All Activity

It's a fundamental constitutional principle that every voter has equal rights, every vote must be given the same weight. If you *deliberately* manipulate districts to effectively vitiate some votes in favor or others that seems as straightforward a violation of the principle as I can imagine. Certainly one that should transcend any state's election management options. You could argue that the VRA already set a precedent by playing fast and loose with the principle and I wouldn't disagree with you. Sometimes no good deed goes unpunished.

true

Just about any district drawing can be construed as gerrymandering to some people. We also can argue that "independent commissions" can be guilty as well. Let's for example divide Michigan into regions with multiple members, giving candidates x number of seats proportionally. 1) Metro Detroit..5 seats. It's usually a 70/30 split Democrats to Republicans...it would come to a 4-1 Dem/Rep House spit 2) West Michigan (Grand Rapids area) 3 seats, 55-45 Republican/Democrat 2/1 Republican House Advantage... 3)Mid Michigan..(Lansing, Flint, Saginaw). 3 seats..usually a 50-50 Split depending on year. Winning party gets 2 seats Upper Michigan (Everything else) 2 seats. usually a 60/40 split. Depending on margin of victory winning party would get two seats (or split one seat each) Include third parties in the process if they receive a certain percentage of votes...everyone usually gets some representation. Tell me where the gerrymandering is here?

Yeah but at some point you run out of places to gerrymander. I think Texas gerrymander could backfire since they are relying on a realignment from Hispanics. I’m not sure how many more republican districts you squeeze from the Texas suburbs. Same with California, you’re likely to get more districts in the Central Valley.

Land has always outvoted people. We get it. Rule by the rich. We can toil in their underground sugar mines and have half a day off to worship their deity.

He didn't wear it at Toledo, or at Erie before he was rule 5'd either. He was wearing 14 with the Hens and no-one on the current 40 has it. Wore 27 before his Rule 5 but that's now Sweeney's.

According to B-R, 3 Tigers have worn it and I have no memories of the 2 who wore it last year wearing it... Matt Gage and Rafael Montero. The unique history of the number is why I don't like it. It's like Bull Durham and the fungus on shower shoes.

be careful what you wish for considering you'd need to increase florida and texas too.

Proportional representation would be nice.

What needs to happen is the house needs to be expanded. It hasn’t been expanded in over 100 years. The average district in California is 760k. Wyoming is 580k. The Wyoming rule would make sure all districts are the size of the smallest district. That would add 16 districts to California.

this seems like the only answer - you have to find a way to make swing and miss, and thus in turn pitching itself, a less important part of the game overall.

we can agree to disagree on that one, but there are plenty of folks who would make a similar argument to yours. the constitution gives the states the right to determine how their elections happen, which includes how their congressional reps get elected. this may come as a surprise to you, but politicians acted in bad faith in order to draw those districts! lol. what do you mean by "one man/one vote" argument?

apropos of nothing I call the space to the left of the pitcher and in front of 3rd base "Iowa" when doing infield drills for my softball teams. It was because I was trying to stop my pitchers from making wild throws to 1B when running in the opposite direction (i.e., toward 3B side foul territory). Basically, you might be better off if your momentum is taking you in that direction allowing the 3B to run in and make a throw. I drew a "box" to describe the place where I wanted the 3B to take over the ball and i did such a bad job drawing the box that it looked like the State of Iowa. So, my kids have called it Iowa ever since.

That still exposes it to gerrymandering.

Hence my argument for multi member ditricts, proportional voting...

we've argued about whether this SCOTUS is sane or not before, but there is such and easy straightforward one man/one vote argument to be made to outlawing any attempt to draw districts to favor outcomes of any kind that I don't see how SCOTUS can be defended on this issue at all. They made an ideological decision for bad government when there were easy good government options available to them that would not have required any objectionable legal gymnastics to have arrived at at all. These are terrible people and there is no way around it.

Illinois didn’t disarm themselves like California. Good for them.

got me curious so I checked Hungarian Origin (Orbán): It is a Hungarian form of the name Urban. It was historically used to denote an "educated man" or someone who lived in a town, rather than in the countryside. [1, 2, 3] Latin Roots: It stems from the Latin Urbanus, which carries connotations of being refined, cultured, and sophisticated due to its connection to city life. [1] Other Interpretations: Some sources suggest that in a Slavic context, the name can be associated with "eagle

Wild, so just because a state has 40% of one party doesn’t mean that 40% of the districts will be that party? To get to 8 red districts in Illinois, you’re probably going to have to do a little gerrymandering. Probably have to cut up the Chicago exurbs and pack Dems in Chicago.

iowa has a non-partisan commission that creates their map. theyve had that in place for 40 years.

we dont disagree on the basic argument: republicans ratcheted up the gerrymandering game and the democrats responded in kind. before the republicans did that, many of the democratic run states (but not all, iowa also has anti-gerrymandering in place) acted in good faith in trying to get rid of political gerrymandering. illinois is just a different animal because illinois is horrible.

BTW how is Iowa not on the list? It’s worse than Illinois. It has four congressional districts and all are republican despite Harris winning 42% of the vote and congressional Dems winning 43%.

Because republicans across the country have been gerrymandering while blue states like California have unilaterally disarmed themselves. Good for Illinois. Keep going. Maybe Republicans will finally agree with Illinois Democratic senators and end gerrymandering. Until then, I’m not interested in both sides bull****. Illinois has been playing by the same rules as republicans.

If you believe in the Better Angels societal evolutionary and/or the Arc of the Moral Universe theories, it should happen eventually, because as long as there is an active, collective effort to do so, we will get there. The only way that can be reversed is to exterminate the intelligentsia and their educated acolytes, outlaw free education altogether, and remake society into a replication of the serfdom era.