Law Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos here analyzes the part of H.R. 1 that requires all states to use nonpartisan methods to draw U.S. House boundaries. H.R. 1 is the bill introduced in the U.S. House and supported generally by Democrats in the House. The text of the bill is still not on the web page for Congress, but it should be shortly.
Stephanopoulos supports the part of the bill concerning gerrymandering, but he has some suggestions to improve the bill.
The Prof is one of the Donkey lawyers in the Wisc legislature gerrymander case.
HR 1- PERMANENT Donkey RED communist CONTROL of USA H Reps.
— via RIGGED gerrymander commissions.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL
Much too difficult for math MORONS like the Prof. ???
—
PR and AppV — Save Democracy reforms.
(1) Congressional redistricting should be done by a federal commission, with subcommissions in each state.
(2) Districts should equalize the citizen adult population (18+) to be consistent with equal protection clause and Article I, Section 2. It is non-sensical to believe that “the people” doing the choosing are anyone other than the “qualified elector”.
(3) Primary emphasis should be placed on preservation of political subdivision. There should be less emphasis on strict population equality.
(4) Use of race, political results, current boundaries, incumbents, etc. should be forbidden.
(5) A plan should be objectively scored. Should higher scoring plans be submitted by members of the public, they shall be adopted.
(6) If there are multiple plans that are substantially equivalent scoring, the adopted plan shall be chosen by a large scale sample of the electorate of the state.
Like the defective Colorado proposal, his analysis would only allow Democrats, Republicans, and independents on the commissions.
JR –
SCOTUS hacks have ruled against points 2-4 — causing minority rule gerrymanders to get worse and worse.
—
PR and AppV
PR districts = 2 [rural] to 6 [urban] times Total Votes last election / Total Members
1 or more political subdivisions or part of 1 political subdivision
square-ish
—
ie SOME longer term stability – elect 1 or more D and R in each district —
NO one party safe seat districts.
HACKS to justify their re-election.
—
PR and AppV
@DR,
The legislative branch has authority to interpret and implement the Constitution.
SCOTUS will uphold (2), the Democratic lawyer will be be peppered with questions as to whether the Constitution required creation of rotten boroughs in areas with large slave populations. Does the Constitution require popular election of representatives? Do the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments, and 14-2 require that essentially all adult citizens be able to vote in congressional elections. Does it violate EPR under 14-1 to weight the vote of voters based on where they live?
Evenwal v Abbott determined that it is a political decision as to what basis is used. That was a 9-0 decision.
Wesberry v Sanders was decided on the wrong grounds. The SCOTUS grabbed a phrase out of federal legislation, that had been explicitly removed, and invested it with a meaning it never had. Read the dissent in Wesberry, the concurrence that suggested Equal Protection, and Tennant v Jefferson.
It is unconstitutional to assign students to schools based on race (see Brown v Board of Education). Justice Thomas will write the decision outlawing use of race in defining congressional districts.Jim Riley
PR is the answer to gerrymandering and our team loves big numbers because we can get more done when at-large districts bring a big team in 2020.
The Droop Quota for single winner:
[Total votes cast / (number of open seats + 1) + one vote] = one winner
Total vote cast divided by 2 + one vote] = one winner
50% of votes cast (plus one vote) = one winner
The Droop Quota for 538 Electors (at-large USA):
([Total votes cast / 538] + 1) + one vote) = 538 winners
([Total votes cast / 539) (plus one vote) = 538 winners
1/539th (or .18 of 1%) (plus one vote) = 538 winners
The Droop Quota for nine seats (at-large Cambridge MA):
([Total votes cast / number of open seats] + 1) + one vote) = 9 winners
([Total votes cast / 10) (plus one vote) = 9 winners
1/10 (10%) (plus one vote) = 9 winners
* * *
How Proportional Representation Works
By James Ogle
http://www.usparliament.org/stv.php
ALL sorts of SCOTUS race perversions in gerrymander cases using 1965 Voting Rights Act, as amended —
perversion of 15 Amdt — regarding RESULTS — code phrase – majority-minority districts.
Basic minority rule gerrymander math
— really BAAAAD circa 15 percent CONTROL before 1964 cases to current circa 25-32 percent CONTROL.
See 1962 results via Clerk, USA H Reps.
HR 1 — to entrench RED DONKEY communist 25-32 percent CONTROL in USA H Reps forever — or merely hundreds of years — with much worse primary math — more RED Donkey communists getting nominated.
How many Congress HACKS vote against the HACK leaders *party line* on ANY issue ???
—-
PR and AppV
Frankly, this is another attack on the 10th Amendment. The Democrats have grown to detest the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
1776-1865 Slave State Democrats had real slaves producing stuff – cotton, rice, tobacco, etc.
— ie money for slave oligarchs.
New Age Democrats want TOTAL T-A-X slaves producing stuff
— ie money for Donkey oligarchs
— via Donkey gerrymander commissions.
ALL sorts of govt employees / biz contractors [ESP. MILITARY] / welfare persons pay ZERO N-E-T taxes.
Govt spending now about 40 pct of GDP.
New Age RED communist Donkey OLIGARCHS want 100 percent CONTROL of GDP–
IE 1 USA PREZ / VP – 50 USA SENS – 218 USA REPS = 270 OLIGARCHS.
STATES ARE NEAR DEATH — DUE TO SCOTUS HACKS SINCE 1861 —
PERVERSIONS OF GENERAL WELFARE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLS IN 1-8.
—
PR and AppV
This bill is not an attack on the Tenth Amendment. Article One of the original Constitution says congress may write federal election laws. That is the “Elections Clause”, Article One, section 4.
1-4 due to many hacks NOT showing up in 1775-1787 olde Congresses —
ie Gen. Washington being de facto tyrant in 1778-1782 esp.
Stephanopoulos suggestion that Congress impose a requirement for redistricting commissions for state legislative bodies is certainly an attack on the 10th Amendment.Jim Riley
SCOTUS is brain dead ignorant about RFG in 4-4–
ie having MAJORITY RULE regimes in ALL States
— NOT the many rotted monarch/oligarch MINORITY RULE regimes in Europe in 1787
— always plotting more foreign wars and domestic tyranny.
Good article. A reader can easily come to equate single-member districts with a bipartisan-first House Democratic leadership that otherwise reluctant to admit the primacy of the two-party system of their political reform approach.
The full text was released recently and it’s not quite as bad as the summary that was out there. It doesn’t actually specify Democrat, Republican, Independent, which would appear to permanently exclude thid or new parties, and permanently entrench the Democrats and Republicans with 2/3 control regardless of their vote totals.
Instead it says party with highest total, party with second highest total, and all others. Which is quite a bit less objectionable.