Gerrymandering: Supreme Court Ruling Will Decide.

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the agenda is working, the Ds have one possible candidate for president who can win, Hillary. by the end of her term the microscopic current D bench will effectively not exist.

by the end of her term

Will her term be reduced.....for good behavior?

 

[JakeStarkey]

4. Outcomes Don’t Match Votes.
The goal of gerrymandering is to make sure that votes for the opposing party lead to as few seats as possible for them. The results are indisputable. During the 2012 election, following an aggressive Republican gerrymander in the state, more than half of North Carolina voters cast ballots for Democratic candidates for Congress. Nonetheless, Republicans took 70 percent of seats. In Pennsylvania, Democrats won about half of all votes cast for Congress but won only a quarter of the seats drawn by the Republican legislature. In Maryland, Democrats drew one of the most gerrymandered districts in America and succeeded in winning 88 percent of the state’s congressional districts despite winning only 62 percent of votes. Illinois Democrats drew districts so effective at wasting Republican votes that they won two-thirds of the state’s congressional districts with only 54 percent of the vote.

Both sides are guilty of it. Gerrymandering must end. The time for public outcry is now.

You can't end gerrymandering, it'll reduce minority representation.

Sorry, Bud - I disagree. Over representation by minority extremists in both parties needs to be reduced as quickly as possible.

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the liberals who benefit from political apartheid.

As do the members of the far right in Texas. Check its legislature. Good heavens, as unbalanced as Utah. Both states had solidly balanced party representation in the Reagan years.

 

[william the wie]

And the agenda is working, the Ds have one possible candidate for president who can win, Hillary. by the end of her term the microscopic current D bench will effectively not exist.

by the end of her term

Will her term be reduced.....for good behavior?

And the agenda is working, the Ds have one possible candidate for president who can win, Hillary. by the end of her term the microscopic current D bench will effectively not exist.

by the end of her term

Will her term be reduced.....for good behavior?

Is she capable of good behavior?

And Given that Obama has managed to limbo under the very low bar of foreign policy set by W will the presidency matter half as much under the next president as it does now? Give Obozo two more years and addresses to the congress by people the Republicans like and refusals of such to those the house disapproves of the presidency will be weakened.

 

[Nyvin]

And the agenda is working, the Ds have one possible candidate for president who can win, Hillary. by the end of her term the microscopic current D bench will effectively not exist.

by the end of her term

Will her term be reduced.....for good behavior?

And the agenda is working, the Ds have one possible candidate for president who can win, Hillary. by the end of her term the microscopic current D bench will effectively not exist.

by the end of her term

Will her term be reduced.....for good behavior?

Is she capable of good behavior?

And Given that Obama has managed to limbo under the very low bar of foreign policy set by W will the presidency matter half as much under the next president as it does now? Give Obozo two more years and addresses to the congress by people the Republicans like and refusals of such to those the house disapproves of the presidency will be weakened.

If anything the presidency is being greatly strengthened by an ineffective Congress.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the agenda is working, the Ds have one possible candidate for president who can win, Hillary. by the end of her term the microscopic current D bench will effectively not exist.

by the end of her term

Will her term be reduced.....for good behavior?

And the agenda is working, the Ds have one possible candidate for president who can win, Hillary. by the end of her term the microscopic current D bench will effectively not exist.

by the end of her term

Will her term be reduced.....for good behavior?

Is she capable of good behavior?

And Given that Obama has managed to limbo under the very low bar of foreign policy set by W will the presidency matter half as much under the next president as it does now? Give Obozo two more years and addresses to the congress by people the Republicans like and refusals of such to those the house disapproves of the presidency will be weakened.

If anything the presidency is being greatly strengthened by an ineffective Congress.

Yeah, when I think "strong President", Obama immediately comes to mind. LOL!

 

[AVG-JOE]

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the liberals who benefit from political apartheid.

If it's a "liberal" problem, why are republican held state legislatures fighting tooth and nail to keep the practice legal?

​

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's a political problem. Both sides should be ashamed of the history, but republicans have modernized the art.

Gerrymander Art ​

 

[william the wie]

It's a political problem. Both sides should be ashamed of the history, but republicans have modernized the art.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/gerrymander-art.317734/

Gerrymander Art ​

Politics and war are the same subject. The Ds study tactics the Rs study logistics. If the Ds had two functioning neurons they wouldn't be thought of as too crazy to run state legislatures.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think they should just take a grid - lay it over a map - and use that to create districts.

