This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Gerrymandering a significant factor contributing to our national divide

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

This practice may seem to be way out in the weeds when it comes to the more flamboyant topics being discussed these days but think about this. When districts are drawn to basically insure one party or the other's reelection to the House it guarantees extremism. The right is afraid to take a reasonable or moderate position on an issue for fear of being "primaried". The left is also boxed in making compromises difficult.

Here's the thing. If districts could be drawn in a more purple way, rather than so extremely red or blue then those running for office would have to take positions that appealed to a more middle of the road reasonable voter rather than sticking strictly to hard line NRA or Sierra Club talking points.

I hope the court will come up with some non-partasian way of redrawing districts to give voters a more accurate representation in their state governments and force politicians to be more realistic.



The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Wisconsin that could clarify whether redistricting plans can be unconstitutional because they're too partisan.
Last November, a three-judge panel ruled, 2-1, that the Republican-drawn maps for Wisconsin's state assembly were impermissibly biased against Democrats.
The State of Wisconsin had asked the Supreme Court to summarily overturn the decision, or to put it on hold. The order from the justices Monday suggests they plan to hear the case this fall. There has been no action on the stay request.
Without relief from the justices, the state must submit a new redistricting plan by November 1.
The Supreme Court wrestled with the legality of partisan gerrymandering in cases in 1986 and 2004, but issued muddled rulings that offered no clear guidance on the issue.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/19/supreme-court-to-hear-partisan-gerrymandering-case-239710

View user profile
Redistricting occurs, as I'm sure you know, every ten years, after the census. If the Dems don't get their shit together by then and win the majority in a bunch of State houses, things will go from bad to worse. Which reminds me:

I had a girl-friend once that every time right after we did it, she'd hop up and start writing poetry. When I asked her what the hell she was doing she said "Going from bed to verse."

Oh, never mind.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Good topic... we don't get fairness and accountability because we only demand it as partisans.

The field must be level and ensued so by the judiciary... to include campaign reform.

Politicians are incapable of policing themselves.

View user profile
The Dems had a lock on the House for almost 60 years after Roosevelt's first election in '32 and control of the Senate for the majority of those years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

The Republicans are going to pull out all the stops to prevent that from ever happening again.

Considering the current make-up of the Supreme Court, they're not going to be a big help either. The only real hope is turning around a majority of State Legislatures and Executive branches before 2020.

The Republicans are, right now, in the catbird seat and they know it. The Dems really screwed up not paying more attention to the State houses in the past few years.

But...   the growing inequality may change all that. That's one threat to their dominance the Republicans discount too deeply. A serious recession during Trump's term might do wonders.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/election-dirty-tricks/

America has come a long way from the days of Jim Crow segregation, but our voting system is far from perfect, and even today there are organizations committed to preventing legitimate voters from excercising the franchise. Here are 10 of the most common legal and illegal paths to keeping Americans from the ballot box:

Voter Caging

Voter caging is the process of sending mail to the addresses of registered voters with the intent of challenging their votes if the mail goes undelivered and the voter still shows up at the polls. It still happens, but the most famous instance occurred in 1981, when Republicans sent thousands of letters to black and Latino voters in New Jersey, hoping to block as many as possible of these likely Democratic voters from voting. As a result of that stunt, the Republican National Committee entered into a consent decree with the Democratic National Committee agreeing not to engage in voter caging unless a court says it’s okay. They leave it to third-party conservative groups now.

Lying Flyers

Dropping flyers with erroneous or deceptive information about voting may not be effective, according to voting law expert Rick Hasen, but it certainly happens a lot. Flyers in Virginia in 2008 told Democrats to vote on the wrong day, while flyers distributed in black neighborhoods in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 2004 told residents they couldn’t vote if anyone in their family had been convicted of a crime. Dirty tricksters are getting with the times, however—the 2008 election saw erreoneous election information distributed through emails to students at George Mason University. “Those things are very hard to investigate,” says Penda D. Hair, co-director of the voting rights group the Advancement Project. “They’re usually anonymous, so we don’t have good data on what the impact is on people.”

