Politico: Republicans expand redistricting strategy for 2020

[krazen1211]

Redmap was a great success and we should build on that to do more gerrymandering.

[krazen1211]

THIS is not a district, this should be thrown out by any sensible court:

A simple solution would be to repeal requirements that districts be contiguous. Then you would no longer need the squiggles to dump the undesirable voters.

[krazen1211]

I always hope that the Supreme Court will make "the right decision" based on an objective interpretation of the Constitution, and in my carefully considered opinion, the right decision is that gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. According to what I've read so far, the Court has yet to come up with at least five Justices who have clearly stated whether or not the phenomenon of gerrymandering is constitutional or unconstitutional.


PJ, if you think it is clearly unconstitutional, what provision in the Constitution prohibits gerrymandering?

Redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking.

It's not me who said that but rather even Ruth Ginsberg. Some folks have this idea that they can simply get rid of laws they don't like merely because they do not like the outcome of an election.

[krazen1211]

Redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking.

It's not me who said that but rather even Ruth Ginsberg. Some folks have this idea that they can simply get rid of laws they don't like merely because they do not like the outcome of an election.

Oh, like how Republicans like to redraw maps sometimes to shore up districts? You know damn well what is going on when maps are rigged like they are. It's politicians moving voters around to find a way in which they win more seats even with large swings against their party. If Republicans were just accepting the outcomes of elections that didn't go their way, they wouldn't be so pressed to redraw maps in their favor to begin with.

Interesting theory.

Since someone else mentioned Davis v. Bandemer I will simply point out that Sandra Day O'connor dispensed with this line of discussion.

Indeed, there is good reason to think that political gerrymandering is a self-limiting enterprise

As long as equal population exists across districts, a voter added to a given electoral district must be plucked from a different electoral district. If a voter of political party 1 from district A is transferred to district B political party 1 has lost electoral performance in district A. Which of course leaves district A more exposed to, uh, large swing against the party.

The above is what happened to Tom Delay in the 2006 election, where he reduced the Republican performance of his district and the party lost his seat. There are plenty of other examples.

All that even sets aside that political preference is fungible, and that voters can shift to political party 2 if political party 2 actually desires new voters.

[krazen1211]

Interesting theory.

Since someone else mentioned Davis v. Bandemer I will simply point out that Sandra Day O'connor dispensed with this line of discussion.

Indeed, there is good reason to think that political gerrymandering is a self-limiting enterprise

As long as equal population exists across districts, a voter added to a given electoral district must be plucked from a different electoral district. If a voter of political party 1 from district A is transferred to district B political party 1 has lost electoral performance in district A. Which of course leaves district A more exposed to, uh, large swing against the party.

The above is what happened to Tom Delay in the 2006 election, where he reduced the Republican performance of his district and the party lost his seat. There are plenty of other examples.

All that even sets aside that political preference is fungible, and that voters can shift to political party 2 if political party 2 actually desires new voters.

Ya I mean, let's dispense with the niceties though. You don't believe that. You're always commenting about how gerrymanders can be shored up, or made better. You're an avid lover of drawing and commenting on rigged maps.

And I'm sure her idea is just fine once a party gets greedy enough and over-extends itself. We all know it's possible to draw better maps than that, so long as there is a little self-control.

Just admit you like winning at all costs, and the system itself doesn't matter much to you so long as your 'team' wins. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about earlier, or at least your troll persona is.

Yes, I like winning, and I support gerrymandering, and certainly our system of government is not a problem.

Gerrymandering is good sport, and I have no quarrel with the process or the outcome. It has functioned great for 200 years. But that does not make Sandra Day O'connor's observations any less true. She was a rather mediocre Justice but turned out to be entirely correct. Supporters of gerrymandering must be aware of such limitations.

For instance, the Georgia Democrats in 2001 did precisely what was described. They spread their votes across many electoral districts. And there was a large swing against their political party and they lost power. Your issue is not with me and certainly not with any set of electoral maps, at least in the state of Wisconsin. The Democratic party has not performed well in that state in recent elections and therefore resorts to tactics like fleeing to Illinois in order to deny quorum to the legislature.

[krazen1211]

If you're a republican, you should be very against gerrymandering right now. Republicans are going to lose big in state legislatures (as parties in power usually do, and it's especially bad when the Republican party is super unpopular right now). Look at the special elections.

Don't be cocky because Republicans have a ton of trifectas right now. Look at how fast democratic state party control died in 2 years of a semi unpopular president. Now imagine how hard the republican state party control is gonna die in 4 years of a very unpopular president.

That is a nice theory but not one that makes much sense for men of principles. The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution merely based on the fact that the Republican party might face some future electoral misfortune.