Partisan Gerrymandering Upheld by Supreme Court

The problem is that the former tend to go right-wing populist when they get tired of being gulled by conservative establishment politicians. The latter are just as likely to do the same, instead of voting for a progressive candidate, if they aren’t educated about the benefits and alternatives.

One of the many things that made “1984” so bleak was that Winston Smith’s hope regarding the proles was, in Orwell’s view given the universe he built, completely misplaced despite their numbers. It was a fantasy that was never going to happen.

5 Likes

Pack the courts!

1 Like

Attempting that is going to be rough and will likely fail, but I do think that’s the only remedy to the damage done by the GOP to the SCOTUS.

2 Likes

North Carolina checking in. In the 2018 midterms, Republicans garnered barely 50% of the vote yet won 8/10 contested seats. The 2010 Tea Party take over has resulted in districts so heinous that they have twice been deemed illegal due to racial bias, yet, nothing has really changed.

4 Likes

Not sure if it would have applied to this ruling, but there was such a mandate, requiring federal oversight of electoral laws in 9 states with histories of voter suppression under the 1965 VRA. The SCOTUS itself effectively struck down this particular oversight provision in 2013. (sad trombone sound)

2 Likes

This one shocked me enough to look it up.

2 Likes

It’s a state’s problem, gerrymandering has been practiced for decades and the Supreme Court refuses to do anything about it
Also, a message from your friendly Amazon Fulfillment Associate, Prime Day will be the 15th AND the 16th

1 Like

In other electoral news…

5 Likes

Boy I sure can’t wait for the Roberts court to be totally fine with this once the ACLU’s lawsuit inevitably makes its way there.

2 Likes

If we learned anything, anything is possible. How bad do you want it?

1 Like

Instead they just got half a seat.

2 Likes

Profoundly depressing.

I can understand the logic of the majority ruling (explained reasonably well here in The Atlantic), but I profoundly disagree.

“The constitution is not a suicide pact”. One side has legally managed to twist the system to short circuit democracy to such a degree that I believe it imperils democracy itself. And as the quote suggests, the imperilling of democracy is cause for the courts to act, even if by some reading, the action is legal.

The court, by decreeing that any legal political act must be tolerated no matter the harm to the nation, has legitimized the subversion of democracy if you can game the system “legally”.

American democracy has always been inherently less stable by having only two parties. Luckily for the USA, no party has ever held such sway that they could essentially destroy their opponent, and so far the public has never been ready to tolerate such an attempt.

But if the Republicans manage to subvert democracy to such an extent that they maintain power for years or decades after they have lost the support of the most of the populace, I fear for democracy itself. No power lasts forever if an alternative exists, and inevitably, no matter the advantages the Republicans accrue for themselves, they will be insufficient as they grow more corrupt and alienated from the electorate. (As any party in power gradually becomes.)

And when they do, eventually the inflated strength given to them by rigging the game becomes a profound weakness. The danger of making every Republican vote count to win the most seats, is that when the day comes when there aren’t enough Republican votes, you lose all the seats.

And on that day they will face a reckoning of a populace that has been denied effective franchise for decades and the wrath of political opponents who will demand vengeance and justice - an end to the Republican party itself. And in delivering well-deserved broadly-supported justice, democracy dies.

In the face of the court’s ruling, I can only hope that the Republican experiment in attacking the heart of the American political system fails sooner rather than later. Not just for the sake of Democrats over the next decade, but for both Republicans and Democrats over the next century.

3 Likes

Yeah, ,that was pretty much drawn expressly to get rid of Roscoe Bartlett.

2 Likes

this guy?

At a town hall meeting in Cumberland on Wednesday night, the Maryland Republican said he thought federally issued student loans were unconstitutional. Bart­lett also said that “ignoring the Constitution” could lead down a “slippery slope,” citing the Holocaust as an example of what could happen when a country takes the wrong path.

3 Likes

He issued a maypology:

I should never use something as horrific as the Holocaust to make a political point, and I deeply apologize to anyone I may have offended.

3 Likes

Yeah, him. Twenty years ago, when I was living in Howard County, Roscoe Bartlet was my representative. Now I have Stenny Hoyer. I’m not a fan of either one.

4 Likes
3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.