Reprehensible Robocalls

When a lying flyer just isn’t good enough, there’s always the deceptive robocall to Democratic-leaning districts giving people false election information or urging them to stay home. Last year Paul Schurick, the former campaign manager of the ex-Republican governor of Maryland, Bob Ehrlich, was convicted of ordering 2010 robocalls aimed at black voters implying they could stay home and “relax” because the Democratic candidate, Martin O’Malley, had already won.

Felon Disenfranchisement

Many laws barring those convicted of crimes even after release emerged during Reconstruction as a way to disenfranchise newly freed blacks. Though defenders of such laws now justify them on race-neutral grounds, an estimated 2.2 million of the nearly 6 million Americans barred from voting because of prior felony convictions are black. Those are the kind of disenfranchisement numbers misleading flyers or robocalls can’t buy, which is exactly why newly elected Republican governors in Florida, Virginia and Iowa moved quickly to reinstate voting restrictions on the formerly incarcerated after taking office in 2010.

Voter ID Laws

The impact of voter ID laws is still unclear, but the intent is not. Republicans pushing voter ID laws sometimes write them so as to exclude forms of ID carried by Democratic-leaning constituencies (like student ID) while allowing those more likely to be carried by Republican voters (gun licenses). The Brennan Center, a left-leaning legal advocacy group, estimates that as many as 11 percent of Americans lack government-issued photo ID. There’s no mystery among Republicans as to whom these individuals are more likely to vote for: A Pennsylvania state legislator openly bragged that the state’s voter ID law (since halted by the courts) would deliver the state to Mitt Romney. Though many of these laws have been delayed or struck down, some poll workers are still demanding government issued photo ID anyway.

Voter Purges

States are supposed to keep the voter rolls current, but sometimes removals of dead or no longer valid voter registrations is undertaken in a reckless or partisan manner that can end up disenfranchising eligible voters. Just this year Florida tried to purge its rolls of alleged “noncitizens” on the rolls, only it turned out that many of them were perfectly eligible to vote. Colorado tried to do the same thing, with similar results. Coincidentally, flawed voter purges frequently seem to end up disenfranchising voters of color.

The Menacing Billboard

Republicans, convinced that Democrats only win elections through voter fraud, have taken to setting up billboards warning that “voter fraud is a felony” in swing states this year. Naturally, these billboards only seem to pop up in minority neighborhoods. It’s unclear how effective the billboards are at intimidating people out of voting, but there’s no mistaking who they’re aimed at. “They use a lot of threatening language to associate voting with a crime, that may just make people want to stay away,” says the Brennan Center’s Larry Norden. Norden says the billboards leave the impression that “if you go to the polls there might be somebody there to take you to jail or fine you.”

Poll Watchers

Republicans have developed an extensive network of poll watchers who think of themselves as protecting the integrity of the ballot box, but they’re really there to prevent people they think are Democrats from engaging in “voter fraud.” As Brentin Mock noted in his report on the conservative group True the Vote, the group’s national elections coordinator said that he wanted voters to feel like they are “driving and seeing the police following you.” These poll watchers can be misinformed about what’s required to be able to cast a ballot, which means eligible voters can be prevented from voting. “When these folks show up at the polling places,” Hair says, “our view is that it’s to scare people away just by being there.”

Messing With Early Voting

Early voting can cut down on long lines on Election Day and allow Americans who might not be able to get to the polls—maybe because they have jobs—cast a ballot. That sounds like a good thing, right? Well, not to the governments of Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia, all of which cut down on early voting for 2012. Except for West Virginia, all of these states have GOP governors, and as Ari Berman noted in a piece for Rolling Stone, Ohio and Florida specifically “banned voting on the Sunday before the election—a day when black churches historically mobilize their constituents.”

Making Voter Registration More Difficult

After Republicans chalked up Barack Obama’s 2008 win to voter fraud engineered by the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, GOP governors in Texas and Florida sought to cut down on registration drives by third-party groups. Florida’s restrictions were ultimately struck down in court, but the law had done its job: According to the Florida Times-Union, “the number of new Democrats registering in Florida has all but disappeared.” The irony? Last month, Florida announced it was investigating a longtime GOP activist for voter registration fraud. And if you can’t ban third-party voter registration groups, you can always destroy the voter registration forms of the opposite party, as one GOP activist is suspected of doing in Virginia.

