Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Gerrymandering, For Lack Of A Better Word, IS Good...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Well, it shouldn't be, it's anti democratic. Yes, it has been done by both dem. and Rep. run states, but Repubs have taken it to a whole new level. In any case, redistricting, if it need be done, should be done by a neutral party, not by those in power who obviously do so with ulterior motives. It's common sense!
    Right you leftists want to dictate everything through the courts. Now that is anti democratic...
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Well, it shouldn't be, it's anti democratic. Yes, it has been done by both dem. and Rep. run states, but Repubs have taken it to a whole new level. In any case, redistricting, if it need be done, should be done by a neutral party, not by those in power who obviously do so with ulterior motives. It's common sense!
      Our Constitution itself is largely "anti democratic" what with provisions for an Electoral College and the Senate as well as the Bill of Rights being just some of the more obvious examples. Keep in mind when the Founding Fathers spoke of "democracy" they used it as a derogatory term and were very concerned that a democratic polity was prone to fits of passion that could be easily swayed by a populist demagogue, which is why the established so many checks and balances and other mechanisms (like the drawn out process to amend the Constitution itself) so that cooler heads would have time to prevail.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        State level should be an even playing field. Electoral boundaries here get readjusted after each election (more or less) so that (if the election were held today) the results of the election would reflect the votes garnered. However, on a national level, I think one state, one vote (or however many for each is decided upon) is a better system.
        I like it - but that's just my bias talking. One vote per state would be grossly unfair to highly urban states.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Well, it shouldn't be, it's anti democratic. Yes, it has been done by both dem. and Rep. run states, but Repubs have taken it to a whole new level. In any case, redistricting, if it need be done, should be done by a neutral party, not by those in power who obviously do so with ulterior motives. It's common sense!
          Which would require a constitutional amendment.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            Which would require a constitutional amendment.
            Not that I know of. As of August 2017, 13 states are using commissions to draw district boundaries. Six are independent, and seven are political. That leaves 37 states that still have this done by the state legislature.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Well, it shouldn't be, it's anti democratic. Yes, it has been done by both dem. and Rep. run states, but Repubs have taken it to a whole new level. In any case, redistricting, if it need be done, should be done by a neutral party, not by those in power who obviously do so with ulterior motives. It's common sense!
              Here you are arguing policy positions. But that was not the question here. It was whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional (or perhaps more accurately, judicially reviewable), and they concluded it was not, a position I am inclined to agree with, even if I dislike partisan gerrymandering. Something being constitutional doesn't mean it's good or smart policy, it just means it's not forbidden by the constitution.

              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Not that I know of. As of August 2017, 13 states are using commissions to draw district boundaries. Six are independent, and seven are political. That leaves 37 states that still have this done by the state legislature.
              I believe Teallura is referring to the requirement of having all states do it. States obviously can use commissions if they want, but no state can compel another state to do so. You have to go to the federal level if you want to compel all states to do so.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                I believe Teallura is referring to the requirement of having all states do it. States obviously can use commissions if they want, but no state can compel another state to do so. You have to go to the federal level if you want to compel all states to do so.
                The post was a bit ambiguous, then. It does not require a constitutional amendment to permit states to do this. It would require a constitutional amendment to force them.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • #53
                  Proportional Representation.
                  “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                  “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                  “not all there” - you know who you are

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Not that I know of. As of August 2017, 13 states are using commissions to draw district boundaries. Six are independent, and seven are political. That leaves 37 states that still have this done by the state legislature.
                    That's apportionment - the number is tied to representation.


                    Clause 2: Method of choosing electors[edit]

                    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
                    Last edited by Teallaura; 06-29-2019, 06:45 PM.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      Which would require a constitutional amendment.
                      Under what clause? If states are allowed to do what N. Carolina did in their redistricting, wherein only 50% of the state is represented, then you can kiss democracy goodbye.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Which would require a constitutional amendment.
                        No, it actually doesn't Tea, it only requires the people, voter initiative, or referenda. In 2015 the Supreme court ruled on this in 'Arizona State Legislature vs Arizona Independant Redistricting Commission.' In a 5-4 decision, guess which 4 Justices voted against the defense of democracy in that ruling? Yep, J. Roberts, A. Scalia, C. Thomas and S. Alito.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          Here you are arguing policy positions. But that was not the question here. It was whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional (or perhaps more accurately, judicially reviewable), and they concluded it was not, a position I am inclined to agree with, even if I dislike partisan gerrymandering. Something being constitutional doesn't mean it's good or smart policy, it just means it's not forbidden by the constitution.
                          What I said was that if it isn't unconstitutional, that it should be. Partison gerrymandering is, on its face, anti-democratic whether it is Constitutional or not.

                          I believe Teallura is referring to the requirement of having all states do it. States obviously can use commissions if they want, but no state can compel another state to do so. You have to go to the federal level if you want to compel all states to do so.
                          Well, according to the conservative court partison gerrymandering is Constitutional, but those same conservative Justices tried and failed in their attempt to disallow Independent redistricting commissions altogether.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            No, it actually doesn't Tea, it only requires the people, voter initiative, or referenda. In 2015 the Supreme court ruled on this in 'Arizona State Legislature vs Arizona Independant Redistricting Commission.' In a 5-4 decision, guess which 4 Justices voted against the defense of democracy in that ruling? Yep, J. Roberts, A. Scalia, C. Thomas and S. Alito.
                            Yes, it does - I literally quoted the section. You're confusing apportionment with the number of electors. The Constitution sets the number of electors as equal to the number of representatives in Congress - THAT would require a constitutional amendment to change.

                            Edit: Never mind - I got my wires crossed and thought I was still on the one per state thing. Yeah, apportionment can be designated by the state legislature.
                            Last edited by Teallaura; 06-29-2019, 11:01 PM.
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              The post was a bit ambiguous, then. It does not require a constitutional amendment to permit states to do this. It would require a constitutional amendment to force them.
                              Depends on if we're talking about state legislatures or just the House of Representatives. The Constitution says:

                              "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations."

                              There thus seems to be no requirement for a constitutional amendment to enact some degree of anti-gerrymandering legislature for the House of Representatives, though not state legislatures. I wonder if that will become a major issue in upcoming House/Senate elections.

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No, it actually doesn't Tea, it only requires the people, voter initiative, or referenda. In 2015 the Supreme court ruled on this in 'Arizona State Legislature vs Arizona Independant Redistricting Commission.' In a 5-4 decision, guess which 4 Justices voted against the defense of democracy in that ruling? Yep, J. Roberts, A. Scalia, C. Thomas and S. Alito.
                              Actually, Scalia (and Thomas, who joined his opinion) wanted to dismiss the whole case for lack of standing, which would have left the commission in place. He said the reason he joined Robert's dissent was because he thought the majority opinion's argument was so bad that he wanted to signal his disapproval of it. In terms of functional result (i.e. whether the commission stays or not), it was 7-2.

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              What I said was that if it isn't unconstitutional, that it should be. Partison gerrymandering is, on its face, anti-democratic whether it is Constitutional or not.
                              But the job of the Supreme Court in the situation of judicial review is supposed to be to determine whether something is constitutional, not whether it is a good idea or not.

                              Well, according to the conservative court partison gerrymandering is Constitutional, but those same conservative Justices tried and failed in their attempt to disallow Independent redistricting commissions altogether.
                              The Constitution quite clearly gives the power of districting to the state legislature, not an independent body. Now, if the state legislature were to have created the commission, as I believe is the case in other states, one could argue it was delegated by them, but that was not the case in Arizona--it was created directly via referendum. One has to adopt an arguably sketchy interpretation of "legislature" from the Constitution to consider this a case of the legislature creating the districts as the Constitution requires.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                                Depends on if we're talking about state legislatures or just the House of Representatives. The Constitution says:

                                "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations."

                                There thus seems to be no requirement for a constitutional amendment to enact some degree of anti-gerrymandering legislature for the House of Representatives, though not state legislatures. I wonder if that will become a major issue in upcoming House/Senate elections.

                                Actually, Scalia (and Thomas, who joined his opinion) wanted to dismiss the whole case for lack of standing, which would have left the commission in place. He said the reason he joined Robert's dissent was because he thought the majority opinion's argument was so bad that he wanted to signal his disapproval of it. In terms of functional result (i.e. whether the commission stays or not), it was 7-2.

                                But the job of the Supreme Court in the situation of judicial review is supposed to be to determine whether something is constitutional, not whether it is a good idea or not.

                                The Constitution quite clearly gives the power of districting to the state legislature, not an independent body. Now, if the state legislature were to have created the commission, as I believe is the case in other states, one could argue it was delegated by them, but that was not the case in Arizona--it was created directly via referendum. One has to adopt an arguably sketchy interpretation of "legislature" from the Constitution to consider this a case of the legislature creating the districts as the Constitution requires.
                                Yeah, that.
                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                51 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                190 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                315 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X