to their former voters (EDIT: or those voters can't vote, because the GOP loves that too), they lose. Now they have to go right AGAIN.
The end result is a death spiral that ends in either a fascist state or mass riots as the people who are not represented and oppressed decide they've had enough.
If Gen Z and Millennials voter turnout is 70%, we will run the board.
Gen X is kinda about 50/50 in terms of party because we fucking suck.
And the boomers while largely conservative will only be about 28% of the electorate.
Getting people to flip is less important than getting our own people to show up.
Well.
I don't want the Democrats to "go right" - I feel like that's the same as saying voters are immutable landforms and you just have to conform to them. Democrats could also convince more people that their ideas are better, or offer plans that appeal to voters on a state level that they normally don't, or they could convince people that regardless of what they believe about the ideas, the political thumb on the scale is unacceptable and districts should be drawn by nonpartisan commissions...
As an aside, the lack of outrage over Maryland's 7-1 Dem split further suggests that this is an essentially political problem that requires political solutions. I don't think that political gerrymandering is good or that we should do nothing to prevent it - I'm focused on whether SCOTUS is the right place for a remedy and I'm not convinced it is.
In fairness
Getting people to flip implies that they weren't your people to begin with
The Blue Wall was a thing for a long time - time enough to have that name - because they were our people, until they got flipped
It's a Good Government problem. I'm not happy when Democrats do it either. (Especially the ward map for Chicago) Aside from it hopefully spurring change since principled unilateral disarmament won't bring about change, an issue has to hurt both parties for them to consider it a bad thing rather than a benefit to their side. See also, the electoral college.
The maps are specifically designed to favor voters who vote for the things the GOP wants. Right-wing voters, usually very hard right voters. Exactly what "broad" appeal do you think is going to work here? You're trying to pretend that this is just the Dems not appealing to to the voters, when it's been pointed out over and over that they are winning massive majorities. In order to appeal to the rigged maps you have to go right, because that's what the maps are designed to do. The only other option is to turn out your own base so much it floods the map. Appealing to the conservatives will never work. You lose more than you gain.
And yeah there's a lack of outrage because that's like one state and it's not being done to the extent the GOP does it *and they don't do the horrible shit with it the GOP states do*. It should be illegal! Quit with the both sides crap. If it was really a big problem on both sides the SCOTUS would not have ruled like they did.
If political gerrymanderig is legal the actual solution is for every blue state to do it so hard that no Republican ever wins office again, because the risk just isn't worth it. That's not healthy.
And none of this speaks to whether the SCOTUS should have acted, because "well the Dems could just do X" is not a valid response to "That's not Constitutional."
This isn't a legitimate question, except in states that just take a popular statewide vote then apportion candidates according to the %result, which is to say none of the states.
The question "should district lines be drawn such that the likely outcome is one party ending up with more representatives than the other?" is probably NO in most cases.
The question "Can the SCOTUS force states to conduct their internal elections such that a certain political outcome is less or more likely?" is probably also NO. That's the question before the Court, and while I don't like the ramifications of that decision any more than I liked Kelo v City of New London I'm just not sold on the idea that it was wrongly decided.
I haven't dug into meat yet - was that question considered?
I don't think so, which bothers me.
If the one party is the Republican Party then yes -Chief Justice John Roberts
I guess I disagree with that narrow a definition of what 'political outcome' means. Particularly in respect to Article IV, Section IV
The nexus of first past the post winner take all district elections combined with partisan legislature derived gerrymandering of district lines infringes on my ability to engage in participatory self government. Alter some of those systems (which are all feasible) and the interlinking deprivation of fundamental rights disappears. Leave them in place and my rights continue to be trammeled. Claiming that the problem is nonjusticiable and the solution is to loosen the gordian knot while being tied by it is just bullshit.
The Court ruled that racial gerrymandering is subject to federal courts, where partisan gerrymandering is not. Isn’t the effect the same in terms of the relationship between the voter and her representation (or lack thereof) in government whether the secret plan to distort the election is titled “How We’re Going to Screw Non-White Voters” or “How We’re Going to Screw Democratic Voters”?