Having districts be +40 democrats/republicans makes candidates rush towards the extremes and try to get the most conservative/liberal viewpoints they can. It also insulates party members who have been in congress for decades because their district is so gerrymandered. I think this would be a step in the right direction in cooling political polarization and making candidates try to endorse legislation that is good for all people rather than the most conservative/liberal.
We need to push our reps for fair redistricting, and have careful oversight in choice of borders this time.
The US Supreme Court has affirmed in Miller v. Johnson (1995) that racial gerrymandering is a violation of constitutional rights and upheld decisions against redistricting that is purposely devised based on race.
In Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek were decided on June 27, 2019, which, in the 5β4 decision, determined that judging partisan gerrymandering cases is outside of the remit of the federal court system due to the political questions involved. The majority opinion stated that extreme partisan gerrymandering is still unconstitutional, but it is up to Congress and state legislative bodies to find ways to restrict that, such as through the use of independent redistricting commissions.
So we have to find ways as a people to limit political parties just redistricting for their parties benefit, the feds have decided to let corruption be solved by the corrupt heads themselves, stupid, but if they won't fix the problem, we must.
Suggestions are welcome.
So I was sailing along confident in my vote for Dartmouth East. Then I start getting flyers for Preston. Apparently my neighbourhood (Kennedy-Roleika-Poonam) falls in Preston?? When the hell did that happen??
Edit: never mind, I'm a moron. District USED to be Preston-Dartmouth, divide is at Caledonia.
(Crosspost from r/union and r/labor, but it only posted link and not text so did manually)
I recently watched this michael brooks clip,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbhKGQov_MM
Where at the end they talk about how we should try and reverse the idea that 'we need "blue dogs" to win contested districts' - they use the example of David Delloso in PA 162nd district, or Ohio senator Sherrod Brown. These may not be "progressive idealists" or whatever, but they're clearly different than just a blue dog democrat who is gonna vote against labor and all of that.
I'm wondering if there has been research on this topic - how well unionists do in purple-district elections. Maybe the sample size is too small, not sure, but would be cool to see data/analysis on the topic.
Nearly all states use a Winner-Take-All system for the electoral college, where the candidate with the plurality of votes receives 100% of the electoral votes. The two exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which allocate two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, and then one electoral vote per congressional district. This system, called the Congressional District Method, on the surface seems to be more representative of the will of the people within the state, since even the most polarized states still have sizable proportions of voters for the other party.
However, the use of congressional districts seems like an opportunity for swing states to gerrymander their electoral college vote. Based on recent Supreme Court cases, my understanding (not a lawyer) is that state legislatures have the power to decide on the methods for allocating their state's electoral votes. We are also at the start of a new redistricting cycle, where many state legislatures will have the power to draw congressional district boundaries how they see fit.
There are several recent examples of partisan tactics previously considered extreme. For example, North Carolina, Michigan, and Wisconsin have shown an openness to employ openly partisan measures to maintain control, and they've been important swing states in past presidential election cycles.
So since the Supreme Court seems to have decided that partisan gerrymandering of Congressional Districts is effectively legal, my question is:
**Are there any legal barriers or state-level confines that prevent any of the 48 Winner-Take-All states from transitioning to the Congressio
... keep reading on reddit β‘Hi all, I know we have passed our provincial election but if you live in the Harbour Main district, what we're some of your biggest issues. Thanks.
)