The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: GuitarStv on June 30, 2019, 08:04:15 AM
-
Anyone notice this supreme court decision on Thursday?
“For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.” - Justice Kagan
Seems kinda bad for democracy. Good for Republicans though!
-
Yeah, it was all over the news.
-
Seems kinda bad for democracy. Good for Republicans though!
In the two specific cases considered, one favored Democrats and the other favored Republicans. They all do it.
-
Seems kinda bad for democracy. Good for Republicans though!
In the two specific cases considered, one favored Democrats and the other favored Republicans. They all do it.
Agreed.
But there's a reason the Republcan selected SC picks all OK'd gerrymandering.
https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6 (https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6)
-
Seems kinda bad for democracy. Good for Republicans though!
In the two specific cases considered, one favored Democrats and the other favored Republicans. They all do it.
Agreed.
But there's a reason the Republcan selected SC picks all OK'd gerrymandering.
https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6 (https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6)
Are you suggesting that the saintly Democrat-appointed judges rule based on legal merits while the rascally Republican-appointed judges rule based on politics?
-
Seems kinda bad for democracy. Good for Republicans though!
In the two specific cases considered, one favored Democrats and the other favored Republicans. They all do it.
Agreed.
But there's a reason the Republcan selected SC picks all OK'd gerrymandering.
https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6 (https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6)
Are you suggesting that the saintly Democrat-appointed judges rule based on legal merits while the rascally Republican-appointed judges rule based on politics?
If a case is heard in a courtroom in front of Thomas, is it still heard?
-
No. I'm suggesting that gerrymandering is a subversion of democracy, and the democratic judges aren't currently in favour of it.
-
No. I'm suggesting that gerrymandering is a subversion of democracy, and the democratic judges aren't currently in favour of it.
Do you believe districts should be drawn to ensure minority-majority ones (and if so, how should the remainder be drawn?), or should an algorithm such as "minimum perimeter" be used with no demographic input, or...?
-
If a case is heard in a courtroom in front of Thomas, is it still heard?
Of course. Might not, however, get much immediate feedback.... ;)
-
No. I'm suggesting that gerrymandering is a subversion of democracy, and the democratic judges aren't currently in favour of it.
Do you believe districts should be drawn to ensure minority-majority ones (and if so, how should the remainder be drawn?), or should an algorithm such as "minimum perimeter" be used with no demographic input, or...?
Generally I favour a minimum perimeter algorithm, but there are a variety of ways to fix gerrymandering that would work fine.
-
Generally I favour a minimum perimeter algorithm....
+1 Cheers!
-
I noted they said "Federal judges" don't / won't have the power to intervene.
So this puts the onus on the State elected / appointed judges instead ?? ..... Each state could rule differently case by case....
I am glad i live in a state where citizen begun [ intiaitve process ] proposals are relatively easy to get on the ballot.
-
Anyone notice this supreme court decision on Thursday?
“For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.” - Justice Kagan
Seems kinda bad for democracy. Good for Republicans though!
Why do you you care so much about US politics? Not necessarily a bad thing, just curious.
-
Link to the opinion and dissent for anyone that wants to read them and decide for themselves.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
-
Anyone notice this supreme court decision on Thursday?
“For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.” - Justice Kagan
Seems kinda bad for democracy. Good for Republicans though!
Why do you you care so much about US politics? Not necessarily a bad thing, just curious.
Fair question.
I guess for a few reasons. A lot of US political policies and decisions end up having knock on impacts to us (for example - by making it very easy for criminals to get hand guns, we have more hand gun crime using US purchased guns). In a lot of ways, the US is a cultural leader for the world . . . when things are going obviously poorly it's a bit scary. Donald Trump has openly embraced racism in a way that is unusual in our country. Canadian politics tends to be a bit more tame. Given that this is an American website with mostly American members I wouldn't expect that there would be many people interested in a Canadian politics discussion. Political arguments tend to carry across borders. Every country has a left and a right, and similar issues are often debated here . . . similar reasoning can be found in much of the debate. Also, why should Russians get all the influence in US politics? :P
-
What part of the majority's reasoning do you disagree with? I also do not like the end result of this opinion, and I have not read it yet, but a friend of mine who clerked at SCOTUS thought it was pretty well written.
I'll read it over lunch or something this week.
-
Seems kinda bad for democracy. Good for Republicans though!
In the two specific cases considered, one favored Democrats and the other favored Republicans. They all do it.
Technically, yes. However as far as I am aware, the majority of Democrats against gerrymandering support ending it entirely, even when it benefits them. It's unfair, and undemocratic, no matter which side does it.
-
In Australia, we have had an independent electoral commission since 1984. There seems to be no definite rule for determining boundaries, except that bizarre shapes are forbidden. Each electorate has roughly the same number of voters, which is allowed to vary from the national average by + or - 10%.