In-Person Voter Fraud

Just kidding! As my colleague Kevin Drum has written, in-person voter fraud is so rare that eight years of the Bush administration ended in only a handful of prosecutions* and no evidence of an organized conspiracy to steal elections through in-person voter fraud, despite the fact that such conspiracies comprise the beginning and end of Republicans’ interest in voting rights matters. Absentee ballot fraud is more common, but voter ID laws wouldn’t stop it. Also, many Republicans vote absentee, and they’re not really interested in disenfranchising their own.

The good news? Many of the mostly GOP-supported laws seeking to restrict voting have been hard to defend in court. “A lot of the most restrictive laws we were worried about have been overturned through the referendum process or weakened by the courts,” Norden says. “The worst of those laws will not be in effect this November.”

*Clarification: None of the Bush voter fraud prosecutions were for voter impersonation—the kind that might be stopped by photo ID—but instead involved people who didn’t know they were ineligible, people who voted twice, or people who sold their votes.

**********

View user profile

Guest


Guest
3 million plus illegals voted for Hillary ALONE in California.

Uh oh.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Hmmmmm wrote:3 million plus illegals voted for Hillary ALONE in California.



Fact-check: Did 3 million undocumented immigrants vote in this year's ...
www.politifact.com/.../nov/.../no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/
Claim: "Report: 3 million votes in presidential election cast by illegal aliens."
Claimed by: Bloggers
Fact check by PolitiFact: False
Feedback

Without evidence, Trump tells lawmakers 3 million to 5 million illegal ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../at-white-house-trump-tells-congressional-leaders-3-...

Jan 23, 2017 - Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud caused him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, even while ...
Donald Trump claims none of those 3 to 5 million illegal votes were ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../donald-trump-claims-none-of-those-3-to-5-million-i...
Jan 26, 2017 - Donald Trump claims none of those 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast for him. ... Okay, these are people that voted for Hillary Clinton." ... Trump has alleged that many of the votes were cast by illegal immigrants, and given ...

Trump's Bogus Voter Fraud Claims Revisited - FactCheck.org
www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims-revisited/
Jan 25, 2017 - President Donald Trump continues to claim — without any evidence ... 23, the new president told congressional leaders that between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

More Trump Deception on Voter Fraud - FactCheck.org
www.factcheck.org/2017/01/more-trump-deception-on-voter-fraud/
Jan 26, 2017 - Trump claimed “I didn't say there are millions” of fraudulent votes cast in .... 23 that he lost the popular vote because of 3 million to 5 million illegal votes, Trump at first ... voting on behalf of dead people — it all broke Hillary Clinton's way. ... 25: If people are registered wrongly, if illegals are registered to vote, ...

Nearly 2 million non-citizen Hispanics illegally registered to vote ...
www.washingtontimes.com/news/.../nearly-2-million-non-citizen-hispanics-illegally-r/
Feb 15, 2017 - A large number of non-citizen Hispanics, as many as 2 million, were illegally ... for claiming there were 3 million to 5 million illegals voting Nov.

White House defends Trump's voter fraud claim - BBC News - BBC.com
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38737713
Jan 24, 2017 - The president's claim that millions illegally voted is based on ... Mr Trump has repeated his claim to explain why he lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton. ... to five million undocumented immigrants had illegally voted in the election. ... who tweeted "Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million" ...

Creator of Voter Fraud Reporting App Claims 3 Million Illegal Votes ...
insider.foxnews.com/.../gregg-phillips-votestand-app-claims-have-proof-millions-illeg...
Jan 27, 2017 - Gregg Phillips, the man who claims to have the names of 3million who ... from "Phillips and crew" on the alleged voting by illegal immigrants.

