US Midterm Election 2018 Megathread- It's Kavanaugh

[The Flutterlands]

Guys, please do as I did and put Flutter on your foe list -- he's not gonna change. He's been chastised again and again and again, and I need my peace of mind.

I'm just upset by how the current GOP on both Federal and State level have been acting when it comes to free elections.

[Insaeldor]

Guys, please do as I did and put Flutter on your foe list -- he's not gonna change. He's been chastised again and again and again, and I need my peace of mind.

I'm just upset by how the current GOP on both Federal and State level have been acting when it comes to free elections.

So advocating for the destruction of the American democracy with complete disregard for the constitution is the way to go about it?

[The Flutterlands]

So in other words you think they should rig elections so only they may win because they won?

So in other words you fail to see the nuance in people arguments and just read what you want to read because it suits your political world view?

Why should there be nuance?

[The Flutterlands]

I'm just upset by how the current GOP on both Federal and State level have been acting when it comes to free elections.

So advocating for the destruction of the American democracy with complete disregard for the constitution is the way to go about it?

How is ending gerrymandering going to destroy American Democracy?

[Insaeldor]

So in other words you fail to see the nuance in people arguments and just read what you want to read because it suits your political world view?

Why should there be nuance?

Because nothing black and white? Even then no one is saying "gerrymandering is good" were saying "Legislatures are not whole at the mercy of the courts and here is why."

[Hakons]

They literally can.

No they literally cannot. The courts can only rule on the laws, they can’t force the legislature to do anything.

Disclaimer: trail of tears soon follows

[The Flutterlands]

Why should there be nuance?

Because nothing black and white? Even then no one is saying "gerrymandering is good" were saying "Legislatures are not whole at the mercy of the courts and here is why."

But allowing gerrymandering is intolerable.

[Insaeldor]

So advocating for the destruction of the American democracy with complete disregard for the constitution is the way to go about it?

How is ending gerrymandering going to destroy American Democracy?

You said yourself that you didn't care if courts over stepped their constitutionally given authority to do so. That has far more damaging implications for American democracy then gerrymandering does because that's an assault on the very faberic of our democratic instatutions.

[The Flutterlands]

How is ending gerrymandering going to destroy American Democracy?

You said yourself that you didn't care if courts over stepped their constitutionally given authority to do so. That has far more damaging implications for American democracy then gerrymandering does because that's an assault on the very faberic of our democratic instatutions.

How so? If it means making sure people can vote openly and freely without gerrymandering and voters suppression, why should I be brothered?

[Shofercia]

Regarding Pennsylvania: https://ballotpedia.org/Amending_state_ ... nnsylvania

The Pennsylvania Constitution is only explicit about one way to change the constitution, namely, the process of a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The constitution does not lay out the rules for how a constitutional convention can be called, but the state has held five such conventions, most recently in 1968 when the current constitution was adopted.[9]

The rules governing legislatively referred constitutional amendments are in Article XI, which has only one section. Either chamber of the Pennsylvania General Assembly can propose amendments. If a simple majority of both chambers approves of a proposed amendment, that amendment must be "published three months before the next general election, in at least two newspapers in every county in which such newspapers shall be published." In the next session of the legislature, the amendment must be considered again. If it is approved a second time by a simple majority of both houses, the amendment goes on a statewide ballot.

The statewide vote on the measure can be on any election date, as determined by the state legislature. The same amendment cannot be submitted more than once in any five-year period. Separate amendments must be voted on separately. Pennsylvania also has a unique requirement for those times when the state legislature believes that a "major emergency threatens or is about to threaten the Commonwealth." If this happens, the proposed emergency amendment can be approved to go on a statewide ballot by two-thirds of the members of each branch of the legislature in one legislative session. Election officials must promptly publish a notice of an election on the amendment "in at least two newspapers in every county" and the election can occur quickly but "at least one month after being agreed to by both Houses." Separate emergency amendments must be voted on separately.

Regarding constitutional conventions, the state legislature appears to take as a matter of tradition, rather than explicit constitutional direction, that it can vote to put a constitutional convention question on the ballot. For example, Ann Livak wrote in "Pennsylvania's Constitutions and the Amendment Process — Where it Began, Where it is Now" that, "...in 1961, the Committee for State Constitutional Revision led by Milton J. Shapp got underway and in 1963 forced the legislature to call for a referendum on a constitutional convention....The 1967 legislature gave priority to constitutional revision and passed a convention enabling bill as well as the amendments awaiting second passage." This suggests that the legislature voted only once to put the convention question on the ballot.[9] Pennsylvania is one of the states that does not feature the power of initiated constitutional amendments.

The Constitutional course of action would be for the voters to demand that their representatives amend the Constitution to forbid Gerrymandering. We've done it in California, but it was done through an Amendment, not through the California Supreme Court.

[Insaeldor]

Because nothing black and white? Even then no one is saying "gerrymandering is good" were saying "Legislatures are not whole at the mercy of the courts and here is why."

But allowing gerrymandering is intolerable.

Are you being intentionally daft or are these simple concepts really this hard to understand?

1: No one has said gerrymandering is good, most everyone here is opposed to it.
2: the disagree isn't onbweather gerrymandering is bad or good
3: the disagreement is on the relation between court and legislature
4: courts do no exert total control over legislatures and that disagreements are part of the democratic process
5: you've consistently equated that not thinking the ligistature is subordinate to the court as an admission of support for gerrymandering
6: the above is untrue.

[Shofercia]

You said yourself that you didn't care if courts over stepped their constitutionally given authority to do so. That has far more damaging implications for American democracy then gerrymandering does because that's an assault on the very faberic of our democratic instatutions.

How so? If it means making sure people can vote openly and freely without gerrymandering and voters suppression, why should I be brothered?

The current SCOTUS is the most pro-business SCOTUS that the US had. Are you sure you want to give them legislative powers? Think about it, Flutter.

[Hakons]

The legislature is also independent. The court can't order them around.

Well yeah, but how to address the issue (gerrymandered districts) then without the PA legislature construing it as the court "ordering them around" before the midterm elections?

Considering how close the 2018 primaries are, it would be difficult to have a map ready in time. I think it's the executive that has the power to enforce law (in this case the court ruling), so the Democratic governor could potentially force the legislature to redraw districts. I'm not entirely sure if this is possible under the Pennsylvania Constitution, I may be wrong. However, it would also seem authoritarian and heavy handed for the governor (who's reelection is far from guaranteed) to force a new map (that will benefit his own party) just in time for the next election.

[The Flutterlands]

Regarding Pennsylvania: https://ballotpedia.org/Amending_state_ ... nnsylvania

The Pennsylvania Constitution is only explicit about one way to change the constitution, namely, the process of a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The constitution does not lay out the rules for how a constitutional convention can be called, but the state has held five such conventions, most recently in 1968 when the current constitution was adopted.[9]

The rules governing legislatively referred constitutional amendments are in Article XI, which has only one section. Either chamber of the Pennsylvania General Assembly can propose amendments. If a simple majority of both chambers approves of a proposed amendment, that amendment must be "published three months before the next general election, in at least two newspapers in every county in which such newspapers shall be published." In the next session of the legislature, the amendment must be considered again. If it is approved a second time by a simple majority of both houses, the amendment goes on a statewide ballot.

The statewide vote on the measure can be on any election date, as determined by the state legislature. The same amendment cannot be submitted more than once in any five-year period. Separate amendments must be voted on separately. Pennsylvania also has a unique requirement for those times when the state legislature believes that a "major emergency threatens or is about to threaten the Commonwealth." If this happens, the proposed emergency amendment can be approved to go on a statewide ballot by two-thirds of the members of each branch of the legislature in one legislative session. Election officials must promptly publish a notice of an election on the amendment "in at least two newspapers in every county" and the election can occur quickly but "at least one month after being agreed to by both Houses." Separate emergency amendments must be voted on separately.

Regarding constitutional conventions, the state legislature appears to take as a matter of tradition, rather than explicit constitutional direction, that it can vote to put a constitutional convention question on the ballot. For example, Ann Livak wrote in "Pennsylvania's Constitutions and the Amendment Process — Where it Began, Where it is Now" that, "...in 1961, the Committee for State Constitutional Revision led by Milton J. Shapp got underway and in 1963 forced the legislature to call for a referendum on a constitutional convention....The 1967 legislature gave priority to constitutional revision and passed a convention enabling bill as well as the amendments awaiting second passage." This suggests that the legislature voted only once to put the convention question on the ballot.[9] Pennsylvania is one of the states that does not feature the power of initiated constitutional amendments.

The Constitutional course of action would be for the voters to demand that their representatives amend the Constitution to forbid Gerrymandering. We've done it in California, but it was done through an Amendment, not through the California Supreme Court.

But what if the representives don't care about the voters and gerrymander their victory?

[Shofercia]

Regarding Pennsylvania: https://ballotpedia.org/Amending_state_ ... nnsylvania



The Constitutional course of action would be for the voters to demand that their representatives amend the Constitution to forbid Gerrymandering. We've done it in California, but it was done through an Amendment, not through the California Supreme Court.

But what if the representives don't care about the voters and gerrymander their victory?

Considering the alternative:

The current SCOTUS is the most pro-business SCOTUS that the US had. Are you sure you want to give them legislative powers? Think about it, Flutter.

I'd rather stick with the status quo.

[Hakons]

>if you're not with me you are against me

Because, like, nuanced opinions are for people who hate democracy right?

Nice job misrepresenting the argument being made here and or failing to understand what others are saying in favor of hysterics.

Any allowance for the continuation of gerrymandering of the scale in Wisconsin NC and Penn before the 2018 election is in a way for it.

Conveniently only Republican states, of course.

[Insaeldor]

You said yourself that you didn't care if courts over stepped their constitutionally given authority to do so. That has far more damaging implications for American democracy then gerrymandering does because that's an assault on the very faberic of our democratic instatutions.

How so? If it means making sure people can vote openly and freely without gerrymandering and voters suppression, why should I be brothered?

Because it sets an improper mandate that the constitution means nothing and that partisan ideology trumps the rule of law. Only dictatorships abuse such authority in this way. It also means that if the courts can do it then why not the legislature or the executive? After all the authority overreach was deemed okay when it suited your political interest but what happens if trump uses it do something you disagree with? I mean I was okay then and the only change hscweather or not you agree with the action being taken.

At the end of the day the constitution sets out boundaries of powers because it's better for democracy and once we breakdown those barriers because things didn't go as fast as we liked them to then it compromises the whole democratic structure and leaves it vulnerable to misuse.

[Freezic Vast]

Not here for the breakdown of Flutter's personal political psyche (Although it has hilarious results) if the court doesn't have the authority to force the State Senate to redraw the maps in a non-partisan, gerrymandering way, then let the governor veto the bill, because there is no way a democratic governor is gonna enforce it anyway if it means helping the opposing party which would force Republicans to either try to find a non-partisan redraw of the boundaries, an independent judicial review, or let the voters vote the Republicans to lose seats in both chambers in the state legislature. Either that, or have a state-wide referendum on gerrymandering, and I'll bet the people will vote against the continuation of gerrymandering in the state.

[Arlenton]

Because nothing black and white? Even then no one is saying "gerrymandering is good" were saying "Legislatures are not whole at the mercy of the courts and here is why."

But allowing gerrymandering is intolerable.

Not in Illinois though right?

[Insaeldor]

But allowing gerrymandering is intolerable.

Not in Illinois though right?

Or Maryland

[Telconi]

But allowing gerrymandering is intolerable.

Not in Illinois though right?

It's okay when the good guys do it.

[Arlenton]

Not in Illinois though right?

It's okay when the good guys do it.

Of course it is..

[Arlenton]

Speaking of this, my home district back in IL was the 17th district. It was gerrymandered to guarantee a Democratic win. Now though, with western Illinois having recently swung hard toward Republicans, it is now much more competitive. Fivethirtyeight says there's over a 30% chance of a Republican win.

My little section of the district had been pretty Republican since Lincoln though.

[Hayo]

Speaking of this, my home district back in IL was the 17th district. It was gerrymandered to guarantee a Democratic win. Now though, with western Illinois having recently swung hard toward Republicans, it is now much more competitive. Fivethirtyeight says there's over a 30% chance of a Republican win.

My little section of the district had been pretty Republican since Lincoln though.

Yep. Gerrymandering often backfires as voting blocs shift and populations change. In wave years, all those "slight red" or "slight blue" districts that gerrymanderers love to create can also end up being a liability if they suddenly become vulnerable.

Serves them right for trying to gerrymander!

[Dahon]

So now that Flutter has ceased to matter, lemme just say that holy shit this guy's a Republican candidate for Paul Ryan's district?