Supremes favor Gerrymandering
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2122
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:22 pm
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
Australia has had a long history of cooperation with the US in various conflicts. We have lost soldiers in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a joint listening facility in Pine Gap in central Australia gathering intelligence and most likely a first target from China if we ever got into a conflict. My cousin was in the Navy and his work involved much of the same gathering of information. He was not allowed to talk about his work. I suppose what worries Australia is when you elect someone of the temperament of Donald Trump who is more a subject of jokes than respect (which Obama was much admired here). Will we again be told lies about Iran?When we read of the way you manipulate your electoral system we have no respect for your claim as being a democracy. We have an independent commission that draws up the boundaries and it seems to work well. The popular vote and and number of seats won usually are pretty close. The present PM won with a one seat majority and gained 51% of the popular vote. That is how we are a democracy.
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8541
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
ajax18 wrote:California is a laboratory of liberal policy. Any GOP influence there is insignificant as demonstrated by the large homeless population and the inability to open a shop without intractable tent cities popping up on your sidewalk there.
You know, the weather situation there is pretty amenable to being homeless and outside all year ‘round, much like the situation where I used to live in Arizona, which is a laboratory of conservative policy, yet also packed full of homeless folks.
But, why ruin a perfectly nonsensical talking point about how liberal policies cause homelessness, right?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8541
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
aussieguy55 wrote:Australia has had a long history of cooperation with the US in various conflicts. We have lost soldiers in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a joint listening facility in Pine Gap in central Australia gathering intelligence and most likely a first target from China if we ever got into a conflict. My cousin was in the Navy and his work involved much of the same gathering of information.
Your family sounds as if they’re better American patriots than the current US President and his family. And you’re all Australian, lol.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 22508
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
My guess is that with this new ruling, Republican State Legislatures will be even more outrageous in their district drawing. For instance, the Utah Legislature might try to define Utah non-Mormons as belonging to the State of Colorado for voting purposes only.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6382
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
aussieguy55 wrote:The Democrats should now rigged California so very few GOP members are elected.
They don't need to do that.
RIP, California GOP: Republicans lash out after midterm election debacle
LOS ANGELES — In the wake of a near-political annihilation in California that has left even longtime conservative stronghold Orange County bereft of a single Republican in the House of Representatives, a growing chorus of GOP loyalists here say there’s only one hope for reviving the flatlining party: Blow it up and start again from scratch.
That harsh assessment comes as Republicans survey the damage from the devastation of a “blue tsunami” in California which wiped out five GOP-held House seats — with more still threatened — while handing every statewide seat and a supermajority to the Democrats in both houses of the state legislature this week
The latest blows wiped out two more GOP seats in Southern California: Democrat Katie Porter, an UC Irvine professor, on Thursday was declared the winner over Republican Rep. Mimi Walters in a district which represents the beating political heart of Orange County, and Democrat Gil Cisneros completed the sweep Saturday, winning the neighboring open seat formerly held by Republican Ed Royce.
“I believe that the party has to die before it can be rebuilt. And by die — I mean, completely decimated. And I think Tuesday night was a big step,’’ says veteran California GOP political consultant Mike Madrid. “There is no message. There is no messenger. There is no money. And there is no infrastructure.”
Republicans like Madrid also mourned another low point this week: the defeat of Southern California Assemblyman Dante Acosta, marking the demise of the last GOP Latino legislator — in a state where Latinos comprise the fastest-growing electorate.
“The California Republican Party isn’t salvageable at this time. The Grand Old Party is dead,” wrote former state GOP Assembly leader Kristin Olsen, who startled fellow Republicans with a brutally frank op-ed this week saying Republicans must acknowledge their “serious problem” in California, particularly the effects of toxicity of President Trump.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politi ... le-1000481
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Un ... California
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6914
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
When we read of the way you manipulate your electoral system we have no respect for your claim as being a democracy. We have an independent commission that draws up the boundaries and it seems to work well. The popular vote and and number of seats won usually are pretty close. The present PM won with a one seat majority and gained 51% of the popular vote. That is how we are a democracy.
