U.S. Supreme Court Hears Wisconsin Political Gerrymandering Case

On October 3, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Gill v Whitford, 16-1161, the Wisconsin political gerrymandering case. Here is a New York Times story about the oral argument.

UPDATE: here is a more detailed Reuters story.

FURTHER UPDATE: this Chicago Tribune story says Justice Anthony Kennedy “did not tip his hand”, and it seems obvious that the other justices are divided, four on each side.


Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Wisconsin Political Gerrymandering Case — 8 Comments

  1. 1/2 or less votes X 1/2 rigged packed/cracked districts
    = 1/4 or less CONTROL
    = minority rule Oligarchy.

    Much, much worse primary math.

    Much too difficult for the lawyers and judges in gerrymander cases – since 1964.

    Remedy — Democracy
    = Majority Rule
    = THE *manageable standard* for math MORONS in the courts.

    PM = TM X PV / TV

    Solve for P and T (clue– adjectives) and M and V (clue– nouns) and get a polisci math prize.

  2. NOOOOOO mention in the argument transcript by the math MORONS of the above 1/2 X 1/2 = 1/4 MATH.

    The M-O-R-O-N-S can not detect that a State or local legislative body exists ONLY because ALL Voters can NOT assemble in person and vote on stuff – bills, etc.

    If there is a statewide vote for a ballot question or officer, then each gerrymander district result does NOT have 1 vote — but the actual votes by the Voters.

    How many seconds until Civil WAR II starts ??? — with the probable end of Western Civilization.

    P.R. and AppV — regardless of ALL morons.

  3. @DR,
    Why can’t groups of individuals based in different geographical localities send their representative to a central meeting place?

  4. JR —

    Possible — IF you want major paperwork in large regimes — to NOT have multiple voting —

    the USA, CA, TX, NY, FL, etc. – ie ALL States and ALL local regimes.

    See 2nd posting above.

    NO special need for *large* legislative bodies – like the MOB scenes in the USA H. Reps or UK House of Commons

    — with huge ballots or write-in candidate ID numbers

    — mere more or less control freak statism

    — nothing new in 6,000 plus years of recorded politics.

    I note various professional groups have national mail ballots for their legis. boards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *