• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Gerrymandering... it just is now.

He was never a MAGA type of guy, and was a moderate Republican, but the truth is a fake energy crisis was used to remove the Democrat Governor, and he filled in the role. Also, I don't recall his take on the gerrymandering when Texas and DeLay were fucking the maps back in the early W days.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
ZiprHead said:
Go AHNOLD!
Click to expand...
Isn't he the guy that was able to take advantage of a corporate coup (fake energy crisis) against a Governor and get himself elected Governor?
Click to expand...

It was even more non-sensical than that.

Under the rules of the  2003 California gubernatorial recall election, Gray Davis needed 50% of the vote, but only got 44.6%. Schwarzenegger got 48.6% (32% would have been enough to win) but those votes included MANY of the 44.6% who supported Gray Davis! -- they were allowed to cast a 2nd vote for their 2nd choice, as long as it wasn't Gray Davis. :confused:

Proponents of "direct democracy" are largely unaware of the idiocies California has suffered due to its (initiative, referendum, recall) trifecta to fight the virtues of representative democracy.
 
www.fox4news.com

Texas Democrats return to fight state redistricting from the House Floor and the courts

Texas Democrats who left the state to block a redistricting vote have returned to Austin, ending a two-week quorum break and allowing the Republican-controlled House to move forward with its legislative priorities.
www.fox4news.com www.fox4news.com
On Monday, multiple bills on disaster preparedness advanced out of committee in a 9-0 vote, setting up a floor vote in the house on Wednesday.

Redistricting could also move to a full vote this week, if there is a quorum.

Before leaving the chamber on Monday, Democrats had to sign a form promising to return on Wednesday. They also each got a DPS officer to monitor them.

"I have a personal trooper. He doesn't want to be on camera, but he is standing right next to me," said State Rep. Rose.

Texas Democrat refuses to sign form promising to return​

Dig deeper:

State Rep. Nicole Collier of Fort Worth was detained on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives after taking a stand against the unprecedented Republican tactics. The seven-term Democratic lawmaker and former chair of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus refused to sign the form that would assign her a taxpayer-funded law enforcement escort.

In a statement by the Texas House Democratic Caucus:

"My constituents sent me to Austin to protect their voices and rights," said Rep. Nicole Collier.

"I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts. My community is majority-minority, and they expect me to stand up for their representation. When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents. I won't just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination."
Click to expand...
Having a police officer follow them 24/7.
 
Rep Collier was on the phone in a bathroom in the capital building with California governor Newsome when she was interupted and notified she was committing a felony.

 
That isn't enough. They have to prove the maps were intended to intentionally restrict voting rights for minorities, and Trump is on record saying it is flatly partisan.
 
That is one significant difference between California and Texas when it comes to crooked redistricting, at least we aren't erasing minority communities.
 
Politesse said:
That is one significant difference between California and Texas when it comes to crooked redistricting, at least we aren't erasing minority communities.
Click to expand...
Does that make it a "better" gerrymandering because it does not target minority communities?
Gerrymandering is not a sliding scale. It is gerrymandering or it is not.
2 wrongs i.e. Calif. vs. Texas do not make it right.
 
Tigers! said:
Politesse said:
That is one significant difference between California and Texas when it comes to crooked redistricting, at least we aren't erasing minority communities.
Click to expand...
Does that make it a "better" gerrymandering because it does not target minority communities?
Gerrymandering is not a sliding scale. It is gerrymandering or it is not.
2 wrongs i.e. Calif. vs. Texas do not make it right.
Click to expand...
I have said nothing to the contrary. This is the next phase of the death of our democracy.
 
Tigers! said:
Politesse said:
That is one significant difference between California and Texas when it comes to crooked redistricting, at least we aren't erasing minority communities.
Click to expand...
Does that make it a "better" gerrymandering because it does not target minority communities?
Click to expand...
Yes, but not much.
Tigers! said:
Gerrymandering is not a sliding scale. It is gerrymandering or it is not.
2 wrongs i.e. Calif. vs. Texas do not make it right.
Click to expand...
It is unfortunate you have a post reading buffer value equal to one, because otherwise, you'd understand that Politesse has been rather clear on that point.

