• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court sidesteps decision on partisan gerrymandering in rulings on Wisconsin, Maryland cases

PeteEU said:
Not in Maine and Nebraska... that is what the GOP has been trying to do in some states.
Click to expand...

There are a few states that give out votes based on percentage of votes won.

So if I have 6 ECs and I get 70% and you get 30%. I get 4 votes you get 2.

Again that is based in state wide vote.

Maine and Nebraska go further but that has even more issues with it.
It is too micro managed for my tastes.

The really only fair way for ECs anyway is the % of vote win with the odd vote going to the winner.
As for local district races the court usually stays away from these types of issues unless there is a clear and intentional
Break in the law.

I just read the opinions. They punted but that is their nature on these types of situations.
Some of them where not even close 9-0? That is not even a close vote that they would consider it.
 
PeteEU said:
I know, but point is.. in the US there are usually 2 candidates.. in the UK there are at least 3 main candidates (the 3 big parties) plus a bunch of lesser candidates including UKIP. That is why UKIP got 12% of the overall vote, but only 1 seat.

Point is the more candidates, the more diluted the vote can become and in the case of the UK.. mean that the "majority party" actually only got 36% of the vote. That is why IMO, first past the post is a bad way of doing things.
Click to expand...

Which is why first-past-the-post powerfully incentivizes the broad coalitions found in two-party systems.
Point of detail: there are usually more than two candidates in the US; you just don't usually hear about the "minor" parties.
 
As was said about Google, what you are seeing is not a bug; it is a feature.
 
MrWonka said:
Because it always benefits the people with the power to change it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, check out Mamie Locke of the 2nd District in Virginia.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It seems that we could be headed into the very dangerous territory of having the SCOTUS define those with a minority political party preference become yet another protected class. I would prefer a federal law that mandates that a congressional voting district cannot contain parts of more than one county (naturally, it could contain more than one entire counties).

My congressional district contains parts of 5 counties (yet it contains no complete county) and 2 cities that are about 80 miles apart. It is one of the most blatant examples of partisan gerrymandering imaginable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_35th_congressional_district
Click to expand...

Well, by not hearing the case I think the POTUS has avoided granting a protected class to a political party.
 
JANFU said:
I think they punted back to lower courts for various reasons. Divided on how to define egregious gerrymandering, divided on how to address this with what formulas that could set precedent, sent back to lower courts, who handle these cases first to hopefully let them decide/find ways of defining the issue of egregious gerrymandering, and what formulas/definitions may/can be used.

Bottom line is that when one by party definition is subjected to this, they have their vote discounted, many will not vote due to it has no effect in the results, that suppresses voter turnout/participation and just one more reason to despise politicians and the electoral process.
Click to expand...

No, actually, they decided that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to bring the case.

Roberts, writing for the unanimous court:

The plaintiffs argue that their legal injury is not limited to the injury that they have suffered as individual voters, but extends also to the statewide harm to their interest “in their collective representation in the legislature,” and in influencing the legislature’s overall “composition and policymaking” . . . But our cases to date have not found that this presents an individual and personal injury of the kind required for Article III standing. On the facts of this case, the plaintiffs may not rely on “the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past.” Lance, 549 U. S., at 442. A citizen’s interest in the overall composition of the legislature is embodied in his right to vote for his representative. And the citizen’s abstract interest in policies adopted by the legislature on the facts here is a nonjusticiable “general interest common to all members of the public.”
Click to expand...

That would usually end a case outright, but the Court actually gave the plaintiffs a chance to remedy the problem in the district court.

The question was standing, not gerrymandering.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So far.
Click to expand...

Well sure, but I guess you can say that about any good decision.

They'll need to find a way to clear the hurdle of having standing at this point.

though my guess is that the strategy now will be to accept temporary injunctions from favorable lower courts so that they can get relief for the most immediate election with the understanding that a higher court will eventually overturn it, but by then the damage is done.
 
Jack Hays said:
Which is why first-past-the-post powerfully incentivizes the broad coalitions found in two-party systems.
Point of detail: there are usually more than two candidates in the US; you just don't usually hear about the "minor" parties.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between 2 main parties and 3 to 4... The chances of a 50+% win is rather large with 2 main parties, despite having many smaller candidates who split few votes. It is a bit different when there are 3 parties dividing up the vote along with the many other minor parties/people.. who can actually take a large take in some places. Take UKIP... it would have been the 4th party in most areas during the election, and it got over all 12% of the vote.. but because it often came in 3rd or 4th, it got lots of votes but no seats.
 
ludin said:
There are a few states that give out votes based on percentage of votes won.

So if I have 6 ECs and I get 70% and you get 30%. I get 4 votes you get 2.

Again that is based in state wide vote.

Maine and Nebraska go further but that has even more issues with it.
It is too micro managed for my tastes.

The really only fair way for ECs anyway is the % of vote win with the odd vote going to the winner.
As for local district races the court usually stays away from these types of issues unless there is a clear and intentional
Break in the law.

I just read the opinions. They punted but that is their nature on these types of situations.
Some of them where not even close 9-0? That is not even a close vote that they would consider it.
Click to expand...

I agree % of the vote is most fair. Problem is that is what the GOP does not want at all.. If you go by districts they constructed to give a majority of house seats to the GOP, then the state would also go to the GOP candidate... which is what such system would be designed for.
 
PeteEU said:
There is a huge difference between 2 main parties and 3 to 4... The chances of a 50+% win is rather large with 2 main parties, despite having many smaller candidates who split few votes. It is a bit different when there are 3 parties dividing up the vote along with the many other minor parties/people.. who can actually take a large take in some places. Take UKIP... it would have been the 4th party in most areas during the election, and it got over all 12% of the vote.. but because it often came in 3rd or 4th, it got lots of votes but no seats.
Click to expand...

Yes, and . . . ?
 
JANFU said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli..._hp-top-table-main_court-1045a:homepage/story


Why is it that this continues. Each Party wants control of State House's to in effect screw the other parties voters.
Other countries have addressed this. Yet disenfranchising the other Party's voter base runs rampant within the US Political system.


Redistribution Federal Electoral Districts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_commission

Schwarzenegger: Gerrymandering 'one of the biggest scams' pulled on the American people | TheHill
Click to expand...
Yes, but most countries haven't spend billions to create a national myth by lying to themselves constantly and saying that America is the "land of the free, home of the brave" since 1812.

We win again, world.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Harshaw said:
No, actually, they decided that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to bring the case.

Roberts, writing for the unanimous court:



That would usually end a case outright, but the Court actually gave the plaintiffs a chance to remedy the problem in the district court.

The question was standing, not gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

Thank you but many think they found a reason to punt it back
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Yes, but most countries haven't spend billions to create a national myth by lying to themselves constantly and saying that America is the "land of the free, home of the brave" since 1812.

We win again, world.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

It is crystal clear that how CDs are drawn are controlled by 1 party at a time, and every 10 years those in power at the State level can basically disenfranchise voters based upon party affiliation.

That in itself undermines a Democracy, a country that prides itself on the rule of law.

Why is it that the US cannot address this and fix it? Can it be done at the Congressional level? Or does it fall under States Rights?
 
MTAtech said:
The constitutional law regards equal protection; the concept of one-man-one-vote as well as violations of the Civil Rights Act.

Drawing maps so that people of the wrong party have reduced voting power is a fundamental constitutional issue.
Click to expand...

districting doesn't violate the 14th amendment so long as all districts are equal in population. The Civil Rights act has been held to mandate gerrymandering to produce black and latino congressmen.
 
JANFU said:
It is crystal clear that how CDs are drawn are controlled by 1 party at a time, and every 10 years those in power at the State level can basically disenfranchise voters based upon party affiliation.

That in itself undermines a Democracy, a country that prides itself on the rule of law.

Why is it that the US cannot address this and fix it? Can it be done at the Congressional level? Or does it fall under States Rights?
Click to expand...

The reapportionment and redistricting process is set down in the Constitution.
 
Jack Hays said:
The reapportionment and redistricting process is set down in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The redistricting process is not set down in the Constitution. In fact, there is no Constitutional requirement to even have districts. In 1967, Congress passed a law pursuant to Article 1, Section 4, requiring states to set up single member districts out of concern that Southern states might switch to at-large elections after the Voting Rights act was passed. Congress had also in the past enacted laws requiring single member districts and requirements on the redistricting process like requiring districts to be compact, contiguous, and equally populated, but none were in effect when the 1967 law was enacted.
 
Anagram said:
The redistricting process is not set down in the Constitution. In fact, there is no Constitutional requirement to even have districts. In 1967, Congress passed a law pursuant to Article 1, Section 4, requiring states to set up single member districts out of concern that Southern states might switch to at-large elections after the Voting Rights act was passed. Congress had also in the past enacted laws requiring single member districts and requirements on the redistricting process like requiring districts to be compact, contiguous, and equally populated, but none were in effect when the 1967 law was enacted.
Click to expand...

I should clarify. The Constitution specifies the process is in the hands of the states.

Redistricting and the United States Constitution - Brookings Institution
Brookings Institution › on-the-record › r...


Redistricting and the United States Constitution. ... The framers of the U.S. Constitution did not use the word district when they outlined how Congressional representatives would be chosen. Article 1, Section 2 of the document states only how to choose the number of lawmakers.

 
Jack Hays said:
I should clarify. The Constitution specifies the process is in the hands of the states.

Redistricting and the United States Constitution - Brookings Institution
Brookings Institution › on-the-record › r...


Redistricting and the United States Constitution. ... The framers of the U.S. Constitution did not use the word district when they outlined how Congressional representatives would be chosen. Article 1, Section 2 of the document states only how to choose the number of lawmakers.
Click to expand...

Well it leaves the process in the hands of the states, subject to Congress being able to alter the process at will pursuant to Article 1, Section 4 (which it has done several times). But each redistricting act by a state would also be subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so I don't really see how the fact it's been somewhat left to the state is relevant. They still wouldn't be able to redistrict in violation of Equal Protection, so whether or not there is an Equal Protection violation is still the controlling issue.
 
Anagram said:
Well it leaves the process in the hands of the states, subject to Congress being able to alter the process at will pursuant to Article 1, Section 4 (which it has done several times). But each redistricting act by a state would also be subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so I don't really see how the fact it's been somewhat left to the state is relevant. They still wouldn't be able to redistrict in violation of Equal Protection, so whether or not there is an Equal Protection violation is still the controlling issue.
Click to expand...

Simple partisan advantage has never been accepted by SCOTUS as a reason to invoke Equal Protection.
 
Jack Hays said:
Simple partisan advantage has never been accepted by SCOTUS as a reason to invoke Equal Protection.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. It's been held that partisan advantage may be a violation of Equal Protection, but that there's been no judicially cognizable standard for which to find that prove that maps violate Equal Protection and how to remedy it. Davis v. Bandemer and Vieth v. Jubelirer.
 
Anagram said:
That's not entirely true. It's been held that partisan advantage may be a violation of Equal Protection, but that there's been no judicially cognizable standard for which to find that prove that maps violate Equal Protection and how to remedy it. Davis v. Bandemer and Vieth v. Jubelirer.
Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference, IMHO.
 
Jack Hays said:
A distinction without a difference, IMHO.
Click to expand...

It's not. They've explicitly held in Davis that if a judicially cognizable standard be introduced, that partisan gerrymandering would violate the Equal Protection clause. Considering the number of methods that haven't been tested, including the ones brought up in Gill and Benisek, it seems like a very important distinction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom