How did that work out?
Democrats played a better game.
Are you using Wikipedia?
You just disqualified yourself from the discussion.
How did that work out?Peanuts compared to Republican Gerrymander but then you already know that?
"The 2012 election provides a number of examples of how partisan gerrymandering can adversely affect the descriptive function of states' congressional delegations. In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives received 83,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet the Republican-controlled redistricting process in 2010 resulted in Democrats losing to their Republican counterparts in 13 of Pennsylvania's 18 districts.[36]
In the seven states where Republicans had complete control over the redistricting process, Republican House candidates received 16.7 million votes and Democratic House candidates received 16.4 million. The redistricting resulted in Republican victories in 73 out of the 107 affected seats; in those seven states, Republicans received 50.4% of the votes but won in over 68% of the congressional districts.[37] While it is but one example of how gerrymandering can have a significant effect on election outcomes, this kind of disproportional representation of the public will seems problematic for the legitimacy of democratic systems, regardless of one's political affiliation."
How did that work out?
Democrats played a better game.
Are you using Wikipedia?
You just disqualified yourself from the discussion.
The problem with crying "gerrymander", is that it depends entirely on whose calling it.The Republican Gerrymander is so blatant you would have to be living under a rock or NSW to not understand.
The grinding battle over congressional redistricting is drawing to a close. And, contrary to expectations that the process would result in big Republican gains, the final House of Representatives map may well improve somewhat for Democrats.
The main reason is gerrymandering — redrawing of district lines for partisan benefit. Republicans built on their existing gerrymanders to try to expand their House advantage, but Democrats fired back even more powerfully with gerrymanders of their own.
Basically, Democrats saved themselves by resorting to a tactic they’ve previously denounced as not only unfair but downright unethical — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called gerrymandering “unjust and deeply dangerous” in 2019. But in the absence of national reforms banning the practice, refusing to gerrymander would have meant effective unilateral disarmament, ceding the GOP a significant advantage in the battle for control over the House.
Redistricting has proceeded like a tug of war. As state legislatures, judges, and commissions have approved new maps, creating more safe or swing districts in various states, the underlying partisanship of the median House district has been pulled in one direction, and then the other. The most powerful pulls came from either state legislatures that gerrymandered, or state courts that struck down certain gerrymandered maps, as this graphic shows:
This cycle’s Republican gerrymanders pulled the median district (which already leaned 2 percentage points to the right) another point further right. But state court rulings striking down North Carolina and Ohio maps effectively wiped out most of that net gain.
Meanwhile, Democratic gerrymanders in states like New York and Illinois pulled the median district nearly 3 points leftward, so it was actually close to neutral. (Joe Biden’s margin in the median district would have nearly matched his national popular vote margin in the 2020 presidential election.) But an aggressive gerrymander in GOP-controlled Florida could soon shift things right again, if approved. Other state court rulings could shift things further, particularly in New York, where Democrats’ gerrymander is under scrutiny.
Currently, it looks like there will be close to an equal number of districts leaning left and right of the national average, with a slight edge to Republicans in the median district.
LA?The Republican Gerrymander is so blatant you would have to be living under a rock or NSW to not understand.
The problem with crying "gerrymander", is that it depends entirely on whose calling it.
We will for the moment ignore the faux pas of quoting wikipedia, but another source that may or may not be just as good/bad
From Vox.com
Mick
Yeah, makes China, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc all look posiitvely democratic.Hadn't seen that but not surprised another reason democracy in the US is so lowly rated.
Yeah, makes China, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc all look posiitvely democratic.
Mick
Did you see what Ron DeSantis is doing ? He wants to make sure he can't lose. Once they win the election and have complete control of enough states with control of the high courts then they can force a national Republican win every election no matter how people vote in the future and that will mark the end of USA Democracy. It could happen next term.According to the Democratic Index put out by the Economist US ranks at 30, deficient democracy, Taiwan is 20 placing above the US.
That would be poetic justice.Did you see what Ron DeSantis is doing ? He wants to make sure he can't lose. Once they win the election and have complete control of enough states with control of the high courts then they can force a national Republican win every election no matter how people vote in the future and that will mark the end of USA Democracy. It could happen next term.
Ron DeSantis, first Supreme Leader.
