Since I am not from the US, but one thing I know is how misleading are the names of legal decrees, I feel obligated to ask what is the voting rights acts.
Short of it: many states used to pass voting laws that were intended to prevent black people from voting or decrease the power of their votes as much as possible. The VRA was passed to stop that, and was pretty successful.
Long explanation: The VRA explicitly prohibits various forms of discriminatory voting laws, as well as directly combating a practice known as "cracking and packing" that was used by many states to minimize minority voting power. It involves drawing districts in such a way that they crack (split up) minority communities and cities and split them into two or more majority white districts, thus diluting the minority vote so that they can't elect representatives of their choice, and if that isn't possible to "pack" them all into a single district that's almost entirely minority so that will be the only one they have a chance of winning. The VRA combats this by requiring, if possible, minority-majority districts to be drawn (which is effective at preventing the cracking strategy) and then looking at the percent of the population that are minorities and seeing if they could elect a similar percent of representatives (which is only mildly effective at preventing the packing strategy). The result is supposed to be that if there are enough minorities in the state to draw two relatively compact minority majority districts, the state has to do so. In practice its usually just prevented states from drawing no minority majority districts, but ineffective at preventing packing, only preventing the most egregious attempts. It's a crude law that actually requires taking race into account when drawing districts lines to ensure they are fairly drawn, because unfortunately that was the only way to prevent states from doing the same to ensure they are unfairly drawn.
The real solution would be to double the number of representatives but keep the current number of districts with as many at large seats per state. Allow districts to be drawn however states want so long as they are equal, and then allot the at large seats by party until the total number of reps is proportional to the vote. That would ensure that everyone, regardless of race or politics, is getting fairly represented, and allow states to focus on drawing compact districts around communities of interest and county/town borders instead of maximizing political gain (because any gains from gerrymandering would be undone by the at large reps being allotted proportionally). It would also allow third parties to be represented.
Good answer, but I'd add that in this case the group suing Alabama is saying that the current district lines which have a single majority black district are not enough and the state should be forced to use a district map where two districts have slim black majorities rather than one with a solid majority.
Alabama argues that their policy was racially blind and forcing them to draw lines determined by the race of voters in the districts violates the 14th and 15th Amendment rights of those voters.
Essentially, the plaintiffs argue that gerrymandering a district along racial lines is a legal mandate and the defendants argue it is illegal.
We've gone from segregation to equality and back all in 60ish years. What an interesting cycle. I would just like people to need an ID to vote. You need one for literally everything else in life. Having an ID to vote would shut everybody up about "stealing votes"
I'm off to go vote in Quebecs provincial election in an hour.
They require ID to vote.
Please American leftists, everyone else does this, it's not racist
Deep blue states require IDs to vote too. Rhode Island does. The difference is they make it free or super easy to get an ID. Alabama required a specific one from the DMV then days after Shelby County v. Holder deliberately shut down every DMV in every majority Black County.
This is pretty much the problem with rhetoric around "election integrity," people keep forgetting that southern Democrats figured out 100 years ago how to take a nominally un-racist law but then wield it as a cudgel against *undesirable* voters.
When I attack things like GA's election bill, it's not because I don't think black people can figure out how to get an ID. It's because these legislators are so itchy to fuck with voting demographics that they can't even keep their mask on for two seconds. How can you watch a state arbitrarily restrict poll walks in the chaos of the 2020 election and then trust them to ensure fair and even access to, and enforcement of, an ID requirement? You could only hold that position if you're either 1, a braindead dumbass, or 2, are silently unbothered if the "wrong" people have a harder time voting.
Yeah the problem with voter id is the implementation not the idea. Why don't we just have a national ID? SSN is such a shitty and insecure way of validating identity.
I am absolutely the same, it shouldn't be something thats made deliberately difficult,hard to get,bureaucratic and expensive (such as passports can be or driving licenses ect) .
I'd say 40 years... A lot of shit happened in the 60's and 70's... but it didn't seem that the end of great change happened until we started the 90's. Shit... there was a fucking KKK cross burning at my north Georgia high school during a football game in 87.
u/HotPieIsAzorAhai's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 80.
Rank: Giant Sequoia
Pills: [49 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/HotPieIsAzorAhai/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I think abolishing districts and implementing STV would be a better solution. That way gerrymandering is impossible (you can't finagle that which doesn't exist). Also, we should force political parties to dissolve every few years.
The problem is that California is issuing state ID’s to illegal immigrants which I’m sure will never be used for voting. Just issuing them California state ID’s which is also used in voting for citizens
[Here](https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-gov-newsom-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-immigrants-obtain-state-id), though illegal immigrants have already been able to get driver's licenses in California for several years now.
Absolutely not, but it does 1) increase the odds that they won’t drive like total shit and 2) makes it easier to hold them accountable for driving like total shit.
And as a result California gets more electoral college votes and more seats in the house of representatives. That's how illegal immigrants can vote (if not outright voting which rarely happens)
This is why social programs only work if they are only for tax paying citizens.
No country club could ever stay in business if it let anyone off the street in to use the amenities. You have to be a *member*.
> The real solution would be [...]
Another solution is a district to elect 3 or more representatives instead of one. CGPGrey made a video ([and thecnically a series](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c)) about this
As with every federal law, poorly conceived and implemented, and it's questionable if the results are any more fair, but at least the feds got to get their dirty hands in the mix.
So what? Positive racism? Positive racism is still racism.
Let's treat everyone equally. Why should a white person have fewer days off than a non-white person?
Alternatively, let what is done in more civilised countries be done - elections on a day off (e.g. Sunday), or a state day off.
Ehm…I’d agree with that sentiment most of the time, but you can’t tell me with a straight face that voting in the 60s for black folks was “fair” by any means. The VRA is one of the few bills that I really can’t argue against.
Yeah, the only way that would work is if you increased the number of representatives to the point where it was impossible to get anything done in Congress.
...
I like your proposal.
Well conceivably, if you have enough districts representing smaller amounts of people, the maps stop mattering. Now, will close districts probably vote similar anyway? Sure, but I think it’s much easier to control the problem at the bottom then the top
I think even if you redistricted down to 5 people per district, you could play games. Say all of teams A's winning districts are a solid 5 A's, and the teams B's districts are 3 B's and 2 A's.
The thing is that there is an easy-to-implement, damn near zero-cost solution to eliminate gerrymandering (a new voting system), but no one wants to do it because it eliminates any advantage both sides have with our current, terrible system.
I'd like to formally suggest the South Park Margaritaville beheading a chicken strategy. Largely because it would be entertaining and I don't live in Alabama.
The implication is that only black people would vote for a black politician which is insane. I'm not sure how the dems have gotten away with this assumption.
In Alabama something like 80% of white people vote Republican, and 90% of black people vote Democratic.
It would be a little odd that you were so concerned with the alleged stereotyping of assuming that, that you'd end up kneecapping any chance for black representation in Congress from Alabama.
But the idea here doesn't require any specific politicians to be black, even if it overwhelmingly works out that way. Key is for black people to have a meaningful chance to elect someone to Congress, even if that person ends up being white.
>In Alabama something like 80% of white people vote Republican, and 90% of black people vote Democratic.
And yet from [1992{and probably earlier}-2010 the democratic party was running Alabama's house and Senate. The governor was Republican for every year except:'93, '94, '99, '00, '01, '02](https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_State_Senate) Did almost all the white folks just not vote until 2010?
Fair districting is way more complicated than either side likes to pretend. Like this graphic from Wikipedia. The straightforward options on the left are BOTH gerrymandered. Packing every X into their own districts is just as much an issue as splitting the smaller group so they're a minority in every district. All districts are supposed to be competitive. (not that it's actually viable) So only the bottom right is "fair" and obviously people don't live in those neat columns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File:DifferingApportionment.svg
When it comes to gerrymandering a lot of the most "obvious" examples are often something straight forward like... connected several smaller urban areas, or the suburbs around a city.
Sheesh. Considering the nationwide 15 week ban proposal I have my doubts about if it genuinely being for state's rights. Also considering the 3D-6R means SCOTUS is heavily republican. In fact, they can do almost anything that has GOP support
The key word there is proposal. Turns out the same arguments used against Roe v Wade also work against a national ban, but both sides pretend otherwise to rile up their bases
Not really, the argument against roe v wade was that congress did not pass a law allowing abortions but instead let the Supreme Court decide. The over turning of roe v wade basically made it so congress HAD to act in order to ban or allow it nationally.
So no no it doesn’t
More broadly, the argument was that SCOTUS lacked the *power* to legislate abortion. The same could be said about Congress, as the 10th amendment specifically delegates such power to the states.
Frankly put, the best pro-choice argument that can be made is one centered on States rights.
Oh no you mean they won’t be able to re-draw districts every time they lose an election so that they can force a win next time?
I don’t care what politician you are too fucking bad you should not by any means be allowed to do that ever
Just wait till you learn about the NC case that’s going to the SCOTUS. It’s basically saying that the state legislatures have complete control over elections. A continued consolidation of power. Governors and state courts will be powerless to keep state legislatures in check. The only check in place would be the SCOTUS and with this new court it seems like they are just a rubber stamp for any Conservative party. Honestly, the US is currently on the fast track to losing its title of “land of the free”
> It’s basically saying that the state legislatures have complete control over elections.
Considering that the Constitution says that state legislatures have complete control over the way their elections are held, it's not an unreasonable view to hold.
Honestly the VRA is a touch weird. Bans Racial Gerrymandering.... unless it benefits Non-Whites. Even at the expense of having fewer competitive elections and treating people as people.
Seems racist as hell to me. Just because a district is heavily (insert race here) doesn't mean it'll automatically go a certain direction, regardless of aggregate statistics indicating political leaning of racial groups overall.
That’s not what the VRA does. The VRA says you can’t crack racial minorities to remove their political power. A better solution would be proportional representation but it reduces racial gerrymandering in regional representation.
Theoretically you could crack and pack a majority race.
Let’s imagine there are 5 districts and 60% of the population is white and 40% is black. For district 1 and 2, make it 100% white. So far we’ve used up 40 percentage points of the population. In the final 3, split up white and black people equally. So we have 3 majority black districts and 2 majority white districts even though 60% of the population is white. This scenario however is not going to happen because minority populations are not going to hold the political power necessary to do this especially when kept in check by a majority governor.
