SCOTUS Decisions

[quark]

https://twitter.com/aaronwiener/status/ ... 5876105217

[DirtyRed]

How disenfranchised voters are supposed to fix their disenfranchisement is far from clear.

This^ 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.

"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]

"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.

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]

"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.

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.

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]

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.

[cwd]

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.

[cgeorg]

What if there are 3 or more parties represented in the legislature?

[aurelius]

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?

[cwd]

What if there are 3 or more parties represented in the legislature?

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]

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 does one maintain independence on the commission?

[aurelius]

How does one maintain independence on the commission?

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).

[DoctorWho]

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]

How about an independent election commission with court oversight?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[JonA]

My main point of stating the court as oversight is to remove the legislature from the process entirely.

I don't know about other states, but the state constitution in MN specifically allocates this power to the legislature.

[quark]

How about an independent election commission with court oversight?

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.

Sure there is, in cases that implicate the constitution or federal law. Campaign finance, ballot counting, one person one vote, etc., etc.

[quark]

My main point of stating the court as oversight is to remove the legislature from the process entirely.

I don't know about other states, but the state constitution in MN specifically allocates this power to the legislature.

That wouldn't override a federal law or properly interpreting federal constitutional rights, which outweigh state constitutions - see the supremacy clause.

[DoctorWho]

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.

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 . . . 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).

1. Call another person obtuse.
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]

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.

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 . . . 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).

1. Call another person obtuse.
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).

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.

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.