Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: SCOTUS to Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Just want to clarify...are you saying districts should be drawn to mirror ethnicity?
    No.

    Anyhoo, would really like the algorithm method of dividing up districts. Shortest route to cut a area in half, then repeat until you get the needed number of districts.
    Not sure on the exact method, but I agree districts should at a minimum, somehow, be objectively drawn without intent to benefit a particular political entity.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Were you aware that Section 5 covered districts in places such as NY and California?

    https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdic...ered-section-5
    Hardly. I'm not familiar with the sections of the voting rights act at all. Can you summarize a point?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  3. #33
    Section 5 proscribed areas that required special federal "preclearance" to make changes to things like voting laws or voting district composition. The formulas were last updated in the 1970s, and applied to areas of the country that some might find surprising (see link). The formula was deemed unconstitutionally outdated in 2013.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •