SCOTUS Blocks Democrat Attempts to Re-Draw Congressional Districts ahead of 2020 Elections.

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: M5xaz

Well, with respect to free and fair elections, Republicans are not the ones opposing voter ID and not the ones bending over backwards to allow illegal aliens to vote...

You want to make it harder to vote than to buy a firearm? And who exactly is bending over backwards to allow illegals to vote?

Enough with the grandstanding!
You need ID to buy liquor and cigarettes. Same should be for voting. No one proposed your gun analogy
Everyone, including minorities, can easily get ID.

Only ones that can't are illegals
Democrats/democrat controlled cities are starting to allow illegals to vote (because illegals vote Democrat)
www.cnn.com...

California is already a one party state

... as a result of Democrats, look at the literal shythole San Fran is turning into.

www.zerohedge.com...#-map-mapping-san-franciscos-132562-cases-human-feces
Good work Dems......not....

originally posted by: underpass61
It'll never be considered "fair" until Democrats win every single election, amirite?

California has already turned into a one party state

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: underpass61
It'll never be considered "fair" until Democrats win every single election, amirite?

California has already turned into a one party state

And that party is ruining the quality of life for those who live there. I think "nice weather" is all those poor souls in CA have left to brag about.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: underpass61
It'll never be considered "fair" until Democrats win every single election, amirite?

California has already turned into a one party state

Tell me about it- I live here in a (formerly) nice suburb of LA. Homelessness and the accompanying crime are ruining my town. Here's a reply comment I made on our local crime watch page about a homeless guy who stole patio furniture cushions off a neighbor's front porch. Typically none of the complaining liberals had any reply.

Both sides do it just look at electoral maps before and after another party takes control over the other. The political parties are a cancer on america and need tobbe cut out like a tumor.

a reply to: SaturnFX

I know I am probably the minority, but I don't view gerrymandering as some sort of huge negative.

Here's why:
What is the perfect make up of a congressional district? Is it purely geographical? Why?
Is it ideological? If it's ideological, do you want a 60/40 split, 70/30, or 50/50? Why?
Should minorities (political minorities) be given a district of their own, which will all but remove the possibility of them getting more than one, for the sake of guaranteeing they have one?

Let's be honest, this is a zero sum game (if you move a voter to a district, you're removing them from another) and since the districts are drawn at the state level the possible gains are negligible. In large states you can probably create a few extra seats for your party. In small states you can't make any.

IMO, it's actually a good thing in most cases. Especially in our two party system. The reason I say that, is it provides some extra stability. If the party in power gets to redraw districts in a way that is advantageous to them, it allows that party some cushion from rapid public opinion shifts. However, should they not recalibrate on real issues, they will eventually lose those seats and no longer be in power, which means their gerrymandering efforts will be reversed by the other side.

originally posted by: tinner07
pretty sure we voted to have districts re drawn....

Pretty sure your biased opinion approves of the republicans gerrymandering lines. Yes?

umm california called ..it said it was legally gerry mandering/vote harvesting.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: M5xaz

Well, with respect to free and fair elections, Republicans are not the ones opposing voter ID and not the ones bending over backwards to allow illegal aliens to vote...

You want to make it harder to vote than to buy a firearm? And who exactly is bending over backwards to allow illegals to vote?

Enough with the grandstanding!
You need ID to buy liquor and cigarettes. Same should be for voting. No one proposed your gun analogy
Everyone, including minorities, can easily get ID.

Only ones that can't are illegals
Democrats/democrat controlled cities are starting to allow illegals to vote (because illegals vote Democrat)
www.cnn.com...

California is already a one party state

... as a result of Democrats, look at the literal shythole San Fran is turning into.

www.zerohedge.com...#-map-mapping-san-franciscos-132562-cases-human-feces
Good work Dems......not....

Well Spoken Sir Knight , and Deadly Accurate in Thought !

originally posted by: Dfairlite
IMO, it's actually a good thing in most cases. Especially in our two party system. The reason I say that, is it provides some extra stability. If the party in power gets to redraw districts in a way that is advantageous to them, it allows that party some cushion from rapid public opinion shifts.

Yeah, God forbid the party in power should loose seats. Let's all be thankful to the two official parties for making sure our public opinion won't matter too much.

a reply to: tinner07

Sorry but I feel you may be full of crap . All I need to buy a rifle or shotgun is my I.d. why should I not have to show one when I vote . If i.d. was not required to vote he'll I might vote twenty times at different voter polls in my state he'll I might even vote once or twice in Virginia too. No I feel if you show up to vote you should have to show i.d. or license and it needs to state that you are a citizen who has a right to vote. How many votes in last election for potus were fraudulent? Last count I heard in la county 150 percent of people old enough to vote their voted .that men's for every 2 people who were able to vote in la county for presidential election there were 3 votes counted. Sorry but where I am from that is considered very illegal and would likely cause an automatic. Recount followed with a possible new election staged.

a reply to: Cutepants

That's not at all what I said.

a reply to: proteus33

Sorry but where I am from that is considered very illegal and would likely cause an automatic. Recount followed with a possible new election staged.

If we didn't have a propaganda media conglomerate here, that's what would happen here. Or at very least they'd close the polls once 100% of the voting age population had voted. That's 5 million extra votes. The margin in the popular vote was 3. The margin in california was only 4.5 million.

Redistricting isn't the issue here.

It's how it's being done that becomes the issue, and both parties have been guilty of it in the past, present, and most likely in the future.

Redistricting is, supposedly, done on basis of population...non-partisan population, based on census data. I don't recall my census forms asking for my party affiliation??

Gerrymandering.

a reply to: seagull

Well, then, go ahead and draw the lines and make sure they're non-partisan. Only based on population.

A normal city is dense in the middle and slowly becomes less dense the further from the city center you get. So when you draw the lines, do you do spokes? Wheels? Do you keep all of the urban people in as few districts as possible and separate them from the sub-urban dwellers?

a reply to: Dfairlite

It can be done. You know where the people live, do you not? This many people live here, this many there, that's where you draw the lines. It's not rocket science.

That's one of reasons behind the census. Not the only one, but one of them.

a reply to: seagull

You didn't answer the question at all. Will you do spokes or wheels? Will you keep urban centers together or break them up with their suburban counterparts? Why?

a reply to: underpass61

Why don't you move to a new state?

Here is some world class gerrymandering for you, Cook County Illinois.

link

And you wonder why "we" keep voting for democrats. "We" don't. But enough well-placed votes make all the difference.

a reply to: underwerks

"constitution" is more of a problem than some kind of barometer.