SCOTUS to hear case against independent redistricting

[MisterChester]

Supreme Court considers constitutionality of independent redistricting - Tarini Parti - POLITICO

The Supreme Court will hear a case about the constitutionality of independent bodies that redistrict instead of the legislative bodies of the states. If the court says they are unconstitutional, these bodies would cease to exist and have some interesting implications. I am of the belief that many of the legislative bodies are too politically charged to produce new redistricting plans that are fair and accurate to the citizens of which they are supposed to represent. If the states want an independent commission, then let them. I say we can avoid the commissions and the representative inequality that usually comes from state legislatures by redistricting by way of mathematical algorithms.

 

[Twangbanger]

Purposely give hard-won government power away to commissions and algorithms?

"Willis, what chu talkin' bout?"

 

[mrortega]

Purposely give hard-won government power away to commissions and algorithms?

"Willis, what chu talkin' bout?"

Amen to that. The Republicans have been wiping the Dems out at the state level (Indiana) for the last several elections. They have an unstoppable majority now. Let them redistrict (Gerrymander) to keep their advantage. Indiana is a much stronger state, fiscally and freedom-wise, than we've ever been in modern times. If you want "fair" look back to Nazi Germany. Hitler won office in a fair election then promptly destroyed the system to stay in power. Screw the gun grabbers, pro-aborts, tax raisers and freedom deniers. They can move to Illinois, Massachusetts, New York or California.

 

[MisterChester]

Purposely give hard-won government power away to commissions and algorithms?

"Willis, what chu talkin' bout?"

No, you scratch the commissions too. Using mathematics eliminates bias, and draws districts without the possibility of gerrymandering. People deserve accurate representation.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

No, you scratch the commissions too. Using mathematics eliminates bias, and draws districts without the possibility of gerrymandering. People deserve accurate representation.

I'm not a fan of gerrymandering, but I'm not certain ANYTHING will ensure that citizens get accurate representation. Politicians have gained too much power over individual lives; the urge to meddle has become too strong.

 

[Twangbanger]

No, you scratch the commissions too. Using mathematics eliminates bias, and draws districts without the possibility of gerrymandering. People deserve accurate representation.

But they already use mathematics to draw the boundaries. Just like Global Warming, it's a battle of "which" (or more properly, "whose") mathematics. I'm sympathetic to the idea, but even algorithms have to be created by humans. They do not bubble out of the primordial muck like some kind of natural law. The a-hole Campaign Consultants are already armed with algorithms. The answer returned by an algorithm depends on who wrote it & what criteria it was designed to achieve. (No I don't want to see a Youboob video about it).

The real obstacle here will be how do you eliminate human tinkering from the process, and get everyone to agree to it. As I was about to say last night (but reconsidered in order to not make this racial), your biggest opponent will be the racial minority-based lobbying organizations. They consider the creation of special minority-composition voting districts under the Voting Rights Act to be a cornerstone of civil rights law. They have brigades of lawyers involved in litigating boundaries and working to create "majority-minority" districts, and the districts so-created look godawful just like the others.

As soon as you try to eliminate human involvement in the process with some kind of "balanced algorithm" and undermine the basis for creating rigged districts, you're going to have lawyers from groups like La Raza, NAACP, et alia up your shorts like out-of-work proctologists, claiming it has the possibility to "undo decades of civil rights progress." And in my opinion, if anyone is still allowed to use the Voting Rights Act as a dodge to avoid making the "balanced algorithm" method mandatory in all states, then you're not really trying to solve "the problem." You're just making a more targeted effort to pick the winners and losers.

 

[CathyInBlue]

How is contracting out the process of gerrymandering, which both wings of the Majoritarian Party do, whether they admit it or not, to a private party remotely unconstitutional?