And as a minor note, the SCOTUS justices that said this shit was okay were the ones appointed by GOP Presidents and generally to nearly exclusively approved by in the Senate by the GOP. The liberal justices have been quite noted in their dissension against this madness.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
the SCOTUS justices that said this shit was okay were the ones appointed by GOP Presidents and generally to nearly exclusively approved by in the Senate by the GOP
Click to expand...
Yes, the GOP is now anti-democracy, pro-fascism and utterly devoted to The Felon.
In other news, water is wet. Someone please tell Tigers!
 
Elixir said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
the SCOTUS justices that said this shit was okay were the ones appointed by GOP Presidents and generally to nearly exclusively approved by in the Senate by the GOP
Click to expand...
Yes, the GOP is now anti-democracy, pro-fascism and utterly devoted to The Felon.
In other news, water is wet. Someone please tell Tigers!
Click to expand...
Despite all that you and others are saying the Democrats, or anyone else for that matter, are not forced to gerrymander. Gerrymandering is a conscious choice. The law of the land does not force you to do it.

Subverting democracy to save democracy is a dangerous path to tread. You may not get back.
 
Tigers! said:
Democrats, or anyone else for that matter, are not forced to gerrymander.
Click to expand...
Of course the Demonkratz can lay down and support or allow the benevolent fascist takeover, right? At least the trains will run on time, or that’s the promise. Democrats can’t even promise that.
 
Missouri passes their gerrymandered map in an attempt to stop making elections matter.
article said:
The new map would shatter the Kansas City-based district held by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D) to likely give Republicans a 7-1 grip on the state’s congressional delegation. The vote in Missouri comes weeks after Texas Republicans adopted a new map that is expected to deliver the GOP up to five more House seats next year.

The Missouri House approved the map and sent it to the state Senate, which is expected to sign off on it this month. From there, it would go to Gov. Mike Kehoe (R), who has urged lawmakers to adopt what he has dubbed a “Missouri first” map.
Click to expand...
#butwuddabutIllinois
 
There's nothing in the Constitution that requires congressional districts.
(including nothing in the 14th Amendment)

What's interesting is that everyone wants to have these "districts" (which are not necessary), and they imagine that it's required in the Constitution, which it is not. And yet they go into a rage at the suggestion that we could easily just do away with these "districts" altogether. Any state could do away with them without violating any federal law (though maybe there'd be a challenge to it, and some federal agency might try to prevent the change).

There are some federal laws about drawing the district boundaries. But these laws don't require that there be such districts. They just assume that all the states do have districts, and federal law lays out a few requirements for drawing the state's district map, to prevent some artificial efforts to disenfranchise some voters by drawing the lines wrongly. But if there are no lines and no "districts" at all, what need is there to overrule that state, if it chooses to eliminate districts and lines completely?

There have been states which did not have such districts, and instead there was a statewide system of candidates, and voters could choose from among them. There have been different versions of this.

Why does everyone think the districts are necessary and even required in the Constitution? What is the urge to put everyone into these artificial "districts" and pretend that these areas are some kind of place that we each "belong" to, like to our neighborhood or town or region? And when the boundaries get shifted radically, everyone just pretends that the new district is their new neighborhood or town or something, like they don't know that this "district" is an artificial entity which serves no practical purpose. (It must have some symbolic meaning. But what is this symbolism?)

Can anyone explain what this impulse is that makes us think the "districts" are necessary? Presumably if people crave to have these "districts" for some psychological reason, then we have to keep them. But what is this craving for something which is so artificial and unnecessary? No one seems able to explain any practical need served by this "district" system. Other than just imagining that it's required in the Constitution.

A much simpler way to elect Congress members would be to just list all the candidates on the ballot (the number of them determined by the state population data) and voters from anywhere in the state could just vote for any candidate on the list. Obviously voters would choose someone near to their location, so there's no likelihood of voters voting for someone far off a thousand miles away from them.

It would be so much simpler than all the games being played with the boundaries. And having to worry about certain places or certain voting blocs being under-represented.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom