But if you must become as corrupt as the opposition to win then there's really little point in it.

The Supreme Court has said it's not corrupt, and they pretty much have the last word on any legal issue. They said it's not nice, but if they wanted it to be illegal they would have said so. Now everybody has to live with it, even if it is morally bankrupt and damages the reputation of the court. Their choice!

Gerrymandering existed before either political party did. It has been used and abused by both of them. Gov. Patrick Henry of Virginia gerrymandered a district in an attempt to prevent James Madison from being elected to Congress. Had Henry been successful we would not have had our Bill of Rights. (Madison is the author of them, with a lot of help and advice.) While the Supreme Court decided that it is not a Constitutional issue it's doing so is not a nail in the coffin of free and fair elections. Gerrymandering does make them more difficult to achieve but throughout American history on the whole we have had free and fair elections. The practice of gerrymandering is much better than what was done in the 1850's in (Bloody) Kansas.

Do you fuss about incrementalism, do you fuss about punching left while moving right, do you fuss about parties refusing to listen to the will of the people?

But you're blind to gerrymandering?

And murder existed before there was a law against it. As thinking, evolving beasts we don't say "people have always killed people, nothing you can do about it." We f*cking do something about it.
Supreme court had the chance and chose not to.

jeebuz,
A 1 1/2 month pause responding to a post? You really do have a bug up your behind.
What are you trying to say?
The mocking I get but your point escapes me.

Was there one?

Well since you don't think there's much of a fuss, then I can understand you not seeing the point. What I don't get is why you think I necroed an old thread just to pick on you. It came back to life today and I scrolled up to get back in sync with the recent posts.

What's the fuss about? Heh, you figure it out.
The subject is gerrymandering.

The DCCC is blacklisting campaign shops and vendors from ever doing business with the party if they do business with a primary challenger.- Crickets from you as most everyone else here.

Supreme court hands down a ruling on gerrymandering that goes against one party- nashing of teeth, rending of garments, 'end of democracy!' shouts.

What part of that observation seems incorrect to you?

The Supreme Court actually just left it up to the states. More than one state supreme court has said it is unconstitutional because it violates their state constitution. All you need to do is get a liberal majority on your state court and then bring them a gerrymandering case. They will make it illegal in your state.

Existing gerrymanders can't affect any state's supreme court makeup. Some states pick supremes by popular vote and some have the governor pick them. And the governor is picked by state-wide popular vote. So it is entirely possible to outlaw gerrymandering state-by-state.

I think we are going to see the problem with gerrymandering in 2020: When you diddle the district boundaries to win as many districts as possible by 5% it is a disaster when you are down by 10%. There are no "safe" districts. Some heavily gerrymandered states will wind up with zero Republican Representatives.

""If the DCCC enacts this policy to blacklist vendors who work with challengers, we risk undermining an entire universe of potential candidates and vendors - especially women and people of color - whose ideas, energy, and innovation need a place in our party," Pressley wrote in a lengthy thread about the issue.

"[W]e cannot credibly lay claim to prioritizing diversity & inclusion when institutions like the DCCC implement policies that threaten to silence new voices and historically marginalized communities," she added."

Article


I still say it smells of hypocrisy.