Should Gerrymandering be Banned?

[Penelope]

The EC should be banned. then we wouldn't need to worry about the extreme GOP gerrymandering or any gerrymandering.

You still need congressional districts, moron.

There would be no use for gerrymandering, gut it at the source, the EC.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The EC should be banned. then we wouldn't need to worry about the extreme GOP gerrymandering or any gerrymandering.

You still need congressional districts, moron.

There would be no use for gerrymandering, gut it at the source, the EC.

There would be no use for gerrymandering

Congressional districts to elect Congressmen are still needed, EC or not.

 

[evenflow1969]

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

No it should not be allowed.Ot cuts down on compitition and makes it so the incumbent has very little chance of losing their next election and it is the reason that our polititions have been screwing us. They do not have to listen to thier constituants to kieep theior job. If you belive in competition and free market economy I do not see how you can be for gerrymandering. When is the last time congress actually made a budget and yet most keep thier job.Competition is the only way to control the elected officials. Right now they are way to confrtable in their jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

No it should not be allowed.Ot cuts down on compitition and makes it so the incumbent has very little chance of losing their next election and it is the reason that our polititions have been screwing us. They do not have to listen to thier constituants to kieep theior job. If you belive in competition and free market economy I do not see how you can be for gerrymandering. When is the last time congress actually made a budget and yet most keep thier job.Competition is the only way to control the elected officials. Right now they are way to confrtable in their jobs.

Without gerrymandering, the Congressional Black Caucus would shrink.......a lot.

 

[rshermn]

The EC should be banned. then we wouldn't need to worry about the extreme GOP gerrymandering or any gerrymandering.

You still need congressional districts, moron.

There would be no use for gerrymandering, gut it at the source, the EC.

There would be no use for gerrymandering

Congressional districts to elect Congressmen are still needed, EC or not.

Per usual, con trolls see no need to look at a problem and find an HONEST solution. It is, without question, true that both repubs and dems have engaged in gerrymandering over time. And in both cases it is wrong. And relatively easy to fix. It is just that, when repubs are in power, they do not want to stop Gerrymandering. Ever. So the Toddster does not suggest a solution.
So, here is a bit of truth. We, as a political country, are a joke to the rest of the free world. They see money in politics as a complete affront to honest voting and political operations. And they see Gerrymandering the same way. Neither, in most countries, are allowed. But repubs would say there is nothing we can do. But it is simple. Simply see what the other 20 or so nations, who do not allow either, are doing to control the problems. And use similar methods in this country. Stop the political operatives and moneyed powers in our country from controlling politics. Problem is, most of the money is on one side. And they do not want to decrease their advantage by eliminating money in politics or Gerrymandering. So, with the the supporting cons, nothing gets done.

 

[evenflow1969]

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

No it should not be allowed.Ot cuts down on compitition and makes it so the incumbent has very little chance of losing their next election and it is the reason that our polititions have been screwing us. They do not have to listen to thier constituants to kieep theior job. If you belive in competition and free market economy I do not see how you can be for gerrymandering. When is the last time congress actually made a budget and yet most keep thier job.Competition is the only way to control the elected officials. Right now they are way to confrtable in their jobs.

Without gerrymandering, the Congressional Black Caucus would shrink.......a lot.

So be it, if that's what happens. We need a government that can be held acccountable. Gerrymandering prevents this. It is also anti competition, do you want the politicians sitting there with no fear of losing their job? Does that seem like a good way to limit government?

 

[eagle7_31]

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

Republican gerrymandering accounts for 16 or 17 GOP seats in the current Congress that the party may not otherwise control.

But now, that gerrymandering greed of Republicans is coming back to haunt them.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in January struck down the congressional map state Republicans drew, saying it was so partisan that it violated the state constitution. That same month, a panel of three federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a Wisconsin case may set a standard for defining unconstitutional gerrymandering on partisan grounds.

The reckoning Republicans are seeing now is one that could have been avoided, lawyers and redistricting experts say, had the GOP not been so ruthless.

