Skip to comments.Democrats’ latest bid to rig election rules
Posted on 09/13/2017 10:49:28 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
If you cant win, change the rules. Thats the Democratic Partys new playbook. Democrats are urging the US Supreme Court to redraw Wisconsins electoral map, claiming Republican lawmakers drew it unfairly.
If the justices toss Wisconsins map and dictate new rules for election mapmaking, it could turn winners into losers and vice versa in many states. Republicans have been on a winning streak and now control both legislative houses in 33 states, including Wisconsin. They rightly oppose this judicial interference. The justices will hear the case, Gill v. Whitford, on Oct. 3.
Democrats claim Wisconsins election map puts them at a disadvantage by packing their voters into too few election districts, wasting their votes and allowing Republicans to win the majority of districts.
But the real problem isnt an unfair map. Its that Wisconsin Democrats are concentrated in cities. In many states, Democrats tend to win urban voters and do less well with suburban and rural voters. Wisconsin Democrats want the lines redrawn so their urban voters can capture a majority of the states legislative seats and theyre asking the Supreme Court to help them.
Its a brazen political gambit disguised as fairness. They claim to be victims of gerrymandering drawing election districts to favor one party. But theyre not opposed to gerrymandering. They just want it to favor them.
They hope a Supreme Court victory will restore their political fortunes after the 2020 Census, when states have to redraw their electoral maps.
If Democrats prevail in court, the nations political map could change significantly after the Census, with many statehouses flipped to Democratic control. That would likely mean higher state taxes, anti-fracking laws and job-killing regulations on business.
As for gerrymandering, its been around for over 200 years and isnt limited to any party.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
If changing Wisconsins districts gets rid of Paul Ryan, who am I to judge?
Personally I like the state map rules,as far as Ryan,we need to send a message and primary and beat him to send a message.
The lines are as weird as they are because dems were also in control in the past when redistricting was done by them.
They lost WI because we finally got voter ID and they could not send up tens of thousands of people from Illinois to vote in Milwaukee. Like they did in 2004, 2008 and 2012. And before that as well. Also they could not get WI people to vote multiple times under other folks names in the same numbers they used to because of voter ID.
This is just deflecting and creating a non existent problem considering when democrats were in power they redistricted to favor their politicians and warped the mapy to their benefit too.
Electoral district design is a political act.
The judiciary’s increasing political activity undermines our respect.
Blame decades of Scotus abuse of the 14th Amendment’s ‘equal protection of the laws’.
The Democrats used to fight for guaranteed minority seat districts. They’ve had that for a few decades, it is probably much of what created these urban districts, they’ve realized it’s not working for them, so now they want to call “DO-OVER”?
No need to rig now that amnesty is here... along with the first term of the pelosi presidency. Up next, a deal with gun grabber Manchin on 2A?
Look what’s happening in Maryland now as illegal aliens are being allowed to vote. “”’
A state cannot make laws that conflict with Fed laws-—especially voting laws.
Seems to me that some sharp lawyer should be challenging this.
The Dims wanted their votes concentrated in cities - big cities, big votes, big power. Then they degrade the cities with their policies, drive up the real estate prices there, and people want to get out to the burbs, and away from the Dims. Now the Dims are actually acting at conditions resulting largely from their own policies.
“If changing Wisconsins districts gets rid of Paul Ryan, who am I to judge?”
Paul Ryan is a good guy, its about 50 RINO’s in his legislator that prohibits him from acting like a republican.
The senate majority leader on the other hand is probably a bit more corrupt.
“Personally I like the state map rules,as far as Ryan,we need to send a message and primary and beat him to send a message.”
Ryan isn’t responsible for anything beyond holding the RINO majority accountable for their traitorous votes.
Ryan would repeal obamacare as they did in 2015 straight and simple if only 50 RINO’s had not reversed their position after winning power in 2016 on that position.
That said the real problem is and always has been our lawless federal court system starting with the Warren Court.
If laws were enforced as written and practiced for he first 160+ years of this nations history rather than in the 50 years since the warren cort urban Democrats would not control any state legislator.
All states except Nebraska uses to have something called a state senate that represented each region of the state as the U.S. Senate represents each region of the united States.
Since democrats draw thier support almost exclusively from narrow minded big government supporting urban dweller, this would preclude them from controlling pritty much any state senate, and thus having total control of any state.
Indeed pretty much every major cultural and legal defeat of american values has been at the hands of the lawless left-wing court, from taking god our of schools and historic monuments, to destroying our equal rights with ‘protected classes’ of super citizens. The lawless federal court created theses evils of most significance. Ironically using Constitutional laws designed to prohibit the very same acts of the federal government which the court imposed.
Believe it or not Ryan isn’t the problem so much as RINO’s. But even RINO’s don’t hold a candle to the real problem at war with America. The lawless federal injustice system.
The real problem is and always has been our lawless federal court system starting with the Warren Court.
If laws were enforced as written and practiced for he first 160+ years of this nations history rather than in the 50 years since the warren cort, urban Democrats would not control any state legislator.
Because every state senate would still operate like the U.S. senate representing specific regions of the state as to insure no one region, such as the few major cities(where democrats focus their big government appeal) exist in cant run the whole state.
Without this simple yet radical constitutional change, Cities like Chicago, would have been forced to confront its own gross financial and legal irresponsibility decades ago rather than compelling the poor people of the rest of the vast state of Illinois to try and pick up the tab for them.
New York would not be the hostage of New York city, nor California dominated and destroyed agriculturally, by LA, Sacramento, and San Francisco.
Our founders were brilliant people, they knew from experience that cities corrupted people and even where they don’t each region’s unique geography and circumstance tended to blind the people to the needs and concerns of every other region. Pure democracy might easily lead to tyranny of the majority which is why the only thing the Federal constitution prohibits in states is non-republican forms government.
Yet we can only assume that after 160+ years the Left-wing Warren cort, had decided that the definition of a republican form of government for the states had to change as to preclude the united states itself, and ignore the written and agreed upon law of all 50 states at that time.
This has had catastrophic economic and political consequences for many of our states, dominated by a few large cities.
Indeed pretty much every major cultural and legal defeat of american values has been at the hands of the lawless left-wing court, from taking God and classic morality our of State schools and historic monuments(as had been undisputed practice since day one), to destroying our equal rights with ‘protected classes’ of super citizens.
The lawless federal court created theses evils of most significance. Ironically using Constitutional laws designed to prohibit the very same acts of the federal government which the court imposed.