Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[Motown Bombers]

It’s interesting to finally see Dem leaders call out the media. 

 

[Tigeraholic1]

Temu Obama is his own inside joke. 

[chasfh]

56 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

It’s interesting to finally see Dem leaders call out the media. 

 

I think the best outcome we could hope for is that the Supreme Court strikes down all discretionary off-census redistricting as a basic form of election fraud and we go back to the maps we all had after the census—you know, like during normal times.

But seeing how this court is completely up Trump's ass, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think the best outcome we could hope for is that the Supreme Court strikes down all discretionary off-census redistricting as a basic form of election fraud and we go back to the maps we all had after the census—you know, like during normal times.

But seeing how this court is completely up Trump's ass, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

 When the gerrymandering cases got to the court a few years a ago and they basically punted the issue, the inevitability of the current mess was obvious to anyone with a brain - apparently except JR.

[chasfh]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

 When the gerrymandering cases got to the court a few years a ago and they basically punted the issue, the inevitability of the current mess was obvious to anyone with a brain - apparently except JR.

I'm not an attorney and I don't even play one on TV, but it seems to me there must be a completely different legal question at hand here regarding the redrawing of district boundaries outside of common redistricting periods with the explicitly stated intent of rigging the election outcome.

[Tigeraholic1]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I'm not an attorney and I don't even play one on TV, but it seems to me there must be a completely different legal question at hand here regarding the redrawing of district boundaries outside of common redistricting periods with the explicitly stated intent of rigging the election outcome.

You think California is riggin?

[chasfh]

16 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

You think California is riggin?

If you mean specifically redistricting, not yet. But they are moving into a position to since a lot of red states already have. I would hope the Supreme Court throws them all out and forces all states to go back to the same map as in 2024. But since untethered gerrymandering will keep their own bed feathered, I ain’t holding my breath waiting for it.

[Tigeraholic1]

13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If you mean specifically redistricting, not yet. But they are moving into a position to since a lot of red states already have. I would hope the Supreme Court throws them all out and forces all states to go back to the same map as in 2024. But since untethered gerrymandering will keep their own bed feathered, I ain’t holding my breath waiting for it.

I guess states have rights for a reason. Not sure SC can dip to much in these situations. 

[CMRivdogs]

46 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If you mean specifically redistricting, not yet. But they are moving into a position to since a lot of red states already have. I would hope the Supreme Court throws them all out and forces all states to go back to the same map as in 2024. But since untethered gerrymandering will keep their own bed feathered, I ain’t holding my breath waiting for it.

Any state that has its political lines drawn by its legislature is guilty of some sort of political bias. The only fair redistricting seems be be multi member districts based on population proportions.

Using Michigan as an example 4 multi member Congressional districts. Detroit Metro, West Michigan, Mid Michigan, and Northern Michigan and the UP. Metro Detroit gets 4 seats based on population size, the rest get three. 
 

Utilize A-I to help with mapping the districts as well as an outside no political organization. 
 

Go to proportional allocation of Electorial votes. 
 

The plan I ran on ChatGPT had the outcome in both districts and EC votes as 7-6 in favor of Republicans. Makes more sense than winner take all. The House seats also came out 7-6, GOP

 

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I guess states have rights for a reason. Not sure SC can dip to much in these situations. 

they absolutely can if they want to. It's a very straightforward argument that gerrymandering is a direct violation of "one-man, one-vote" which is otherwise a core constitutional principle; and constitutional principle, when applied, always trumps any argument for states' rights. The issue is the SCOTUS refuses to acknowledge the obvious reality and therefore does not apply the principle.

In their previous passe at redistricting Robert threw up his hands with a claim that SCOTUS can't do anything because they don't know how to mandate "good" redistricting, but again, that is head in the sand nonsense . Just look around at the states that have instituted unbiased redistricting and there are lots of real world examples of how it can be done. Another classic example of the court being willfully ignorant of the real world because it would conflict with their preferred political outcomes.

 

(and BTW - it would be nice if the RW actually understood the Constitution they purport to love so much?)

 

Edited yesterday at 05:36 PM by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I guess states have rights for a reason. Not sure SC can dip to much in these situations. 

I don't think states should have the right to practically fix elections through discretionary out-of-cycle gerrymandering at the command of the leader of their particular political party.

[Netnerd]

The rights of your fist ends where my nose begins.

Gerrymandering not only affects the state within which votes are cast. It skews representation at a federal level. Other states' voters lose representation when another state skews its own representation.

Gerrymandering = States rights. LOL

[Tigeraholic1]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I don't think states should have the right to practically fix elections through discretionary out-of-cycle gerrymandering at the command of the leader of their particular political party.

Some states require ID to vote some don’t. Until these kind of differences are resolved federal can’t require states to change any other voter laws.

[Netnerd]

Sounds like an argument for a federal standard for federal office ballots.

[CMRivdogs]

We just need to do away with the Electoral College, especially the winner take all part.

I really don’t think that was ever part of Madison’s thinking at the time. The idea was to have a group of wise men choose the Chief Executive. When Jefferson, Adams, Madison and others created political parties the whole plan went to hell.

If you must have an EC assign proportional votes to the states. It’s more democratic 

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

We just need to do away with the Electoral College, especially the winner take all part.

I really don’t think that was ever part of Madison’s thinking at the time. The idea was to have a group of wise men choose the Chief Executive. When Jefferson, Adams, Madison and others created political parties the whole plan went to hell.

If you must have an EC assign proportional votes to the states. It’s more democratic 

It wasn't. It was a compromise to get southern slave republics to join as states.

The worst part is where, if there is not clear EC majority, the election gets throw to the House where each state's delegation gets a single vote, and the guy who gets the most state's votes wins. It's wildly antidemocratic, and beyond asinine.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Some states require ID to vote some don’t. Until these kind of differences are resolved federal can’t require states to change any other voter laws.

Gerrymandering is not anything like voter ID. Gerrymandering is explicitly designed to blunt the will of a state's voters through geographical technicalities. And out-of-cycle gerrymandering is intended to be outright hostile to democracy, which is why the Supreme Court should put an end to that. But you can rest easy, pal, because we all know they won't.

[Tigeraholic1]

15 hours ago, chasfh said:

Gerrymandering is not anything like voter ID. Gerrymandering is explicitly designed to blunt the will of a state's voters through geographical technicalities. And out-of-cycle gerrymandering is intended to be outright hostile to democracy, which is why the Supreme Court should put an end to that. But you can rest easy, pal, because we all know they won't.

I think voter ID is more important than Gerrymandering. Ok Pal? 

[CMRivdogs]

I have no problem with showing ID. I do receive a mail in ballot. It asks for basic info like social security number. I suppose you'd prefer a DNA sample

[romad1]

1 minute ago, CMRivdogs said:

I have no problem with showing ID. I do receive a mail in ballot. It asks for basic info like social security number. I suppose you'd prefer a DNA sample

Virginia's rules seem very easy to comply with.   

[CMRivdogs]

49 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Virginia's rules seem very easy to comply with.   

So was Michigan. I'd usually head to the registrar's office to vote early since I was considered a senior citizen. But then I'm a white male

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

I have no problem with showing ID. I do receive a mail in ballot. It asks for basic info like social security number. I suppose you'd prefer a DNA sample

One problem with voter ID is that certain parties within state government can manipulate what is and is not considered valid ID with the apparent purpose of suppressing the vote among certain classes of people. Some states require voter ID strictly and only official state issue; others allow non-photo ID such as fishing licenses. In such cases, certain types of people more likely to engage in those activities are privileged with looser requirements to prove their identification than others who are not given to those types of activities.

Native American communities, low-income, elderly, and rural voters are disproportionately affected by voter photo ID laws. This is partially because photo IDs aren’t as common as many people assume: 18% of all citizens over the age of 65, 16% of Latino voters, 25% of Black voters, and 15% of low-income Americans lack acceptable photo ID. Elderly and low-income voters may not have the availability, financial resources, or mobility to obtain the necessary identification, and rural voters may face significant barriers to obtaining the necessary documentation due to their geographic isolation. Further, many rural and Native Americans born at home or on reservations and tribal lands lack the mandated paperwork needed to obtain a government-issued ID that fits the legal requirements to vote.  In short, many citizens find it difficult to obtain government photo IDs both because the ability to get to the facility to obtain it is limited or blocked, and because the necessary documentation, such as a birth certificate, needed to prove one's identification to obtain valid photo ID for voting is often difficult or expensive to acquire. 

Aside from class and racial discrimination, there are other peculiar ways voter photo ID laws turn voters away from the polls. For example, people who change their last names after marriage or divorce and don’t have a permissible ID that reflects their name on the voter rolls may be unable to cast a ballot. College students are also uniquely impacted by these laws, as their primary form of ID can often be a student ID, which isn’t always accepted as a valid form for voting. In all these cases, voter ID laws deny eligible voters access to the ballot box.  

One other problem is that on the ground, the law can be applied on an uneven and discretionary basis. Poll workers can take it upon themselves to choose to ask certain people showing up for every piece of required ID needed to cast a ballot and refuse them if they are missing any, or if they consider even one piece to be invalid based on their own discretion; while the same poll worker can wave through someone else without requiring proof because the poll worker knows and likes that person, who may not even be legally registered to vote.

[Tigeraholic1]

2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

I have no problem with showing ID. I do receive a mail in ballot. It asks for basic info like social security number. I suppose you'd prefer a DNA sample

My only issue is with states that don’t require ID’s.