If the U.S. Were Really a Democracy, John Boehner Would Be House MINORITY Leader: via HuffPost

If the U.S. Were Really a Democracy, John Boehner Would Be House MINORITY Leader: via HuffPost http://huff.to/ZoTD9g The democrats had a mandate in the House too but the republicans stole it through fraud. The supreme court case purporting to constitutionalize and legalize fraud is probably the case where I disagree with the outcome the strongest. It is long settled law that an official using his station for an improper purpose loses jurisdiction. I know why courts don’t want the job. They don’t want to be bogged down drawing voting lines and making decisions where they have no particular expertise. Cases with a continuum are also frustrating. There may be wrong answers but there is no inherent right answer. If a state is 55% one party, making every district 55% that party would achieve an even balance but would still be unfair. The task is inherently about creating imbalances with a view to a fair net result. One possibility is to have a type of proportionate representation, e.g. having a state’s representatives divided proportionately. But that might not address local issues adequately. Another option might be to have microproportionality, have smaller regions with 3 or 5 reps divided proportionately. Then there is less advantage from gerrymandering. Perhaps the error was in framing the issue as constitutional when an official making a bad faith decision loses jurisdiction whether he’s violated anybody’s constitutional rights or not.

Advertisements

Redistricting and media abdication

A common theme in the media was that the past elections were bad for the Democrats because they would give control over “redistricting” to the Republicans.
This follows a 2006 Supreme Court decision that gerrymandering- fraudulently drawing lines for congressional districts in order to artificially favor one party- was not unconstitutional unless the rights of a minority group were affected.    I’m skeptical that a deliberate fraud in the nature of what was considered in the decision could be constitutional, but haven’t read the decision so I won’t say that it was wrong.  If correct, it is a gaping hole that needs to be fixed.
Of course some alteration of natural district lines can lead to superior and more proportionate results- say if an area with two seats is about half Democrat and half Republican, arranging it so that one Democrat and one Republican come out is probably a more reasonable result than two coin tosses that could leave half the population there without a voice.  This kind of issue is probably one of the reasons the court didn’t want to get into it.   It’s an abuse of process in some cases but it would be a headache for the courts to try to draw a line.
Part of the policing process should involve the press.   When the press implies that one party will be gerrymandering and that this advantage should be sought after, the conduct of the press is reprehensible.   The press should be outing all official reprehensible conduct, not just that which is unconstitutional.   They have time to go after Eliot Spitzer’s love life but write about the prospect of Republican politicians deliberately misconducting themselves in their official capacities as if it is a desireable thing.  What’s up with that?
If Watergate happened today we’d see the media falling over each other trying to explain it away, minimize or rationalize it, and the best apologist would probably get a pulitzer for investigative journalism.  Something’s wrong.