From: no_offline_contact@example.com   
      
   On 2026-02-04 2:59 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > As vile and illiberal as various Trump policies have been since he   
   > regained the presidency, the biggest threat to our democracy has been   
   > John Roberts preventing federal courts from reviewing too many terrible   
   > choices made by state legislatures that take away rights from   
   > individuals.   
   >   
   > Yes, I've always blamed the inflexibility of the Voting Rights Act of   
   > 1964, which effectively mandates single-member districts. You see, to   
   > have minority representation, however defined, district lines must be   
   > gerrymandared to make a minority a majority of the voting population, at   
   > least in that district. With cummulative voting or other methods and   
   > multi-member districts, minorities get to define themselves and choose   
   > their own representatives, say one out of three elected, with no   
   > gerrymandering at all.   
   >   
   > But no, redistricting is political, which courts cannot review. The   
   > solution is political, except that's a Catch 22 as gerrymandering allows   
   > incumbants to select their constituency in lieu of the constituency   
   > selecting its representation.   
   >   
   > Somehow Roberts fails to recognize the obvious as it's inconvenient for   
   > his legal theory.   
   >   
   > Both political maps pushed by Trump, the Texas map favoring Republucans   
   > in congressional redistricting and the California map, in reaction,   
   > favoring Democrats, will not be enjoined. This was expected. No justice   
   > dissented.   
   >   
   > https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-california-congressio   
   al-maps-8362a34b739ea91d37a190eee1b6a6d1   
   >   
   > I'm a moderate. I get zero representation.   
      
   Am I correct in understanding that the main impetus for changing   
   electoral boundaries is to ensure that each electoral district has   
   approximately the same population as every other so that each person has   
   approximately the same amount of influence in terms of selecting   
   representatives? It seems to me that is the "prime mover": if that   
   weren't necessary, there'd be no justification at all for changing   
   electoral boundaries.   
      
   Of course once they've got the necessity of redrawing boundaries, the   
   politicians unsurprisingly make every effort to redraw them to their own   
   advantage. Democrats redraw to help their electoral chances and   
   Republicans redraw to help their own.   
      
   If I'm right in what I've said so far, I think it would be wise for us   
   to think about this matter and figure out if: rough equality in the size   
   of electoral districts is really that important and, if it is, whether   
   there is some better way to divide the districts in a a wholly   
   non-partisan way.   
      
   I gather that some states have supposedly "neutral" institutions to   
   redraw their boundaries but I have no idea if they really ARE neutral or   
   if they merely profess to be while bending over backwards to help   
   whatever party dominates the institution. Does anyone have insight into   
   that?   
      
   For what it's worth, I agree that this seems like the sort of matter   
   that Supreme Courts at either the state or national level really ought   
   to address.   
      
   This is also an issue in Canada. People in some provinces have long held   
   grievances that there are substantially more people in ridings in their   
   province than in other provinces. I remember Horny Goat making that   
   point multiple times over the years. I believe his province of BC is   
   particularly aggrieved by this.   
      
   --   
   Rhino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)