Did You Land on this Page Seeking Documentation that 3 Million ...
electionnightgatekeepers.com/did-you-land-on-this-page-seeking-documentation-that...
... Twitter Tweet that, — claiming to having analyzed a database of 180 million voters, — 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton. In the article by Paul ...

Did a Study Show That Hillary Clinton Received More Than 800,000 ...
www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-800000-votes-non-citizens/
Claim: An academic study cited by conservative news organizations and the Trump administration proved that Hillary Clinton received more than 800,000 non-citizen...
Fact check by Snopes.com: FALSE
Feedback



View user profile

Guest


Guest
Floridatexan wrote:
Hmmmmm wrote:3 million plus illegals voted for Hillary ALONE in California.



Fact-check: Did 3 million undocumented immigrants vote in this year's ...
www.politifact.com/.../nov/.../no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/
Claim: "Report: 3 million votes in presidential election cast by illegal aliens."
Claimed by: Bloggers
Fact check by PolitiFact: False
Feedback

Without evidence, Trump tells lawmakers 3 million to 5 million illegal ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../at-white-house-trump-tells-congressional-leaders-3-...

Jan 23, 2017 - Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud caused him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, even while ...
Donald Trump claims none of those 3 to 5 million illegal votes were ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../donald-trump-claims-none-of-those-3-to-5-million-i...
Jan 26, 2017 - Donald Trump claims none of those 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast for him. ... Okay, these are people that voted for Hillary Clinton." ... Trump has alleged that many of the votes were cast by illegal immigrants, and given ...

Trump's Bogus Voter Fraud Claims Revisited - FactCheck.org
www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims-revisited/
Jan 25, 2017 - President Donald Trump continues to claim — without any evidence ... 23, the new president told congressional leaders that between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

More Trump Deception on Voter Fraud - FactCheck.org
www.factcheck.org/2017/01/more-trump-deception-on-voter-fraud/
Jan 26, 2017 - Trump claimed “I didn't say there are millions” of fraudulent votes cast in .... 23 that he lost the popular vote because of 3 million to 5 million illegal votes, Trump at first ... voting on behalf of dead people — it all broke Hillary Clinton's way. ... 25: If people are registered wrongly, if illegals are registered to vote, ...

Nearly 2 million non-citizen Hispanics illegally registered to vote ...
www.washingtontimes.com/news/.../nearly-2-million-non-citizen-hispanics-illegally-r/
Feb 15, 2017 - A large number of non-citizen Hispanics, as many as 2 million, were illegally ... for claiming there were 3 million to 5 million illegals voting Nov.

White House defends Trump's voter fraud claim - BBC News - BBC.com
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38737713
Jan 24, 2017 - The president's claim that millions illegally voted is based on ... Mr Trump has repeated his claim to explain why he lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton. ... to five million undocumented immigrants had illegally voted in the election. ... who tweeted "Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million" ...

Creator of Voter Fraud Reporting App Claims 3 Million Illegal Votes ...
insider.foxnews.com/.../gregg-phillips-votestand-app-claims-have-proof-millions-illeg...
Jan 27, 2017 - Gregg Phillips, the man who claims to have the names of 3million who ... from "Phillips and crew" on the alleged voting by illegal immigrants.

Did You Land on this Page Seeking Documentation that 3 Million ...
electionnightgatekeepers.com/did-you-land-on-this-page-seeking-documentation-that...
... Twitter Tweet that, — claiming to having analyzed a database of 180 million voters, — 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton. In the article by Paul ...

Did a Study Show That Hillary Clinton Received More Than 800,000 ...
www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-800000-votes-non-citizens/
Claim: An academic study cited by conservative news organizations and the Trump administration proved that Hillary Clinton received more than 800,000 non-citizen...
Fact check by Snopes.com: FALSE
Feedback



Snopes and politifact= liberal propaganda

Hmmmmm wrote:3 million plus illegals voted for Hillary ALONE in California.

This is one of those neat sentences that you can either pronounce in English or by making weird goose noises at the top of your lungs and get the exact same amount of respect for your intellect level!

Congratulations, you have successfully transformed yourself into a human whoopie cushion.

View user profile
The Supreme Court Takes on Partisan Gerrymandering

Partisan gerrymandering can be unconstitutional—at least in theory. In the 1986 case of Davis v. Bandemer, the Supreme Court did not find reason to declare an unconstitutional gerrymander, but its ruling did state “that political gerrymandering cases are properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause.”

Despite that ruling, and despite regular rulings against racial gerrymanders over the past five decades, the Court hasn’t actually declared a single political district unconstitutional on the grounds that it disenfranchises voters by political party. In the 2004 Vieth v. Jubelirer case, Justice Antonin Scalia’s ruling on Pennsylvania congressional districts “concluded that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such claims exist.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/supreme-court-gill-whitford-wisconsin-gerrymandering/530769/

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
PkrBum wrote:Good topic... we don't get fairness and accountability because we only demand it as partisans.

The field must be level and ensued so by the judiciary... to include campaign reform.

Politicians are incapable of policing themselves.

We are witnessing this inability. We are in a downward spiral of sorts at this point. After every census the lines are often redrawn. The newly elected legislature is unlikely to want to make their next election more difficult or to possibly do away with their own district. The only way this problem can be corrected that I can see is to have the courts define some set of requirements for drawing district lines and either create some non-partisan group to do that or instruct the legislature in some way to do it themselves. It would have to be approved by some process too.

Skewing district lines, if done "properly" can result in the situation we now see in Florida.  More voters are registered as Democrats in Florida than as Republicans but the entire state is basically run by Republicans. Nice trick. Obviously the Florida Republicans are not about to redraw lines to give the Democrats the representation they might expect given their superior numbers of registered voters. The courts or some other body (I don't know who) must impose a new system for establishing district lines.



http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-monthly-reports/voter-registration-yearly/

View user profile

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-redistricting/

Courts Are Shaking Up House Elections in 2016

By Alex Tribou and Adam Pearce
December 3, 2015

"After every U.S. census, states redraw the boundaries of their congressional districts to account for changes in population. This sets off a decennial exercise in partisan gamesmanship, with Democrats and Republicans seeking to alter the lines to their advantage.
Lawsuits inevitably follow. Since new maps were drawn before the 2012 election, courts have weighed in on them in 22 states. Five years after the census and less than a year away from the 2016 election, five states are still waiting on judges to determine the fate of their districts. Their decisions could help Democrats chip away at the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
One of the most acrimonious redistricting fights in the nation came to an end on Wednesday, when Florida's Supreme Court replaced the Republican-drawn congressional map with one that shakes up all but three districts in the state. The Court said Republican lawmakers violated a 2010 constitutional amendment, overwhelmingly approved by voters, that prohibited legislators from drawing districts to favor incumbents or to benefit one party over another. Under the court-ordered map, three districts currently held by Republicans will now be more evenly split politically or lean Democratic — and one Democratic seat will lean Republican..."

(interactive)

View user profile
zsomething wrote:
Hmmmmm wrote:3 million plus illegals voted for Hillary ALONE in California.

This is one of those neat sentences that you can either pronounce in English or by making weird goose noises at the top of your lungs and get the exact same amount of respect for your intellect level!

Congratulations, you have successfully transformed yourself into a human whoopie cushion.

cheers    lol!      cheers     lol!

LMAO, z!!   You're a helluva stitch.   (And right on target here, btw.)

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:

We are witnessing this inability. We are in a downward spiral of sorts at this point. After every census the lines are often redrawn. The newly elected legislature is unlikely to want to make their next election more difficult or to possibly do away with their own district. The only way this problem can be corrected that I can see is to have the courts define some set of requirements for drawing district lines and either create some non-partisan group to do that or instruct the legislature in some way to do it themselves. It would have to be approved by some process too.

Skewing district lines, if done "properly" can result in the situation we now see in Florida.  More voters are registered as Democrats in Florida than as Republicans but the entire state is basically run by Republicans. Nice trick. Obviously the Florida Republicans are not about to redraw lines to give the Democrats the representation they might expect given their superior numbers of registered voters. The courts or some other body (I don't know who) must impose a new system for establishing district lines.



http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-monthly-reports/voter-registration-yearly/

Take a look at this chart. You can't blame this on Republican treachery--the Dems had control of the majority of State houses in 2009 BEFORE THE LAST CENSUS.


