- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
From Reuters, here: Pennsylvania Court Redraws Voting Map
Excerpt:
This lower court decision could give pointers (to the states) in the matter of voting-gerrymandering that redistricts votes according to party-preferences. Which is an abomination as regards democratic rights of the popular-vote, and must be corrected in the US.
Only the popular-vote in all elections except one (the presidency) prevails in America. It is unfortunate that we, the sheeple, have let for so long states the right to reapportion voting districts in favor of either-party to happen. And thus allowing more easily party-dominance of the vote.
So, it is now up to the Supremes to impose upon the states the principle of no-redistricting of votes to suit any given party's voting preferences. Once their decision is made, and it is due soon enough, then fair reapportionment of districts finally becomes the Law of the Land. And not whichever voting-contrivance employed by a political-party in power at the state level.
(Do we finally understand how deviousness can lead to party-domination of politics in America, or do we finally need a Supreme Court decision to show us the way?)
Next Step?
*Finding a way to correct a defect of the Constitution that was forcibly-entered at its inception in 1787. And then Amendment 12 in 1804. The country was still in its infancy.
*That is, the fact that the results of the popular-vote do not necessarily reflect the voting pattern of the Electoral College as the EC was in fact constituted in each state.
*Which resulted, five times in history and twice in the past twenty-years, in the Electoral College having elected the loser of the popular-vote.
*Which is anti-democratic (small "d"!) and should not occur in any Real Democracy.
The EC should be done away with - but unfortunately since it is qualified in the original Constitution and then again by Amendment 12, annulling it would be extremely difficult.
What can be done, therefore, is - for "show purposes" - that the Electoral College be mandated by the Supreme Court to reflect its votes in direct-proportion to the popular-vote in each state. (Which, now finally, should be itself automatically reflected more fairly due to the end of "gerrymandering" should such be decided by the Supreme Court.)
(And, please, no BS about the US not being a "democracy" but a "republic"*. Which is like saying that cars should be state-taxed as are horse-drawn carriages because both are "horse-powered"!)
Why one should not be afraid of a confusion between democracy and republic. Here is why (from Diffen › Social Sciences › Civics):
Excerpt:
Pennsylvania’s top court on Monday unveiled a new map carving out the state’s U.S. congressional voting districts, imposing a plan it said was based on “traditional criteria” after rejecting a proposal drawn up by Republican lawmakers as unconstitutional.
The state Supreme Court had ruled that the Republican plan effectively marginalized likely Democratic voters. As a result, the Republicans have a more than 2-1 advantage in the state’s U.S. House of Representatives delegation, even though the number of registered Republicans and Democrats in Pennsylvania is roughly even.
The new map "is composed of congressional districts which follow the traditional redistricting criteria of compactness, contiguity, equality of population, and respect for the integrity of political subdivisions," the court's order said.
This lower court decision could give pointers (to the states) in the matter of voting-gerrymandering that redistricts votes according to party-preferences. Which is an abomination as regards democratic rights of the popular-vote, and must be corrected in the US.
Only the popular-vote in all elections except one (the presidency) prevails in America. It is unfortunate that we, the sheeple, have let for so long states the right to reapportion voting districts in favor of either-party to happen. And thus allowing more easily party-dominance of the vote.
So, it is now up to the Supremes to impose upon the states the principle of no-redistricting of votes to suit any given party's voting preferences. Once their decision is made, and it is due soon enough, then fair reapportionment of districts finally becomes the Law of the Land. And not whichever voting-contrivance employed by a political-party in power at the state level.
(Do we finally understand how deviousness can lead to party-domination of politics in America, or do we finally need a Supreme Court decision to show us the way?)
Next Step?
*Finding a way to correct a defect of the Constitution that was forcibly-entered at its inception in 1787. And then Amendment 12 in 1804. The country was still in its infancy.
*That is, the fact that the results of the popular-vote do not necessarily reflect the voting pattern of the Electoral College as the EC was in fact constituted in each state.
*Which resulted, five times in history and twice in the past twenty-years, in the Electoral College having elected the loser of the popular-vote.
*Which is anti-democratic (small "d"!) and should not occur in any Real Democracy.
The EC should be done away with - but unfortunately since it is qualified in the original Constitution and then again by Amendment 12, annulling it would be extremely difficult.
What can be done, therefore, is - for "show purposes" - that the Electoral College be mandated by the Supreme Court to reflect its votes in direct-proportion to the popular-vote in each state. (Which, now finally, should be itself automatically reflected more fairly due to the end of "gerrymandering" should such be decided by the Supreme Court.)
(And, please, no BS about the US not being a "democracy" but a "republic"*. Which is like saying that cars should be state-taxed as are horse-drawn carriages because both are "horse-powered"!)
Why one should not be afraid of a confusion between democracy and republic. Here is why (from Diffen › Social Sciences › Civics):
The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government.
In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority. Most modern nations are democratic republics with a constitution, which can be amended by a popularly elected government.
This comparison therefore contrasts the form of government in most countries today with a theoretical construct of a "pure democracy", mainly to highlight the features of a republic.