https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...o-n1010146

"....The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that invalidated, as partisan gerrymanders, Ohio’s map for congressional districts and Michigan’s maps for congressional and state legislative districts.

The high court's orders put on hold efforts in both states to redraw their electoral maps ahead of the 2020 elections, a remedy ordered by the lower courts.

In the Ohio case, a three-judge panel ruled unanimously earlier this month that the district map drawn up by the Republican-controlled legislature unconstitutionally discriminated against Democrats. "We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional," the ruling said.

The Michigan ruling in April had found that the votes of Democrats were unconstitutionally diluted....."

These rulings were pretty arrogant. The court is reconsidering how much partisan gerrymandering is too much in two cases. And partisan gerrymandering has repeatedly been ruled constitutional. Intentional partisan gerrymandering is perfectly legal under prior Supreme Court rulings. The judges were going to force redistrictings before the Supreme Court MD and NC cases came out.

Mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I’d definitely like for elective districts to be as politically-neutral as possible.

On the other hand, political neutrality is in the eye of the beholder. After years and years (decades, really) of talk, there is absolutely nothing on the table that ensures “fair” outcomes for different political factions. Basically, you can either go with Proportional representation (like in Israel, for example) or you can have geographic districts. And if you have geographic districts, you either have elected officials deciding where to draw the lines, or you have unelected officials making that decision.

(05-24-2019 04:11 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, I’d definitely like for elective districts to be as politically-neutral as possible.
On the other hand, political neutrality is in the eye of the beholder. After years and years (decades, really) of talk, there is absolutely nothing on the table that ensures “fair” outcomes for different political factions. Basically, you can either go with Proportional representation (like in Israel, for example) or you can have geographic districts. And if you have geographic districts, you either have elected officials deciding where to draw the lines, or you have unelected officials making that decision.

And whether you have elected officials or unelected officials—or judges—drawing the lines, you don’t have unbiased decisions. There is no way to have political neutrality.

What I’d like to see is something like multiple member districts, with proportional representation within the district based on percentage of total vote. Let’s say you had a 5-member district. Democrats run a slate of 5, republicans run a slate of 5, libertarians run a slate of 5. Add up all the votes for each slate. Democrats get 60% of vote, republicans get 35%, libertarians get 5%. Top 3 democrats and top 2 republicans are elected. You’d need some rules for allocating when it is not that simple. Say something like any party with an absolute majority gets at least 3 seats, any party with a plurality gets at least as many as any other party, and a third party with over half of a prorated share of the vote (1/2 of 100% divided by 5, or 10%) gets one seat. Democrat slate gets 45%, republican slate gets 44%, libertarian slate gets 10%, then top 2 democrats , top 2 republicans , and top libertarian get seats. Advantages I see:
1) in states like California and New York, republicans, and in states like lots of the southeast and Midwest, democrats really have no representation. In almost every district in almost every state, regardless of your party, you would have a representative.
2) there would be tremendous political advantage generally in trending toward the middle to attract crossover votes, since once the party shares are determined, the seats then go to the top vote-getters within each party. This should counter the rampant extremism now going on.
3) this should create much greater opportunities for third parties, which should shake up some of the current partisan complacency.

Did yall see how the UK did their European Parliament elections?

Say a district got 3 seats to the EU Parliament.

The party with the top vote % gets the first seat and then thier % is divided by 2.

Then for round 2, the party with the top vote % after the recalculation gets the 2nd seat. If its the same party who got the 1st seat, their original % is now divided by 3 and the total is reran for round 3. If its a different party then their % is divided by 2 for round 3.

Example - 3 seats up for grabs
Round 1: Party A gets seat
Party A - 40%
Party B - 30%
Party C - 25%
Party D - 5%

Round 2: Party B gets seat
Party B - 30%
Party C - 25%
Party A - 20%
Party D - 5%

Round 3: Party C gets seat
Party C - 25%
Party A - 20%
Party B - 15%
Party D - 5%

(05-24-2019 05:49 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Did yall see how the UK did their European Parliament elections?

Say a district got 3 seats to the EU Parliament.

The party with the top vote % gets the first seat and then thier % is divided by 2.

Then for round 2, the party with the top vote % after the recalculation gets the 2nd seat. If its the same party who got the 1st seat, their original % is now divided by 3 and the total is reran for round 3. If its a different party then their % is divided by 2 for round 3.

Example - 3 seats up for grabs
Round 1: Party A gets seat
Party A - 40%
Party B - 30%
Party C - 25%
Party D - 5%

Round 2: Party B gets seat
Party B - 30%
Party C - 25%
Party A - 20%
Party D - 5%

Round 3: Party C gets seat
Party C - 25%
Party A - 20%
Party B - 15%
Party D - 5%

solohawks, thanks for the explanation. Where did you see this?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27187434