Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8973 total)
174 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 173 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,676 Year: 7,424/23,288 Month: 1,330/1,214 Week: 342/303 Day: 71/68 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression
Taq
Member
Posts: 8300
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 2 of 83 (855285)
06-18-2019 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
06-18-2019 11:06 AM


I think it is time for federal oversight on this issue. I think it is important for states to control how their own districts are drawn, but it needs to pass through some sort of non-partisan oversight at the federal level.

We also need some basic guidelines for voter access. It's ridiculous that states will put up more and more hurdles whose only goal is to make it harder for citizens to vote. This includes everything from kicking citizens off voter rolls to restricting polling places in minority neighborhoods. This isn't how a democracy should work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 06-18-2019 11:06 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 06-18-2019 12:55 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8300
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 6 of 83 (855681)
06-21-2019 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
06-18-2019 12:55 PM


Chiroptera writes:

The issue is a bit complicated, though. The US Constitution gives the states the authority to regulate their own elections and districting, so without an amendment the federal government can't just assume responsibility.

That's a good point. If the DOJ set up a non-partisan panel/council, then states could elect to voluntarily submit redistricting maps to get a second opinion. In my own state there is a (supposedly) non-partisan redistricting council made up of even numbers from each party who haven't been in office for a minimum of 10 years. It's a good way to prevent egregious gerrymandering since active politicians aren't drawing the lines on the map, but it could be improved if there were a second set of eyes looking at it who don't have any stake in the elections.

Ultimately, I think it is about finding a way to separate politicians from the process of drawing up the districts. Voters should pick politicans. Politicians shouldn't pick their voters.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 06-18-2019 12:55 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8300
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 10 of 83 (856136)
06-27-2019 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
06-27-2019 1:41 PM


Re: But, weirdly, angry white people don't have a right to partisan census questions.
Chiroptera writes:

The case is being sent back to the lower courts, where the Administration can try to do a better job in explaining why they feel the citizenship question is important.

That wouldn't go well for the Administration, as the latest ruling has just shown. They have already demonstrated they intended to include the question of citizenship and then tried to invent justification for the question later. New evidence supports the claim that the real reason for their actions is partisan politics.

The Administration would be wise to give in on this case. If they keep pursuing it they are going to have to answer some tough questions. They still might have to go before Congress and explain themselves.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 06-27-2019 1:41 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 06-27-2019 5:21 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8300
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 16 of 83 (856196)
06-28-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
06-28-2019 3:05 AM


Re: The 2018 election showed how districts can change partisan orientation - dramatically
Faith writes:

Discussions I've been hearing say the determination of the boundaries of districts is strictly a state matter and a political matter, and that's why the court didn't rule on it. A Republican state government is perfectly free to determine whatever boundaries they ****, even to benefit the Republican party, and likewise in a Democratic controlled state government the boundaries can be chosen to benefit that party.

The larger discussion is if this behavior is good for democracy. Should politicians be allowed to gerrymander districts, no matter their party affiliation? Personally, I think the voters should stand up and demand fair districts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 3:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 06-28-2019 2:01 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8300
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 17 of 83 (856198)
06-28-2019 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sarah Bellum
06-28-2019 11:24 AM


Re: The 2018 election showed how districts can change partisan orientation - dramatically
Sarah Bellum writes:

There will always be some attempt at gerrymandering, whether it is partisan gerrymandering or affirmative action gerrymandering in an attempt to produce a district that will have a majority of voters from a disadvantaged group or just plain political horsetrading by incumbents desperate to keep their seats.

It doesn't have to be that way. You can have a council of non-politicians that draw district boundaries.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-28-2019 11:24 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-28-2019 2:10 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8300
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 21 of 83 (856215)
06-28-2019 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
06-28-2019 2:01 PM


Re: What's Right...
Slowly we seem to be arriving at the important, fundamental point: Is the US not "of the people, by the people and for the people". Does anyone here want the system changed so each individual doesn't have a right to vote as they choose and have that vote be as effective as anyone else's.

It's also driven by modern technology and advanced analytics combined with modern polling data. Parties can carve up states with fine precision in a way that couldn't be done before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 06-28-2019 2:01 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by LamarkNewAge, posted 06-28-2019 8:23 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8300
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 22 of 83 (856216)
06-28-2019 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Sarah Bellum
06-28-2019 2:10 PM


Re: The 2018 election showed how districts can change partisan orientation - dramatically
Sarah Bellum writes:

How are the committees selected in the first place, for example? What about the people who (allegedly) have upright motives for building gerrymandered districts, such as those designed to give disadvantaged groups more representation?

My first instinct is to use the judicial branch, but there are states that elect judges and law enforcement officials so I don't know how well that would work.

We could take advantage of modern technology and use AI to draw the districts. Just a thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-28-2019 2:10 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-28-2019 4:05 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8300
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 31 of 83 (856517)
07-01-2019 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Chiroptera
06-29-2019 11:14 AM


Re: Ruch v Common Cause: The decision
Chiroptera writes:

The main argument seems to be that the Founders were well aware of the problem of gerrymandering but gave the task of creating districts to the political branches anyway.

Begrudgingly, I tend to agree with the SCOTUS decision. These are political powers given to the other branches and not to the courts. We could have a situation where each and every districting map is brought in front of the courts, and they don't want to be in the business of second guessing every single state legislature with an eye to political parties. I think the courts can step in when it is a question of race, religion, or other protected groups. However, political parties are not a protected group, as far as I can tell.

Having the courts involved in redistricting was never a long term solution. The American people need to stand up and fix this through legislation. A grassroots (or astroturf, who cares as long as it gets fixed) organization could work on some standardized language that could be put on state ballots across the country. If it is pushed as being non-partisan, it could be effective. A similar campaign has seen Obamacare Medicare expansion voted into law in the most conservative states.

However, Republicans know that demographics are against them, so they would use scare tactics to get these ballot measures shot down. Still, it is a hill worth dying on, IMHO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2019 11:14 AM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020