Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Worldtraveller]

A problem with Dems and gerrymandering is that the Democrat Party supports it where it helps them. That makes their criticisms ring hollow. They should stand up on principle and oppose it entirely. Then more people may listen.

You're kidding? Could you please provide a link that supports your assertion that the Democrat Party supports it?

10 to 1 he can't find one. Why, because the most blue states have long ago implemented some sort of non-partisan method of determine political districts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission

So again, the dems are not only playing fair, they are actively making it more fair. And guess what happens? In states with a more level playing field, they consistently win.

 

[Jarhyn]

A problem with Dems and gerrymandering is that the Democrat Party supports it where it helps them. That makes their criticisms ring hollow. They should stand up on principle and oppose it entirely. Then more people may listen.

You're kidding? Could you please provide a link that supports your assertion that the Democrat Party supports it?

10 to 1 he can't find one. Why, because the most blue states have long ago implemented some sort of non-partisan method of determine political districts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission

So again, the dems are not only playing fair, they are actively making it more fair. And guess what happens? In states with a more level playing field, they consistently win.

I recall dimly from when I was a child still living in Wisconsin, that there was previously much to-do arising from attempts to strip powers from someone by the legislature following an election. It is a dim memory, however. I could swear I remember my staunch Republican parents at the time going on about how it was necessary to prevent abuses or some such, nakedly justifying it. I wonder nowadays what arguments are used behind closed doors to justify it today. Has anything really changed?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

A problem with Dems and gerrymandering is that the Democrat Party supports it where it helps them. That makes their criticisms ring hollow. They should stand up on principle and oppose it entirely. Then more people may listen.

You're kidding? Could you please provide a link that supports your assertion that the Democrat Party supports it?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-hate-gerrymanderingexcept-when-they-get-to-do-it
Democrats Hate Gerrymandering—Except When They Get to Do It
In Maryland, New Mexico, and elsewhere, Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans are in other states—which tells us that the real problem is deeper.

.....Why did Bartlett go off the grid and why did Mooney have to move across the James Rumsey bridge? Because Democrats decided to give themselves another Congressional seat. As Mother Jones describes it, “Democrats added a strange-looking appendage to the district, reaching all the way down into the affluent Washington DC, suburbs to scoop up Democratic voters. More than 360,000 people were moved out of the district, and nearly as many were moved in. It went from solidly Republican to reliably Democratic; the Cook Political Report identified it as the biggest district swing in the country.”

Today, I live in Alexandria, Virginia, a city that Democrats dominate. In May of 2009, however, one Republican managed to get elected to the six-member City Council. This was apparently too much for Democrats to stomach. One month after his election, the City Council voted to move municipal elections from May to November—an attempt to squash the chances that Republicans could compensate for their numerical disadvantages by organizing to win low-turnout elections. It worked.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why did Bartlett go off the grid and why did Mooney have to move across the James Rumsey bridge? Because Democrats decided to give themselves another Congressional seat. As Mother Jones describes it, “Democrats added a strange-looking appendage to the district, reaching all the way down into the affluent Washington DC, suburbs to scoop up Democratic voters. More than 360,000 people were moved out of the district, and nearly as many were moved in. It went from solidly Republican to reliably Democratic; the Cook Political Report identified it as the biggest district swing in the country.”

Did you by any chance take ten seconds to note what else Mother Jones described in regard to this?

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will hear a legal challenge to Maryland’s 6th District. The case was brought by a handful of Republican voters in the state, but it’s being argued by a Democratic lawyer, and some left-leaning lawmakers and groups believe that a Republican victory would be the best outcome. If Maryland’s 6th District falls, Democrats would lose a reliable seat in Congress—but they could take the same legal argument that triumphed in Maryland to other states around the country where Republican-friendly gerrymanders are hamstringing Democratic success.
...
The bipartisan pushback against gerrymandering isn’t unique to this case: Sen. John McCain of Arizona partnered with Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island to submit a brief in another partisan gerrymandering case the Supreme Court will decide this year. In that case, concerning Wisconsin’s congressional map, the two senators asked the court to limit gerrymandering, which they said “undermines our democracy.”
...
Not all Maryland Democrats are vocally cheering the fall of the 6th District, but none have filed briefs in support of the current map. Even former Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, who signed Maryland’s map into law, announced his support last year for nonpartisan redistricting commissions, saying that the kind of partisan gerrymandering he undertook in 2011 is not “good for our country as a whole.”
...
Not all Maryland Democrats are vocally cheering the fall of the 6th District, but none have filed briefs in support of the current map. Even former Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, who signed Maryland’s map into law, announced his support last year for nonpartisan redistricting commissions, saying that the kind of partisan gerrymandering he undertook in 2011 is not “good for our country as a whole.”
...
The Maryland case appears particularly crafted to appeal to Kennedy. The plaintiffs’ argument is based on a First Amendment strain of jurisprudence known as “retaliation,” which prohibits the government from punishing people based on their past political behavior or viewpoints. In this case, the plaintiffs argue, the Maryland legislature retaliated against Republicans in the 6th District, based on their past support for Republicans, by diluting their votes. In two previous cases, according to Michael Kimberly, the attorney for the plaintiffs, “this is the approach that Justice Kennedy indicated he had interest in.”