Supremes To Hear Gerrymandering Cases

[g5000]

A funny thing happened in Wisconsin the last election. All the Democratic candidates for the state legislature received more votes than all the Republican candidates.

Yet, thanks to gross gerrymandering, the Republicans won two-thirds of the seats.

So the United States Supreme Court heard arguments last October about that mess.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing about a gerrymandering case in Maryland which favors the Democrats. They rigged a congressional district so it would become Democratic-leaning. The guy who was the Democratic governor at the time openly admits this was the intention.

Prior to now, the courts have mainly concerned themselves with political shenanigans which affect the racial balance of districts and have not really cared about political balances of districts.

But the brazenness of Wisconsin and Maryland are finally moving the USSC to act.

Wisconsin provides an excellent example of how a party can get a lock on a state even after losing voters. By rigging the district map, the Republicans have a two-third majority even though they receive less than half the votes.

And since they have a two-thirds majority in the legislature, they get to draw the map which keeps that ridiculously out of balance regime in power.

This is why the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans. Because they control the most state houses.

But Maryland demonstrates the Democrats are willing and able to do the same when given a chance.

So now the courts have to step in.

 

[Erinwltr]

Hopefully the courts will correct this.

 

[Seawytch]

A funny thing happened in Wisconsin the last election. All the Democratic candidates for the state legislature received more votes than all the Republican candidates.

Yet, thanks to gross gerrymandering, the Republicans won two-thirds of the seats.

So the United States Supreme Court heard arguments last October about that mess.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing about a gerrymandering case in Maryland which favors the Democrats. They rigged a congressional district so it would become Democratic-leaning. The guy who was the Democratic governor at the time openly admits this was the intention.

Prior to now, the courts have mainly concerned themselves with political shenanigans which affect the racial balance of districts and have not really cared about political balances of districts.

But the brazenness of Wisconsin and Maryland are finally moving the USSC to act.

Wisconsin provides an excellent example of how a party can get a lock on a state even after losing voters. By rigging the district map, the Republicans have a two-third majority even though they receive less than half the votes.

And since they have a two-thirds majority in the legislature, they get to draw the map which keeps that ridiculously out of balance regime in power.

This is why the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans. Because they control the most state houses.

But Maryland demonstrates the Democrats are willing and able to do the same when given a chance.

So now the courts have to step in.

Good!

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is good.

 

[Pogo]

Wait --- "the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans"?

Nice work if you can get it. I always suspected there were some bipolarization goin' on.
I take it this means "the Republicans have outdone themselves". To such a degree that it has to go to the SCOTUS.

 

[rightwinger]

A funny thing happened in Wisconsin the last election. All the Democratic candidates for the state legislature received more votes than all the Republican candidates.

Yet, thanks to gross gerrymandering, the Republicans won two-thirds of the seats.

So the United States Supreme Court heard arguments last October about that mess.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing about a gerrymandering case in Maryland which favors the Democrats. They rigged a congressional district so it would become Democratic-leaning. The guy who was the Democratic governor at the time openly admits this was the intention.

Prior to now, the courts have mainly concerned themselves with political shenanigans which affect the racial balance of districts and have not really cared about political balances of districts.

But the brazenness of Wisconsin and Maryland are finally moving the USSC to act.

Wisconsin provides an excellent example of how a party can get a lock on a state even after losing voters. By rigging the district map, the Republicans have a two-third majority even though they receive less than half the votes.

And since they have a two-thirds majority in the legislature, they get to draw the map which keeps that ridiculously out of balance regime in power.

This is why the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans. Because they control the most state houses.

But Maryland demonstrates the Democrats are willing and able to do the same when given a chance.

So now the courts have to step in.

Long overdue

Gerrymandering disenfranchises the voter

 

[g5000]

Wait --- "the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans"?

Nice work if you can get it. I always suspected there were some bipolarization goin' on.

The Republicans control more state houses, so they commit more gerrymandering.

That isn't to say the Democrats wouldn't do the same if they controlled the most state houses.

It's a shame things have deteriorated to the point where the Supremes have to step in.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

 

[Pogo]

Wait --- "the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans"?

Nice work if you can get it. I always suspected there were some bipolarization goin' on.

The Republicans control more state houses, so they commit more gerrymandering.

That isn't to say the Democrats wouldn't do the same if they controlled the most state houses.

It's a shame things have deteriorated to the point where the Supremes have to step in.

One of the many pitfalls of a Duopoly party system.

 

[g5000]

Wait --- "the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans"?

Nice work if you can get it. I always suspected there were some bipolarization goin' on.

The Republicans control more state houses, so they commit more gerrymandering.

That isn't to say the Democrats wouldn't do the same if they controlled the most state houses.

It's a shame things have deteriorated to the point where the Supremes have to step in.

One of the many pitfalls of a Duopoly party system.

This kind of corruption is not exclusive to two-party nations. Look at Mexico, for example.

 

[OldLady]

A funny thing happened in Wisconsin the last election. All the Democratic candidates for the state legislature received more votes than all the Republican candidates.

Yet, thanks to gross gerrymandering, the Republicans won two-thirds of the seats.

So the United States Supreme Court heard arguments last October about that mess.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing about a gerrymandering case in Maryland which favors the Democrats. They rigged a congressional district so it would become Democratic-leaning. The guy who was the Democratic governor at the time openly admits this was the intention.

Prior to now, the courts have mainly concerned themselves with political shenanigans which affect the racial balance of districts and have not really cared about political balances of districts.

But the brazenness of Wisconsin and Maryland are finally moving the USSC to act.

Wisconsin provides an excellent example of how a party can get a lock on a state even after losing voters. By rigging the district map, the Republicans have a two-third majority even though they receive less than half the votes.

And since they have a two-thirds majority in the legislature, they get to draw the map which keeps that ridiculously out of balance regime in power.

This is why the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans. Because they control the most state houses.

But Maryland demonstrates the Democrats are willing and able to do the same when given a chance.

So now the courts have to step in.

GOOD! How they got away with it to begin with, I don't understand. But it's as wrong as super delegates.

 

[Pogo]

Wait --- "the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans"?

Nice work if you can get it. I always suspected there were some bipolarization goin' on.

The Republicans control more state houses, so they commit more gerrymandering.

That isn't to say the Democrats wouldn't do the same if they controlled the most state houses.

It's a shame things have deteriorated to the point where the Supremes have to step in.

One of the many pitfalls of a Duopoly party system.

This kind of corruption is not exclusive to two-party nations. Look at Mexico, for example.

Mexico has Josémandering?

The Duopoly may not be necessary to do it (and indeed didn't yet exist when Elbridge Gerry did it at least not the present Duopoly). But a system where one side of the same coin or the other always dominates, as opposed to a system where diverse interests form coalitions, perpetuates and accelerates it. It's one more Duopoly self-preservation tool like the WTA EC.

 

[g5000]

Wait --- "the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans"?

Nice work if you can get it. I always suspected there were some bipolarization goin' on.

The Republicans control more state houses, so they commit more gerrymandering.

That isn't to say the Democrats wouldn't do the same if they controlled the most state houses.

It's a shame things have deteriorated to the point where the Supremes have to step in.

One of the many pitfalls of a Duopoly party system.

This kind of corruption is not exclusive to two-party nations. Look at Mexico, for example.

Mexico has Josémandering?

Not any more. However, the PRI held power for 71 years despite Mexico being a multi-party country. Possibly the result of being a multi-party system.

My point is that people are mistaken when they talk about a two-party system as if it has some intrinsically exclusive capability of hijacking a republic.

 

[Pogo]

Wait --- "the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans"?

Nice work if you can get it. I always suspected there were some bipolarization goin' on.

The Republicans control more state houses, so they commit more gerrymandering.

That isn't to say the Democrats wouldn't do the same if they controlled the most state houses.

It's a shame things have deteriorated to the point where the Supremes have to step in.

One of the many pitfalls of a Duopoly party system.

This kind of corruption is not exclusive to two-party nations. Look at Mexico, for example.

Mexico has Josémandering?

Not any more. However, the PRI held power for 71 years despite Mexico being a multi-party country. Possibly the result of being a multi-party system.

My point is that people are mistaken when they talk about a two-party system as if it has some intrinsically exclusive capability of hijacking a republic.

I don't know jack squat about Mexican politics but from the above it sounds like it had been dominated by a ONE-party system. Which to me is a distinction without a difference, since a Duopoly is just another approach to the same one-party monopoly. It just chooses to operate on two subsidiaries of the same thing, in our case one dressing up in "red" and the other in:"blue". That way one can't predict whether "red" or "blue" will dominate a particular time and place but one can absolutely predict it will not be "green".

 

[g5000]

The Republicans control more state houses, so they commit more gerrymandering.

That isn't to say the Democrats wouldn't do the same if they controlled the most state houses.

It's a shame things have deteriorated to the point where the Supremes have to step in.