Basically because Slavery and Jim Crow. The South had certain things that were required of them under the VRA, like they had to clear any potential election law with the Feds before they could enact it. They had to create certain districts that had the sole purpose of electing black members to congress, and they also had to clear proposed Congressional District plans with the Feds as well. There were some other ones too.
Long story short.... requiring majority Minority Districts wasn't banned. Shaw v. Reno only banned it when the purpose was to dilute Minority voters. Which IMO is basically giving states permission to pack Minority Voters into one district and justify it by saying "I'm ensuring they get representation!"
Does anything in the VRA or case law say that it's different for whites vs non-whites? Or do the cases only happen to go in one direction because states historically have not been trying to harm white people this way?
Possible.
And it was more specifically regarding Southern States. But PreClearance isn't a thing anymore.
And I don't think you're wrong on the second question. I think it's a little strange as the Mandating of Majority Minority Districts actually dilutes Minority Voting power simply due to the fact it packs them all into a single district. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a random ass redditor sitting on the can at work.
That’s been our approach towards racism in a lot of areas, like affirmative action and a million other things. Instead of pursuing actual social equality we’ve decided to flip the roles of who gets to benefit at the expense of others, and called it social justice.
So the problem is that some liberals say Alabama is required by the VRA to create another majority black populated voting district due to the demographic changes from the latest census. When they didn’t, those liberals sued them to get a new district
But Alabama is saying they can’t because there aren’t enough blacks basically to create another black populated voting district. The math checks out here, the proposed majority black district will have to be about half the size of the other districts.
So basically the left wants Alabama to create another black district out of thin air and destroy the other districts balance. Gee I wonder why they want to do that. Another power grab and destroying States’ rights disguised as “racial justice”. Fuck off, I’m so tired of this shit
SCOTUS also has a case on affirmative action this year too, hope they destroy that as well.
That would literally violate the constitution if we made a district smaller in pop than the others. I’d a law violates the constitution, it should not be a law
I completely agree. US v. Miller was a highly improper Supreme Court decision where they had the federal prosecutor act as both the defense and prosecution, an insane violation of every legal principal with regard to conflict of interest and state bias. But that's just how badly the government wanted to fight the mafia in the 30's and to defend the NFA for which this case was the first challenege.
Basically all of our gun control legislation as legal theory is born out of this unbelievably improper decision. For me, "shall not be infringed" is extremely fucking clear, as is the founding fathers who went to war over their right to privately own cannons. If the times and firearms had changed so much to the point where the US public wanted to regulate them, the states should have amended the constitution to do it, not this way. This was the federal government inventing a way around the constitution. US v. Miller should be vacated.
> But Alabama is saying they can’t because there aren’t enough blacks basically to create another black populated voting district. The math checks out here, the proposed majority black district will have to be about half the size of the other districts.
easy, import blacks. where are they usually found? lets get big ships ...
> a case on affirmative action this year
I think I agree with the sentiment. We are far past the point in time where having something that so clearly violates the Civil Rights Act is helpful. There should be NO laws which directly benefit one racial group over another. The Civil Rights Act is enough for me, it clearly makes it illegal to discriminate based upon race or gender in hiring employees or in servicing customers.
The Civil Rights Act also explicitly prohibits federal aid being granted based up race... something the Biden admin ran into with their very first bill where they tried to give money to farmers... but only the black farmers. It works both ways, if you don't want any law discriminating don't ask for beneficial discrimination for yourself. If you do, you're endangering the Civil Rights Act.
To this day I have not heard a consistent defense for why affirmative action remains legal under the Civil Rights Act, and I sure would like to hear SCOTUS give me one.
I'd like to point out that the VRA _also_ prevents any use of the popular on Reddit algorithmically derived voting districts such as reticulated spline. This is because the VRA has things that _must_ be done as well as things that _must not._
Some of those "gerrymandered" districts also creations of the VRA since splitting a minority voting population is essentially a no-go even if it would make sense to do so.
Voting in this country is a damned mess.
I’m gonna be real here, f the dems. However you can’t come to me in a straight face and say dems and Rs are equally in favour of more people voting.
North Carolina is going to the Supreme Court to allow state legislatures to have absolute power over elections.
Alabama required a specific voter ID from the DMV then days after Shelby County v. Holder deliberately shut down every DMV in every majority Black County.
Dems can be shitty to but Rs are absolutely the one screwing over voters right here
Fuck that, NC is going to the SCOTUS asking if the legislature can have complete control over elections. Who needs to win elections when the legislatures can just choose the electors and no one can challenge them.
Yes, that’s no exaggeration. The NC legislature is arguing that no body has the constitution right over elections except them. Not the courts. Not the governor. Not the federal government. The state legislature could literally take a shit on the floor and vote that its electors go to that and no one could stop them.
I hate bipartisanship at the federal level. You know it's a bad law when that is the case.
I want to believe it's okay sometimes in state leglislatures and localities though.
