Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is nothing unfair about the 2026 California election map. SCOTUS says so.
Why did Newsom need to do away with the independent commission to get it? What was his intent, if not to tilt the districts so as to give Democrats the advantage and disenfranchise Republicans in the state by denying them proportional representation?
Sure, but it is quite clear that the goal was to engage in blatant gerrymandering as a "gotcha" to the TX governor. So your defending it on the basis of the independent commission is beyond ludicrous.
Yes, obviously.
I was simply correcting the assertion that California was 'already' gerrymandered before the people of California gerrymandered it.
Which speaks to a lack of integrity.
And your statement shows a lack of understanding of the politics in CA. The bi-partisan commission was a joke because CA republicans have by and large accepted their irrelevance and barely ever put up a fight against the democrats. The existence of that commission did not prevent them from rigging districts, it just gave them an air of legitimacy.
It didn't get rid of it. It was temporarily overridden to do a single mid-decade redistricting with a map that was already published and passed in the legislature. The commission will operate in 2031 like normal.
Those maps *are* the legal maps now. As for the new district 48, it's not as spread out as much as you imply in Riverside County. If anything the extension into NE San Diego county seems more problematic. It does look like Palm Springs is separated from the rest of its valley, but the whole region (the rest of the district) is a jumble of places in isolated valleys that don't indicate how they are are connected by common interests.
If you want partisan gerrymadering done away with, I am with you. I've lived here for 20 years and my Representative (and most major candidates of both parties) have been from 2 hours away (in a city I only visited once, before I even moved here) when there is a larger city 30 minutes away. It needs to be nationwide and enforceable (John Roberts proof). There is no reason the Democrats should proclaim "no gerrymandering" in their states on principle while the "red states" gerrymander democrats into non-existence with districts that make the new Cali districts look rational.
Then be gone from here. I've got no use for the denigration of democracy.
Doubt it all you want, whether it was previously gerrymandered is only mildly relevant and your focusing on it is pure distraction from the fact that the blatant gerrymandering that Newsom just did and the way the Democrats are celebrating shows they don't really care about gerrymandering.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that for me.
It's not as jumbled as it looks on the map, outside of Palm Springs. Most of the populations are similarly composed socio-economically and in other demographic fashion. The NE San Diego county extension is a problem, but it's more defensible because there are a lot of common interests between the constituencies. Palm Springs is literally only in there to silence those populations, with no other reason for inclusion.
I'm all for judicial review of partisan redistricting, but it's a bad look to go "they're doing it, so it's ok for us." Even school children know that 2 wrongs don't make a right, and the job of Newsom is not to represent the Democrat party on the federal stage but to represent CA voters. Putting party success before fair and honest representation of voters in his state smacks of a lack of integrity, but that's not unexpected for politicians in general.
Republics will always be far superior to democracies, which are nothing but mob rule.
No problem.
No federal law requires socio-economic grouping. The Roberts court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is legal. You can dislike it all you want, but
I have no idea what the politics of these places are. Not really sure if I care.
You don't have to vote for Newsom or the legislative backers of this plan.
Voters who voted for the "Democrat" party.
The White House, Speaker, and the rest of the institutional GOP has had it in for California for decade. Letting Trump and Abbot "steal" a close house by gerrymandering is not in the best interest of California.
A nonsensical comparison. The US (and California) is both.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right or should be cheered when it happens for any reason. It's more than just socio-economic grouping, but general non-partisan political issues. The communities have shared interests that Palm Springs doesn't.
I don't expect you to be familiar, but it highlights that there is no reason to include Palm Springs except as a means of disenfranchising those voters.
Sure, but he still is my governor even if I'd prefer otherwise. As such I expect him to work for all of the people of California, not be a partisan hack.
The idiocy of voting party being a separate issue.
What is good for democrats is not what is good for California.
nope, we are trending more and more towards "democracy" as we insist that universal suffrage is an unqualified good and the framers were explicit in their disgust towards democracies and their intention to establish a republic. My statement about democracy comes from Ben Franklin, who finished by saying a republic was an armed sheep.
Oh good grief, not old trope about "a republic not a democracy" made famous by the Birchers.
At any rate, I see no reason to hold that unfettered universal suffrage is an unqualified good so I don't put a whole lot of stock in "democracy". Particularly given the extent to which the uneducated are empowered and the ease with which the populace is bought.
impropriety in previous implementation doesn't make it a bad idea. If someone can't read, they're not making an informed vote. Why should people who have no idea what the issues are have a say? That's a recipe for oligarchy, especially with the cheapness that most people sell their vote for.
From here: National Survey Finds Just 1 in 3 Americans Would Pass Citizenship Test - Institute for Citizens & Scholars
I don't view politics through the petty partisan lens. It's not about heroes and villains for me, or my team vs their team. I find both loathesome most of the time, and my complaints about the cheap cost of the electorate apply to both sides and more has to do with how lttle the electorate settles for than anything.
This is what I meant when I had other values that went into my moral equations and determine my moral priorities. Civil rights and voting rights for all is one of those.
That's nice, but I really don't see how voting rights for all is a universal good. So your personal preference is rather uninteresting to me, though of course that is no reason for it not to be important to you. But since morals aren't real according to you, there's no way to settle the question.