That would be unconstitutional.

Districts are to be alike in size of population, not land size.

Baker v Carr, if you are interested.

Somebody has to draw these lines, the party in power calls it redistricting, the party out of power calls it gerrymandering.

Libs never bitch when seats are created for Ellison, Waters, Jackson-Lee et al.

What the court case is all about is having a NON-partisan commission draw the maps with balanced population numbers being the only criteria.

This is not a right versus left issue. Neither side is denying use of the practice and neither side denies it's primary use is for political gain.

This is an issue of blatant unfairness built in to our election process and We, The Peeps, should be both embarrassed and angry.

 

[william the wie]

Why?

I think they should just take a grid - lay it over a map - and use that to create districts.

That would be unconstitutional.

Districts are to be alike in size of population, not land size.

Baker v Carr, if you are interested.

Somebody has to draw these lines, the party in power calls it redistricting, the party out of power calls it gerrymandering.

Libs never bitch when seats are created for Ellison, Waters, Jackson-Lee et al.

What the court case is all about is having a NON-partisan commission draw the maps with balanced population numbers being the only criteria.

This is not a right versus left issue. Neither side is denying use of the practice and neither side denies it's primary use is for political gain.

This is an issue of blatant unfairness built in to our election process and We, The Peeps should be both embarrassed and angry.

Getting rid of incompetents is a good thing and the D party as is is the prime example of utter political incompetence as witness their one woman anointing for the 2016 election.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If anything the presidency is being greatly strengthened by an ineffective Congress.

Great....

Now all we need is another Dick Cheney to come along and figure out an effective way to wield it for personal gain.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Getting rid of incompetents is a good thing and the D party as is is the prime example of utter political incompetence as witness their one woman anointing for the 2016 election.

Fuck the Democrats and Fuck the Republicans!

This is about correcting an obvious unfairness in the election process and seeing what evolves.

`​

 

[Nyvin]

Why?

I think they should just take a grid - lay it over a map - and use that to create districts.

That would be unconstitutional.

Districts are to be alike in size of population, not land size.

Baker v Carr, if you are interested.

Somebody has to draw these lines, the party in power calls it redistricting, the party out of power calls it gerrymandering.

Libs never bitch when seats are created for Ellison, Waters, Jackson-Lee et al.

What the court case is all about is having a NON-partisan commission draw the maps with balanced population numbers being the only criteria.

This is not a right versus left issue. Neither side is denying use of the practice and neither side denies it's primary use is for political gain.

This is an issue of blatant unfairness built in to our election process and We, The Peeps should be both embarrassed and angry.

Getting rid of incompetents is a good thing and the D party as is is the prime example of utter political incompetence as witness their one woman anointing for the 2016 election.

It's pretty normal for the party who has the white house to lose state seats. By the end of W Bush's term the Democrats held majorities in a huge plethora of state chambers. The same thing happened to Reagan and Clinton too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the liberals who benefit from political apartheid.

If it's a "liberal" problem, why are republican held state legislatures fighting tooth and nail to keep the practice legal?

​

I love it when liberal ideas backfire on them.

 

[longknife]

In spite of all the ranting and raving going on here, SCOTUS will decide in favor of the State of Arizona, It's a matter of those things not directly enumerated in the constitution revert to the various states. They will simply either refuse to go further with it or say the states can do what they want.

14th Amendment

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems used gerrymandering for fucking generations and now that they're no longer competitive -- it's a problem

Wahhhhhhhhhhh
Wahhhhhhhhh
Wahhh

There was an election you lost

Get in the back of the bus and shut the fuck up

 

[william the wie]

Why?

I think they should just take a grid - lay it over a map - and use that to create districts.

That would be unconstitutional.

Districts are to be alike in size of population, not land size.

Baker v Carr, if you are interested.

Somebody has to draw these lines, the party in power calls it redistricting, the party out of power calls it gerrymandering.

Libs never bitch when seats are created for Ellison, Waters, Jackson-Lee et al.

What the court case is all about is having a NON-partisan commission draw the maps with balanced population numbers being the only criteria.

This is not a right versus left issue. Neither side is denying use of the practice and neither side denies it's primary use is for political gain.

