Texas VS. California Redistricting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Callatoroy
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 117
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
CFordUNC said:
Early voting, mail-in voting, drop boxes, and mailed ballots are not "liberal" inventions, nor are they unconstitutional, nor are they even nefarious. They are non-partisan ways to ensure that every eligible voter in America- Republican, Democrat, independent, third-party, whatever- can exercise their constitutional right to participate in democracy. It's not Democrats' fault that Republicans are too dim to utilize them. Why do you relish being such an intellectual dwarf at all times on all topics?

Where did the bill in 2021 declare that the preclearance requirement should be reinstated for "SOUTHERN STATES" only? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't! The preclearance requirement under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandated that certain states and localities with a history of voting discrimination obtain federal approval, specifically from the DOJ or a three-judge panel in DC, before implementing changes to their voting laws. The aim was to prevent the implementation of voting changes that could discriminate against minority voters. This applied to sttaes nationwide, not just "SOUTHERN STATES" only.
Click to expand...
As you are aware, these loosened standards that the Dems fight so hard for make it easier for them or their allies to cheat. Hell Dems don't even want you to show an ID to vote. I have no issue with early voting, mail in voting and even drop boxes if safeguarded properly. The new Georgia law allows all three but now requires drop boxes to be located inside facilities instead of in parking lots. Also, strict ID requirement and signature verification together with a duplicate paper ballot. For that, Biden labeled us Jim Crow 2.0.
 
Last edited:
Ramrouser said:
As you are aware, these loosened standards that the Dems fight so hard for make it easier from them or their allies to cheat. Hell Dems don't even want you to show an ID to vote. I have no issue with early voting, mail in voting and even drop boxes if safeguarded properly. The new Georgia law allows all three but now requires drop boxes to be located inside facilities instead of in parking lots. Also, strict ID requirement and signature verification together with a duplicate paper ballot. For that, Biden labeled us Jim Crow 2.0.
Click to expand...
You can stop asking me if I'm aware of any of the bullshit you post. This is like the third or fourth time you've led off a post with that. Let's get it clear: no, I am never aware of any of the ludicrous crap you post, because everything that you post comes from whatever boomer social media slop trough you feast at.

And no, these "loosened standards" don't make it "easier to cheat. Our national elections are decentralized, with thousands of independent voting jurisdictions, which makes it virtually impossible to pull off a large-scale vote-rigging operation that could tip a presidential race (or any other race).

For absentee voting, different states have different ballot verification protocols. All states require a voter’s signature. Many states have further precautions, such as having bipartisan teams compare the signature with other signatures on file, requiring the signature to be notarized or requiring a witness to sign. That means even if a ballot is erroneously sent to someone’s past address and the current resident mails it in, there are checks to alert election workers to the foul play.

A growing number of states offer online or text-based ballot tracking tools as an extra layer of protection, allowing voters to see when their ballot has been sent out, returned and counted.

Federal law requires voter list maintenance, and election officials do that through a variety of methods, from checking state and federal databases to collaborating with other states to track voters who have moved.

Ballot drop boxes have security protocols, too. The boxes are often designed to stop hands from stealing ballots and are surveilled by camera, bolted to the ground, and constructed with fire-retardant chambers.

An Associated Press investigation that explored every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by Trump found there were fewer than 475 out of millions of votes cast. That was not nearly enough to tip the outcome. Democrat Joe Biden won the six states by a combined 311,257 votes.

Link: Yes, voter fraud happens. But it's rare and election offices have safeguards to catch it

P.S. Oh! And guess what! You'll never believe this, but....Republican voters commit voter fraud too! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/03/kim-taylor-iowa-voter-fraud-sentence/)
 
Last edited:
nycfan said:
Related

IMG_8614.jpeg



IMG_8621.jpeg
Click to expand...

My goodness. Yet, this is not extreme enough behavior for Pubs to speak up. Heck, they revel in it. Just like they revel in is racist explanations of how migrant workers are "naturally" made for farm work.
 
