- Nov 22, 2017 at 2:28 am #3503408
Dems won statewide by a quarter million votes…and are in the minority in the state legislature. You know why. So now there’s an initiative floating that would have an independent board of citizens draw district lines…instead of, you know, Republicans, which is what exists now.
this is a long time coming nationwide. Isn’t there a supreme court case about this waiting to be heard soon? My strong sense is that, without the outrageous gerrymandering that exists now, Dems would be in the majority in government; certainly at the national level. But even if that’s incorrect, drawing fair, non-gerrymandered districts is essential to the functioning of an honest democracy. If we ever hope to begin to overcome the near nihilistic cynicism about government that exists today, this is an essential first step.Nov 22, 2017 at 2:55 am #3503410
Ryan SmithBPL Member
I don’t know what the answer is to how the districts should be drawn, but it’s a travesty the way that they’re currently drawn. Neither side should get to decide who their voters are. It’s supposed to be the other way around.Nov 22, 2017 at 6:21 pm #3503517
Ben CBPL Member
Isn’t there a supreme court case about this waiting to be heard soon?
You DO remember who runs the Supreme Court now that the Senate refused to even consider Garland’s nomination for almost a year?
Nov 22, 2017 at 8:09 pm #3503540
- This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by Ben C.
R’s do so many bastardly things that I lose track. The way they handled Garland was disgusting. Worse, you never hear a peep out of so called moderate R’s like Collins in Maine when this stuff goes down. but the R’s have been pursuing a policy of owning the courts for decades. Who needs a majority of voters when you have the courts and can gerrymander?
So, would anyone be surprised if the fair district initiative passed in Michigan and Supremes knocked it down?Nov 23, 2017 at 5:08 pm #3503681
Here’s Neil Gorsuch quoted in this op ed in today’s NYtimes:
“Last month, during the argument in the Wisconsin gerrymander case, Chief Justice Roberts worried aloud that if the court involved itself in the nitty-gritty of redistricting, with rulings that favored one party or the other, people would conclude that the justices were acting politically, “and that is going to cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this court in the eyes of the country.”Nov 24, 2017 at 2:15 am #3503750
Ben CBPL Member
Its it better to lose am election or to cheat and win? They are answering this question every year and the answer is not good.Nov 24, 2017 at 3:08 am #3503756
Jerry AdamsBPL Member
@retiredjerryLocale: Oregon and Washington
Part of the problem is that in urban areas, there is a large Democratic majority. In rural areas there is a smaller Republican majority. For legislators voted on by district, this is an advantage for Republicans.
For example, a state with 2 urban districts with 90% D 10% R, and 3 rural districts with 40% D 60% R. The Rs would have a 3 to 2 majority in legislators. The Ds would have a 60% majority by popular vote over the entire state.
This goes along well with gerrymandering.
It would be better to vote for legislators state wide. If 60% are D, 3 of 5 should be D. If 20% were Libertarian, 40% D, 40% D, then there should be 1 L legislator and 2 each D and R. etc.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.