Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Gerrymandering

  1. #31
    Jillian & Allison's Daddy Senior Member Don Corleone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    7,586

    Default Re: Gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Buddy this about the protection of capital. The theocracy is just a happy coincidence.
    It's a blind. The peasants don't care how much money the Mercers or the Koch's have stashed away. You gotta give them something they can understand.
    "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
    Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.

    "Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
    Strike for the South

  2. #32
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,205

    Default Re: Gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post
    It's a blind. The peasants don't care how much money the Mercers or the Koch's have stashed away. You gotta give them something they can understand.
    Peasents only care if they can't feed their family or keep them safe.

    About the only other thing they might care about is their immortal soul.

    We elites often forget that.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  3. #33

    Default Re: Gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    First, I contest that non-intervention is partisan. The Court explicitly notes that the districting is partisan, it claims no competency to judge the case - not that partisanship is justified.

    Secondly, It seems to me that Roberts et al. are looking for a generally applicable standard. According to the majority judgement the one time the Court decided the gerrymander was justiciable it couldn't decide how to adjudicate the case.
    If you have a big dog mauling someone and you're whistling past the post - "I'm not commanding the dog to attack!" - you can be held responsible. Especially if it seems to happen quite often that way.

    Excuse me - "We" in this instance is the British electorate which largely accepts the current electoral map. those who agitate for reform (like Beskar) want a system of proportional representation (which would also address your districting problem).
    Is there polling to back that up? What do you think of the paper I posted on UK districts up to 1997 in the Trump thread? You know, Thatcher get 60% of seats with 40% of votes, then a decade later Blair does the same. It's ludicrous, no? It doesn't seem to be explicitly partisan in arrangement, just an outcome of indifference to the results and characteristics of districting, but if you're going to have independent commissions for districting they should probably take this into account.

    This is essentially saying, "other politicians can be expected to act respectably but our can't." That has to be the most extra-ordinary example of American exceptionalism
    It's not exceptionalism, it's just the current state of affairs. Can the UK have a military like America's? No, there isn't public will, money, or human or physical infrastructure for it. Theoretically it could, by mobilizing to WW2 levels. But it won't. To admit so isn't declaring UK exceptionalism.

    You agree America has the highest absolute number of guns in private ownership, right? That's not exceptionalism, it's a plain fact.

    Roberts makes it clear the problem here is not lack of authority per se but lack of a generally applicable standard.
    Then he should explain why the concrete standards adopted by other federal and state courts are invalid, but he doesn't really. He only speaks in generalities.

    Again, if the standard is the problem - which was only clearly the case for Roberts in abstract - why didn't the ruling seek to enjoin state courts against relying on the federal constitution in adjudicating political gerrymanders? If state courts can rely on a certain Constitutional reason to formulate tests and standards, so can federal courts; to say otherwise makes no logical sense.

    (BTW, a funny side effect of this might be that to further indemnify themselves against the already-low risk of SCOTUS ever ruling against a racial gerrymander, Republicans will merely rename their rampant racial gerrymanders as anti-Democrat gerrymanders. And why not?)

    It's perverse, and by the end of the year in this war to the hilt I'm probably going to be radicalized enough to despise the blue-state trend of implementing non-partisan state districting as a huge mistake of unilateral disarmament.

    Honestly, I'm not going to try to get into this bit - I don't have time to read all the relevant literature. I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the argument - the dissenting judgement seems the more partisan to me and without years of American Law School I can't say more than that.
    Bottom line is, I'm not asking you either to familiarize yourself with Roberts Court jurisprudence, or even take my word for it, just to confront the following:

    1. Why didn't Roberts spend more time describing what was wrong with the general standard federal courts had already coalesced around, involving not the judges own priorities but the states' stated standards (excluding partisanship) - as opposed to repeating himself on purely ex ante abstract and potential problems?
    2. Why can state courts apply a (Roberts-presumptively)-political standard but federal ones can't?
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  4. #34

    Default Re: Gerrymandering

    *oops*

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Peasents only care if they can't feed their family or keep them safe.

    About the only other thing they might care about is their immortal soul.

    We elites often forget that.
    Unfortunately, you forgot something else: sometimes they get thirsty for the blood of their perceived enemies, even if it costs them. That probably fits into a conservative worldview fairly easily though, right? That people can be motivated by - evil, I guess?
    Last edited by Montmorency; 07-19-2019 at 00:13.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  5. #35
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,205

    Default Re: Gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    If you have a big dog mauling someone and you're whistling past the post - "I'm not commanding the dog to attack!" - you can be held responsible. Especially if it seems to happen quite often that way.
    Is it your dog? I don't feel that SCTOUS "owns" the districting plans.

    Is there polling to back that up? What do you think of the paper I posted on UK districts up to 1997 in the Trump thread? You know, Thatcher get 60% of seats with 40% of votes, then a decade later Blair does the same. It's ludicrous, no? It doesn't seem to be explicitly partisan in arrangement, just an outcome of indifference to the results and characteristics of districting, but if you're going to have independent commissions for districting they should probably take this into account.
    You may recall we had a referendum on our voting system, to change it to the "Alternative Vote".

    If you're looking for recent polling I don't have any, but I've never heard anyone say "My vote doesn't count, this Constituancy is Cracked" whereas I have heard them say, "My vote doesn't count, we need proportional representation."

    In regards to the general point - about 20-30% of the vote in a given election is taken up by other parties. Unlike the US we do not have a completely binary political system and many of the "third" parties occupy middle-ground positions or niches in certain regions. In 1997 16.8% of the votes and 7% of the seats (46 seats) whilst the Ulster Unionist party gained 15% of the seats on 0.8% of the vote.