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306736-dems-hit-new-low-in-state-legislatures

What happened? Was the election of Obama such an energizing force that the Republican party went into two-minute drill mode and flipped the State houses? Did the Democrats lose focus on the local trees for the national forest?

Here in Pensacola the Democratic party is pathetic. In a town that's 30% minority the Dems look like the Old White People's Party. The Republican Representative, Gaetz, has so many negatives that he should have been easy prey. You can't blame all this on Republican perfidy, the Dems have a lot to answer for.

With any luck, the Indivisible and Resistance movements, with their concentration on local organizing may turn things around.

Relying solely on the courts is kind of a cop-out, like a losing team blaming the refs and demanding a do-over. Beside, who knows how the hell this Wisconsin case is gonna turn out. The four liberal justices opposed the Court even taking up the case. Gorsuch is not going to be involved in the decision because he wasn't around for the oral arguments, so who knows.



Last edited by del.capslock on 6/20/2017, 7:30 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : for grammar)

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
del.capslock wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:

We are witnessing this inability. We are in a downward spiral of sorts at this point. After every census the lines are often redrawn. The newly elected legislature is unlikely to want to make their next election more difficult or to possibly do away with their own district. The only way this problem can be corrected that I can see is to have the courts define some set of requirements for drawing district lines and either create some non-partisan group to do that or instruct the legislature in some way to do it themselves. It would have to be approved by some process too.

Skewing district lines, if done "properly" can result in the situation we now see in Florida.  More voters are registered as Democrats in Florida than as Republicans but the entire state is basically run by Republicans. Nice trick. Obviously the Florida Republicans are not about to redraw lines to give the Democrats the representation they might expect given their superior numbers of registered voters. The courts or some other body (I don't know who) must impose a new system for establishing district lines.



http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-monthly-reports/voter-registration-yearly/

Take a look at this chart. You can't blame this on Republican treachery--the Dems had control of the majority of State houses in 2009 BEFORE THE LAST CENSUS.


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306736-dems-hit-new-low-in-state-legislatures

What happened? Was the election of Obama such an energizing force that the Republican party went into two-minute drill mode and flipped the State houses? Did the Democrats lose focus on the local trees for the national forest?

Here in Pensacola the Democratic party is pathetic. In a town that's 30% minority the Dems look like the Old White People's Party. The Republican Representative, Gaetz, has so many negatives that he should have been easy prey. You can't blame all this on Republican perfidy, the Dems have a lot to answer for.

With any luck, the Indivisible and Resistance movements, with their concentration on local organizing may turn things around.

Relying solely on the courts is kind of a cop-out, like a losing team blaming the refs and demanding a do-over. Beside, who knows how the hell this Wisconsin case is gonna turn out. The four liberal justices opposed the Court even taking up the case. Gorsuch is not going to be involved in the decision because he wasn't around for the oral arguments, so who knows.

Gerrymandering is a main cause that perpetuates the outcome of the dominant party remaining in power. It is just one factor but a significant one. I'm glad the courts are stepping up and correcting this obvious injustice.

The Democrats did lose their concentration on local offices from Governors on down the line. Hopefully they have learned that lesson and will, with the help of new grass roots movements, revive their causes.

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:

Take a look at this chart. You can't blame this on Republican treachery--the Dems had control of the majority of State houses in 2009 BEFORE THE LAST CENSUS.


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306736-dems-hit-new-low-in-state-legislatures


Gerrymandering is a main cause that perpetuates the outcome of the dominant party remaining in power. It is just one factor but a significant one. I'm glad the courts are stepping up and correcting this obvious injustice.

The Democrats did lose their concentration on local offices from Governors on down the line. Hopefully they have learned that lesson and will, with the help of new grass roots movements, revive their causes.

If what you say is true, that gerrymandering keeps one party dominant, why didn't the Dems remain in power in local legislatures after 2009?

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum