Tom, did you notice that I wrote this
"Although I'm all for proper identification being required to vote...."

And B, we have our own election scandals... But we have had ID laws for a very long time... They work. There is however, provision for free IDs. For instance everyone has a govenrment issued Health Insurance Photo ID. Free.

haha, ever been to canada?
..seriously?
Canada is far more a "melting pot" than is the USA, at least Ontario sure the heck is! (and I mean that in a very good way mind you)

and Ricky, you can state you are for something but to show examples of the horror of it all, seems a bit confusing to me where you really sit on the position.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Well, both parties have and do indulge in gerrymandering. It's an inevitable consequence of the politicisation of bureaucracy (and that has been a feature of the US for over a hundred years).

Try over 200 years. The term comes from Eldbridge Gerry's redistricting map of Massachusetts in 1812.

I knew the name and the State, but wasn't sure on the date.

danivon wrote:, but the real issue is that despite it being a Federal election, you have State rules for it. Meaning that it differs from State to State how the election is run, including potentially how EC delegates are apportioned

This was actually discussed during the Constitutional Convention. The reason is it was done that way was because each state would be establishing election laws for its own officials. It was felt that creating a Federal standard that was different then a possible state standard would create too much confusion in years when both state and federal office were being voted on. [/quote]Yes, but then again the question is why should States have such different rules that it would be confusing?

Or have Federal standards that were deliberately general and States can vary within them?

Besides, just because it made sense 200+ years ago doesn't mean it still makes sense now.

I also do not think the most recent election is a good indicator of an overwhelming benefit of gerrymandering for the Republicans. FIrst of all it doesn't take into account the legal requirement for the creation of minority majority districts or the fact there was a higher turnout in certain demographics than typical due to it being a Presidential election year and depressed turn out in other demographics due to a lackluster candidate. Let's look to the outcome in the 2014 election.

[/quote]Sure, we can check then, although was differential turnout less pronounced than usual this time, because of the factors you mentioned? I thought that it was general that Republican voters are usually more likely to turn out, and so Republican districts tend to have a higher turnout. If they were closer to parity, but there are clear disparities in votes:Congressman, that would show an issue.

If there is differential turnout, with fewer Democrats coming out in mid-terms, you would actually notice the effect less.

danivon wrote:Yes, but then again the question is why should States have such different rules that it would be confusing?

Or have Federal standards that were deliberately general and States can vary within them?

Besides, just because it made sense 200+ years ago doesn't mean it still makes sense now.

Well, historically, it was because states had different requirements for voting. For example Pennsylvania allowed all free men to vote, Massachusetts only allowed free white men to vote and Virginia allowed only men with a freehold worth X to vote for state offices. There is no way the various states were going to allow the Federal government to set a standard for its citizens to vote for state offices.

If the Federal government established a voting law for federal offices then there was a possibility of people being allowed to vote in state offices but not federal offices. So it was decided to allow the states to set their own laws.

Now I know you argue to have Federal government to set the standard for everybody and every office. What standard would they have used? There is no way the Southern states would have allowed non-whites to vote. Pennsylvania would not have allowed the limitation to only those with a certain valued freehold.

I can see the argument that it has less effect in today's world with universal sufferage. However, we are still a nation of dual sovereignties and I don't want to change it. Further, the Federal government is a government of limited powers and I don't see a good reason to change it.

danivon wrote:Sure, we can check then, although was differential turnout less pronounced than usual this time, because of the factors you mentioned? I thought that it was general that Republican voters are usually more likely to turn out, and so Republican districts tend to have a higher turnout. If they were closer to parity, but there are clear disparities in votes:Congressman, that would show an issue.

If there is differential turnout, with fewer Democrats coming out in mid-terms, you would actually notice the effect less.

Democrats tend to turn out in significantly lower numbers in non-Presidential years.

On the first part, it's all very well to explain the differences from the 1780s, but let's be honest, it was because some States were treating citizens unequally and wanted to continue to do so.

Since then there has been Federal level change to reduce those differences, and I would wonder why anyone would want to repeal the 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th or 26th Amendments, the 1965 VRA etc. Or who would want to apply different restrictions, and why.

The point is that citizens in the US are citizens of the US, not of a particular State. Why should the relarionship between a citizen and the Federal State be restricted by those States.

Your assertion that I want total Federal control over elections of everyone down to township dog warden is also not quite true. Indeed where I live we have different eligibility for different kinds of elections.

EU elections are open to EU citizens who reside here. UK Parliamentary elections are open to Irish and Commonwealth citizens who reside here (but not on a temporary visa), but not to members of the House of Lords.

So we have different rules, and it's handled by having registers marked with a flag (a single letter) that denote which type of election someone can vote it. Not rocket science to have a teller check that - and certainly less time-consuming than checking every voter's ID.

On the second part, we have two effects that can distort the representative nature of FPTP elections. One is that the boundaries are drawn to give one party an advantage. The other is that voters may have differential turnout.

However, a key difference is that while both are systemic, the first is by design. Also, the second is not a constant, as differential turnout trends can vary over time. Indeed they do every 2 years.

So, in a midterm year, gerrymandering towards the GOP may offset or be offset by differential turnout that appears to benefit the Democrats. Which still doesn't excuse the gerrymandering and if it serves to hide it I can understand why Republicans would want to use such years rather than Presidential years.

So, last year we saw, with less of a differential turnout effect, how representative some State delegations were. Ultimately, a lot is down to the systemic issues with FPTP. But nationally we saw the Republicans got 48% of the House vote to the Democrats' 49.2%. That 1.2% deficit is reflected in a 33 seat (7.6%), making a total swing from voted to outcome of 8.8%. Given that some States are gerrymandered towards the Democrats, it would seem that we could quite easily find some States where the lines have been drawn to heavily favour the Republicans.

So look at Virginia. There is one ultra safe seat (over 80%) and that's the Democratic 3rd district. The other two Democrat held seats had a 60%+ vote. Most of the Republican held seats are closer, with 50 to 60%

The point is that citizens in the US are citizens of the US, not of a particular State. Why should the relarionship between a citizen and the Federal State be restricted by those States.

Not exactly true, we are still a Republic and each State has their own laws and rights. The federal power has increased over the years, no doubt, but we are still indeed a Republic of 50 States each having a good deal of autonomy and rights.(the tenth amendment, "States Rights" ...the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution)

Tom, a Republic means ruled by the people, I think you mean Federation, meaning made up of constituent states/entities.

I was referring to the relationship between a US citizen and the US government. Why should that relationship be filtered dby the whim of the State within the US they happen to live in?.

By the way, the other side to the 10th Amendment, and the quite pertinent 9th Amendment, is the powers and rights which belong to the 'people'. "States Rights" is all very well, but when it becomes a rallying cry to interfere with the rights of the people, it ceases to be a noble Constitutionalist cause.

Correction, Republic derives from res publica, meaning 'public affair'. But that is still far closer to my definition than to yours, Tom. Especially as public property in Rome was designated res publica as opposed to being owned privately (res privata).

All Republic really means is that you have a state, although it has also come to mean one that is not monarchic. Still, it can be unitary, federal, democratic or a dictatorship (although in the last case one has to question whether that makes the state in question one that is set up for the public). The USSR was a republic, technically a Union of several Republics. The words res publica were translated to English as both 'Republic' and 'Commonwealth', so perhaps that gives another clue as to its true meaningu

It's one of the great words of US national myth, it isn't actually magic, and can't be used to argue that US citizens are not actually US citizens, but State subjects.

That's right ... Tom meant that we have a federal system.

You do indeed. So, why is it right for states to interfere in the relationship between the citizens and the Federal government?

danivon

So, why is it right for states to interfere in the relationship between the citizens and the Federal government?

wasn't the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment written to effectively end substantively different treatment under law?

"Federal Republic" ..sorry, same thing when you know what was meant
basically a Federation of individual Republics. States were required to be Republics in themselves and as such, I think you see where I went and it wasn't so wrong, when you desire to change the subject because a term was used not quite correct but did nothing to alter what was being discussed, makes me think your position is weak?

I read the plurality opinion in Vieth. First of all, since Kennedy occurred in judgment the decision did not foreclose courts from considering Gerrymandering decisions--only 4 justices agreed that gerrymandering decisions were non-justiciable.. Justice Kennedy's analysis was brilliant
As for the motive behind Scalia's decision, I think it highly questionable. First of all, he overruled a case that was only 18 years old. Secondly, his decision would have completely barred gerrymandering claims no matter how egregious. Justice Kenedy's reasoning was far better than Scalia's in saying that just because useful standard have not been developed to assess gerrymander that does not mean they will not be developed in the future. And of course by not foreclosing gerrymandering claims you act to deter egregious gerrymanders.
I think it is fairly clear that Gerrymanders are more likely to benefit Republicans because Democratic voters are more urbanized and therefore their voters are more concentrated. Obviously, I cannot read Scalia's mind but, yeah, given how the unsoundness of his opinion which would have allowed completely arbitrary district lines, I would say his analysis was motivated in part by the fact that gerrymanders are a net benefit to conservatives (perhaps his motivation was not conscious--I'm sure he thought his decision that ended the recount in 2000 was not politically motivated, too...)

GMTom wrote:"Federal Republic" ..sorry, same thing when you know what was meant
basically a Federation of individual Republics.

Indeed. So perhaps now that we've sorted out what you meant, you can show how 'weak' my argument is:

Why should States interfere with the relationship between citizens and the Federal government?

Why should citizens have inconsistent rights as to voting in Federal elections, based only on which State they live it?

How does 'States Rights' trump individual rights?

I'm sure now you know how weak my position is, you can calmly and rationally answer each one and show why it's fine and dandy for state legislatures to gerrymander federal districts, or to restrict the franchise in federal elections for their own partisan gain.

Because my 'argument' is that it most definitely is not.