It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court to hear Gerrymandering Case - ATS Opinions

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Of course it was intentional. The question remains though, if all political control is vested in one party, yet over half the country is in opposition to that party, is that a representative democracy anymore?


The composition of the Senate is not affected by gerrymandering.

The election of the President is not affected by gerrymandering.


Not directly, but indirectly it most certainty is. Voter suppression occurs at the state level.


So the issue is not gerrymandering but voter suppression? Okay. Argue that then.




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
Each State redistricts its own regions. Be that counties , districts , whatever. And mostly for population change .
I dont think the term gerrymandering has been used in the US since the Whig and Tory days
We bringing that back ?



Comments like this are not helpful to the discussion, not to mention, utterly illogical and dishonest.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Gothmog
Each State redistricts its own regions. Be that counties , districts , whatever. And mostly for population change .
I dont think the term gerrymandering has been used in the US since the Whig and Tory days
We bringing that back ?



Comments like this are not helpful to the discussion, not to mention, utterly illogical and dishonest.

Some folks one line tripe posts are worse...^^^^^^
Standard posting ability for some.
Got any logical rebuttal ? No , I didnt think so...

edit on 10/3/17 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/3/17 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Of course it was intentional. The question remains though, if all political control is vested in one party, yet over half the country is in opposition to that party, is that a representative democracy anymore?


The composition of the Senate is not affected by gerrymandering.

The election of the President is not affected by gerrymandering.


Not directly, but indirectly it most certainty is. Voter suppression occurs at the state level.


So the issue is not gerrymandering but voter suppression? Okay. Argue that then.


Do you not think the two are intrinsically linked? I had assumed you understood the connection between a party in power having the ability to affect change that benefits only them and the connection between gerrymandering and various other actions that satisfy that arrangement.

I had really hoped to discuss gerrymandering on account of it being one of the root causes that allows political parties to entrench themselves and affect change thusly.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Of course it was intentional. The question remains though, if all political control is vested in one party, yet over half the country is in opposition to that party, is that a representative democracy anymore?


The composition of the Senate is not affected by gerrymandering.

The election of the President is not affected by gerrymandering.


Not directly, but indirectly it most certainty is. Voter suppression occurs at the state level.


So the issue is not gerrymandering but voter suppression? Okay. Argue that then.


Do you not think the two are intrinsically linked? I had assumed you understood the connection between a party in power having the ability to affect change that benefits only them and the connection between gerrymandering and various other actions that satisfy that arrangement.

I had really hoped to discuss gerrymandering on account of it being one of the root causes that allows political parties to entrench themselves and affect change thusly.


So ... your issue is not voter suppression then?

Also, don't imply that because I don't agree with your conclusions, or with your argumentation style, that I don't understand the issues at hand. That's sophomoric and fallacious in itself.

Discuss what you wish of course. As will the rest of us.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Of course it was intentional. The question remains though, if all political control is vested in one party, yet over half the country is in opposition to that party, is that a representative democracy anymore?


The composition of the Senate is not affected by gerrymandering.

The election of the President is not affected by gerrymandering.


Not directly, but indirectly it most certainty is. Voter suppression occurs at the state level.


So the issue is not gerrymandering but voter suppression? Okay. Argue that then.


Do you not think the two are intrinsically linked? I had assumed you understood the connection between a party in power having the ability to affect change that benefits only them and the connection between gerrymandering and various other actions that satisfy that arrangement.

I had really hoped to discuss gerrymandering on account of it being one of the root causes that allows political parties to entrench themselves and affect change thusly.


So ... your issue is not voter suppression then?

Also, don't imply that because I don't agree with your conclusions, or with your argumentation style, that I don't understand the issues at hand. That's sophomoric and fallacious in itself.

Discuss what you wish of course. As will the rest of us.


I'm not sure what to make of this statement. I am discussing what I wish, and responding to you in kind. My implications were driven by what was a seemingly obvious connection to me and one in which you glossed over (either I assumed from a lack of understanding or a deliberate misdirection). What exactly was the point of your response above?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Both parties gerrymander districts and do other shady sh*t to ensure their lackies get elected. Some of the congressional district maps here in Illinois are a joke.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

For sure, either the Republican's do it when they're in power, or the Democrats do it when they're in power. I'm not trying to imply that there should only be ameliorative action against one side, but rather is there a functional solution that wrestles control over redistricting away from partisan politics?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

"Be more careful of your assumptions" sums my overall comment up nicely.

Back to the topic ... you deflected the fact that the majority of our national government is not affected by gerrymandering by claiming the real problem was voter suppression. If that's true, make that argument.
edit on 3-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wayfarer

"Be more careful of your assumptions" sums my overall comment up nicely.

Back to the topic ... you deflected the fact that the majority of our national government is not affected by gerrymandering by claiming the real problem was voter suppression. If that's true, make that argument.


Ah, I understand what you were saying now, thanks for the clarification.

Without hard numbers, I can't really make a claim that voter suppression efforts on a state level effect national politics by a majority, so I will concede that point.

To reverse the focus for a second, are you in favor of arguing that because gerrymandering doesn't seemingly affect a majority of national politics that its effect (detrimental or otherwise) is inconsequential in the 'grand scheme' of national politics?
edit on 40am17famTue, 03 Oct 2017 10:56:26 -0500America/ChicagoTue, 03 Oct 2017 10:56:26 -0500 by Wayfarer because: grammar



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Edumakated

For sure, either the Republican's do it when they're in power, or the Democrats do it when they're in power. I'm not trying to imply that there should only be ameliorative action against one side, but rather is there a functional solution that wrestles control over redistricting away from partisan politics?


I think the only way to do it is to have the districts drawn randomly some how. I just know that if you leave it up to either political party, they will redraw districts to favor themselves.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, this seems to be the same conclusion I arrived at. An overarching procedural method of drawing districts that's not tied into voter registration analytics. The problem is how do you get a party in power to vote for such a thing against their own immediate best interests?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Absolutely not! Gerrymandering (as well as the efforts to capture the State legislatures) is a critical issue as the House is a vital part of the national government ... but it isn't the only issue particularly as concerns the blight of political parties.

Given our Constitutional right to assemble and associate freely, however, I'm not sure how we address that issue, particularly as the monied interests are intricately entangled with the (apparent) "Ourside/Theirside" mentality.

Limit financial spending and contribution to "parties." Term limits. Restructure the Primary and Caucus systems at the State level.
edit on 3-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
however, I'm not sure how we address that issue, particularly as the monied interests are intricately entangled with the (apparent) "Ourside/Theirside" mentality.


Well, since the results are in, it looks like it could rest on 1 individuals shoulders (Kennedy's). Lets hope there is enough evidence and proof of a reasonable and functional way to analyze gerrymandered districts for him to change his tune from last time.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer
Perhaps a better understanding of what Gerrymandering is and how it effects our democracy would help. John Oliver seems to do a fine job of explaining it and he's funny.



edit on 10/3/2017 by Devino because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join