This is Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee's (D) district. Perhaps the country should lay out a grid for districts.
Posted on 03/28/2019 11:17:39 AM PDT by Stravinsky
On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases whose plaintiffs contend that legislative redistricting which disproportionately favors the political party in charge of the redistricting process is unconstitutional. These cases present the starkest possible test of whether the Court’s new, supposedly originalist five-justice majority will restore respect for the Constitution or follow previous SCOTUS majorities down the path of judicial imperialism. And so far, the oral arguments have raised concerns that newly appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh may already be steering the court onto that path. Specifically, Justice Kavanaugh’s questions have suggested that proportional representation could be a useful test for determining if gerrymandering was unconstitutionally partisan.
A brief refresher: Proportional representation is an electoral system used in many continental European countries and elsewhere in which legislative seats are allocated based on political parties’ nationwide share of the vote. In contrast, under the “first past the post” system used in the United States, Britain, and elsewhere, the winner of the most votes in each district is elected, regardless of how her or his party performed in other districts. As I’ve explained previously ( here, here, and here), the two systems are fundamentally incompatible, and can produce very different outcomes from identical vote totals.
The suggestion floated by Justice Kavanaugh is that the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment mandates redistricting that produces the same results as proportional representation would.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
What does this even mean? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that "partisanship" is unconstitutional?
Proportional representation in a legislative body only makes sense in the context of our own constitution if state legislatures eliminate House districts and apportion their House representation based on party affiliation. In effect, every House race is replaced by an "at-large" election within a state, and the House members apportioned according to the results.
Pennsylvania, for example, has 18 House seats. If they hold a House election and 55% of the votes are cast for Democrats and 45% for Republicans (I'm ignoring the unaffiliated and minor parties for the sake of this example), then the Democrats get 10 House seats and the Republicans get 8.
I'm not sure this is a good way to allocate seats in Congress, but I don't believe there are any constitutional problems with it.
A republican congressman lost his seat in Maine because of proportional voting.
It sounds like that would have an affect on what Chicago’s done
What’s not being looked at is how Chicago wards have been redistricted. Chicago has had neighborhoods divided to create “Hispanic”residential sections going to Hispanic aldermanic and congressional (Gutierez) candidates and blacks going to black candidates.Which apparently is the result of the turnover in the Freddie and Fanny mortgage collapse. As stable integrated areas changed into being unstable because of constant dwelling turnover.had the effect of breaking up a contiguous geographic continuity and community identity. Because the wards affected which are really like small towns have had sections broken up into areas where if a problem arises in a given section of street which has one way traffic only. It may be two way a block down because it’s in a different ward. The same applies to all other city services including zoning and sanitation where garbage collection routes are organized by ward boundaries,
This is Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee's (D) district. Perhaps the country should lay out a grid for districts.
Don’t they consider it an automatic run off? Don’t want someone elected unless they get 50.001%.
From the article:
“Of course, it is not uncommon for appellate judges to raise positions they do not support in order to elicit opposing arguments to be rebutted. Recognizing that proportional representation is the core issue in these cases, Justice Kavanaugh may have just wanted to hear how counsel dealt with the issue before voting against the plaintiffs. Let us hope that was the case, and that all the effort devoted to securing his confirmation in the Senate will be vindicated by a vote that respects the elections clause, rather than yet again abusing the equal-protection clause to rewrite the Constitution from the bench.”
The Demonrats are all packed into the cities like rats in a corn crib.
They win in and around cities by huge percentages, but lose everywhere else.
Republicans win more districts, but by lower percentages.
In other words ... nothing has changed in 200 years. LOL.
Nope, Republicans used to live in the cities and demonrats in the country.
So let me understand your proportional example:
If 9 Democrats win their district’s election, and 9 Republicans win theirs, then statewide totals of 55% D and 45% R will cause one of the R’s to lose a seat that he/she won. Is that correct?
I think ( or at least I HOPE) that this means that if the dems in PA get 55% and the GOP get 45% they get 10 and 8 seats respectively.
What SHOULD BE unconstitutional is when the Dems win 55% and then gerrymander the districts so that there is enough democrats in each district to guarantee a 100% democrat win next time
I have a college level (old school) reading level, but I’m having a hard time getting the gist of this blurb. Any FReepers able to break this down to non-doublespeak?
Here is how it would work:
1. Pennsylvania holds a single statewide election for 18 House seats. There is only one line on the ballot for the House election, with "Democrat" and "Republican" listed as the two "candidates."
2. The Democrats list 18 candidates on their "ticket," ranked in some pre-established order (the order they finished in the statewide primaries, for example).
3. The Republicans do the same.
4. If 55% of the voters cast votes for the "Democrat" line, then the top 10 Democrats on that party's list and the top 8 Republicans on that party's list are sent to the House.
The party affiliations have changed, but the underlying political philosophies of the voters by geographic area generally have not.
One intriguing aspect of the Pennsylvania example I presented is that a third-party candidate can win a House seat with as little as 3% of the popular vote under that proportional representation scenario with 18 House seats.
So in effect. proportional representation wipes out the need for congressional districts.
Proportional assignments allow big cities to dictate representation to rural and less populated regions in much the same way that elimination of the EC would allow NY, LA, Chicago to choose the President.
Doesn’t the Constitution allow the states to have jurisdiction over district lines?
The writer is making a statement to Kavanaugh - not a quote by Kavanaugh.
In Maine, because of their change in the law so that voters choose for first pick, 2nd pick and third. The winner gets the first choice and the next winner gets the best votes from the remaking (proportional)
Kavanaugh’s questioning inferred he supports the idea that if the population is 35% Republican but only one Republican one (instead of 3) then the SC could find Maine in violation of the 14th amendment.
The writer says even if this helps the GOP in this case it’s a bad idea all around.
I agree.
I believe many states elected House members through at-large elections similar to what I described way back in the early years of this country. It wasn't until 1842 that Congress required all House members to represent a separate district.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.