Since this thread was really intended to be about bipartisan opposition to gerrymandering and not the other provisions in the For the People Act, I'll pose this question to Ramrouser, since the OP seems unwilling to answer it --

Easy solution. How about Johnson puts up a standalone bill that makes political gerrymandering illegal? Nothing else. Does it get out of committee? Does it get TO a committee? No doubt Dems would prefer more voting rights protection than just that, but I can say with confidence 95%+ of Dems would vote for that bill. Can you say the same about Pubs?
 
I would support it although I can see a lot of members opposing it since they're currently sitting in safe seats. I can see the benefit of members having to win re election in competitive seats instead of 15+ districts.

The devil is in the details, meaning who appoints the members who sit on the independent commissions to draw the lines and who is allowed to serve? Can AI do it?
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
protectdemocracy.org

Proportional representation, explained

Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them.
protectdemocracy.org protectdemocracy.org
Click to expand...
How about proportional representation? Why leave anything to chance with line-drawing and line-drawers? My understanding (admittedly rudimentary) is that it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, but would require repeal of the Uniform Congressional District Act that mandates single-member districts.
 
1. It doesn't matter if you "support" or "oppose" gerrymandering in some abstract sense. Unless you are willing to vote on the basis of those beliefs, then it's just wanking.

2. This is not a both-sides situation. It's not as if the 2021 bill was the first shot in the salvo. Some of you might remember the Supreme Court case Rucho v. Common Cause. That was a 2019 case about gerrymandering. There was a liberal plaintiff group bringing a constitutional challenge to gerrymandering. The conservative Supreme Court voted 5-4 to preserve gerrymandering, ludicrously calling the issue "non-justiciable." In dissent: Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor. The majority was the opposite.

There's also a Supreme Court case called Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. That case involved the constitutionality of the Arizona Redistricting Commission that Arizona voters adopted in 2000 on a ballot referendum. Arizona wanted to get rid of partisan gerrymandering. And what did the Republicans in Arizona do? They sued to have it declared unconstitituional.

Another GOP lawsuit brought specifically for the purpose of entrenching gerrymandering. This one fared not quite as well at SCOTUS: there, the liberal view prevailed 5-4, on the same lineup as above except Kennedy was persuaded to join the majority. But Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito were all adamantly opposed to the redistricting commission.

And as everyone here knows, there was, not too long ago, a NC Supreme Court decision declaring partisan gerrymandering to be unlawful. The state GOP campaigned on overturning that decision, and indeed as soon as they gained a majority, that's what they did. So the GOP put this horrifying gerrymandering in place, the liberals tried to get us to neutrality, and the state GOP said fuck off and put the gerrymander back.

3. So if you are opposed to gerrymandering, you have a clear choice: one party will get rid of it as soon as possible; the other party thrives off it.

But of course, if you don't really give a fuck, if you're just talking shit planning on voting GOP blindly, then what does it matter?
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
How about proportional representation? Why leave anything to chance with line-drawing and line-drawers? My understanding (admittedly rudimentary) is that it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, but would require repeal of the Uniform Congressional District Act that mandates single-member districts.
Click to expand...
It would require a bit more than that. Repealing the UCDA wouldn't create proportional representation. It would simply allow states to use proportional representation. What state would do that? This is basically a souped-up version of independent redistricting commissions: sound in theory, but vulnerable to a prisoner's dilemma style race to the bottom. Every state would prefer that other states use proportional while they gerrymander themselves in power. Thus the states that try to do it right would find themselves disadvantaged.

Thus, we'd need an act of Congress to mandate proportional representation. That's fine, but we'd need a new Supreme Court first. There's no way this Supreme Court would let such a statute stand. Would they have any cogent reasons for invalidating such a law? Probably not, but when does that stop them? They will simply say, "our tradition is single member districts" and the Framers were aware of gerrymanders and did nothing about them, and thus the original understanding was single member districts, blah blah blah. The argument on this point would actually be a bit stronger than other cases they've decided on the basis of nothing at all.

I think you are right that proportional representation would be the way to go, but I don't think that's the strategy. I'll bet it doesn't have much public support, because it would seem too radical.
 
superrific said:
It would require a bit more than that. Repealing the UCDA wouldn't create proportional representation. It would simply allow states to use proportional representation. What state would do that? This is basically a souped-up version of independent redistricting commissions: sound in theory, but vulnerable to a prisoner's dilemma style race to the bottom. Every state would prefer that other states use proportional while they gerrymander themselves in power. Thus the states that try to do it right would find themselves disadvantaged.

Thus, we'd need an act of Congress to mandate proportional representation. That's fine, but we'd need a new Supreme Court first. There's no way this Supreme Court would let such a statute stand. Would they have any cogent reasons for invalidating such a law? Probably not, but when does that stop them? They will simply say, "our tradition is single member districts" and the Framers were aware of gerrymanders and did nothing about them, and thus the original understanding was single member districts, blah blah blah. The argument on this point would actually be a bit stronger than other cases they've decided on the basis of nothing at all.

I think you are right that proportional representation would be the way to go, but I don't think that's the strategy. I'll bet it doesn't have much public support, because it would seem too radical.
Click to expand...
Yes, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to suggest repealing the UCDA would create proportional representation. It would be necessary but not sufficient.

The rest of the issues you point out are fair and likely correct.
 
superrific said:
1. It doesn't matter if you "support" or "oppose" gerrymandering in some abstract sense. Unless you are willing to vote on the basis of those beliefs, then it's just wanking.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's the point. Calla has made it clear he's strongly opposed to partisan gerrymandering. Ram says he generally supports banning it, as long as it's done fairly. But both of them keep voting for the party that consistently, universally resists any efforts to get rid of it, while the other party is almost universally in favor of doing exactly that.

I get that people vote for candidates and parties for a lot of reasons. But the anti-gerrymandering Pubs need to just keep their mouths shut on this issue. They keep voting for what even they realize is the problem, and against the solution.
 
Ramrouser said:
As you are aware, these loosened standards that the Dems fight so hard for make it easier for them or their allies to cheat. Hell Dems don't even want you to show an ID to vote. I have no issue with early voting, mail in voting and even drop boxes if safeguarded properly. The new Georgia law allows all three but now requires drop boxes to be located inside facilities instead of in parking lots. Also, strict ID requirement and signature verification together with a duplicate paper ballot. For that, Biden labeled us Jim Crow 2.0.
Click to expand...
No. It was an entire body of work extending for years.
 
Ramrouser said:
As you are aware, these loosened standards that the Dems fight so hard for make it easier for them or their allies to cheat.
Click to expand...
The only documented case of significant electoral cheating that I can remember was the GOP candidate in NC-09.

What's your evidence that Dems cheat? I mean, go back 40 years if you want. Where have Dems cheated in anything but isolated single voters (note that most of these cheaters, like Mark Meadows, were also Pubs).
 
Ramrouser said:
As you are aware, these loosened standards that the Dems fight so hard for make it easier for them or their allies to cheat. Hell Dems don't even want you to show an ID to vote. I have no issue with early voting, mail in voting and even drop boxes if safeguarded properly. The new Georgia law allows all three but now requires drop boxes to be located inside facilities instead of in parking lots. Also, strict ID requirement and signature verification together with a duplicate paper ballot. For that, Biden labeled us Jim Crow 2.0.
Click to expand...
And yet despite your assertion that these practices made cheating much easier, there has been zero evidence of any appreciable increase in proven voter fraud.

Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence but you have a complete absence of evidence to support your propositions.
 
As a moderate, the worst part of all this redistricting/gerrymandering is that it will hypercharge the further erosion of the limited number of moderates we currently have in Congress.

It will just futher push each party to their extremes and keep ignoring the middle, but that is happening anyway.... this will just make it happen faster and don't see how we ever go back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top