Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the dorms of gerrymandering that democrats have pushed is creating odd shapes districts to create various minority-majority districts.
Shouldn't that be illegal too, as it pushes the notions that politics should carve out weird shaped districts.
The Democrats say it that way because the minorities, in a very large percentage, vote Democrat. So, wherever there is a pocket of Republican voters, they snake their Democrat districts into the Rep strongholds to water them down, so that only a Democrat can win. MD used to be 4-4 D vs R. Now it is 7-1. The one Republican representative is Andy Harris, from the Eastern Shore, where there was no way they could justify gerrymandering, because the area is too spread out and mostly Republican.
It's a terrible practice used by both parties to turn representative democracy into a sham.
Between gerrymandering and the electoral college, it's no wonder we have the reality star/corrupt business man as leader of our beloved country. Scary.
Here's an interesting article on how California tried to deal with gerrymandering. I think the practice should end but finding a way to draw fair districts is not easy. Even more disturbing are the super pacts that the supreme court ruled in favor of. When you have republicans openly admitting that they need to pass unfavorable legislation to appease the money, you have a system that is highly corruptible. Gerrymandering is one example of a corrupt broken system, but, follow the money. Government is now just one big business for the 1%.
I'm against the practice of gerrymandering - politicians shouldn't pick their voters. But I don't believe that the Supreme Court has the power to end all gerrymandering. The only time the Supremes have ruled on gerrymandering is when it has been done to reverse those cases of gerrymandering used deny voting rights based upon race.
It's up to the people in each of the various states to decide how to elect their representatives to the US House of Representatives. Right now, there's a state voter ballot proposal being pitched in Michigan to take political districting out of the hands of the state legislature and put it under the control of an independent non-partisan board. Voters Not Politicians. For some strange reason, the Michigan Republican Party, which controls all three branches of the state government, is currently revving up to fight the ballot proposal...imagine that...it's almost like the state GOP likes gerrymandering...
I'm against the practice of gerrymandering - politicians shouldn't pick their voters. But I don't believe that the Supreme Court has the power to end all gerrymandering. The only time the Supremes have ruled on gerrymandering is when it has been done to reverse those cases of gerrymandering used deny voting rights based upon race.
It's up to the people in each of the various states to decide how to elect their representatives to the US House of Representatives. Right now, there's a state voter ballot proposal being pitched in Michigan to take political districting out of the hands of the state legislature and put it under the control of an independent non-partisan board. Voters Not Politicians. For some strange reason, the Michigan Republican Party, which controls all three branches of the state government, is currently revving up to fight the ballot proposal...imagine that...it's almost like the state GOP likes gerrymandering...
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court can easily rule against gerrymandering (even if race isn't involved) by arguing that it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Indeed, let's hope that Justice Kennedy and the four liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court end up doing this.
I voted Yes because gerrymandering cripples our democracy and our country.
Ultra safe seats lead to extremism. It is in the interest of all Americans to have moderates on both sides.
i single transferable vote is by far the best system. Districts should be big enough to have several seats where possible. this allows the public to vote against crazy people much more effectively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