Both Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered in the past to their advantage, but Republicans took it to a new level in 2011.

there was as much as three times more partisan bias in congressional maps this decade than in ones drawn in 2000. a “dramatic number” of the worst gerrymanders of the last half-century have occurred since 2010

Until the courts began stepping in, Republican gerrymandering paid off. From 2012 to 2016, the GOP won 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional seats, even though the party’s candidates only got around half of the vote. In Ohio, the party consistently won 12 of 16 congressional seats, but 50 percent of the statewide vote. In Wisconsin, they won at least 60 of 99 state assembly seats, with about half of the popular vote.

So we are not being represented.

the clear egregiousness of the Republican redistricting made it easier to show something was amiss. It would have been harder to make a case, he said, if Republicans had only been winning slim majorities.

Republicans could have been cautious. They could have drawn maps that benefitted their party, but at the same time were fairer, compact and contiguous. The Constitution gives state lawmakers the broad responsibility of drawing electoral districts, and the GOP maps would have stood up better against judicial scrutiny had lawmakers offered public justification in their legislatures for the boundaries

lawmakers drew a map that gave Republicans a 10-3 advantage because he didn’t see a way to draw one that was 11-2. In Wisconsin, GOP lawmakers sought to avoid scrutiny by hiring a law firm to draw the maps, hoping the work would be hidden by attorney-client privilege.

Without a public explanation for the redrawn boundaries, it’s easier for those challenging the maps to claim Republicans intended to dilute Democratic votes.


Even if the Supreme Court does decide Republicans went too far with gerrymandering, its anticipated ruling in the spring would likely come too late to affect this year’s congressional elections, and wouldn’t have an impact on maps until at least 2020. Even if Republicans lose the ability to gerrymander in the future, their ruthlessness will have helped them for nearly an entire decade.

You and the rest of the asshole left wing go screw yourselves. Republicans controlled the process and drew the lines. Phony moral outrage from the demrats. When dems control the process they draw lines in their favor like the GOP. Only you would have no problem with the dems doing the same. Go fly a kite.

Nope. Republicans went too far. So far that now you got the courts involved. Did you read the article I posted? You guys could have gotten away if you weren’t so blatantly corrupt.

You’ve got it so 50% of us only get 25% representation. This is the kind of shit people revolt over douchbag

Go screw yourself. Gerrymandering is partisan very partisan period. You and the other asshole dems can't stand it when you lost the 2010 mid term elections.

 

[sealybobo]

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

Republican gerrymandering accounts for 16 or 17 GOP seats in the current Congress that the party may not otherwise control.

But now, that gerrymandering greed of Republicans is coming back to haunt them.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in January struck down the congressional map state Republicans drew, saying it was so partisan that it violated the state constitution. That same month, a panel of three federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a Wisconsin case may set a standard for defining unconstitutional gerrymandering on partisan grounds.

The reckoning Republicans are seeing now is one that could have been avoided, lawyers and redistricting experts say, had the GOP not been so ruthless.

Both Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered in the past to their advantage, but Republicans took it to a new level in 2011.

there was as much as three times more partisan bias in congressional maps this decade than in ones drawn in 2000. a “dramatic number” of the worst gerrymanders of the last half-century have occurred since 2010

Until the courts began stepping in, Republican gerrymandering paid off. From 2012 to 2016, the GOP won 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional seats, even though the party’s candidates only got around half of the vote. In Ohio, the party consistently won 12 of 16 congressional seats, but 50 percent of the statewide vote. In Wisconsin, they won at least 60 of 99 state assembly seats, with about half of the popular vote.

So we are not being represented.

the clear egregiousness of the Republican redistricting made it easier to show something was amiss. It would have been harder to make a case, he said, if Republicans had only been winning slim majorities.

Republicans could have been cautious. They could have drawn maps that benefitted their party, but at the same time were fairer, compact and contiguous. The Constitution gives state lawmakers the broad responsibility of drawing electoral districts, and the GOP maps would have stood up better against judicial scrutiny had lawmakers offered public justification in their legislatures for the boundaries

lawmakers drew a map that gave Republicans a 10-3 advantage because he didn’t see a way to draw one that was 11-2. In Wisconsin, GOP lawmakers sought to avoid scrutiny by hiring a law firm to draw the maps, hoping the work would be hidden by attorney-client privilege.

Without a public explanation for the redrawn boundaries, it’s easier for those challenging the maps to claim Republicans intended to dilute Democratic votes.


Even if the Supreme Court does decide Republicans went too far with gerrymandering, its anticipated ruling in the spring would likely come too late to affect this year’s congressional elections, and wouldn’t have an impact on maps until at least 2020. Even if Republicans lose the ability to gerrymander in the future, their ruthlessness will have helped them for nearly an entire decade.

You and the rest of the asshole left wing go screw yourselves. Republicans controlled the process and drew the lines. Phony moral outrage from the demrats. When dems control the process they draw lines in their favor like the GOP. Only you would have no problem with the dems doing the same. Go fly a kite.

Nope. Republicans went too far. So far that now you got the courts involved. Did you read the article I posted? You guys could have gotten away if you weren’t so blatantly corrupt.

You’ve got it so 50% of us only get 25% representation. This is the kind of shit people revolt over douchbag

Go screw yourself. Gerrymandering is partisan very partisan period. You and the other asshole dems can't stand it when you lost the 2010 mid term elections.

It wasn’t that one it was the one off year you guys pulled some shady shit.

When 50% of the people only get 25% representation you’ve gone too far

 

[eagle7_31]

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

Republican gerrymandering accounts for 16 or 17 GOP seats in the current Congress that the party may not otherwise control.

But now, that gerrymandering greed of Republicans is coming back to haunt them.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in January struck down the congressional map state Republicans drew, saying it was so partisan that it violated the state constitution. That same month, a panel of three federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a Wisconsin case may set a standard for defining unconstitutional gerrymandering on partisan grounds.

The reckoning Republicans are seeing now is one that could have been avoided, lawyers and redistricting experts say, had the GOP not been so ruthless.

Both Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered in the past to their advantage, but Republicans took it to a new level in 2011.

there was as much as three times more partisan bias in congressional maps this decade than in ones drawn in 2000. a “dramatic number” of the worst gerrymanders of the last half-century have occurred since 2010

Until the courts began stepping in, Republican gerrymandering paid off. From 2012 to 2016, the GOP won 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional seats, even though the party’s candidates only got around half of the vote. In Ohio, the party consistently won 12 of 16 congressional seats, but 50 percent of the statewide vote. In Wisconsin, they won at least 60 of 99 state assembly seats, with about half of the popular vote.

So we are not being represented.

the clear egregiousness of the Republican redistricting made it easier to show something was amiss. It would have been harder to make a case, he said, if Republicans had only been winning slim majorities.

Republicans could have been cautious. They could have drawn maps that benefitted their party, but at the same time were fairer, compact and contiguous. The Constitution gives state lawmakers the broad responsibility of drawing electoral districts, and the GOP maps would have stood up better against judicial scrutiny had lawmakers offered public justification in their legislatures for the boundaries

lawmakers drew a map that gave Republicans a 10-3 advantage because he didn’t see a way to draw one that was 11-2. In Wisconsin, GOP lawmakers sought to avoid scrutiny by hiring a law firm to draw the maps, hoping the work would be hidden by attorney-client privilege.

Without a public explanation for the redrawn boundaries, it’s easier for those challenging the maps to claim Republicans intended to dilute Democratic votes.


Even if the Supreme Court does decide Republicans went too far with gerrymandering, its anticipated ruling in the spring would likely come too late to affect this year’s congressional elections, and wouldn’t have an impact on maps until at least 2020. Even if Republicans lose the ability to gerrymander in the future, their ruthlessness will have helped them for nearly an entire decade.

You and the rest of the asshole left wing go screw yourselves. Republicans controlled the process and drew the lines. Phony moral outrage from the demrats. When dems control the process they draw lines in their favor like the GOP. Only you would have no problem with the dems doing the same. Go fly a kite.

Nope. Republicans went too far. So far that now you got the courts involved. Did you read the article I posted? You guys could have gotten away if you weren’t so blatantly corrupt.

You’ve got it so 50% of us only get 25% representation. This is the kind of shit people revolt over douchbag

Go screw yourself. Gerrymandering is partisan very partisan period. You and the other asshole dems can't stand it when you lost the 2010 mid term elections.

It wasn’t that one it was the one off year you guys pulled some shady shit.

When 50% of the people only get 25% representation you’ve gone too far

hey dummy each district was drawn with the same population roughly 675,000 give or take for each district.

 

[Supposn]

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

Bush92, almost of us would agree that election districts should be drawn in a manner that equitably respects the consequences of every voter's participation.