Below is a map of Australian Federal electorates. Most shapes are close to a minimum perimeter, but some country electorates have to allow for State boundaries. There needs to be occasional alteration of boundaries, as towns grow or shrink. I hope the link works.
https://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/files/aec-boundary-map-june-2010.pdf
-
What part of the majority's reasoning do you disagree with? I also do not like the end result of this opinion, and I have not read it yet, but a friend of mine who clerked at SCOTUS thought it was pretty well written.
I'll read it over lunch or something this week.
The essence of the majority opinion is that the Political Question Doctrine applies to the claims before the Court.
"Sometimes, however, the law is that the judicial department has no business entertaining the claim of unlawfulness—because the question is entrusted to one of the political branches or involves no judicially enforceable rights...In such a case the claim is said to present a 'political question' and to be nonjusticiable—outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction...the political question cases the Court has identified are those that lack 'judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving them.'"
"The question here is whether there is an 'appropriate role for the Federal Judiciary' in remedying the problem of partisan gerrymandering—whether such claims are claims of legal right, resolvable according to legal principles, or political questions that must find their resolution elsewhere."
"As noted, the question is one of degree: How to 'provide a standard for deciding how much partisan dominance is too much.' And it is vital in such circumstances that the Court act only in accord with especially clear standards: With uncertain limits, intervening courts—even when proceeding with best intentions—would risk assuming political, not legal, responsibility for a process that often produces ill will and distrust."
-
What part of the majority's reasoning do you disagree with? I also do not like the end result of this opinion, and I have not read it yet, but a friend of mine who clerked at SCOTUS thought it was pretty well written.
I'll read it over lunch or something this week.
The essence of the majority opinion is that the Political Question Doctrine applies to the claims before the Court.
"Sometimes, however, the law is that the judicial department has no business entertaining the claim of unlawfulness—because the question is entrusted to one of the political branches or involves no judicially enforceable rights...In such a case the claim is said to present a 'political question' and to be nonjusticiable—outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction...the political question cases the Court has identified are those that lack 'judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving them.'"
"The question here is whether there is an 'appropriate role for the Federal Judiciary' in remedying the problem of partisan gerrymandering—whether such claims are claims of legal right, resolvable according to legal principles, or political questions that must find their resolution elsewhere."
"As noted, the question is one of degree: How to 'provide a standard for deciding how much partisan dominance is too much.' And it is vital in such circumstances that the Court act only in accord with especially clear standards: With uncertain limits, intervening courts—even when proceeding with best intentions—would risk assuming political, not legal, responsibility for a process that often produces ill will and distrust."
Yes, I'm familiar with the political question doctrine, and I'm of the opinion the court should invoke this doctrine far more often.
-
Anyone notice this supreme court decision on Thursday?
“For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.” - Justice Kagan
Seems kinda bad for democracy. Good for Republicans though!
Why do you you care so much about US politics? Not necessarily a bad thing, just curious.
Because people live and die by the decisions of politicians. It's really not something to take lightly.
-
This decision is pretty fucking blatantly awful, and it should come as no surprise to anyone who's paying attention that the majority-conservative Supreme Court delivered another fucking blatantly awful decision. Sure would have been nice if Merrick Garland had gotten a Senate hearing, or if Clinton had gotten to appoint Scalia's successor. Elections have consequences.
-
This decision is pretty fucking blatantly awful, and it should come as no surprise to anyone who's paying attention that the majority-conservative Supreme Court delivered another fucking blatantly awful decision. Sure would have been nice if Merrick Garland had gotten a Senate hearing, or if Clinton had gotten to appoint Scalia's successor. Elections have consequences.
Methinks the Supreme Court's invocation of the Political Question Doctrine is an oblique way of it saying "elections have consequences."
-
Yes, I'm familiar with the political question doctrine, and I'm of the opinion the court should invoke this doctrine far more often.
Based on my reading of your posts in other threads I gather that your are a federalist.
-
This decision is pretty fucking blatantly awful, and it should come as no surprise to anyone who's paying attention that the majority-conservative Supreme Court delivered another fucking blatantly awful decision. Sure would have been nice if Merrick Garland had gotten a Senate hearing, or if Clinton had gotten to appoint Scalia's successor. Elections have consequences.
I don’t know. In my non-lawyer opinion after reading both opinions and mulling it over for a couple days I think it’s a pretty close case. If I had to vote, I’d have sided with Kagan’s opinion, but I can certainly see how reasonable people could vote otherwise.
-
If I had to vote, I’d have sided with Kagan’s opinion, but I can certainly see how reasonable people could vote otherwise.
"A constitution...is made for people of fundamentally differing views." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
-
No. I'm suggesting that gerrymandering is a subversion of democracy, and the democratic judges aren't currently in favour of it.
The United States is not a democracy it is a republic. Individuals elect representatives that will represent them. Gerrymandering is a result of that republic and both sides do it to help their representation.
-
What part of the majority's reasoning do you disagree with? I also do not like the end result of this opinion, and I have not read it yet, but a friend of mine who clerked at SCOTUS thought it was pretty well written.
I'll read it over lunch or something this week.
I have two objections. First is that our democracy is fundamental based on the notions of equal protection and equal participation. My vote should count the same as yours. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is to dilute the value of my vote. That's not equal participation, and it prevents me from having a fair say in who my elected representatives are.
Second is the Justice Roberts said something like (wildly paraphrasing) "We don't agree with partisan gerrymandering, but it isn't our job to do anything about it." But if you can't appeal to the Supreme Court, then who do you go to?
-
I find it utterly bizzare that a country's top court makes decisions depending - at least in certain controversial cases - on the judge's individual political/ideological views. That goes against the very idea of the rule of law. Someone always carries some ideological baggage of course, but I cannot remember a single case in which there has been any debate whatsoever on the political views of a top court judge where I live (our "supreme court" is the highest court of appeal, not a constitutional court). Hell, its not even considered newsworthy when someone leaves, someone comes in or a new head justice is appointed. Its a pick among the country's top legal scholars from the public and private sectors and from academia.
-
No. I'm suggesting that gerrymandering is a subversion of democracy, and the democratic judges aren't currently in favour of it.
The United States is not a democracy it is a republic. Individuals elect representatives that will represent them. Gerrymandering is a result of that republic and both sides do it to help their representation.
Gerrymandering is a result of corruption. Some states like California have almost completely taken the political component out of it by having an independent commission draw the maps. In Washington State we have a bi-partisan commission. That's not perfect because it leads to a 50-50 map, but it does eliminate the worst of the corruption.
-
I find it utterly bizzare that a country's top court makes decisions depending - at least in certain controversial cases - on the judge's individual political/ideological views. That goes against the very idea of the rule of law. Someone always carries some ideological baggage of course, but I cannot remember a single case in which there has been any debate whatsoever on the political views of a top court judge where I live (our "supreme court" is the highest court of appeal, not a constitutional court). Hell, its not even considered newsworthy when someone leaves, someone comes in or a new head justice is appointed. Its a pick among the country's top legal scholars from the public and private sectors and from academia.
They are not supposed to make decisions on political views, but it is simply human nature to do so. All of the justices were considered top legal minds before being appointed. The Supreme Court hears cases that are not legally clear cut, therefore there is some room for interpretation, and each judge's philosophical view of the law will color that interpretation.
-
They are not supposed to make decisions on political views, but it is simply human nature to do so. All of the justices were considered top legal minds before being appointed. The Supreme Court hears cases that are not legally clear cut, therefore there is some room for interpretation, and each judge's philosophical view of the law will color that interpretation.
That makes little sense given that it generally splits between conservative/democratic judges. There is no reason why top legal scholars should systematically disagree on the law based on their own beliefs. Most other countries seem to manage it, for example. We also have split decisions of course (recently a high-profile one on the legality of property tax in the country's capital) It was a 3-2 vote and both sides argued well for their view, which is generally the case in any split decision, but there was no way whatsoever anyone could with any reasonable probability have estimated which judge would vote for what.
-
No. I'm suggesting that gerrymandering is a subversion of democracy, and the democratic judges aren't currently in favour of it.
The United States is not a democracy it is a republic. Individuals elect representatives that will represent them.
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
By definition, the 'republic' you're describing is a representational democracy. Which means that the US is in fact, a democracy. (It's also a republic, if that makes you happy. No kings up in your business.) But this is beside the point.
Gerrymandering is a result of that republic and both sides do it to help their representation.
Gerrymandering doesn't help representation. It does the opposite in fact. A properly gerrymandered district doesn't need to be listened to at all, as their winner is a sure thing. It completely removes competition to the point that there isn't much point in holding elections in these districts. This is effectively a way of disenfranchising voters and goes quite against the representational democratic idea that the modern US was founded upon.
As has been mentioned, only one political party in the US substantially gains from this subversion of representative democracy, and the same party is the one most fervent in defending it.
-
What part of the majority's reasoning do you disagree with? I also do not like the end result of this opinion, and I have not read it yet, but a friend of mine who clerked at SCOTUS thought it was pretty well written.
I'll read it over lunch or something this week.
Compare this ruling to the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. Even if the gerrymandering in this case were perfectly fine, I think the process was tainted. I also think the conservative majority allowed their assumption that the plaintiffs were seeking a backdoor/judicial implementation of proportional representation to lead them to answering the wrong question, as Justice Kagan seems to be saying in her dissent.
-
Gerrymandering doesn't help representation. It does the opposite in fact. A properly gerrymandered district doesn't need to be listened to at all, as their winner is a sure thing. It completely removes competition to the point that there isn't much point in holding elections in these districts. This is effectively a way of disenfranchising voters and goes quite against the representational democratic idea that the modern US was founded upon.
As has been mentioned, only one political party in the US substantially gains from this subversion of representative democracy, and the same party is the one most fervent in defending it.
Among the many consequences of elections is the power to control redistricting. Republicans currently enjoy a big advantage because they won a ton of state house seats and governorship's in 2010, just in time for the redistricting fights following the 2010 Census. If Democrats get their act together they can do the same in 2020.
If anyone wants to learn way too much about it, FiveThirtyEight did an utterly fantastic deep dive (6 podcasts+several articles) on gerrymandering: https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/)
Some takeaways: "Fair" redistricting is not nearly as simple or straightforward as you might think, you have to actively choose which elements of representation you prioritize and which you don't. Also it's less of a contributor to the rise of noncompetitive districts and political gridlock than you might assume. The polarizing of political opinions and self sorting into like minded communities that we're doing contributes much more to our current woes than gerrymandering does.
-
They are not supposed to make decisions on political views, but it is simply human nature to do so. All of the justices were considered top legal minds before being appointed. The Supreme Court hears cases that are not legally clear cut, therefore there is some room for interpretation, and each judge's philosophical view of the law will color that interpretation.
That makes little sense given that it generally splits between conservative/democratic judges. There is no reason why top legal scholars should systematically disagree on the law based on their own beliefs. Most other countries seem to manage it, for example. We also have split decisions of course (recently a high-profile one on the legality of property tax in the country's capital) It was a 3-2 vote and both sides argued well for their view, which is generally the case in any split decision, but there was no way whatsoever anyone could with any reasonable probability have estimated which judge would vote for what.
Yep. When you know how the votes will come down in a politically charged case before the decision is made, there's bias.
Gerrymandering will be revisited in 10 years when the Dems start winning more. Votes will flip.
-
The US supreme court is clearly politically biased by design. That is Not A Good Thing.
-
They are not supposed to make decisions on political views, but it is simply human nature to do so. All of the justices were considered top legal minds before being appointed. The Supreme Court hears cases that are not legally clear cut, therefore there is some room for interpretation, and each judge's philosophical view of the law will color that interpretation.
That makes little sense given that it generally splits between conservative/democratic judges. There is no reason why top legal scholars should systematically disagree on the law based on their own beliefs. Most other countries seem to manage it, for example. We also have split decisions of course (recently a high-profile one on the legality of property tax in the country's capital) It was a 3-2 vote and both sides argued well for their view, which is generally the case in any split decision, but there was no way whatsoever anyone could with any reasonable probability have estimated which judge would vote for what.
Yep. When you know how the votes will come down in a politically charged case before the decision is made, there's bias.
Gerrymandering will be revisited in 10 years when the Dems start winning more. Votes will flip.
You're assuming Dems will ever start winning more. In Wiscosin they've already gerrymandered state legislative seats to lock out a Democratic majority, and then the Republican majority voted to take away redistricting power from the governor and give it to the state legislature. And the Republican state Supreme Court upheld that power grab. They're attempting to structure it so they can never lose, and by all appearances they will be successful.
-
Gerrymandering doesn't help representation. It does the opposite in fact. A properly gerrymandered district doesn't need to be listened to at all, as their winner is a sure thing. It completely removes competition to the point that there isn't much point in holding elections in these districts. This is effectively a way of disenfranchising voters and goes quite against the representational democratic idea that the modern US was founded upon.
As has been mentioned, only one political party in the US substantially gains from this subversion of representative democracy, and the same party is the one most fervent in defending it.
Among the many consequences of elections is the power to control redistricting. Republicans currently enjoy a big advantage because they won a ton of state house seats and governorship's in 2010, just in time for the redistricting fights following the 2010 Census. If Democrats get their act together they can do the same in 2020.
You seem to misunderstand my position. Gerrymandering is the problem, not that the Republicans currently do it better than the Democrats. Assuming that the democrats are able to gerrymander the hell out of things in 2020 . . . that's also bad.
If anyone wants to learn way too much about it, FiveThirtyEight did an utterly fantastic deep dive (6 podcasts+several articles) on gerrymandering: https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/)
Some takeaways: "Fair" redistricting is not nearly as simple or straightforward as you might think, you have to actively choose which elements of representation you prioritize and which you don't. Also it's less of a contributor to the rise of noncompetitive districts and political gridlock than you might assume. The polarizing of political opinions and self sorting into like minded communities that we're doing contributes much more to our current woes than gerrymandering does.
I don't think fair redistricting is simple or straight forward. It's essential though to avoid disenfranchising voters. Are there other things contributing to political gridlock? Hell yes! But why not start at one thing that is an obvious and present problem?
-
What part of the majority's reasoning do you disagree with? I also do not like the end result of this opinion, and I have not read it yet, but a friend of mine who clerked at SCOTUS thought it was pretty well written.
I'll read it over lunch or something this week.
The essence of the majority opinion is that the Political Question Doctrine applies to the claims before the Court.
"Sometimes, however, the law is that the judicial department has no business entertaining the claim of unlawfulness—because the question is entrusted to one of the political branches or involves no judicially enforceable rights...In such a case the claim is said to present a 'political question' and to be nonjusticiable—outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction...the political question cases the Court has identified are those that lack 'judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving them.'"
"The question here is whether there is an 'appropriate role for the Federal Judiciary' in remedying the problem of partisan gerrymandering—whether such claims are claims of legal right, resolvable according to legal principles, or political questions that must find their resolution elsewhere."
"As noted, the question is one of degree: How to 'provide a standard for deciding how much partisan dominance is too much.' And it is vital in such circumstances that the Court act only in accord with especially clear standards: With uncertain limits, intervening courts—even when proceeding with best intentions—would risk assuming political, not legal, responsibility for a process that often produces ill will and distrust."
If the Supreme Court had bothered to look beyond the shores of the USA it would have found many practical examples of electoral divisions being created and reviewed by politically independent and neutral bodies using objective standards. The only reason for them not to do that is because they didn't want to, for political reasons.
And the reasoning adopted by the court, that it is a political question to be resolved by politicians, is fundamentally obviated by the fact that if the court refuses to act then the question of gerrymandering will be asked of and resolved by politicians who have themselves been elected by the corrupt process which the court says it is their job to resolve.
-
Gerrymandering doesn't help representation. It does the opposite in fact. A properly gerrymandered district doesn't need to be listened to at all, as their winner is a sure thing. It completely removes competition to the point that there isn't much point in holding elections in these districts. This is effectively a way of disenfranchising voters and goes quite against the representational democratic idea that the modern US was founded upon.
As has been mentioned, only one political party in the US substantially gains from this subversion of representative democracy, and the same party is the one most fervent in defending it.
Among the many consequences of elections is the power to control redistricting. Republicans currently enjoy a big advantage because they won a ton of state house seats and governorship's in 2010, just in time for the redistricting fights following the 2010 Census. If Democrats get their act together they can do the same in 2020.
You seem to misunderstand my position. Gerrymandering is the problem, not that the Republicans currently do it better than the Democrats. Assuming that the democrats are able to gerrymander the hell out of things in 2020 . . . that's also bad.
+1.
What's striking to me is, it seems like I only ever see people on the left saying this. Why don't I ever hear or see Republicans saying that gerrymandering is bad, no matter who does it, and it should be stopped?
-
The polarizing of political opinions and self sorting into like minded communities that we're doing contributes much more to our current woes than gerrymandering does.
The Framers were concerned about the fractiousness of political factions.
-
Gerrymandering doesn't help representation. It does the opposite in fact. A properly gerrymandered district doesn't need to be listened to at all, as their winner is a sure thing. It completely removes competition to the point that there isn't much point in holding elections in these districts. This is effectively a way of disenfranchising voters and goes quite against the representational democratic idea that the modern US was founded upon.
As has been mentioned, only one political party in the US substantially gains from this subversion of representative democracy, and the same party is the one most fervent in defending it.
Among the many consequences of elections is the power to control redistricting. Republicans currently enjoy a big advantage because they won a ton of state house seats and governorship's in 2010, just in time for the redistricting fights following the 2010 Census. If Democrats get their act together they can do the same in 2020.
You seem to misunderstand my position. Gerrymandering is the problem, not that the Republicans currently do it better than the Democrats. Assuming that the democrats are able to gerrymander the hell out of things in 2020 . . . that's also bad.
I don't disagree (and neither really does the Supreme Court), but you were saying it only substantially benefits one party. I pointed out this is only temporarily the case because one party had an electoral wave at an opportune time and shamelessly pressed their advantage to the utmost, but that this could reverse quite quickly.
-
If the Supreme Court had bothered to look beyond the shores of the USA it would have found many practical examples of electoral divisions being created and reviewed by politically independent and neutral bodies using objective standards. The only reason for them not to do that is because they didn't want to, for political reasons.
Though it is not common practice, some justices do commend and weigh the value of judgments rendered by foreign courts.
"Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary...[we] should not abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
-
Yes, I'm familiar with the political question doctrine, and I'm of the opinion the court should invoke this doctrine far more often.
Based on my reading of your posts in other threads I gather that your are a federalist.
Accurate, because I think it's the fairest way to deal with very controversial issues, although I'm not in the Federalist Society or anything.
I find it utterly bizzare that a country's top court makes decisions depending - at least in certain controversial cases - on the judge's individual political/ideological views.
This is precisely why, in my opinion, it's not appropriate for an unelected body of nine (our Supreme Court) to rule on politically loaded cases like abortion, campaign finance, etc. These are political questions better left to democracy.
-
If the Supreme Court had bothered to look beyond the shores of the USA it would have found many practical examples of electoral divisions being created and reviewed by politically independent and neutral bodies using objective standards. The only reason for them not to do that is because they didn't want to, for political reasons.
Though it is not common practice, some justices do commend and weigh the value of judgments rendered by foreign courts.
"Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary...[we] should not abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Yes, which makes it all the more striking that in this case the majority justices deliberately chose to ignore practical solutions from outside the US in favour of political corruption that fundamentally destroys the democratic process.
I find it utterly bizzare that a country's top court makes decisions depending - at least in certain controversial cases - on the judge's individual political/ideological views.
This is precisely why, in my opinion, it's not appropriate for an unelected body of nine (our Supreme Court) to rule on politically loaded cases like abortion, campaign finance, etc. These are political questions better left to democracy.
Abortion is about human rights: a woman's fundamental freedom to private medical assistance free from government intervention. And campaign finance laws are about preventing the rich from corrupting the systems that govern us all. The conservative majority on the court has put individual personal preference and ideology above every known principle of freedom, fairness and democracy.
-
And campaign finance laws are about preventing the rich from corrupting the systems that govern us all.
The system is already corrupt.
-
Abortion is about human rights: a woman's fundamental freedom to private medical assistance free from government intervention. And campaign finance laws are about preventing the rich from corrupting the systems that govern us all. The conservative majority on the court has put individual personal preference and ideology above every known principle of freedom, fairness and democracy.
I do not want to derail this into an abortion debate, but many would disagree with your characterization of abortion. We do not possess, and never have possessed, complete autonomy over our bodies. The government has always been able to intervene in some capacity.
While I certainly understand and agree with a person’s general right to autonomy, abortion is tricky because it involves another human life, or the possibility of human life.
Is the fetus entitled to equal protection? Is it entitled to due process? If yes to either, at what stage?
These are age old philosophical questions, and the Supreme Court currently thinks the Constitution provides the fetus with due process and equal protection in the third trimester.
I frankly do not see how the Constitution answers these inquiries. I think it’s an ethical and moral issue that requires each local community (state) to answer rather than an unelected body of nine.
-
And campaign finance laws are about preventing the rich from corrupting the systems that govern us all.
The system is already corrupt.
Yes, because the Supreme Court has failed to recognise that the campaign finance laws they have allowed are the political equivalent of allowing the Russian and other foreign governments, and big corporations, to shout Fire in a crowded theatre.
-
The government has always been able to intervene in some capacity.
Only in the very partial understanding of "government" and "always" which is mostly predicated on the views of recent fanatical evangelical Christians in the USA and only a small part of the tide of human history.
-
The government has always been able to intervene in some capacity.
Only in the very partial understanding of "government" and "always" which is mostly predicated on the views of recent fanatical evangelical Christians in the USA and only a small part of the tide of human history.
Again, this is being argued in the other thread about "conservatives always being wrong."
-
For the amusement of all, here is the origin of "gerrymander."
Note that usually one hears "gerrymander" pronounced with a soft "g" which is incorrect because the "G" in Gerry is hard.
"In 1812, Governor of Massachusetts and future Vice President Elbridge Gerry notoriously approved congressional districts that the legislature had drawn to aid the Democratic-Republican Party. The moniker 'gerrymander' was born when an outraged Federalist newspaper observed that one of the misshapen districts resembled a salamander."
-
The United States is not a democracy it is a republic. Individuals elect representatives that will represent them. Gerrymandering is a result of that republic and both sides do it to help their representation.
"To hold that legislators cannot take partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers’ decision to entrust districting to political entities."
"An expansive standard requiring 'the correction of all election district lines drawn for partisan reasons would commit federal and state courts to unprecedented intervention in the American political process.'"
"What the appellees and dissent seek is an unprecedented expansion of judicial power."
"We have never struck down a partisan gerrymander as unconstitutional—despite various requests over the past 45 years."
"The expansion of judicial authority would not be into just any area of controversy, but into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life."
"That intervention would be unlimited in scope and duration—it would recur over and over again around the country with each new round of districting, for state as well as federal representatives."
"Consideration of the impact of today’s ruling on democratic principles cannot ignore the effect of the unelected and politically unaccountable branch of the Federal Government assuming such an extraordinary and unprecedented role."
The normal oscillations of elective politics are the best remedy for districting disputes. The federal judiciary's involvement in them invites the remote possibility of an actual partisan intervention as well as the certain belief of many of the losing side's partisans that an unelected, unfair Court ruled against them, both of which will only increase rancorous partisanship.
There is neither a constitutional command nor democratic requirement that elective politics be perfectly sinusoidal. A variety of districting options are available to States including their empowerment of bipartisan, impartial redistricting commissions.
The day will come when today's complaining factions ascend again to majority power and control of districting.
As it should be, "that's politics."
-
I guess I am spoiled. Canada has an independent agency set riding boundaries. A riding is supposed to be represented by its MP (or MPP) - how can an MP do her/his job if the riding has totally irrational boundaries?
-
Anyone who says that gerrymandering will be fixed by the normal oscillations of political power doesn't understand that the fundamental nature and purpose of gerrymandering is to get rid of the normal oscillations of political power.
Or does understand but thinks that the rest of us are too stupid to understand it and is happy to perpetrate the lie for political advantage. The sad thing is that the conservative judges on the Supreme Court have fallen, knowingly or unknowingly, for the lie - which is a bad predictor for the future, because it means they are either very stupid or hopelessly corrupted.
-
I think it depends on your definition of "Democracy".
"Pure" Democracy means you go and get everyone's opinions on issues.
We have a representative democracy. It seems to me that to increase the democracy in our system, you have to increase the number of people who vote in the House of Representatives.
Our constitution states there is supposed to be 1 representative per 30,000 people. I believe this implies that the value of the "average" voter is 1/30,000.
The best way to solve gerrymandering is to bring everyone's value in line with that number.
Map based solutions imply that you don't want to make the "pie" bigger. You want to keep the size the same only change the rules to make things more "competitive."
So any solution that doesn't involve increasing representatives is merely about trying to win more than democracy.
-
Map based solutions imply that you don't want to make the "pie" bigger. You want to keep the size the same only change the rules to make things more "competitive."
So any solution that doesn't involve increasing representatives is merely about trying to win more than democracy.
You could increase the number of representatives, but still crack and pack the districts. That wouldn't make Congress any more representative of the will of the people than it is now.
-
Map based solutions imply that you don't want to make the "pie" bigger. You want to keep the size the same only change the rules to make things more "competitive."
So any solution that doesn't involve increasing representatives is merely about trying to win more than democracy.
You could increase the number of representatives, but still crack and pack the districts. That wouldn't make Congress any more representative of the will of the people than it is now.
There are supposed to be 10,866 districts throughout the country. I doubt that anyone could gerrymander every single one to reliably deliver for one party or the other. Gerrymandering is the act of drawing districts to reduce minority voices. So divide the district up into smaller blocks.
-
Map based solutions imply that you don't want to make the "pie" bigger. You want to keep the size the same only change the rules to make things more "competitive."
So any solution that doesn't involve increasing representatives is merely about trying to win more than democracy.
You could increase the number of representatives, but still crack and pack the districts. That wouldn't make Congress any more representative of the will of the people than it is now.
There are supposed to be 10,866 districts throughout the country. I doubt that anyone could gerrymander every single one to reliably deliver for one party or the other. Gerrymandering is the act of drawing districts to reduce minority voices. So divide the district up into smaller blocks.
So, you want 10,966 members of Congress?
Not sure you'd get many votes for that.
-
I think it depends on your definition of "Democracy".
"Pure" Democracy means you go and get everyone's opinions on issues.
We have a representative democracy. It seems to me that to increase the democracy in our system, you have to increase the number of people who vote in the House of Representatives.
Our constitution states there is supposed to be 1 representative per 30,000 people. I believe this implies that the value of the "average" voter is 1/30,000.
The best way to solve gerrymandering is to bring everyone's value in line with that number.
Map based solutions imply that you don't want to make the "pie" bigger. You want to keep the size the same only change the rules to make things more "competitive."
So any solution that doesn't involve increasing representatives is merely about trying to win more than democracy.
You say "So" as if the rest of your comment justifies the last bit but I don't see the connection*. Even if you believe the best solution is to increase the number of representatives, why would taking away the ability of a political party to manipulate voting districts in their favor be a bad thing?
Are you saying that if we can't have more districts, you're fine with gerrymandering?
*I'm also not entirely sure what "win more than democracy" means, but I assume you're saying any other solution is an attempt to give their side an advantage.
-
Our constitution states there is supposed to be 1 representative per 30,000 people. I believe this implies that the value of the "average" voter is 1/30,000.
Article I, Section 2, Subsection 3 states: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."
This is a ceiling, not a floor; i.e., they did not want *more* than one representative for every 30,000 people.
-
Map based solutions imply that you don't want to make the "pie" bigger. You want to keep the size the same only change the rules to make things more "competitive."
So any solution that doesn't involve increasing representatives is merely about trying to win more than democracy.
You could increase the number of representatives, but still crack and pack the districts. That wouldn't make Congress any more representative of the will of the people than it is now.
There are supposed to be 10,866 districts throughout the country. I doubt that anyone could gerrymander every single one to reliably deliver for one party or the other. Gerrymandering is the act of drawing districts to reduce minority voices. So divide the district up into smaller blocks.
So, you want 10,966 members of Congress?
Not sure you'd get many votes for that.
See. That's the problem. Everyone here is going "we want more democracy."
"Well by the rules in our constitution the house of representatives is supposed to be about 11,000."
"Woah there! That's a little too much democracy."
So what would be the proper amount of representatives for a nation of 328 million? No one wanted to answer that question. Everyone just wants to point at maps and claim that is the problem.
I think it depends on your definition of "Democracy".
"Pure" Democracy means you go and get everyone's opinions on issues.
We have a representative democracy. It seems to me that to increase the democracy in our system, you have to increase the number of people who vote in the House of Representatives.
Our constitution states there is supposed to be 1 representative per 30,000 people. I believe this implies that the value of the "average" voter is 1/30,000.
The best way to solve gerrymandering is to bring everyone's value in line with that number.
Map based solutions imply that you don't want to make the "pie" bigger. You want to keep the size the same only change the rules to make things more "competitive."
So any solution that doesn't involve increasing representatives is merely about trying to win more than democracy.
You say "So" as if the rest of your comment justifies the last bit but I don't see the connection*. Even if you believe the best solution is to increase the number of representatives, why would taking away the ability of a political party to manipulate voting districts in their favor be a bad thing?
Are you saying that if we can't have more districts, you're fine with gerrymandering?
*I'm also not entirely sure what "win more than democracy" means, but I assume you're saying any other solution is an attempt to give their side an advantage.
More representatives means your representative has less power. In turn, you have less power. Rather than give up power, people want to change districts to make them "competitive." It sounds like you are content with the size and the lack of representation, while being upset your party does not have all the power.
The size of Congress is from the 1920's. It is nearly 2020. Our population has boomed. You are trying to make a system that is undersized meet the needs of a larger country. I don't think that whatever tricks and manipulations you do on a map will get you where you want to be.
-
More representatives means your representative has less power. In turn, you have less power.
No I wouldn't. My representative would have less power but my vote would have an inversely larger say in who that representative is. My power would be the same.
Rather than give up power, people want to change districts to make them "competitive." It sounds like you are content with the size and the lack of representation, while being upset your party does not have all the power.
I intentionally made no comment on whether I want more representatives or not. I'm open to the idea but I haven't given it much consideration so I don't know the pros/cons. My point was that you seem to have decided that your solution is the only solution and any other suggestion must be a partisan plot.
The size of Congress is from the 1920's. It is nearly 2020. Our population has boomed. You are trying to make a system that is undersized meet the needs of a larger country. I don't think that whatever tricks and manipulations you do on a map will get you where you want to be.
No tricks or manipulations needed. Letting a computer draw our districts will give us unbiased results.
-
It seems to me that a house of representatives large enough to approach 1:30,000 would be too large to effectively do any work at all. The power would flow even more towards the committees which would be controlled by the party in power much the same as gerrymandering.
I think a more appropriate solution would be to make multi-seat districts with single transferable vote or other proportional election of representatives. Require that all states with three or fewer representatives be a single district; states with 4 or 5 representatives could choose to either form 2 districts or remain a single district, and larger states would have multiple multi-seat districts with up to 5 seats per district (requiring that the districts within a state differ in size by at most 1 seat and disallowing 2 seat districts in states with more than 3 districts).
No tricks or manipulations needed. Letting a computer draw our districts will give us unbiased results.
Computers provide results based on the parameters provided. I'm sure computers are used in modeling the partisan districts we currently get. You'd need to be much more specific about what parameters to use in drawing district lines. Perhaps something like: 1) all districts must be continuous, 2) each census tract must be assigned to only one district, 3) minimize sum of district perimeters times sum of the squares of the deviations in district size.
-
No tricks or manipulations needed. Letting a computer draw our districts will give us unbiased results.
Computers provide results based on the parameters provided. I'm sure computers are used in modeling the partisan districts we currently get. You'd need to be much more specific about what parameters to use in drawing district lines. Perhaps something like: 1) all districts must be continuous, 2) each census tract must be assigned to only one district, 3) minimize sum of district perimeters times sum of the squares of the deviations in district size.
Perhaps I should have said algorithm rather than computers, but I figured that part would be assumed. I don't want to be more specific because the conversation is already too complex it seems.
And even if an algorithm can't be perfect, it can be far more fair than what we have today.
Here's one example:
https://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html
-
Here's one example:
https://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html
The splitline algorithm would be better than what we currently do. I'd rather see a lot more consideration for existing political and geographical boundaries.
-
More representatives means your representative has less power. In turn, you have less power.
No I wouldn't. My representative would have less power but my vote would have an inversely larger say in who that representative is. My power would be the same.
Rather than give up power, people want to change districts to make them "competitive." It sounds like you are content with the size and the lack of representation, while being upset your party does not have all the power.
I intentionally made no comment on whether I want more representatives or not. I'm open to the idea but I haven't given it much consideration so I don't know the pros/cons. My point was that you seem to have decided that your solution is the only solution and any other suggestion must be a partisan plot.
The size of Congress is from the 1920's. It is nearly 2020. Our population has boomed. You are trying to make a system that is undersized meet the needs of a larger country. I don't think that whatever tricks and manipulations you do on a map will get you where you want to be.
No tricks or manipulations needed. Letting a computer draw our districts will give us unbiased results.
Since we are adding people, we would have to redraw the districts anyway. Just draw them into blocks of 30,000 people.
1. Algorithms have bias. (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608248/biased-algorithms-are-everywhere-and-no-one-seems-to-care/)
2. We have 438 people in the house of representatives. There is supposed to be 10866. Our system is 4% of the size it should be. If you wish to reduce the power struggles and allow new points of view you have to create new opportunities.
3. Algorithms won't help common people work their way through the bureaucracy and gate keepers to actually talk to people with power.
So increasing the number of representatives would alleviate these problems by spreading the workload out amonst more people and allow them to actually understand their district.
It seems to me that a house of representatives large enough to approach 1:30,000 would be too large to effectively do any work at all. The power would flow even more towards the committees which would be controlled by the party in power much the same as gerrymandering.
I think a more appropriate solution would be to make multi-seat districts with single transferable vote or other proportional election of representatives. Require that all states with three or fewer representatives be a single district; states with 4 or 5 representatives could choose to either form 2 districts or remain a single district, and larger states would have multiple multi-seat districts with up to 5 seats per district (requiring that the districts within a state differ in size by at most 1 seat and disallowing 2 seat districts in states with more than 3 districts).
Democracy is messy. I don't know what to tell you.