Having problems registering on Coin Return? Please email support@coin-return.org, and include your PA username and PIN.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
The Battle Over [Voting Rights] Continues
Commander Zoom
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So It Goes wrote:This thread is intended for discussion of voting rights issues in America, including voter suppression via laws like voter ID laws, closing polling places, etc.
Looks like it's time to make another of these (we seem to go through one about every three years). Alas, there's no shortage of examples to talk about. The latest comes from North Carolina:
ArcTangent wrote: »Shockingly (not shockingly), after the NC supreme court changed their mind earlier this year and said extreme partisan gerrymanders actually ARE okay after throwing them out two years ago, NC is redrawing its lines to be comically ridiculous.
Based on my initial look at the two NC GOP congressional plans, one is a 11R-3D plan (+4R, -4D) that merges Davis & Foushee and eliminates Manning, Jackson and Nickel.
The other is a 10R-3D-1C that makes Davis's #NC01 competitive and eliminates Manning, Jackson and Nickel.
So that's not good. I guess we'll find out if this - like Alabama's attempted fuckery - is too egregious for even the current SCOTUS.
At least things may be going better in Wisconsin:
ArcTangent wrote: »https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-redistricting-justice-recuse-2f92a7ab6f326de16fcfb894e3e6bbb1
Wisconsin Supreme Court taking up gerrymandering, which the Republican legislature has threatened to impeach people if they do.
(This is not a general election thread, not least because that will make the mods very cranky.)
Anzekay on
+10
Posts
Already happened (Rucho v. Common Cause.)
It'd be fantastic if this gets rid of MTG. Georgia is very heavily gerrymandered (9R-5D), with only one competitive district at the moment. Basically all R districts are +10, and most D districts are +30. New maps are going to be redrawn in a Nov 29th special session.
Louisiana's new congressional maps appear set (again), and an almost certain D flip.
Oregon Supreme Court just upheld the law.
https://apnews.com/article/oregon-republican-walkout-reelection-f1d270db9e9a72935c13b973d79a4bb7?taid=65bbcc7de0892a0001843b40&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter
So now 10 GOP state senators cannot run for reelection. Out of 13 in total. (4 year terms, so not all are immediately out).
Welp.
Which, I mean, we're pretty gerrymandered, moreso now than when some of these clowns were elected. So they're just going to elect more shitbags most likely, but ones that don't know what to do, and with more chaos, so more chances for random snipes.
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card?planId=recmnWdav698SrhRu
Also, it's funny how fucking BAD their argument was. They were trying to argue that their terms end in 2025, so they wouldn't be subject to disqualification until 2025, but re-election happens in 2024. Therefore they can be elected for one more term, and THEN they're disqualified for the one after, regardless of showing up or not in the interim.
68% of Oregon voters agreed!
And thank God Zoom your state did something about it.
Also the Oregon GOP can't blame, "The others!" As they collectively are like , less than 10% of the total Oregon Population. Similar shit upstate in Washington State.
Texas Dems have done it a few times. Like the federal fillibuster it arguably has it's place but gets way way overused by assholes.
Which makes the Oregon response just fine. If the law is that shitty you can spend a term out of office to stall it. If not? Then don't do it!
That's largely because Oregon worked very hard for a very long time to keep all of "those people" out - which I never heard about or was taught until I got older and out of the south (literally and figuratively). Even now it remains a very white state *cough*.
Doesn't stop them from trying, though!
To be fair to Oregon It’s also a whiter state because the west is whiter and the further north you go the whiter it becomes not just because they kept black people out. The “non-racist” reasons for this is likely money. Striking it rich in California was not a free endeavor. And freedmen didn’t even have the resources of poor whites.
Granted. Oregon does have about half the %of black people it “should” have by this estimation. But there could be other demographic issues. Oregon only had one major city. Whereas Washington had two, Spokane was a boomtown and early trims ran through there because while Oregon was settled first it was easier to get to Seattle. So there may have generally been more opportunity and easier means to get into Washington than Oregon during early/middle immigration periods. Washington has friendlier ports, more productive coastlines, and better farmland. So you would generally have to be wealthier in order to decide to make oregon your stopping point. You would need more capital to get going and need more to get there. As a result your “I’m going to move” priority list might have looked like “California -> Washington -> Alaska -> Oregon”. And general capital differences would spread out the relative proportion of people who would choose one over the other.
Not that the racism helped. But it’s probably not the entire story.
Oregon was literally founded as a whites-only state, and had years of instituted policy that prevented minorities from settling there. It's not the whole story, sure - but it was a huge fucking part.
Yea… I know. I was saying that the effect may not be quite so high has been implied.
“Oregon is white because it was whites only” is like. Oregon stopped being whites only in 1868 when the population was 90k. And by 1900 it was 450k. In 1870 washingtons population was 23k and in 1900 is was 520k… all the black people went to Washington and Washington is still exceedingly white. But this wasn’t because oregon was whites only. It was because Washington was a better place to go
Oregon doesn’t have a lot of black people yes. But it’s probably not as much because if that policy but because oregon wasn’t a good place to move for people who didn’t already have high capital reserves.
The formal law is really not the full story.
A number of cities in the US also bear the same pattern on a smaller level. You can be in a nice-looking wealthy part of town (with a conspicuously low number of minority inhabitants), head in the wrong direction, and within the span of a couple blocks be right in the middle of urban-core slums with an overwhelmingly black population. The slum area is where the black community would live back when every marginally wealthy white home had black servants, and the nice area is where all those wealthy families used to live. Usually the two areas are within easy walking distance for obvious reasons. No reason at all for the slum area to exist other than persistent systemic and social racism, and nowadays the people holding the city purse strings simply blame "laziness" and unwillingness to get an education for the slum instead of saying anything overtly racist out loud. The only "fix" that might happen is gentrification, which simply prices out the original inhabitants so the "right" kinds of people can move in.
It could be fixed and those people could have better futures, but they're denied it simply due to a persistent legacy of American racism.
I mean… welcome to Seattle? Portland ended redlining in 1968… Seattle ended it in 1977. We had an initiative on the ballot in 68 but resoundingly voted it down… I’d rather not, like, date myself by putting out personal knowledge of racist practices in Seattle(and other cities) but yea man. Portland ain’t special.
Look man places are shitty. I am just saying that Oregon wasn’t so uniquely shitty
Yes and the outside force was post slavery immigration and every US state in the west ended up with a low proportion of black people. Oregon is the lowest but it’s not so much further the lowest that you should be like “ah ha is because people couldn’t move there due to discrimination”. Because that discrimination in law ended before the large immigrant movements.
It was probably not different than anywhere (on the coast) in that regard by the time the immigration happened. Moving to oregon sucked and was harder and less lucrative for people without money than moving to California, Washington, or Alaska.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2024-arizona/
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
That's just straight up election interference, right?
I believe this falls into "ain't no rule" territory. IIRC, the Constitution just says that states shall appoint/send electors; nothing about them having to follow the popular vote, or even have one.
what an age we live in
and this is a state that has a democratic governor, SOS and 1.5 senators
The interstate compact to make the electoral college irrelevant functions in a similar manner - whichever candidate wins the popular vote will just be awarded all of the electors for the ratifying states, regardless of how the votes went in each state.
Still, decreeing that your state is just going to declare a particular winner before the vote has even occurred due to goings on in two other states is pretty fucked.