In practice, there are many methods of drawing political boundaries to effectively circumvent that ideal. Such grievous instances of obvious grievous gerrymandering have occurred to an extent recognized by our legal courts. Plaintiffs have successfully sued and courts have ordered those government's administrations and/or their legislators to remedy their boundaries to the court's satisfaction or the courts themselves would otherwise do it.

Among the proposed remedies for electing members to political entities that make determinations dependent upon the votes of their membership, has been weighed membership. Each of the political districts elects multiple members and the weight of those members' votes within the chambers of representatives is dependent upon the proportion their politic district votes they received.

Other proposed remedies are dependent upon a less political method of choosing those who finally determine the political boundaries.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

How on earth is it a check on the states, state parties etc?

If you actually wanted checks on these things, you'd go for Proportional Representation.

But you don't want checks, you want your party to have MORE POWER they don't deserve.

 

[Supposn]

The EC should be banned. then we wouldn't need to worry about the extreme GOP gerrymandering or any gerrymandering.

You still need congressional districts, moron.

Penelope, there'd be no use for gerrymandering, gut it at the source, the EC.

The Electoral College is not caused by gerrymandering. It was a feasible method of electing a national president during the eras of slower transportation and communication.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

I see it as another check that states, the state parties, and the people have over the dangerous federal government. Keep the practice.
Why the North Carolina redistricting ruling could end gerrymandering as we know it - CNNPolitics

How on earth is it a check on the states, state parties etc?

If you actually wanted checks on these things, you'd go for Proportional Representation.

But you don't want checks, you want your party to have MORE POWER they don't deserve.

Bush92, proportional representation is among the proposed remedies for reducing the effects of gerrymandering and the power of wealth to purchase elections.

If congressional representatives’ votes were weighed to the proportion of the votes they received when elected, party leaders would have greater inducements to “get out their votes” rather than only conspiring to suppress oppositions’ voters. They would be more motivated to consider their constitutes more and favor their campaign contributors somewhat less. representatives’ numbers were intended to reflect the actual proportions of our population’s political views.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[longknife]

Here are a few of my thoughts on the situation.

The Constitution provides the guidelines for selecting and electing members of Congress. It never limited the number of Representatives - that was done by Congress and approved by the president.

The Apportionment Act of 1911 (Pub.L. 62–5, 37 Stat. 13) was an apportionment bill passed by the United States Congress on August 8, 1911. The law set the number of members of the United States House of Representatives at 435, effective with the 63rd Congress on March 4, 1913.[1] This number included a provision for the addition of one seat each for Arizona and New Mexico when they became states.

This limitation actually took away the right of the people to elect their representatives as indicated in the constitution. We certainly have more people of voting age than we did in 1911 so there should be more congressional districts based upon population. My feeling is that this 1911 should be repealed and, based upon the next census in 2020, more congressional districts should be created.

I also strongly believe that efforts should be underway to restore the original intent of electing the president, vice president, and senators. [It will take a lot of searching that I don't have the time for to find the references] If I remember correctly, Senators were originally selected and elected by the state legislatures - not by the popular vote. And, I think the president and vice president were nominated in the House and voted upon by the entire congress - not by the popular vote. Of course, that means there is no way in hell a non politician like president Trump could ever be elected to the office.

While I find Gerrymandering disgusting, it is the constitution right of each state LEGISLATURE to determine boundaries so the people can elect their representatives. Judges have absolutely no right to interfere - no matter the pretext. Politics in not fair!

I could go on, but this is enough for now.

 

[Supposn]

Here are a few of my thoughts on the situation. ... While I find Gerrymandering disgusting, it is the constitution right of each state LEGISLATURE to determine boundaries so the people can elect their representatives. Judges have absolutely no right to interfere - no matter the pretext. Politics in not fair!
I could go on, but this is enough for now.

Longknife, federal courts, (particularly the Supreme Court) generally try to avoid intervening within political matters. Doing so to some extent often does undermine the courts' reputations and/or abilities to provide equitable legal justice in all matters; I agree those are valid fears.

But since the consequences of federal elections within a state often do significantly impact federal legislation, laws, and regulations, They also often significantly affect more or less all USA states. That's the justification for federal law's supreme jurisdiction of elections for federal offices.



Respectfully, Supposn