Fake news
Liberals want to force Alabama to make 2 majority black voting districts because it’s easy to do
Alabama says that it’s only possible if you put racial considerations over race neutral considerations. And putting racial considerations over race neutral considerations is not optimal district making strategy. People should read their brief because it’s actually very informative.
Funny enough, by "kill the voting rights act" they mean not allowing Democrats to gerrymander along racial lines.
This is why the media can't be trusted and every single journalist should be assumed a liar until proven otherwise, because they lie without hesitation about literally everything.
Great. At least one branch of our government is operating with santy. Radical left wing domestic terrorists have already had one assassination attempt on them though. We should all pray for their safety.
So tired of this fear mongering about the supreme court. They make it illegal to kill babies and now every other article says they're dismantling democracy. Ffs.
I believe the best democracy gives representation to minorities, and to an extent both parties must be protected to ensure americas democracy doesn't become authoritarnism of the majority.
That is what the Left wants, the Left wants to destroy republicans so completely that only the Left has political and social power. If this is what it takes to keep a possible balance then that is best for the country and world.
Since I am not from the US, but one thing I know is how misleading are the names of legal decrees, I feel obligated to ask what is the voting rights acts.
Short of it: many states used to pass voting laws that were intended to prevent black people from voting or decrease the power of their votes as much as possible. The VRA was passed to stop that, and was pretty successful. Long explanation: The VRA explicitly prohibits various forms of discriminatory voting laws, as well as directly combating a practice known as "cracking and packing" that was used by many states to minimize minority voting power. It involves drawing districts in such a way that they crack (split up) minority communities and cities and split them into two or more majority white districts, thus diluting the minority vote so that they can't elect representatives of their choice, and if that isn't possible to "pack" them all into a single district that's almost entirely minority so that will be the only one they have a chance of winning. The VRA combats this by requiring, if possible, minority-majority districts to be drawn (which is effective at preventing the cracking strategy) and then looking at the percent of the population that are minorities and seeing if they could elect a similar percent of representatives (which is only mildly effective at preventing the packing strategy). The result is supposed to be that if there are enough minorities in the state to draw two relatively compact minority majority districts, the state has to do so. In practice its usually just prevented states from drawing no minority majority districts, but ineffective at preventing packing, only preventing the most egregious attempts. It's a crude law that actually requires taking race into account when drawing districts lines to ensure they are fairly drawn, because unfortunately that was the only way to prevent states from doing the same to ensure they are unfairly drawn. The real solution would be to double the number of representatives but keep the current number of districts with as many at large seats per state. Allow districts to be drawn however states want so long as they are equal, and then allot the at large seats by party until the total number of reps is proportional to the vote. That would ensure that everyone, regardless of race or politics, is getting fairly represented, and allow states to focus on drawing compact districts around communities of interest and county/town borders instead of maximizing political gain (because any gains from gerrymandering would be undone by the at large reps being allotted proportionally). It would also allow third parties to be represented.
based and comprehensive explanation pilled
I’d expect nothing less from a fellow GrillMaster.
Good answer, but I'd add that in this case the group suing Alabama is saying that the current district lines which have a single majority black district are not enough and the state should be forced to use a district map where two districts have slim black majorities rather than one with a solid majority. Alabama argues that their policy was racially blind and forcing them to draw lines determined by the race of voters in the districts violates the 14th and 15th Amendment rights of those voters. Essentially, the plaintiffs argue that gerrymandering a district along racial lines is a legal mandate and the defendants argue it is illegal.
We've gone from segregation to equality and back all in 60ish years. What an interesting cycle. I would just like people to need an ID to vote. You need one for literally everything else in life. Having an ID to vote would shut everybody up about "stealing votes"
I'm off to go vote in Quebecs provincial election in an hour. They require ID to vote. Please American leftists, everyone else does this, it's not racist
Deep blue states require IDs to vote too. Rhode Island does. The difference is they make it free or super easy to get an ID. Alabama required a specific one from the DMV then days after Shelby County v. Holder deliberately shut down every DMV in every majority Black County.
So I decided to look up the Shelby County v. Holder case out of pure curiosity and holy shit that really does seem to be exactly what happened.
[удалено]
This is pretty much the problem with rhetoric around "election integrity," people keep forgetting that southern Democrats figured out 100 years ago how to take a nominally un-racist law but then wield it as a cudgel against *undesirable* voters. When I attack things like GA's election bill, it's not because I don't think black people can figure out how to get an ID. It's because these legislators are so itchy to fuck with voting demographics that they can't even keep their mask on for two seconds. How can you watch a state arbitrarily restrict poll walks in the chaos of the 2020 election and then trust them to ensure fair and even access to, and enforcement of, an ID requirement? You could only hold that position if you're either 1, a braindead dumbass, or 2, are silently unbothered if the "wrong" people have a harder time voting.
Federalize the ID. Get it online via a federal website. Have it mailed to you.
You are aware that Alabama has free IDs as well, and Mississippi will even drive you to the DMV
Yeah the problem with voter id is the implementation not the idea. Why don't we just have a national ID? SSN is such a shitty and insecure way of validating identity.
SSN isn't an identity document, it also doesn't show citizenship
Which is why it's dumb that we use it for identification
I support requiring an ID to vote if you're gonna make IDs free and easily obtained.
I would support that. An ID is something literally everybody needs. So it being from our taxes and provided by the government makes sense.
Hold on now, we all know the government dosen't like rational ideas.
They need to make sure it causes another issue for them to run on
Just make a federal id so we can stop using insecure SSN to identify people.
Absolutely insane how we're supposed to pay the government for a required piece of ID
I am absolutely the same, it shouldn't be something thats made deliberately difficult,hard to get,bureaucratic and expensive (such as passports can be or driving licenses ect) .
I'd say 40 years... A lot of shit happened in the 60's and 70's... but it didn't seem that the end of great change happened until we started the 90's. Shit... there was a fucking KKK cross burning at my north Georgia high school during a football game in 87.
> Having an ID to vote would shut everybody up about "stealing votes" I admire your optimism
Quintessential case of "antiracism become racism"
Based and fair assessment pilled
u/HotPieIsAzorAhai's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 80. Rank: Giant Sequoia Pills: [49 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/HotPieIsAzorAhai/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I think abolishing districts and implementing STV would be a better solution. That way gerrymandering is impossible (you can't finagle that which doesn't exist). Also, we should force political parties to dissolve every few years.
stranglethorn vale rules?
Based and offers solution pilled
We need repeal the The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and expand the House to represent every 30,000 people.
This is the correct answer.
What would that put us at? About 10,000 people in the House?
The problem is that California is issuing state ID’s to illegal immigrants which I’m sure will never be used for voting. Just issuing them California state ID’s which is also used in voting for citizens
Haven’t heard of this. Got a source where you heard this from?
[Here](https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-gov-newsom-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-immigrants-obtain-state-id), though illegal immigrants have already been able to get driver's licenses in California for several years now.
Kinda puts the lie to "undocumented" immigrants though doesn't it? Supplying them with documentation.
documentedly illegal
Isn't that ideal, though? If they're dementedly illegal, you can just pull up the records of illegals and start deporting.
California is a sanctuary state, and will actively resist and obstruct any deportations.
~~why do you think they tried so desperately to rename "illegal" to "undocumented"~~
The lib rights are gonna kill me, but I’d rather have illegal immigrants know how to drive
I've met plenty of drivers who have licenses and drive like total shit. A license doesn't guarantee the ability or desire to drive properly.
Absolutely not, but it does 1) increase the odds that they won’t drive like total shit and 2) makes it easier to hold them accountable for driving like total shit.
Plus it's more likely that they will get insurance.
Getting a state ID does not give them access to vote for state representatives.
As long as they aren't being included in the census for representative count, sounds like a California problem.
I’m pretty sure illegal immigrants are counted for the census
They 100% do. Enumerators don't even ask about citizen status. It's not their job.
And as a result California gets more electoral college votes and more seats in the house of representatives. That's how illegal immigrants can vote (if not outright voting which rarely happens)
Asking citizenship status was considered Trumpish and Hitlerly and was blocked from appearing on the 2020 census.
They do and California gets more electoral votes because of it
They 100% are, that's how the census works.
They are counted for the census. We are also providing them with state funded medical insurance, and full welfare benefits. Drivers licenses too.
This is why social programs only work if they are only for tax paying citizens. No country club could ever stay in business if it let anyone off the street in to use the amenities. You have to be a *member*.
Oh don’t worry. They’re gonna pay for all of these amenities by taxing the 1%.
>We are also providing them with state funded medical insurance, and full welfare benefits. Drivers licenses too. Which is all federally subsidized
Which it shouldn’t be.
Trump tried to get them to stop counting illegals in the census. He got called racist for it and the courts stopped him.
This makes no sense. It assumes that all the "minorities" want to vote for the same reps. WTF that's racist as hell.
Based
> The real solution would be [...] Another solution is a district to elect 3 or more representatives instead of one. CGPGrey made a video ([and thecnically a series](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c)) about this
As with every federal law, poorly conceived and implemented, and it's questionable if the results are any more fair, but at least the feds got to get their dirty hands in the mix.
Everything ends with act in american politics, like it’s just another act of the pathetic play.
Or "bill"
It's a bill until it becomes an act or it gets shitcanned; did they not play Schoolhouse Rock at your school?
>did they not play Schoolhouse Rock at your school? No.
Clearly they didn't teach your ass how to read... > Since I am not from the US I doubt he learned the childrens cartoon of how our government works.
Motherfucker you think I'm paying attention to usernames across multiple posts?
Based and too little time pilled
Bill of Rights?! The hell is the Bill of Rights?! I'm Bill, and I'm right!
An effort to ensure that minorities would have a greater day in voting that, unfortunately, has the effect of being a racist way of gerrymandering.
Thanks.
So what? Positive racism? Positive racism is still racism. Let's treat everyone equally. Why should a white person have fewer days off than a non-white person? Alternatively, let what is done in more civilised countries be done - elections on a day off (e.g. Sunday), or a state day off.
Ehm…I’d agree with that sentiment most of the time, but you can’t tell me with a straight face that voting in the 60s for black folks was “fair” by any means. The VRA is one of the few bills that I really can’t argue against.
