Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, March 25, 2019

Before the Republican-led state legislature divided their city and even their college campus into two different districts in a bid to boost the party's election chances, students like recent graduate Vashti Smith could vote for the Democratic U.S. congressional candidate and know that person could win.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is far more important than Russian meddling.

So is eliminating the ridiculous electoral college, a tool for the 1% to control the 99%.

#1 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-25 08:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Anybody want to make any bets that mcconnel's rigged court decides the founding fathers intended for our politicians to pick their voters instead of the other way around?

#2 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-25 08:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#2 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I don't want to bet on it - I just pray for once the SCOTUS does the right thing on something like this. Unlike say Citizens United or say Kelo v. City of New London.

#3 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-03-25 08:54 PM | Reply

#2

I doubt the Founders would be surprised that the political body to whom they entrusted apportionment, state legislatures, would act in a political manner.

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2019-03-25 09:57 PM | Reply

4

I think the founders were counting on the fact that state legislatures would act in a political manner.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-25 10:01 PM | Reply

4

I think the founders were counting on the fact that state legislatures would act in a political manner.

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-25 10:01 PM | Reply

I think what has been done in NC is textbook gerrymandering.

I'm hoping the court says as much.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-25 10:07 PM | Reply

Eliminating the electoral college is just fast tracking our trajectory to Hunger Games world.

#8 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-03-25 10:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Eliminating the electoral college is just fast tracking our trajectory to Hunger Games world.

#8 | Posted by visitor_

No that was reaganomics

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-25 10:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#6

And they do, the D's in Maryland saw a political advantage and the R's in Wisconsin saw a political advantage. They both took it, as Maryland contends it has done for nearly a century.

I'm hoping the Court can fashion a workable standard that will eliminate, or at least severely rein in, partisan gerrymandering as has been done with racial gerrymandering.

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2019-03-25 10:29 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"or at least severely rein in, partisan gerrymandering as has been done with racial gerrymandering."

LOL. Says the guy who cheered the repeal of Title V of the Voting Rights Act.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-25 10:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Eliminating the EC is a recipe for endless ballot recounting and election contests in multiple states every four years.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2019-03-25 10:37 PM | Reply

"Eliminating the EC is a recipe for endless ballot recounting and election contests in multiple states every four years."

We get that anyway with the EC, dumbass.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-25 10:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

(Unless that was the joke, in which case, I'm the dumbass!)

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-25 10:53 PM | Reply

I think what has been done in NC is textbook gerrymandering.

I'm hoping the court says as much.

#7 | Posted by eberly

Meaning they won't rule to address it?

I doubt the Founders would be surprised that the political body to whom they entrusted apportionment, state legislatures, would act in a political manner.

#4 | Posted by et_al

LOL it amazes me sometimes what people convince themselves of.

They would be the most likely to consider the spirit of their documents as well as the letter. I highly doubt that they would find politicians picking their voters merely "acting in a political manner". (In aggregate...you can always find a FF quote to support what you want as they were, of course, a heterogeneous group)

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-26 10:21 AM | Reply

15

I would hope they want to address it.

And I think the founders counted on partisans being partisans and there would need to be a system in place to account for the lack of trust between the parties.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-26 10:33 AM | Reply

I'm hoping the Court can fashion a workable standard that will eliminate, or at least severely rein in, partisan gerrymandering

It's already been fashioned for them in the Wisconsin case, and probably in the others too (i havent looked at them). All the Court needs to do is adopt the 7th Circuit Panel's decision striking down Wisconsin's partisan gerrymander.

But they won't.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-26 02:11 PM | Reply

You know gerrymandering is bipartisan BS when a ballot measure to fix it is opposed by both parties.

The electoral college is not the problem. The problem is that the states are gerrymandered AND that an ever increasing number are moving to a winner-take-all (or worse, a national-winner-take-all) method for allocating votes.

I'd bet real money that an AI could create an impartial electoral map in about a day, given a rudimentary set of guidelines.

#18 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-03-26 02:21 PM | Reply

The electoral college is not the problem. The problem is that the states are gerrymandered

This proves to me you have no idea what you're talking about. 48 states are winner-take-all for electoral votes, so their presidential elections are not impacted in any way by gerrymandering. They are separate issues. Gerrymandering rigs state legislatures and US House districts. The electoral college turns the presidency on its head. They are both problematic.

