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

[oxmixmudd]

You and Carpe seem to have pretty low opinions of the legislative process. I grant, it's messy and can easily get lots worse before it gets better but legislatures do tend to work out the excesses - eventually.

May take longer than it should - the legislative branches have been overly dependent on the courts for a while now. They're out of practice.

I hope you are correct that it will eventually get better. But I feel that there is a tipping point where if it goes to far, there is no coming back.

Jim

[Terraceth]

While I think this is highly problematic in terms of elections, I do have to admit that it is a tough sell that the Constitution actually forbids partisan gerrymandering. There's some restrictions on gerrymandering, but it is a much tougher argument to say that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits partisan gerrymandering than to say it prohibits racial gerrymandering and requires the equal population.

Maybe there is a legislative fix. The 17th Amendment by all rights should have been impossible to pass. It made state governments less powerful and made it so all of the current Senators were in sudden danger of losing their jobs. But proponents of the amendment were still able to convince 2/3 of senators and 3/4 of state governments to sign off on it. So a legislative or constitutional amendment solution to gerrymandering may be possible.

[rogue06]

Everything changed when he became a martyr.

[Roy]

For instance, I like to think that historians 100 years from now will regard Barack Obama as the worst US president of the 20th/21st century, but I have no idea if they will since they will be examining the issue with a detachment that I could never have.

It seems extremely unlikely that Barack Obama will ever be considered as bad a president as either Richard Nixon or Warren Harding, even if there aren't any worse presidents in the next 80 years.

[carpedm9587]

You and Carpe seem to have pretty low opinions of the legislative process. I grant, it's messy and can easily get lots worse before it gets better but legislatures do tend to work out the excesses - eventually.

May take longer than it should - the legislative branches have been overly dependent on the courts for a while now. They're out of practice.

I do, when it comes to issues about "retaining power." Look at what the legislatures in many states did in 2018 when they had a trifectas they were about to lose by a change in the governor's mansion. They quickly passed legislation to strip the new governor of powers the existing governor had enjoyed for his entire term. It happened in more than one state. And the Republican gerrymander based on the 2010 census ("Operation Red Map") took gerrymandering to a new low.

Republicans will cling to their power and, now that the courts have cleared the way, Democrats will follow suit if/when they attain power. It will be a long slog for them, given how badly so many states are gerrymandered, But if they get there, unless the better angels of their nature prevail, they will simply respond in kind.

[Teallaura]

I do, when it comes to issues about "retaining power." Look at what the legislatures in many states did in 2018 when they had a trifectas they were about to lose by a change in the governor's mansion. They quickly passed legislation to strip the new governor of powers the existing governor had enjoyed for his entire term. It happened in more than one state. And the Republican gerrymander based on the 2010 census ("Operation Red Map") took gerrymandering to a new low.

Republicans will cling to their power and, now that the courts have cleared the way, Democrats will follow suit if/when they attain power. It will be a long slog for them, given how badly so many states are gerrymandered, But if they get there, unless the better angels of their nature prevail, they will simply respond in kind.

I don't particularly disagree - but I don't think things will stay like that forever - never has before. They eventually figure out that free for alls get them nowhere.

[Teallaura]

It seems extremely unlikely that Barack Obama will ever be considered as bad a president as either Richard Nixon or Warren Harding, even if there aren't any worse presidents in the next 80 years.

Wouldn't bet on that - historians are already taking a kinder view of Nixon.

[carpedm9587]

I don't particularly disagree - but I don't think things will stay like that forever - never has before. They eventually figure out that free for alls get them nowhere.

You have more confidence than I. Frankly, I'm getting to the point where I think this nation is likely to fall before our children's lives are over. And if it doesn't, then we will be leaving our children and grandchildren to "sort things out" AND pay for all the excesses of their parents and grandparents. I find it odd to hear how "robbing the rich to feed the poor" is so bad, but I hear little or no criticism of how we are picking the pockets of the next generations to feed our modern-day gluttony.

But, as MM pointed out, all of this is speculation at best. Time will tell.

[carpedm9587]

Wouldn't bet on that - historians are already taking a kinder view of Nixon.

Really? Can you point me to where this is happening?

[JimL]

Another win for the Constitution!

seer, that's ridiculous. North Carolina, the state looked at in this case, was gerrymandered by republicans in a way that though the popular vote is a 50-50 split, the result in the state legislature is 10-3 in favor of the republicans. If you think that is how democracy is supposed to function, then you don't understand what democracy is.

[tabibito]

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.

[Terraceth]

seer, that's ridiculous. North Carolina, the state looked at in this case, was gerrymandered by republicans in a way that though the popular vote is a 50-50 split, the result in the state legislature is 10-3 in favor of the republicans. If you think that is how democracy is supposed to function, then you don't understand what democracy is.

Seer said it was a win for the Constitution. How exactly does anything in your post disprove that, given you make no mention of the Constitution? Certainly, perhaps partisan gerrymandering is bad... but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

Also, while I will not deny North Carolina is gerrymandered, I do not like the tendency for people to just point to the popular vote and complain about it not matching up with the state legislature. When people are elected by district, it's not supposed to inherently reflect the popular vote. It often does, but that's not the point of having districts.

Indeed, if a state wasn't gerrymandered at all, but had a consistent 50.1% Republican and 49.9% Democrat electorate throughout the full state, that would result in 50.1% of the vote going to Republicans but them getting 100% of the representatives despite there being no gerrymandering. Is that an extreme example? Of course. But it shows the danger in just pointing to a difference in popular vote compared to party representation.

[Terraceth]

Incidentally, while we're on the Supreme Court, some fun facts about this term!

In terms of 5-4 decisions, here's how many we had of each justice lineup in terms of majority:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh: 8
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch: 4
Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Kavanaugh: 1
Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kavanaugh: 1
Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan: 1
Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan: 1
Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch: 1
Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh: 1
Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan: 1
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh: 1

As we can see, the biggest swing vote this term when it came to 5-4 decisions was... Neil Gorsuch! Didn't see that coming beforehand.

The two justices that were most in agreement overall were Roberts and Kavanaugh, followed by Ginsburg and Sotomayor. But restricting ourselves to 5-4 decisions, it was Sotomayor and Kagan who had the highest rate--100%!--despite being only in 6th place overall.

Not surprising at all to those who pay attention to the Court, but possibly unknown to those who don't: The justice with the highest number of opinions was Clarence Thomas--this comes from his notoriously high number of concurring opinions, with more than half of all the concurring opinions in 2018/2019 by him.

Check out the 2018 SCOTUS Stat Pack

[seer]

seer, that's ridiculous. North Carolina, the state looked at in this case, was gerrymandered by republicans in a way that though the popular vote is a 50-50 split, the result in the state legislature is 10-3 in favor of the republicans. If you think that is how democracy is supposed to function, then you don't understand what democracy is.

Jim, that is a issue for the states not federal courts. And there is liberal Gerrymandering to Jim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrym...d_US_districts

[JimL]

Jim, that is a issue for the states not federal courts. And there is liberal Gerrymandering to Jim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrym...d_US_districts

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!