One of the many pitfalls of a Duopoly party system.

This kind of corruption is not exclusive to two-party nations. Look at Mexico, for example.

Mexico has Josémandering?

Not any more. However, the PRI held power for 71 years despite Mexico being a multi-party country. Possibly the result of being a multi-party system.

My point is that people are mistaken when they talk about a two-party system as if it has some intrinsically exclusive capability of hijacking a republic.

I don't know jack squat about Mexican politics but from the above it sounds like it had been dominated by a ONE-party system. Which to me is a distinction without a difference, since a Duopoly is just another approach to the same one-party monopoly. It just chooses to operate on two subsidiaries of the same thing, in our case one dressing up in "red" and the other in:"blue". That way one can't predict whether "red" or "blue" will dominate a particular time and place but one can absolutely predict it will not be "green".

"Green" is marxism in a new party dress made of non-GMO, conflict- and gluten-free, hemp.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This is why the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans.

That's going to really confuse Ginsberg.

 

[RDD_1210]

If you can't win on your policies and ideas, cheat!

 

[Pogo]

One of the many pitfalls of a Duopoly party system.

This kind of corruption is not exclusive to two-party nations. Look at Mexico, for example.

Mexico has Josémandering?

Not any more. However, the PRI held power for 71 years despite Mexico being a multi-party country. Possibly the result of being a multi-party system.

My point is that people are mistaken when they talk about a two-party system as if it has some intrinsically exclusive capability of hijacking a republic.

I don't know jack squat about Mexican politics but from the above it sounds like it had been dominated by a ONE-party system. Which to me is a distinction without a difference, since a Duopoly is just another approach to the same one-party monopoly. It just chooses to operate on two subsidiaries of the same thing, in our case one dressing up in "red" and the other in:"blue". That way one can't predict whether "red" or "blue" will dominate a particular time and place but one can absolutely predict it will not be "green".

"Green" is marxism in a new party dress made of non-GMO, conflict- and gluten-free, hemp.

Actually I said "green" --- small G, meaning just another color for the example. Could have been any color but "yellow" or "orange" would have brought their own connotations.

Ironically Elbridge Gerry, from whose surname "gerrymander" derives, was originally opposed to the idea of political parties at all, and when his state legislature drew up the first partisan ones he pronounced the tactic "highly disagreeable". The modern term is a portmanteau from "Gerry" and "salamander", the latter said to represent the shape of a perversely-drawn district calculated to favour the Democratic-Republicans over the Federalists.

 

[Syriusly]

A funny thing happened in Wisconsin the last election. All the Democratic candidates for the state legislature received more votes than all the Republican candidates.

Yet, thanks to gross gerrymandering, the Republicans won two-thirds of the seats.

So the United States Supreme Court heard arguments last October about that mess.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing about a gerrymandering case in Maryland which favors the Democrats. They rigged a congressional district so it would become Democratic-leaning. The guy who was the Democratic governor at the time openly admits this was the intention.

Prior to now, the courts have mainly concerned themselves with political shenanigans which affect the racial balance of districts and have not really cared about political balances of districts.

But the brazenness of Wisconsin and Maryland are finally moving the USSC to act.

Wisconsin provides an excellent example of how a party can get a lock on a state even after losing voters. By rigging the district map, the Republicans have a two-third majority even though they receive less than half the votes.

And since they have a two-thirds majority in the legislature, they get to draw the map which keeps that ridiculously out of balance regime in power.

This is why the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans. Because they control the most state houses.

But Maryland demonstrates the Democrats are willing and able to do the same when given a chance.

So now the courts have to step in.

I am glad to see the Court looking into it- I hope that they rule in favor of American voters.

The Republican voters in Maryland were screwed over for their votes just as the Democratic voters in Wisconsin were screwed over.

If you want to 'drain' the swamp- getting rid of political gerrymandering would be a great step forward.

 

[Syriusly]

Wait --- "the Republicans are more known for gerrymandering than Republicans"?

Nice work if you can get it. I always suspected there were some bipolarization goin' on.

The Republicans control more state houses, so they commit more gerrymandering.

That isn't to say the Democrats wouldn't do the same if they controlled the most state houses.

It's a shame things have deteriorated to the point where the Supremes have to step in.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Well the Democrats did in Maryland. I think it will be rather funny if this case slaps down such gerrymandering- the case will rule against Democrats- but affect far, far more Republicans.

Both sides have been very open and blatant about the gerrymandering being done specifically to benefit their political parties.