I'd bet real money that an AI could create an impartial electoral map in about a day

Neutral mapmaking software already exists, and doesn't even require AI. It's just that partisan legislators choose not to use it for neutral purposes.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-26 02:59 PM | Reply

This proves to me you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's always a good assumption that an outspoken righty doesn't know what they're talking about.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-26 03:03 PM | Reply

And I think the founders counted on partisans being partisans and there would need to be a system in place to account for the lack of trust between the parties.

#16 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I don't think the founders thought we would give all the power to just 2 political parties. They would be disappointed a 3rd party is so easily left out of debates and getting on the ballot.

#21 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2019-03-27 08:17 AM | Reply

Pinky,

I don't think the founders would be disappointed by our 2-party system. That is essentially what they had at the beginning - the Hamilton wing and the Jefferson wing. What they'd be appalled by is the administrative state, the judicial philosophy of an extremely elastic Constitution and the overall centralization of power into the Executive branch and SCOTUS.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-27 09:09 AM | Reply

they'd be appalled by...the judicial philosophy of an extremely elastic Constitution

Some would, some wouldn't. The Federalist party of Hamilton "favored a loose or broad construction of the Constitution, which would allow the expansion of federal government power to meet important needs of national scope."
www.nps.gov

"John Marshall, the greatest Supreme Court justice of the generation that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was also a loose constructionist...Originalism without the interpretive theory that the Framers and the ratifiers of the Constitution expected the courts to use in construing constitutional provisions is faux originalism. True originalism licenses loose construction. "
newrepublic.com

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-27 09:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#22 online.norwich.edu

"Considering how deeply synonymous the two-party system and American politics have become, it's almost impossible to imagine having alternatives at the voting booth. However, American voters weren't always limited to the Republican and Democratic parties; in the 19th Century, the American political system was comprised of multiple parties that encompassed a wide range of beliefs and ideologies and enjoyed various levels of success and notoriety."

Being able to have legitimate 3rd parties would make gerrymandering much less of an issue. There was a time that a new party could form, and be a contender on the national level. Slowly we have lost this.

#24 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2019-03-27 11:38 AM | Reply

Again, we are on a topic that partisan people only care about when it is the other party using it to their advantage. It's so sad that we have so many short-sighted people who can vote. Dems did this in the 90s to an absurd degree but they didn't care then. Now that Reps are abusing it, it's a huge deal.

"So is eliminating the ridiculous electoral college, a tool for the 1% to control the 99%."

Ugh, logic just seems to be a lost concept. You do realize that the people the electoral college is protecting (in this era) ARE comprised solely of the 99%, except for maybe farmers who have come into great success which aren't many? And that the ones who were negatively impacted by the EC in the last election ARE the people who live in areas that are most privileged and rich????????????? Your statement is EXACTLY the opposite; you may blame the 1% for everything that is wrong with our reality today but, in this case, you are completely wrong and all the data shows it.

#25 | Posted by humtake at 2019-03-27 11:55 AM | Reply

"You do realize that the people the electoral college is protecting (in this era) ARE comprised solely of the 99%, except for maybe farmers who have come into great success which aren't many?"

And you think that urban areas which get cheated by the EC aren't also primarily made up of the 99%?

In the last 130 years we've had exactly two presidents elected by the EC when the person who got the most votes didn't win. Bush and Trump. Republicans defend the EC strictly because it benefits them and not the Democrats.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-27 12:57 PM | Reply

I think the founders were counting on the fact that state legislatures would act in a political manner.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-25 10:01 PM | Reply

I don't think the founders could have imagined the precision with which this can be done today. Between the tracking information and the computer-driven mapping algorithms, these districts can be drawn to guarantee an outcome in a way I don't believe any 18th Century person could have imagined to be not only possible, but routine.

In the last 130 years we've had exactly two presidents elected by the EC when the person who got the most votes didn't win. Bush and Trump. Republicans defend the EC strictly because it benefits them and not the Democrats.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-27 12:57 PM | Reply

Interesting fact: 4 of the 5 Presidents that lost the popular vote were Republicans, and the winner of the popular vote was a Democrat. The other was a Democrat-Republican who beat a Democrat-Republican.

#27 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2019-03-27 06:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort