SCOTUS Decisions
- DirtyRed
- Champion in his own mind
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:08 pm
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
"Let's make everything an even bigger, opaque, state-controlled shitshow so we can feel like we've actually done something" - White People, all the fucking time.aurelius wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:17 amThis^ IMO: This is the big swing and a miss by SCOTUS. SCOTUS is there as a check for the political system on behalf of our Republic. It failed to do its job in this case.
Other's have mentioned this. How in the world could they possibly come up with what is a good district or whatever. I particularly love this argument of stupid idealism as a call to do nothing. Well we can't come up with a perfect solution so let's not do anything. Human beings and our process's ALL THE TIME make very complicated, contextual, subjective, and arbitrary judgement calls. And do so fairly well. Would it be messy and not at all clean? Sure. So is the current system.
- aurelius
- Grade A Asshole
- Posts: 4580
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
- Location: Dallas
- Age: 43
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
Hmm...we are already discussing a gigantic, opaque, state-controlled shit show...not creating one.
And hey Mister Critical Thinker...having an independent entity like the courts determine districts is less opaque.
- DirtyRed
- Champion in his own mind
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:08 pm
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
independent entity
like the courts
"The courts" are government officials appointed by other government officials. Putting this shit in the hands of "the courts" means the government still does whatever it wants, but now its even further removed from any potential electoral consequences.
If The Courts did their actual jobs in the first place, and kept the government at all levels from seizing ever more power over the serfs (that's you and me), this wouldn't be much of a problem at all. The "people" who conceived of this judicial system did so because they knew democracy was an inherently doomed system, and took steps to keep it from eating itself alive. But nards like you wanted human rights subjected to the whims of voters (read: morons), and are surprised that it has gone poorly.
- Allentown
- Likes Beer
- Posts: 10025
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:41 am
- Location: Grindville, West MI. Pop: 2 Gainzgoblins
- Age: 40
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
That's why you take it from the government entirely. Though, I haven't thought about how you pick an "independent commission." It looks like MI you apply for it, identify as D/R/I, then I assume the parties look through it and choose?
Though, that's basically just mini-government, but fewer "party affiliated" people than typical in the genpop.
Though, that's basically just mini-government, but fewer "party affiliated" people than typical in the genpop.
- cwd
- Registered User
- Posts: 3400
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:34 am
- Location: central Ohio
- Age: 58
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
Re: gerrymandering, we don't need a perfect solution, just an adequate one.
1) majority party in the assembly proposes a set of district boundaries where each district is within 0.5% of the mean population size.
2) minority party does the same.
3) measure the boundary lengths -- shortest boundary wins.
I.e. let them both try, but choose the least-gerrymandered (in geometrical terms) solution of the two. Keeps things clean enough, and no need to find a supposedly objective party.
1) majority party in the assembly proposes a set of district boundaries where each district is within 0.5% of the mean population size.
2) minority party does the same.
3) measure the boundary lengths -- shortest boundary wins.
I.e. let them both try, but choose the least-gerrymandered (in geometrical terms) solution of the two. Keeps things clean enough, and no need to find a supposedly objective party.
- cgeorg
- Registered User
- Posts: 2735
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:33 am
- Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
- Age: 40
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
What if there are 3 or more parties represented in the legislature?
- aurelius
- Grade A Asshole
- Posts: 4580
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
- Location: Dallas
- Age: 43
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
For a start, not having the majority party being in charge of the election process would be a good start.
How about an independent election commission with court oversight?
How about an independent election commission with court oversight?
- cwd
- Registered User
- Posts: 3400
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:34 am
- Location: central Ohio
- Age: 58
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
Still works, just let the top 10 parties with a state legislator propose a boundary map, pick the one with shortest edges.
So long as you have 2+ competing maps, my proposal works to keep gerrymandering within bounds -- districts will be compact, and the winning map will only be able to skew the legislature a little bit.
- cgeorg
- Registered User
- Posts: 2735
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:33 am
- Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
- Age: 40
- aurelius
- Grade A Asshole
- Posts: 4580
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
- Location: Dallas
- Age: 43
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
Are you arguing for the PERFECT solution here? IE if there is no PERFECT solution than let us do nothing.
We have institutions in the US in the modern era that perform political tasks without the appearance of partisanship. This would be no different. Have appointees that serve for set number of years for limited terms. The commission's decisions are reviewed by a Federal Court. Not perfect but a definite step up over the current system.
@cwd is discussing one of the tenants that should be in the charter. The districts should have a 'normal' shape and be as simple as possible. Combining geometric rules with demographic and partisan data gives us a road map on how to draw 'fair' districts. These need to be prioritized in the charter. Judge that provides oversights sees how the map complies with the overall objective of elections that result in democratic outcomes (representative democracy).
Last edited by aurelius on Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1823
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:40 am
- Age: 63
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
There are more ways to view gerrymandering, but Democrats won 54% of the house seats with 53.4% of the popular vote. These justices are the worst extreme and partisans Republicans ever.
- omaniphil
- Registered User
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:41 pm
- Location: Cleveland, OH
- Age: 42
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
Ambivalent about the independent election commission, but am very much against the court oversight part.
The court's source of power stems from the Constitution, and is limited to adjudicating cases (e.g., disputes) between parties. There's nothing in there about them being having the authority to oversee political processes.
- aurelius
- Grade A Asshole
- Posts: 4580
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
- Location: Dallas
- Age: 43
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
Not sure what you are driving at. It's like you love to be intentionally obtuse. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that 'your guys' are currently benefiting. Because ensuring democratic outcomes to elections is such a terrible cause to get behind. /sarcasm
The primary issue with gerrymandering is State legislatures. State legislatures have a far greater impact on the daily lives of Americans than the US Congress and President. Someone already posted egregious examples of this at the State level.
The secondary issue with gerrymandering is US House of Representatives. The reason gerrymandering is so important is the upcoming census. Which will reapportion and redraw congressional districts. This was done at the state level, largely by Republican controlled legislators, 10 years ago.
Republicans turned their attention to local elections in the 1990's. Democrats gave up on local and State level elections deciding to focus on national elections. Republicans got to draw the districts in the majority of States in 2000. Then even more so in 2010. Republicans lose the House towards the end of the 10 year cycle when population movement reduces the effectiveness of the gerrymandered districts. This upcoming election is the best opportunity for the Democrats to challenge the Republican gerrymandering (at least at the State level).
- aurelius
- Grade A Asshole
- Posts: 4580
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
- Location: Dallas
- Age: 43
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
The court would adjudicate disagreements of the map. The commission draws up a map and Party A says not so fast. They sue. The issue goes before the court. The commissions charter would lay out that process and specifies a Federal Court. US Congressional districts are a Federal issue. That puts it closer to a SCOTUS ruling as the issue would not have the time to work it's way through State, then Federal, then SCOTUS. Also get it out of State elected judges hands.omaniphil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:44 amAmbivalent about the independent election commission, but am very much against the court oversight part.
The court's source of power stems from the Constitution, and is limited to adjudicating cases (e.g., disputes) between parties. There's nothing in there about them being having the authority to oversee political processes.
My main point of stating the court as oversight is to remove the legislature from the process entirely. They don't get to make maps, review maps, hug maps, lick maps, whatever.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:00 am
- Age: 48
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:16 am
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
Sure there is, in cases that implicate the constitution or federal law. Campaign finance, ballot counting, one person one vote, etc., etc.omaniphil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:44 amAmbivalent about the independent election commission, but am very much against the court oversight part.
The court's source of power stems from the Constitution, and is limited to adjudicating cases (e.g., disputes) between parties. There's nothing in there about them being having the authority to oversee political processes.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:16 am
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
That wouldn't override a federal law or properly interpreting federal constitutional rights, which outweigh state constitutions - see the supremacy clause.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1823
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:40 am
- Age: 63
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
1. Call another person obtuse.aurelius wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:01 amNot sure what you are driving at. It's like you love to be intentionally obtuse. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that 'your guys' are currently benefiting. Because ensuring democratic outcomes to elections is such a terrible cause to get behind. /sarcasm
The primary issue with gerrymandering is State legislatures. State legislatures have a far greater impact on the daily lives of Americans than the US Congress and President. Someone already posted egregious examples of this at the State level.
The secondary issue with gerrymandering is US House of Representatives. The reason gerrymandering is so important . . . will reapportion and redraw congressional districts. This was done at the state level, largely by Republican controlled legislators, 10 years ago.
Republicans turned their attention to local elections in the 1990's. Democrats gave up on local and State level elections deciding to focus on national elections. Republicans got to draw the districts in the majority of States in 2000. Then even more so in 2010. Republicans lose the House towards the end of the 10 year cycle when population movement reduces the effectiveness of the gerrymandered districts. This upcoming election is the best opportunity for the Democrats to challenge the Republican gerrymandering (at least at the State level).
2. Write self-contradicting comments (see bold)
3. Undermine your own argument by stating that Ds decided to "give up" on state and local level elections. (if there is evidence that R strength at the state level is the reason for state legislatures disproportionately being R (if true), as distinguished from D's "giving up" (if true), it hasn't been mentioned here. And if the R's have such a gerrymandering advantage, why not use it for the US congress? See the disproportionate (though small) number of seats by D, compared with popular house vote.)
4. I'm going to double down on shit I don't know much about because reasons. (Says, Aur, probably).
- cgeorg
- Registered User
- Posts: 2735
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:33 am
- Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
- Age: 40
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
You're being obtuse again. You had to remove text to give point 2 any shot at passing, but failed anyways. Point 3 is... I don't know what. He's stating how he thinks the problem got to be where it is. Ds apparently didn't think Rs would try to undermine democracy, but they did. Point 4 is ad hominem, exactly what you're claiming in 1.DoctorWho wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:16 pm1. Call another person obtuse.aurelius wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:01 amNot sure what you are driving at. It's like you love to be intentionally obtuse. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that 'your guys' are currently benefiting. Because ensuring democratic outcomes to elections is such a terrible cause to get behind. /sarcasm
The primary issue with gerrymandering is State legislatures. State legislatures have a far greater impact on the daily lives of Americans than the US Congress and President. Someone already posted egregious examples of this at the State level.
The secondary issue with gerrymandering is US House of Representatives. The reason gerrymandering is so important . . . will reapportion and redraw congressional districts. This was done at the state level, largely by Republican controlled legislators, 10 years ago.
Republicans turned their attention to local elections in the 1990's. Democrats gave up on local and State level elections deciding to focus on national elections. Republicans got to draw the districts in the majority of States in 2000. Then even more so in 2010. Republicans lose the House towards the end of the 10 year cycle when population movement reduces the effectiveness of the gerrymandered districts. This upcoming election is the best opportunity for the Democrats to challenge the Republican gerrymandering (at least at the State level).
2. Write self-contradicting comments (see bold)
3. Undermine your own argument by stating that Ds decided to "give up" on state and local level elections. (if there is evidence that R strength at the state level is the reason for state legislatures disproportionately being R (if true), as distinguished from D's "giving up" (if true), it hasn't been mentioned here. And if the R's have such a gerrymandering advantage, why not use it for the US congress? See the disproportionate (though small) number of seats by D, compared with popular house vote.)
4. I'm going to double down on shit I don't know much about because reasons. (Says, Aur, probably).
It's like you're reading the words, and interacting with them directly, without considering the idea they are presenting. You said primary, and then secondary, and then the reason! Which is it! Come on dude.