Good. Gerrymandering is why we have such polarization. There is also a SC case pending on it.

It seems like gerrymandering doesn't actually contribute to polarization of the US: https://fivethirtyeight.com/...x-what-ails-america/

The polarization itself is the problem and somehow needs to be addressed rather than trying to draw more "fair" districts.

That's not what the article stated. It said that polarization is the issue and that gerrymandering is contributory.

"Gerrymandering contributes to issues like the drop in competitive elections, extremism and gridlock, but it’s far from their sole cause."

"What’s behind the disappearance of so many competitive districts? Gerrymandering is part of the story."

"And because gerrymandering is responsible for at least a portion of the relative lack of competitiveness in House races today, it follows that gerrymanders is at least partially responsible for polarization."

i think that a benefit of clamping down on gerrymandering would be moderating the whole system - sort of like a parliamentary system does. in more heterogeneous districts, you'd have to listen harder, compromise a bit more, nuance your policies . . . i think that's probably healthy for america overall.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Agreed.

Ending gerrymandering isn't going to solve all of the country's ills. But it seems like a no brainer to go with one of th last two options on their interactive map just as a sense of fairness.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...icting-maps/#Compact

I think a lot of the apathy that people have about the government and how it doesn't work for them is that the system feels (and largely is) rigged. Click the current versus compact district options on that map. It is striking.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Since the Pennsylvania SC ruled against them, then the US SC ruled against them, the Repugs are now floating the idea of impeaching the Penn SC for ruling against them.

Really?

https://www.cnn.com/...peachment/index.html

If dems got 50% of vote they only get 28% of seats if I heard that right. Sorta like we just got a middle class tax cut. No wonder NASCAR appeals to repubs, if you ain't cheat in',you ain't tryin'.

Your posted article says it's only "one lawmaker" who made the threat, and the article's very title uses the singular "Republican." Not "the Repugs," dipshit. Gerrymandering isn't the problem; rather, it's people like you who fly into a hateful and terrified rage at the slightest sign of trouble and can't think beyond blindly attributing the actions of an individual to an entire group. To what other groups do you make such attributions based upon a single individual's actions? Don't answer, because hack assholes like you are already pretty transparent. Don't be a hack asshole any longer. Do better. Our country needs people to stop being hack assholes and to do better so make it start with you.

But you're right, albeit for the wrong reason. It's like the recall effort against the Santa Clara County judge who rendered the ridiculous Brock Turner "sentence." The effort to recall him garnered enough signatures on a petition to make it onto the June ballot there. Firing judges who make poor decisions, or simply decisions with which you disagree is a horrible movement and is an affront to our entire system of justice. If you don't believe me, take it from one of the finest legal minds in the world, Erwin Chemerinsky:

http://www.sacbee.com/...rticle195987354.html

---

War is god

Bwahahahaha.

I don't think that's a valid comparison.

The judge was voted in by election, and the attempt to remove is by a ballot measure. The judge serves at the pleasure of the electorate. By law. I agree that the electorate could have just waited until the next election, though. But other elected positions are recalled. (e.g. in California here we had a governor recalled by the electorate.) I'm not sure how to make judges, alone, off-limits. Also, I'm not a "legal mind" of any kind, much less a fine one, but the prosecutor in the case claimed he had no basis to make an appeal of the sentence, so that doesn't quite jibe with Erwin's claim that appeal would have been the right way to challenge the decision.

The Rep. Dush issue is different in two ways. First, he's proposing the legislature remove the judge. That would be a branch government acting against another branch of government. The violates the whole principle of separation of powers. The judge does not serve at the pleasure of the legislature. The justice is supposed to be independent from the legislature.

Second the legislature would be performing the removal in direct response to a decision *about* the legislature. So it's a blatant conflict-of-interest. Unlike the Brock case where no one signing the recall petition would be personally affected one way or the other. (Presumably Brock didn't sign it. :) )

Supreme court rejects Republican appeal:

http://www.philly.com/...dering-20180319.html

You are reading this case completely wrong. This bears no reflection of SCOTUS's position regarding gerrymandering. This is about deference to the State and deference to the opinion of the State's highest court in interpreting its own laws and constitutions. This decision sheds no light on how SCOTUS may rule on the substance of the other pending cases including TX, SC, and WI. However, it does show the Court may defer on those cases as well.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

What's wrong with Team Donkey? They have their own mugs!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Team Donkey can be embarrassing though...

But hey, can you blame him?

And then there were twelve. You need to learn to have patience. Is it okay to "fly into a hateful and terrified rage" since it a much larger group? I suspect that your indignation is impervious to any subsequent actions by the GOP. The GOP has a majority in the PA House and just 2/3 majority in the Senate, so it would take unanimous vote in the Senate to convict the judges. Let's see how far this goes....