FL Senate gives DeSantis his congressional map; Blacks would lose two seats • Florida Phoenix
Gov. Ron DeSantis’ plan for drawing new congressional districts, giving 20 of Florida’s 28 seats to Republicans and scrapping two Black “performing” seats, cleared the state Senate on Wednesday, on Day Two of a special session that aggrieved Democrats, including Black caucus members. It was a...floridaphoenix.com
Geez, quoting the economist and Wikipedia in the same post.According to the Democratic Index put out by the Economist US ranks at 30, deficient democracy, Taiwan is 20 placing above the US.
A recent liberal quoted Wikipedia and found out later it isn't actually factual.Geez, quoting the economist and Wikipedia in the same post.
You can get cancelled for that.
Mick
If former President Donald Trump is indicted, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg would be prosecuting a case that has been widely criticized as long on politics and short on the law.
he courts would have to address a controversial case in which a city prosecutor attempts to prove a federal crime long ago declined by the U.S. Department of Justice. They also would have to deal with a charge brought seven years after the alleged offense, despite a two-year statute of limitations for the underlying misdemeanors (or a five-year period for a felony).
And Bragg would have an even more unpalatable prospect in putting two key witnesses on the stand embodying a case that borders on the legally indecent: a former pr0n star and a disbarred lawyer.
Michael Cohen worked for Trump
The star witness is one of the most repellent figures in New York. It is only the latest reinvention of Michael Cohen – this time from legal heavy to redemptive sinner. Cohen spent much of his time when he worked for Trump threatening critics, journalists and even students.
In 2015, students writing for The Harvard Lampoon played a harmless prank on Trump by having him sit in the stolen “president’s chair” from the Harvard Crimson for a photo. In response, Cohen used his signature bludgeoning style against the students. He was quoted by a student on the Lampoon staff as saying: “I’m gonna come up to Harvard. You’re all gonna get expelled. If this photo gets out, you’ll be outta that school faster than you know it. I can be up there tomorrow.”
On another occasion, when a journalist pursued a story he did not like, Cohen told the reporter that he should “tread very f—ing lightly because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f—ing disgusting. Do you understand me?”
After he was arrested and Trump refused to pardon him, Cohen proved that when you scratch a lawyer, you can find a foe.
Cohen may be joined on the stand by Stormy Daniels, who agreed to a $130,000 payment to hush up an alleged affair with then businessman Trump. Bragg would have to show that Trump made the payment only with the election in mind, which would have made the money an undeclared campaign donation to himself. But there are a host of other reasons why a married celebrity would want to hush up a one-night stand with a pr0n star.
Case is similar to failed prosecution of John Edwards
In John Edwards’ prosecution in 2012, the Justice Department used the same theory to charge the former Democratic presidential candidate after a disclosure that he not only had an affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter but also sired a child with her. Edwards denied the affair, and it was later revealed that Fred Baron, Edwards’ campaign finance chairman, gave money to Hunter. Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, also obtained funds from heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon to pay to Hunter.
The Justice Department spent a king’s ransom on the case to show that the third-party payments were a circumvention of campaign finance laws, because the payments were designed to bury an election scandal. Edwards was ultimately found not guilty on one count while the jury deadlocked on the other five.
The jury clearly believed there were ample reasons to hush up the affair beyond the election itself.
Despite legal flaws in the case, Bragg is counting on favorable judges and jurors in New York City. Win or lose, he would reap a huge political reward in being the first to charge Trump.
Ironically, Trump also could come out ahead politically. Of all the possible charges he could face, this is the one he would likely invite. Bragg would give Trump strong evidence that Democrats have politically weaponized the criminal justice system against him.
However, it’s Cohen who might profit the most. He already has tried to cash in on the burgeoning market of liberals obsessed with Trump, even hawking a T-shirt with the image of a jailed Trump as a way to “celebrate the fall of the Mango Mussolini.”
Cohen’s cross examination will be the most target rich environment since the Battle of Thermopylae. Of course, prosecutors often put dubious figures on the stand, but Cohen is someone who has shredded legal ethics and the criminal code in pursuit of his own interests.
Cohen’s primary talent has been an impressive moral and ethical flexibility. He gladly did the dirty work for Trump until it became more beneficial to turn against him.
One could say that Trump and Cohen deserve each other, but the legal system does not deserve what may soon unfold in a New York courtroom.
What is going to be charged with?Wait
Are the rumours that DA Bragg is looking at being charged himself true?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?