If the electoral college means the US is not a democracy than I suppose we never were a democracy by your definition.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
ajax18 wrote:When we read of the way you manipulate your electoral system we have no respect for your claim as being a democracy. We have an independent commission that draws up the boundaries and it seems to work well. The popular vote and and number of seats won usually are pretty close. The present PM won with a one seat majority and gained 51% of the popular vote. That is how we are a democracy.
If the electoral college means the US is not a democracy than I suppose we never were a democracy by your definition.
He's talking about gerrymandering. Extreme partisan gerrymanders are anti-democratic. The idea of democracy is that political power derives from the consent of the governed.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6914
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
You know, the weather situation there is pretty amenable to being homeless and outside all year ‘round, much like the situation where I used to live in Arizona,
The weather is no worse in Tiajuana where most of these folks come from.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
Rates of homelessness is not the sole measure of quality of life in a state. California has high homeless populations in part because of their Mediterranean climate and in part because their housing/zoning policies suck.
I don't know why you'd want to get in a partisan battle over quality of states when California is one of the richest, most attractive parts of America and numerous red states are at the very bottom of a whole range of measures.
Democrats suck; look what a trash heap California is compared to...Arkansas.
That is not a winning argument. That's the result of dropping LSD directly into your eye.
Fortunately for Ajax, states didn't pop into existence yesterday and it wasn't that long ago that the Republican party was strong in California. Unfortunately for Ajax, it wasn't a Trumpist Republican party.
I don't know why you'd want to get in a partisan battle over quality of states when California is one of the richest, most attractive parts of America and numerous red states are at the very bottom of a whole range of measures.
Democrats suck; look what a trash heap California is compared to...Arkansas.
That is not a winning argument. That's the result of dropping LSD directly into your eye.
Fortunately for Ajax, states didn't pop into existence yesterday and it wasn't that long ago that the Republican party was strong in California. Unfortunately for Ajax, it wasn't a Trumpist Republican party.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11104
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am
Re: Supremes favor Gerrymandering
I was pretty sure California, like Arizona, has an independent redistricting commission.
I'm not sure what to think of the two cases from this week. Computer-aided Gerrymandering is an issue the founders certainly did not anticipate and clearly affects voters. The courts defer primarily on the grounds of states rights, though it appears were the argument to have shown it was discriminatory based on protected classes being targeted other precedent would be valid.
So the signal was telling states the current conservative Supreme Court is going to take a narrow, restrained position on when the federal government should step in and correct a state if it isn't shown there are specific federal laws being violated.
That seems to mean each states voters have limited means for taking on the issue of gerrymandering. It's possible voters could use ballot initiatives to try and get independent redistrict made into law. But those have also been under attack. Or, voters can accept it as status quo and make voter turn out in census years a gabillion+ dollar fiasco attempting to terrify their constituents into turning out otherwise the other side will enact evils so horrible they change us into a racist/socialist hell-state. Good times.
I'm not sure what to think of the two cases from this week. Computer-aided Gerrymandering is an issue the founders certainly did not anticipate and clearly affects voters. The courts defer primarily on the grounds of states rights, though it appears were the argument to have shown it was discriminatory based on protected classes being targeted other precedent would be valid.
So the signal was telling states the current conservative Supreme Court is going to take a narrow, restrained position on when the federal government should step in and correct a state if it isn't shown there are specific federal laws being violated.
That seems to mean each states voters have limited means for taking on the issue of gerrymandering. It's possible voters could use ballot initiatives to try and get independent redistrict made into law. But those have also been under attack. Or, voters can accept it as status quo and make voter turn out in census years a gabillion+ dollar fiasco attempting to terrify their constituents into turning out otherwise the other side will enact evils so horrible they change us into a racist/socialist hell-state. Good times.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
~ Eiji Yoshikawa