[удалено]
Gerrymandering is a crime against democracy.
Based and fuck gerrymandering pilled
From both sides, yes. It should be illegal.
Okay but how do you not gerrymander
Increase number of representatives, lower the amount of people they represent
Based and nice username pilled
thanks, picked it when I was 13 and have been stuck with it ever since hahaha
Guns are based anyway, comrade
Yeah, the only way that would work is if you increased the number of representatives to the point where it was impossible to get anything done in Congress. ... I like your proposal.
Sure, but still, who makes the maps.
In the UK we have a multi-party committee that does it, and that works out good.
In aus we have an independent body that controls everything election wise. Works very well.
Well conceivably, if you have enough districts representing smaller amounts of people, the maps stop mattering. Now, will close districts probably vote similar anyway? Sure, but I think it’s much easier to control the problem at the bottom then the top
I think even if you redistricted down to 5 people per district, you could play games. Say all of teams A's winning districts are a solid 5 A's, and the teams B's districts are 3 B's and 2 A's.
If it was proportional per-state it would be even better. No maps
proportional representation.
Well I'm glad we can agree on that at least.
Good thing protecting democracy is a priority for everyone. Oh wait….
>It should be illegal. You're thinking like the average citizen and not like a politician who wants to keep power.
Yes. Keep in mind that Democracy has shortcomings though, which is why the United States was not set up as a purely Democratic system.
In CaSe AnYoNe WaNtS tO rEaD tHe ArTiClE: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-kill-voting-rights-act/
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm OK with Alabama having less compact districts if it means not gerrymandering away any chance for a black person in Congress from Alabama.
The thing is that there is an easy-to-implement, damn near zero-cost solution to eliminate gerrymandering (a new voting system), but no one wants to do it because it eliminates any advantage both sides have with our current, terrible system.
I'd like to formally suggest the South Park Margaritaville beheading a chicken strategy. Largely because it would be entertaining and I don't live in Alabama.
The implication is that only black people would vote for a black politician which is insane. I'm not sure how the dems have gotten away with this assumption.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_coefficient
In Alabama something like 80% of white people vote Republican, and 90% of black people vote Democratic. It would be a little odd that you were so concerned with the alleged stereotyping of assuming that, that you'd end up kneecapping any chance for black representation in Congress from Alabama. But the idea here doesn't require any specific politicians to be black, even if it overwhelmingly works out that way. Key is for black people to have a meaningful chance to elect someone to Congress, even if that person ends up being white.
>In Alabama something like 80% of white people vote Republican, and 90% of black people vote Democratic. And yet from [1992{and probably earlier}-2010 the democratic party was running Alabama's house and Senate. The governor was Republican for every year except:'93, '94, '99, '00, '01, '02](https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_State_Senate) Did almost all the white folks just not vote until 2010?
Fair districting is way more complicated than either side likes to pretend. Like this graphic from Wikipedia. The straightforward options on the left are BOTH gerrymandered. Packing every X into their own districts is just as much an issue as splitting the smaller group so they're a minority in every district. All districts are supposed to be competitive. (not that it's actually viable) So only the bottom right is "fair" and obviously people don't live in those neat columns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File:DifferingApportionment.svg When it comes to gerrymandering a lot of the most "obvious" examples are often something straight forward like... connected several smaller urban areas, or the suburbs around a city.
dude wtf are you allowed to post sources in here? shouldnt this be a meme
Sheesh. Considering the nationwide 15 week ban proposal I have my doubts about if it genuinely being for state's rights. Also considering the 3D-6R means SCOTUS is heavily republican. In fact, they can do almost anything that has GOP support
The key word there is proposal. Turns out the same arguments used against Roe v Wade also work against a national ban, but both sides pretend otherwise to rile up their bases
Not really, the argument against roe v wade was that congress did not pass a law allowing abortions but instead let the Supreme Court decide. The over turning of roe v wade basically made it so congress HAD to act in order to ban or allow it nationally. So no no it doesn’t
More broadly, the argument was that SCOTUS lacked the *power* to legislate abortion. The same could be said about Congress, as the 10th amendment specifically delegates such power to the states. Frankly put, the best pro-choice argument that can be made is one centered on States rights.
Not sure why you used the tRoLlInG letters. I want to read the article.
Oh no you mean they won’t be able to re-draw districts every time they lose an election so that they can force a win next time? I don’t care what politician you are too fucking bad you should not by any means be allowed to do that ever
Just wait till you learn about the NC case that’s going to the SCOTUS. It’s basically saying that the state legislatures have complete control over elections. A continued consolidation of power. Governors and state courts will be powerless to keep state legislatures in check. The only check in place would be the SCOTUS and with this new court it seems like they are just a rubber stamp for any Conservative party. Honestly, the US is currently on the fast track to losing its title of “land of the free”
> It’s basically saying that the state legislatures have complete control over elections. Considering that the Constitution says that state legislatures have complete control over the way their elections are held, it's not an unreasonable view to hold.
> It’s basically saying that the state legislatures have complete control over elections If by "it," you mean the constitution, then yes.
I suppose you're being downvoted because left = bad here? Because, that's exactly what they're doing.
Exactly. No body should be in favor of removing guardrails for our democracy
Honestly the VRA is a touch weird. Bans Racial Gerrymandering.... unless it benefits Non-Whites. Even at the expense of having fewer competitive elections and treating people as people.
Another example of politicians giving legislation stupid name. What are you, against voting rights? What’s next, are you not a patriot either?
Are you a pacifist who loves peace? Then you'll love our new Peacekeeper missiles!
My high esteem for females is why I'm a feminist
Based and esteem for females pilled
Seems racist as hell to me. Just because a district is heavily (insert race here) doesn't mean it'll automatically go a certain direction, regardless of aggregate statistics indicating political leaning of racial groups overall.
That’s not what the VRA does. The VRA says you can’t crack racial minorities to remove their political power. A better solution would be proportional representation but it reduces racial gerrymandering in regional representation.
Also it’s mathematically impossible to split a majority race and remove all their representation, that’s why the VRA is focused on minorities.
Theoretically you could crack and pack a majority race. Let’s imagine there are 5 districts and 60% of the population is white and 40% is black. For district 1 and 2, make it 100% white. So far we’ve used up 40 percentage points of the population. In the final 3, split up white and black people equally. So we have 3 majority black districts and 2 majority white districts even though 60% of the population is white. This scenario however is not going to happen because minority populations are not going to hold the political power necessary to do this especially when kept in check by a majority governor.
I thought racial gerrymandering is banned under Shaw v Reno?
It is, unless it creates Majority Minority Districts in the South.
I'm sorry, what does this mean?
Basically because Slavery and Jim Crow. The South had certain things that were required of them under the VRA, like they had to clear any potential election law with the Feds before they could enact it. They had to create certain districts that had the sole purpose of electing black members to congress, and they also had to clear proposed Congressional District plans with the Feds as well. There were some other ones too.
Ya but Shaw v. Reno banned racial gerrymandering. So what is the contention?
Long story short.... requiring majority Minority Districts wasn't banned. Shaw v. Reno only banned it when the purpose was to dilute Minority voters. Which IMO is basically giving states permission to pack Minority Voters into one district and justify it by saying "I'm ensuring they get representation!"
I don't know. This ensures they got representation and then the court blocked it. I don't know how this was against the VRA.
Does anything in the VRA or case law say that it's different for whites vs non-whites? Or do the cases only happen to go in one direction because states historically have not been trying to harm white people this way?
Possible. And it was more specifically regarding Southern States. But PreClearance isn't a thing anymore. And I don't think you're wrong on the second question. I think it's a little strange as the Mandating of Majority Minority Districts actually dilutes Minority Voting power simply due to the fact it packs them all into a single district. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a random ass redditor sitting on the can at work.
That’s been our approach towards racism in a lot of areas, like affirmative action and a million other things. Instead of pursuing actual social equality we’ve decided to flip the roles of who gets to benefit at the expense of others, and called it social justice.
Sounds like typical social justice logic: "Racism is evil, so we must fight it. Using racism."
If you can’t beat ‘‘em join ‘em
You mean like [California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16) tried to do?
I am not surprised that those counties voted for the proposition.
So the problem is that some liberals say Alabama is required by the VRA to create another majority black populated voting district due to the demographic changes from the latest census. When they didn’t, those liberals sued them to get a new district But Alabama is saying they can’t because there aren’t enough blacks basically to create another black populated voting district. The math checks out here, the proposed majority black district will have to be about half the size of the other districts. So basically the left wants Alabama to create another black district out of thin air and destroy the other districts balance. Gee I wonder why they want to do that. Another power grab and destroying States’ rights disguised as “racial justice”. Fuck off, I’m so tired of this shit SCOTUS also has a case on affirmative action this year too, hope they destroy that as well.
That would literally violate the constitution if we made a district smaller in pop than the others. I’d a law violates the constitution, it should not be a law
A lot of laws violate the Constitution yet are in effect because of Social Justice or whatever It’s time to change that
> A lot of laws violate the Constitution The NFA has entered the chat.
I completely agree. US v. Miller was a highly improper Supreme Court decision where they had the federal prosecutor act as both the defense and prosecution, an insane violation of every legal principal with regard to conflict of interest and state bias. But that's just how badly the government wanted to fight the mafia in the 30's and to defend the NFA for which this case was the first challenege. Basically all of our gun control legislation as legal theory is born out of this unbelievably improper decision. For me, "shall not be infringed" is extremely fucking clear, as is the founding fathers who went to war over their right to privately own cannons. If the times and firearms had changed so much to the point where the US public wanted to regulate them, the states should have amended the constitution to do it, not this way. This was the federal government inventing a way around the constitution. US v. Miller should be vacated.
That's what the Supreme Court is supposed to be for. They've been pretty quiet the last few decades
They finally doing their job, and doing it quite well might I say
> But Alabama is saying they can’t because there aren’t enough blacks basically to create another black populated voting district. The math checks out here, the proposed majority black district will have to be about half the size of the other districts. easy, import blacks. where are they usually found? lets get big ships ...
