On December 29, the Commonwealth Court issued a 139-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, finding that Pennsylvania’s U.S. House districts do not comprise an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The decision says there is no way to draw a line between a plan that is constitutional and a plan that is unconstitutional. The decision cites past U.S. Supreme Court decisions on this subject, which will probably be obsolete when new decisions are released in the coming weeks or months. Thanks to How Appealing for the link. The case is League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 261 MD 2017.
1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED PACKED/CRACKED GERRYMANDER AREAS = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL.
MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE PRIMARY MATH — ESP. IF NO INCUMBENT.
—
PR AND APPV —
REGARDLESS OF A-L-L THE MORONS (LAWYERS AND ESP. JUDGES) IN GERRYMANDER CASES SINCE 4 JULY 1776.
The median-mean gap exists at a precinct level, why should it be expected to disappear when precincts are aggregated into districts? Granted, there is no median-mean gap at the statewide level, but how fast should it collapse when drawing districts? Presumably, there will be more of a gap when drawing state house districts, as compared to drawing state senate districts, compared to congressional districts.
So since “there is no way to draw a line between a plan that is constitutional and a plan that is unconstitutional” that means that they would accept ANY boundary map?
The theme of the story is the same with all voting law advocates, whether it is the League of Women or Libertarian Party; the leaders have no interest in pure proportional representation as a mathematical solution to fair representation.
Plurality elections = all elections in USA.
Only by using pure proportional representation will you get team players interested in pure proportional representation.
Without pure proportional representation, we see pluralists wasting time in legal fights over plurality elections, and so it is a perpetual battle, never being resolved.
Are you interested in pure proportional representation?
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation for more than twenty-two consecutive years and it works fine.
Nobody has it as good as the United Coalition.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
It doesn’t seem that radical that a judicial body could observe in a ruling that injecting by way of a mandate the element of randomness to frustrate partisan planners is doable and appropriate. Require dozens of different maps and draw two at random and voters pick and election time.
I think that the Congressman has since passed, but I remember seeing a map of the U.S. District in the southwest corner of Pennsylvania. It looked like someone ran over a pterodactyl. Gerrymandering may be tough for legislators and judges to define, but “We the People” know it when we see it. A vote for candidates in the Blue Tie or Red Tie parties, respectively, is a vote to continue the status quo.
Constitutional Craig,
Good Republicans, good Democratics and good voters from all parties (and independents), are working collaboratively under pure proportional representation.
So you may identify us as proportionalists, who support pure proportional representation.
It is pluralists from all parties (and independents) who are perpetuating the unjust practices. Pluralists working with more pluralists, will cement the unfair practices.
The First USA Parliament’s United Coalition, been promoting pure proportional representation (PR), the team working under PR, since 1995.
Google joined the opposition, cementing pluralism, by exploiting the division in 1997:
http://usparliament.org/how-google-got-its-name.php
For all math morons–
In a REAL Democracy —
a legislative body exists ONLY because ALL of the Electors-Voters can NOT appear in person and vote on bills, etc.
Thus *representatives* / agents.
Basic P.R. —
PM = TM x PV/TV
Solve for P, T. M, V
Much too difficult for the math MORON lawyers and worse judges in the many minority rule gerrymander cases in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania%27s_congressional_districts
wikis now even for gerrymander maps
do NOT show the map to little kids — might scare them.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pa-gerrymandering-judge-upholdsupreme-court-20171229.html
media story about the mess — with PA map of the gerrymander districts
PR and AppV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
mentions PR remedy — very shocking !!!