Gerrymandering - the fundamental key to progressiveism. If you can't beat em' draw a line.
But its fair according to the people, so whats the problem? If you drew a square around Jacksonville, a white male would always win and 50% of the voters would always lose ideologically. Democrats wanted a black person so they carved out this odd shape to make sure a black person would win. And now you have a democrat district and a republican district, so the people are happy. Except the judges, who have a different standard of fair.
"The people" passed a ballot initiative with the purpose of removing arbitrary lines drawn to give someone an inherent advantage. Maybe the parties in power either Republican or Democratic or the specific individuals are happy with the outcome but the reason the amendment was passed was to stop stuff like this from happening. There shouldn't be a black district, white district, jewish district, republican district, democratic district etc. It just leads to abuse when drawing the lines and creates safe districts where a person from one party pretty much only has to serve a specific groups interest.
Gerrymandering creates "safe" seats and no seat should be safe.
and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice
Safe can be fair though, as with the african-american district at issue. It ensures an african american represents the african-americans in that district, basically the south side of Jacksonville. It even says that in the law that was passed.
Im not defending the legality, as the redistricting plan violates the spirit of the law. Rather im exploring the issue.
Safe can be fair though, as with the african-american district at issue. It ensures an african american represents the african-americans in that district, basically the south side of Jacksonville. It even says that in the law that was passed..
I understand, I'm just not a fan of gerrymandering for any reason. When you make exceptions to create black districts...why not Jewish districts in South Florida? Or Hispanics in Tampa? Now you have three large gerrymandered districts drawn to incorporate the interests of those groups and more districts as a result of the gerrymandered districts which have very little diversity of views.Im not defending the legality, as the redistricting plan violates the spirit of the law. Rather im exploring the issue.
That's very true, but there's no doubt it creates multiple seats representing Jacksonville where the black population aren't even a concern. Is one predominately black district better than blacks being a minority in multiple district but large enough that a Representative would have to take their views into consideration in order to win close elections? Are black even better served by creating a long serving incumbent that pretty much has no challenger? It's very difficult to unseat an incumbent in a primary. You generally have low turnout, you have a lot of candidates and the person with more name recognition has an advantage. I can see why Corrine Brown is fighting so hard to have her cushy seat kept safe it's generally people like her...from heavily gerrymandered districts to create a very safe seat, that run into corruption and accountability issues.
I understand, I'm just not a fan of gerrymandering for any reason. When you make exceptions to create black districts...why not Jewish districts in South Florida? Or Hispanics in Tampa? Now you have three large gerrymandered districts drawn to incorporate the interests of those groups and more districts as a result of the gerrymandered districts which have very little diversity of views.
I personally think the elections should be a battle. I hate the idea of someone punching in their time card for any reason
all districts should be drawn federally using only census data. Florida should also have its control over elections suspended until it can demonstrate that it can handle them without playing partisan tricks. the long lines were absolutely shameful, and amount to a poll tax, IMO.
The problem is that we dont follow the constitution on census districts. We stopped adding reps at 435. If we followed the constitution we would have thousand.
TBO.com | AP Wires
But then Lewis ruled last Friday that the Legislature needed to draw up a new map by Aug. 15 because the judge is considering ordering a special election that relies on the revamped districts.
Weatherford warned that while legislators will approve the new map now, they will fight any move to put it in place this year.
The Wesley Chapel Republican said local election supervisors have already cautioned that implementing a new map now would disrupt this year's elections. He also ruled out holding a special election later this year by noting that groups such as the NAACP have contended that some voters would "be irreparably harmed" if the election was conducted at that time.
I seriously think he just assumed it was Democrats doing it. Because Democrats bad.
In 2012, Democrats received 1.4 million more votes in the House of Representatives than Republicans did. Republicans somehow got a 33 seat advantage. You want to tell me it's progressives doing all that terrible gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering - the reason we have corrupt politicians in charge.gerrymandering--the reason for the 17th amendment against the gilded wing of the GOP
Which is a misnomer, considering each state has different rules about reporting election results when there is no challenger(Some report 0 votes with no challenger).
Gerrymandering could be solved by letting a computer draw the lines, but since you have to take "race" into the equation, it would never work.
Not in the Senate, which cannot be gerry-mandered since the 17th amendment.Gerrymandering - the reason we have corrupt politicians in charge.
It has always had everything to do with party and always will since the Civil War.Party has nothing to do with it.
Gerrymandering was done to ensure whichever party did it kept getting senators elected by their majorities in state congresses.Gerrymandering--the reason we have the 17th amendment changing the choice of US Senators.
From being appointed by Gerry-mandered State Bodies controlled in large part by the GOP.
Shame T. Roosevelt gave the Dem progress---ives both the 17th amd 16th amendments.
Not in the Senate, which cannot be gerry-mandered since the 17th amendment.
It has always had everything to do with party and always will since the Civil War.
If the 17th were gone right now, which the GOP wants, the GOP would have about 60 or so rough estimate Senators without checking closely.
I see the 17th as done to break the monopoly the GOP had on the Senate, due to statehouse G-M maps.Gerrymandering was done to ensure whichever party did it kept getting senators elected by their majorities in state congresses.
It has for Senate elections, as well as seven states with only one Congressman.The 17th hasn't stopped gerrymandering,
The GOP owns a 2-to-1 edge in 435 Gerry-Mandered House seats--that is my prime focus.Gerrymandering still happens plenty in representative elections and state elections, however. And from both parties.
Do you seriously think this current GOP House would vote for an anti-gerrymandering law? :lamoIf we only had a reasonable anti-gerrymandering law, we could repeal the 17th and give the states back their Senatorial selection power.
I'd never support removal of the 17th without good anti-gerrymandering laws in every state. I doubt many actual conservatives would, either. Or anyone, for that matter, unless they had a vested interest in allowing gerrymandering to lock in senators/parties for decades again.
I can't see any sensible person supporting repeal of the 17th UNLESS good anti-gerrymandering measures are put in place simultaneously or before such a change.I see the 17th as done to break the monopoly the GOP had on the Senate, due to statehouse G-M maps.
It has for Senate elections, as well as seven states with only one Congressman.
The GOP owns a 2-to-1 edge in 435 Gerry-Mandered House seats--that is my prime focus.
Texas has 27 GOP Congressman and only 9 Democrats, yet the ratio of GOPs/Dems isn't close to 3-to-1.
This is why Texas has been on the Judicial Watch list since 1990 for GM.
It is certainly about the Voting Rights Law that the GOP keeps treying to gut.
Do you seriously think this current GOP House would vote for an anti-gerrymandering law? :lamo
Putting the fox back in the henhouse would give us the problem over 100 years ago.
Conservatives on this site actively work for the repeal of ther 17th amendment, as well as the rest of the Progress--ive era .
I can't see any sensible person supporting repeal of the 17th UNLESS good anti-gerrymandering measures are put in place simultaneously or before such a change.
If you claim to be a conservative and support removal of 17th without anti-gerrymandering measures you're actually a GOP-supporting hack, not a conservative. That or you have no scruples when it comes to supporting your political ideology.
Black Democrats in Congress are sharply criticizing their party’s leadership for supporting efforts to overturn the GOP-drawn congressional map in Florida and cut into Republicans’ House majority.
Last week, Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) sent a sharply worded letter to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) complaining about the party’s support for a lawsuit that aims to throw out Florida’s congressional map — changes that could dismantle the gerrymandered seat of CBC member Corrine Brown.
Read more: CBC, DCCC clash over Fla. redistricting suit - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com
Can we do that to the entire south?
TALLAHASSEE: Florida House and Senate committees give early approval to fixes to congressional map - Legislature - MiamiHerald.com
The Legislature’s fix drew criticism from the League of Women Voters and Common Cause of Florida, which successfully sued to get the congressional map overturned. They warned that the repairs don’t go far enough to satisfy the court’s concerns and urged them to consider their proposed alternative.
“Map 9057 continues to use a minority-marginalizing relic of an era in which political gerrymandering was acceptable — now it is not,” the groups wrote in a letter to House and Senate leaders.
District 5 “packs an excessive number of African Americans into a district marked by hooks, tentacles and appendages as it snakes through and splits every county from Jacksonville down to Orlando. By packing minorities into such a north-south district, CD 5 in Map 9057 destroys the ability to create an additional district with significant minority voting strength in Central Florida.”
They offered an alternative map that creates a minority district along the east-west corridor of the top of the state and which, they said, will create the opportunity for two blacks to be elected to Congress from north and central Florida instead of one.
The debate continued to strain traditional Democratic alliances. NAACP leaders, who rejected the League’s alternative map, told the Senate Reapportionment Committee that they want to see District 5 preserved.
Whitfield Jenkins, the former president of the Marion County NAACP, said District 5 secures the ability for African-Americans to get elected.
Beverlye Colson Neal, former executive director of the NAACP Florida Conference, said reducing the number of black voters would disenfranchise the same voters. “These voters will be placed in districts where they are outnumbered by whites,” she told the committee. “African Americans are a fragile community and the least bit of disenfranchisement will keep them away from the polls.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?