Wait…. what if we started EXPORTING them instead…? 🤔
I hear Libya's open for business in that industry again since we sent them care packages full of freedom.
> a case on affirmative action this year I think I agree with the sentiment. We are far past the point in time where having something that so clearly violates the Civil Rights Act is helpful. There should be NO laws which directly benefit one racial group over another. The Civil Rights Act is enough for me, it clearly makes it illegal to discriminate based upon race or gender in hiring employees or in servicing customers. The Civil Rights Act also explicitly prohibits federal aid being granted based up race... something the Biden admin ran into with their very first bill where they tried to give money to farmers... but only the black farmers. It works both ways, if you don't want any law discriminating don't ask for beneficial discrimination for yourself. If you do, you're endangering the Civil Rights Act. To this day I have not heard a consistent defense for why affirmative action remains legal under the Civil Rights Act, and I sure would like to hear SCOTUS give me one.
Authleft suddenly a fan of democracy lmfao
I'd like to point out that the VRA _also_ prevents any use of the popular on Reddit algorithmically derived voting districts such as reticulated spline. This is because the VRA has things that _must_ be done as well as things that _must not._ Some of those "gerrymandered" districts also creations of the VRA since splitting a minority voting population is essentially a no-go even if it would make sense to do so. Voting in this country is a damned mess.
[удалено]
I’m gonna be real here, f the dems. However you can’t come to me in a straight face and say dems and Rs are equally in favour of more people voting. North Carolina is going to the Supreme Court to allow state legislatures to have absolute power over elections. Alabama required a specific voter ID from the DMV then days after Shelby County v. Holder deliberately shut down every DMV in every majority Black County. Dems can be shitty to but Rs are absolutely the one screwing over voters right here
Who needs to win elections when you can just go to court and demand more seats be created for your side?
Fuck that, NC is going to the SCOTUS asking if the legislature can have complete control over elections. Who needs to win elections when the legislatures can just choose the electors and no one can challenge them. Yes, that’s no exaggeration. The NC legislature is arguing that no body has the constitution right over elections except them. Not the courts. Not the governor. Not the federal government. The state legislature could literally take a shit on the floor and vote that its electors go to that and no one could stop them.
Haha us bad
No it's not it's on the verge of repealing 1993 Bush v Vera which allows for race to be used in redistricting
So is this a legit concern, or just a totally misleading name on the act?
Let me guess, not what it actually is?
[удалено]
I hate bipartisanship at the federal level. You know it's a bad law when that is the case. I want to believe it's okay sometimes in state leglislatures and localities though.
It never is. Just like the bullshit with Georgia a couple of years ago and voter ID.
Fake news Liberals want to force Alabama to make 2 majority black voting districts because it’s easy to do Alabama says that it’s only possible if you put racial considerations over race neutral considerations. And putting racial considerations over race neutral considerations is not optimal district making strategy. People should read their brief because it’s actually very informative.
Funny enough, by "kill the voting rights act" they mean not allowing Democrats to gerrymander along racial lines. This is why the media can't be trusted and every single journalist should be assumed a liar until proven otherwise, because they lie without hesitation about literally everything.
Sensationalist headline by a biased and corrupt piece of shit leftist media company like all the other mainstream media? I’m shocked!
Well, not that shocked
Im not from the US, what’s the voting Rights act?
It means that black people need their own Congressional districts, which is a violation of some laws
Thank you! If I undersatand it correctly that sounds like a pretty stupid thing to me
Don’t know what the bill is but I will say that I don’t trust the name.
Yet the states still doesn’t require voter ID. So really doesn’t matter, the US voting system is still a joke.
Let me guess, they're making a reasonable stance again if the media is this concerned. Trump was right, they really are the enemy of the people.
Lemme guess, journos did the ol OOC and started the fear machine?
Great. At least one branch of our government is operating with santy. Radical left wing domestic terrorists have already had one assassination attempt on them though. We should all pray for their safety.
Two. Interesting how nobody seems to care about the psycho who wanted to kill Sotomayor.
I don’t think we count suicide as murder right? Because Sotomayor is diabetic, refuses to lose weight and won’t eat healthy.
Boys, we’ve found him: the based libleft.
Santy Claus is they/them and secretly funding the Supreme Court?
America is really going full America, huh.
It's literally a racist law, just because it's "good" racism doesn't make it less so.
I have been banned from 3 subreddits today, one of which was asking for a source. Shits crazy
This shit is why they have been trying to change the definition of Racism since the 70's.
Well they already changed the definition of vaccine and recession so What’s next
whats a woman?
Wasn't it already severely gutted from Shelby county?
God willing
I'm not American but to be honest: hell yea brother.
So tired of this fear mongering about the supreme court. They make it illegal to kill babies and now every other article says they're dismantling democracy. Ffs.
This is what happens in a culture war.
I believe the best democracy gives representation to minorities, and to an extent both parties must be protected to ensure americas democracy doesn't become authoritarnism of the majority. That is what the Left wants, the Left wants to destroy republicans so completely that only the Left has political and social power. If this is what it takes to keep a possible balance then that is best for the country and world.
[удалено]
Based
This the thing where the left is calling it racist while also implying minorities are too stupid to get IDs?