SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2024, 10:03:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SCOTUS: Partisan Gerrymandering is a Non-Justiciable Political Question  (Read 2857 times)
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,202


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

« on: June 28, 2019, 12:21:54 PM »

i get that’s there’s no truly objective way to set standards for “fair” districts as opposed to population equality, but still even if you can’t make the most optimal solution you can undo most of the gerrymandering...the GOP has gerrymanders in UT, TX (well now only sort of), OK, WI, MI, PA, OH, AL, LA, MS, GA, SC, NC, VA, and NJ. dems only have MA, IL, MD, CT and RI (which will become irrelevant in 3 years). a fair map would produce a much more democratic-leaning congress (relative to before)

Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Are you kidding?? It has been actively noted here that there is no reasonable way create a republican congressional district in Massachusetts without gerrymandering. Rhode Island is equally obvious. For that matter, Connecticut as a gerrymander is silly as hell.

The maps in MA, MD and CA disproportionately favor one party over the other, given the proportional breakdown of votes across the whole state.  So, is that a gerrymander? or would a gerrymander be drawing weird salamander-shaped Republican districts there to achieve proportional representation?

Questions like these are exactly why I'm glad the courts won't be getting in on this tomato/tomato question.

The very fact of drawing single member districts means that an increase of 1% in popular vote margin tends to lead to a 2% increase in seat margin.

Yes, and that's mainly what Democrats complain about when they talk about "gerrymandering"; but hey, they'd rather all pack themselves into all the "hip" neighborhoods in Brooklyn or West Hollywood.  Suit yourself.

No, this is not what democrats are complaining about. We’re complaining about things like North Carolina’s districts giving Republicans 10/13 seats for 50% of the popular vote. There’s simply no definition of representative government that makes that outcome acceptable.

Over 1/3 of the total Democratic vote in NC for 2016 was in four counties - Mecklenberg, Wake, Durham and Guilford.  Less than 20 percent of the GOP vote was.  Democrats are much more packed in NC than Republicans are.  A 7/6 map (or whatever you think would be "fair") would have to be egregiously gerrymandered. 

Are you trying to suggest the map in NC doesn't impact the partisan distrubution of the seats???  Really?

All maps affect the partisan distribution of seats. 

Getting at least 5 dem seats in NC is extremely easy and wouldn't require special or obtuse districts.   A 6th might require slightly favored drawing in the Cumberland area.   

But why do the Dems deserve five seats lol

You're relying on proportionality as a criterion without demonstrating why its superior to any other metric.  And even if it was "superior", the criteria to use when drawing districts would still be a political question, not a legal one.
There are plenty of criteria in addition to proportionality that the political branches of government should be able to consider. But discrimination based on a group’s political beliefs should not be a permissible criterion, period.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.