From: no_offline_contact@example.com   
      
   On 2026-02-04 11:11 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > Rhino   wrote:   
   >> 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-congressi   
   nal-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.   
   >   
   > Computers can draw districts so that there is a single person population   
   > difference.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Sometimes they pack districts with their own voters as a favor to   
   > certain incumbants but it means they lower their chances in other   
   > districts.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > They do it to remove a reason for a judge to choose another map.   
   >   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > California was one of those states but smended its constitution to pull   
   > this crap.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > I'm telling you that the Supreme Court already upheld the power of state   
   > legislatures to do this.   
   >   
   Yes, I got that. I'm agreeing with you that this seems like dereliction   
   of duty for them to refuse to consider these cases.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > But we require both re-apportionment and redistricting.   
      
   If a computer program - that is presumably not biased towards either   
   side - can do the redistricting, that sounds like a reasonable solution   
   to the problem.   
      
   --   
   Rhino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)