This is an issue of blatant unfairness built in to our election process and We, The Peeps should be both embarrassed and angry.

Getting rid of incompetents is a good thing and the D party as is is the prime example of utter political incompetence as witness their one woman anointing for the 2016 election.

It's pretty normal for the party who has the white house to lose state seats. By the end of W Bush's term the Democrats held majorities in a huge plethora of state chambers. The same thing happened to Reagan and Clinton too.

True to a fair extent but a Hillary victory would mean a D in the White House in the run up to a census three times in a row. With gerrymandering becoming more effective over time the D highs are getting lower. To an increasing extent D voters only show up for presidential elections and it's the state legislators that gerrymander D candidates out of the farm team positions. That is slow motion suicide.

 

[Nyvin]

Why?

I think they should just take a grid - lay it over a map - and use that to create districts.

That would be unconstitutional.

Districts are to be alike in size of population, not land size.

Baker v Carr, if you are interested.

Somebody has to draw these lines, the party in power calls it redistricting, the party out of power calls it gerrymandering.

Libs never bitch when seats are created for Ellison, Waters, Jackson-Lee et al.

What the court case is all about is having a NON-partisan commission draw the maps with balanced population numbers being the only criteria.

This is not a right versus left issue. Neither side is denying use of the practice and neither side denies it's primary use is for political gain.

This is an issue of blatant unfairness built in to our election process and We, The Peeps should be both embarrassed and angry.

Getting rid of incompetents is a good thing and the D party as is is the prime example of utter political incompetence as witness their one woman anointing for the 2016 election.

It's pretty normal for the party who has the white house to lose state seats. By the end of W Bush's term the Democrats held majorities in a huge plethora of state chambers. The same thing happened to Reagan and Clinton too.

True to a fair extent but a Hillary victory would mean a D in the White House in the run up to a census three times in a row. With gerrymandering becoming more effective over time the D highs are getting lower. To an increasing extent D voters only show up for presidential elections and it's the state legislators that gerrymander D candidates out of the farm team positions. That is slow motion suicide.

The damage is pretty much done with Gerrymandering. For the Dems it literally can't get much worse from here. Unless the GOP starts taking over deep blue states like Illinois or New York the only way to go is up for the Democrats in the House.

The only possible exception to this is Arizona.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Dems used gerrymandering for fucking generations and now that they're no longer competitive -- it's a problem

Wahhhhhhhhhhh
Wahhhhhhhhh
Wahhh

There was an election you lost

Get in the back of the bus and shut the fuck up

I never took you for quite such a totalitarian, Frank.

Stalin would be proud of your "My way or the highway!" attitude regarding the issue of democracy itself.

Kudos! ​

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why?

That would be unconstitutional.

Districts are to be alike in size of population, not land size.

Baker v Carr, if you are interested.

Somebody has to draw these lines, the party in power calls it redistricting, the party out of power calls it gerrymandering.

Libs never bitch when seats are created for Ellison, Waters, Jackson-Lee et al.

What the court case is all about is having a NON-partisan commission draw the maps with balanced population numbers being the only criteria.

This is not a right versus left issue. Neither side is denying use of the practice and neither side denies it's primary use is for political gain.

This is an issue of blatant unfairness built in to our election process and We, The Peeps should be both embarrassed and angry.

Getting rid of incompetents is a good thing and the D party as is is the prime example of utter political incompetence as witness their one woman anointing for the 2016 election.

It's pretty normal for the party who has the white house to lose state seats. By the end of W Bush's term the Democrats held majorities in a huge plethora of state chambers. The same thing happened to Reagan and Clinton too.

True to a fair extent but a Hillary victory would mean a D in the White House in the run up to a census three times in a row. With gerrymandering becoming more effective over time the D highs are getting lower. To an increasing extent D voters only show up for presidential elections and it's the state legislators that gerrymander D candidates out of the farm team positions. That is slow motion suicide.

The damage is pretty much done with Gerrymandering. For the Dems it literally can't get much worse from here. Unless the GOP starts taking over deep blue states like Illinois or New York the only way to go is up for the Democrats in the House.

The only possible exception to this is Arizona.

Gerrymandering must end because it's WRONG!

Ending the practice has never been a partisan issue, the partisans on this issue have always been the hacks on both sides of the aisle who continue to support it.