    First Past the Post favours parties that have strong dominance in a region vs parties that have a broad national appeal (like the Lib-Dems of the Greens).

    This is true in the UK and the US - the difference is in the US that the governing parties of the states are trying to rig a system that probably already favours them.

    Then he should explain why the concrete standards adopted by other federal and state courts are invalid, but he doesn't really. He only speaks in generalities.

    Again, if the standard is the problem - which was only clearly the case for Roberts in abstract - why didn't the ruling seek to enjoin state courts against relying on the federal constitution in adjudicating political gerrymanders? If state courts can rely on a certain Constitutional reason to formulate tests and standards, so can federal courts; to say otherwise makes no logical sense.

    (BTW, a funny side effect of this might be that to further indemnify themselves against the already-low risk of SCOTUS ever ruling against a racial gerrymander, Republicans will merely rename their rampant racial gerrymanders as anti-Democrat gerrymanders. And why not?)

    It's perverse, and by the end of the year in this war to the hilt I'm probably going to be radicalized enough to despise the blue-state trend of implementing non-partisan state districting as a huge mistake of unilateral disarmament.
    I thought he did explain why the standards don't work, and how racial gerrymandering isn't exactly the same as Partisan gerrymandering.

    Bottom line is, I'm not asking you either to familiarize yourself with Roberts Court jurisprudence, or even take my word for it, just to confront the following:

    1. Why didn't Roberts spend more time describing what was wrong with the general standard federal courts had already coalesced around, involving not the judges own priorities but the states' stated standards (excluding partisanship) - as opposed to repeating himself on purely ex ante abstract and potential problems?
    2. Why can state courts apply a (Roberts-presumptively)-political standard but federal ones can't?
    1. Again, I felt satisfied.

    2. My impression was he was saying lower Federal Courts were wrong to apply such a standard.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  6. #36
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,205

    Default Re: Gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    *oops*



    Unfortunately, you forgot something else: sometimes they get thirsty for the blood of their perceived enemies, even if it costs them. That probably fits into a conservative worldview fairly easily though, right? That people can be motivated by - evil, I guess?
    Usually when they can't feed themselves or can't enjoy a small slice of the luxary the wealthy have.

    There's a lot about the wealth gap that people in America seem to ignore - chiefly that you need to provide a certain level of "bread and circuses" and not just a minimum.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  7. #37

    Default Re: Gerrymandering

    whilst the Ulster Unionist party gained 15% of the seats on 0.8% of the vote.
    Holy shit.

    1. Again, I felt satisfied.


    2. My impression was he was saying lower Federal Courts were wrong to apply such a standard.
    What about state courts?!

    On the political side, Democrats had hoped to wiggle in here at least in Wisconsin by picking up state Supreme Court seats in 2018-19-20 elections - ahead of redistricting you see - but after picking up a seat in 2018 they narrowly lost this year, dashing hopes for a liberal majority on the court in the near-term.

    Usually when they can't feed themselves or can't enjoy a small slice of the luxary the wealthy have.

    There's a lot about the wealth gap that people in America seem to ignore - chiefly that you need to provide a certain level of "bread and circuses" and not just a minimum.
    A lot of research indicates Trump partisans are motivated more by cultural/racial animus than economic insecurity, though I suppose one could argue that a more general sense of economic or socioeconomic malaise could activate these latent tendencies of the conservative subset.

    EDIT: Some examples
    Last edited by Montmorency; 07-19-2019 at 01:04.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  8. #38
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,205

    Default Re: Gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Holy shit.
    Sorry, 1.5%

    That's still a big thing, though.



    What about state courts?!

    On the political side, Democrats had hoped to wiggle in here at least in Wisconsin by picking up state Supreme Court seats in 2018-19-20 elections - ahead of redistricting you see - but after picking up a seat in 2018 they narrowly lost this year, dashing hopes for a liberal majority on the court in the near-term.
    I just find the whole thing, as in your political system, mystifying. You elect your judges. I think the thing here is that we perceive the issue from different sides - I cannot but see that the majority opinion as technically correct.

    As I said to Don, if the technically correct opinion is wrong then your problem goes much deeper than this one decision.

    A lot of research indicates Trump partisans are motivated more by cultural/racial animus than economic insecurity, though I suppose one could argue that a more general sense of economic or socioeconomic malaise could activate these latent tendencies of the conservative subset.

    EDIT: Some examples
    I think that the issue here is the wealth gap, again. You think the Average American is not poor, but compared to the wealthiest he is wretched.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  9. #39

    Default Re: Gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Sorry, 1.5%
    I was wondering.

    As I said to Don, if the technically correct opinion is wrong then your problem goes much deeper than this one decision.
    Correct

    I think that the issue here is the wealth gap, again. You think the Average American is not poor, but compared to the wealthiest he is wretched.
    How would you explain the above in terms of a wealth gap? If a white upper-middle class professional professes the necessity of ethnic hygiene in a strong nation, and a poverty-level white man exclaims that he would rather die from lack of access to government insurance than see a cent go to blacks, gays, and illegals - there's another substrate here.

    It is shocking to hear given the tenor of mainstream media coverage, but the working class in this country is not typified by white men anymore, it is women and POC. The working class went Dem in 2016 and 2018.

    The point is further hammered home when you realize that the Republican party's own economic policies - which have the natural result of widening the wealth gap - are unpopular among its own base, but its social policies, especially as manifested by Trump, are wildly popular.

    Could all this be exacerbated by wealth inequality in a holistic sense? I yielded as much above. But hark:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Related to plutocracy: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Alva...iketty2015.pdf

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    (Bad luck economy, Eurolads.)
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO