Pennsylvania’s new congressional districts are gerrymander-free — and Republicans are angry (McCain, Congressmen)
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.
It is absolutely head-shaking that anyone would object to districts as these have been re-drawn.
Each district is now is a wholly contained entity as it should be.
For those who object, I really wish someone would explain how or why having districts that snake across random parts of the state is a good thing anywhere.
Anyone?
It's a very good thing if you think your party should always be in power no matter how many of your fellow citizens would like to see another party in power.
Boy, what is this country coming to when a political party cannot violates the Constitution and ensure their candidates always win???? That can't be what democracy is about!!!
.
Without gerrymandering, blacks would never hold elected office above city council or mayor.
Nobody violated the Constitution. Can you tell me what article/section they have violated?
Both Parties have used "gerrymandering" (as it is called) for many decades. As the court has now drawn the lines, they now heavily favor Democrats, even in districts that are predominantly Republican, and Republicans they are now drawn so that Republicans are now not living within districts that they represent!
This has been done by design, so that the Democrats can win Pennsylvania. More corruption on the part of Democrats. It's the only way they are able to win.
Be specific. Which districts that are predominantly Republican now favor Democrats? Which districts were drawn so Republicans representing them are no longer in the district?
Without gerrymandering, blacks would never hold elected office above city council or mayor.
What a ridiculous comment. We just had a black president, and there is no way gerrymandering had anything to do with it, anymore than gerrymandering produced the three black senators now serving in congress.
Granted, I'd like to see more blacks (and latinos) holding elective office. And I believe that fairly drawn districts would actually lead to more blacks and latinos serving in state legislatures and in congress.
What clause in the Constitution outlines gerrymandering or in any other way gives the Federal government jurisdiction over how states draw Congressional districts? There is wording in the Constitution, though, that states that if a power is not specifically granted to the Federal government, then that power is reserved to the states or to the people. Read the Tenth Amendment some time.
Of course, in this case, the Federal government had nothing to do with it. It was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that ordered the lines redrawn, so a states rights argument does not apply. However, your attitude that the Federal government is supposed to reign supreme over the states is one of the problems we have now. That is NOT how our government was intended to work. The states are intended to be the sovereign powers, with the states voluntarily giving up some of that sovereignty to the Federal government for the betterment of all. It is true that the Supremacy Clause states that when in conflict, Federal law is supreme over state law. However, it is also true that most of the areas where Congress passes laws are not areas where Congress was supposed to be passing laws in the first place. There should be no conflict because Congress should never have been involved.
The new map is NOT gerrymander free. It has now been gerrymandered for the benefit of the Democrats by a overtly partisan and activist 5-2 Democrat appointed court.
This just goes to show what we already knew - that Democrats are only bothered by gerrymandering when they are not the ones doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91
Well, of course.
Both parties want the districts outline to favor them, both fight it out in court.
In this case they went to a court that favored the democrats, not surprisingly, the democrats won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
This new map has been gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats by a highly activist and overtly partisan court that is packed with Democrats by a 5-2 ratio.
Anyone who is honestly opposed to partisan poltical gerrymandering will be opposed to this map and the process by which it was produced.
You all do realize the map is still roughly 10-8 GOP right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cttransplant85
The majority is allowed to create the districts. The districting maps will be upheld my the supreme court. Maryland, a democrat stronghold, is perhaps the worst case of gerrymandering in the country. It's not a partisan issue. It's been going on for a long time.
OH and MI are worse but I will happily add IL and MD as needing revision.
Ensure their candidate always win??? Tom Wolf is a Democrat won governorship in 2014 so your post is a lie. Gov Tom Wolf is up for reelection in 2018 so this is just in time. They were calling Tom Wolf a one term governor. This is obviously to ensure a Tom Wolf reelection.
When Tom Wolf came into office the first year he refused to sign a budget (for over a year) unless he got tax increases (on everyone). If it were not for the Republicans fighting against his tax increases Pennsylvanians would be paying higher taxes. With this change he may get re-elected and taxes will go up in PA.
Governor Wolf is a good old fashioned businessman who believes that bills should be paid. Republicans like to accuse Democrats of wanting free stuff. The irony!
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.