Gerrymandering & Citizens United

quote:

---

Are both parties effectively in agreement that Citizens United and partisan gerrymandering need to be eliminated

---

The Republican party certainly does not agree with this statement.

quote:

---

The Republican party certainly does not agree with this statement.

---

Nor did the Dem party when it gerrymandered the entirety of New England.

quote:

---

Are both parties effectively in agreement that Citizens United and partisan gerrymandering need to be eliminated, but recognize that meaningful reform is unlikely because it conflicts with the political self-interest of those in power?

---

If only there were some way to remove those in power?

Redistricting is up to the state legislatures, if I understand correctly. The state legislatures are elected by the people. Circumventing their maps is interfering with a constitutional process.

If California is dumb enough to elect Democrats, they should have to suffer the consequences of their terrible decision, but Republican-led states should play the exact same game by the exact same rules to ensure there are checks and balances at the federal level.

quote:

---

If only there were some way to remove those in power?

---

pols flock to corruption like flies to shite. You will run out of bug spray long before you run out of flies. Remove the shite and the flies will leave on their own

quote:

---

Term limits would fix a bunch of problems

---

We have them. Voters don't want them.

The Constitution’s biggest flaw is that it makes no allowances for the gridlock created by political parties - or even the idea that political parties would form. To end gerrymandering, congressional appropriations would likely need to be tied more directly to party vote outcomes.

Citizens United was correctly decided because the government should have no say in what private entities can do and say with their money.

"Partisan gerrymandering" will always be a thing because there is no way to neatly draw boundaries without disaffecting one group or another. It will always be a tug of war over the lines.

quote:

---

Citizens United basically says the donating of money to a political group or campaign is a form of free speech. In order to "eliminate" this, we would need to do a severe re-writing of the First Amendment in order to clarify what constitutes "free speech" as someone with more money doesn't mean someone with no money cannot express a differing opinion. It's just that money acts as a megaphone and the First Amendment doesn't outlaw being louder.

---

Most people are ignorant about the Citizens United case.

The case dealt with a corporation that made a film about Hilary Clinton. The McCain campaign finance law prohibited corporate money from being used in electioneering so many months before an election (I think it was something like 3 months before a primary and 6 months before a general - I am not certain on the time).
So the makers of the film wanted to challenge the law knowing they might face consequences for distributing a film.
SCOTUS ruled that the government could not stop distribution of a film and the campaign finance law was unconstitutional in part.

What is interesting is to think about all the things that would be banned if Citizens United were to be eliminated - newspapers, television stations, books, magazine articles, etc would be banned from asserting any sort of preference or dislike of a candidate. It was an insane law, and thank goodness the law was overturned.

No way in hell it should be "eliminated"

quote:

---

The Constitution’s biggest flaw is that it makes no allowances for the gridlock created by political parties - or even the idea that political parties would form.

---

They knew parties would form, I just don't think they understood the way political tribalism would evolve and strengthen to the point we see now where it's really party-before-country in many instances. Another thing they didn't foresee was the dependence of so much of the citizenry on the largess of social welfare programs (because those didn't exist in the form we see today) as well as the dependency of much of the private sector on government agencies (ATCs are a prime example right now).

They depended on reasonable people debating to come up with a plan which allowed both sides to end the gridlock with varying agreed upon concessions. Today though, too many of those people are indebted and beholden to their party first and foremost. To fix that we need to implement a plan where members of Congress do not ever receive pay for the period where government is shut down (ideally it would be for any period not covered by a budget, not just a CR).

quote:

---

To end gerrymandering, congressional appropriations would likely need to be tied more directly to party vote outcomes.

---

I would think that would just exacerbate the problem?