If Republicans can't win fairly, they'll just do whatever they can to steal a victory. Who cares that Democrats are in a clear majority. https://www.wral.com/story/voters-have-no-right-to-fair-elections-nc-lawmakers-say-as-they-seek-to-dismiss-gerrymandering-suit/21479970/Lawyers representing state legislative leaders were in court Thursday in Raleigh, arguing to throw out an anti-gerrymandering lawsuit that targets the state's new political districts.The lawsuit argues that the state constitution guarantees the right to fair elections, and it says the new districts violate that promise. The Republican-led legislature argues that no such right exists, since it's impossible to define what "fair" means.Republican lawmakers drew the maps and approved them in October. Political reviews conducted by outside analysts, as well as by the legislature itself, show that the new maps are expected to give Republicans large majorities in the state legislature and the state's delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives — even if Democratic candidates win a majority of the statewide vote.The maps will be used in this year's elections, and every election through 2030, unless struck down before then. The lawsuit under debate Thursday was brought by a group represented by former Republican Supreme Court justice Bob Orr. It's one of several lawsuits targeting the new maps in state or federal court.When the group filed the lawsuit, it cited a past North Carolina Supreme Court decision that said: "The people are entitled to have their elections conducted honestly and in accordance with the requirements of the law. To require less would result in mockery of the democratic processes for nominating and electing public officials."
Republican lawmakers, however, have long said the legislature has nearly unlimited power to draw maps however its leaders see fit. They repeated those claims in court again Thursday. Their lawyer, Phil Strach, argued that the North Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled that politically motivated gerrymandering is OK.Strach criticized the theory that voters have a right to fair elections as "legal gobbledygook" and added that even if the maps are gerrymandered, there's nothing state courts can do about it. "The state Supreme Court has slammed the door shut," Strach said.Previous GOP-drawn maps with similarly skewed lines were struck down as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court ahead of the 2022 elections, when the court had a Democratic majority. But a new Republican majority took control of the high court in 2023 and quickly moved to undo that precedent and greenlit partisan gerrymandering. Strach said that should be the end of the conversation.Orr, the former high court justice, was involved in writing one of the state's most important legal opinions on redistricting when he served on the Supreme Court in the 1990s and early 2000s. He has since remained involved in elections law in private practice. "All the citizens of the state of North Carolina have a right to fair elections," Orr said Thursday."The whole point of the districts is to give an unfair advantage to one side," said Orr, who left the Republican Party and in recent years has become a critic of the GOP. "... What's the point of having frequent elections, if the results are pre-ordained?"The judges didn't immediately rule Thursday on the legislature's request to throw out the lawsuit. If they allow it to go forward, a trial would be set for both sides to put on evidence and more detailed arguments.
>>1304093>Strach criticized the theory that voters have a right to fair elections as "legal gobbledygook" and added that even if the maps are gerrymandered, there's nothing state courts can do about it. "The state Supreme Court has slammed the door shut," Strach said.To be fair it's the GOP voters in NC putting drunk on power idiots like Strach in a position to do these things. Until those boomer voters die off nothing is going to change in that state.
>>1304111It's not being drunk with power. Conservatives are authoritarians who believe they should be the only ones in power. Look up the Wisconsin supreme court ruling on their gerrymander which was clearly a violation of the state constitution because the Republicans couldn't be assed to make contiguous districts and the constitution specifically says districts need to be contiguous. The Republican justices all ruled in favor of the gerrymander anyway.
What we really need are voter ID laws so those hillbillies can't drive across districts and vote more than once.
>>1304234Or just make voting compulsory
>>1304234You're probably trolling, but I wouldn't even know how to vote twice if I had a gun to my head.
>>1304256As much as I think it is stupid for people to not exercise their right to vote, refusal to vote is still someone's right and forcing them to vote violates the 1st amendment.>>1304262He is clearly a false-flagging concern troll. He doesn't care about hillbillies driving across districts and voting more than once. He just wants voter ID laws as a form of voter suppression. (Watch him now accuse me of samefagging for not disagreeing with you).What electoral reforms we need instead imo are (in no particular order):Universal automatic voter registrationRanked choice votingAbolition of the electoral college for the presidential election (or rather, more likely, a workaround like the popular vote interstate compact)Nationwide vote-by-mailEarly voting from up to a month and a half before Election DayMake Election Day a paid holiday so people don't feel like they have to choose between exercising their right as a citizen to civic participation and getting a full paycheckCampaign finance reform (more transparency about corporate donors, getting rid of super PACs, etc)Getting rid of blatant partisan gerrymandering (perhaps by having each state have a non-partisan independent committee draw up the district maps)Ballot access/debate access for third partiesRestore voting rights to felons that served their sentences (or are at least released on probation/parole)
>>1304276Felons already can vote again.I also disagree with what you think would be good ideas.What electoral reforms we need instead 'imo' are (in no particular order):Repeal of universal suffrage.Outlawing of political parties.Outlawing of ranked choice voting.Universal implementation of jungle primaries.Electoral college used for all state-wide elections; ie have electors for all senate seats.Vote in person only.No early voting.Election day holiday is a good idea.Mandatory education on Gerrymandering and other civic classes for application of voting rights.Removing voting rights of:Unmarried single men.Women.Anyone under the age of 30.The unemployed.Those on welfare/medicaid.First through third generation immigrants.Landless/Homeless.Childless.Any currently serving a felony sentence.Any who participate in aberrant lifestyles, ie; homosexuality, transexuality, furry fandom, 'non-gender binary' or Reddit users.Any currently serving office.Federal, or state government employees.Anyone receiving social security benefits.In essence, voting should be limited only to:Land-owning, employed, (self, or otherwise) male heads of households with children unless you are a:Combat veteran.First responder.Widower or surviving wife of deceased voter.These three, and only these three situations would override disqualifying you from voting unless you are currently employed by any government agencies or serving in political office.There should be less voting access. Not more. Quality of voter over quantity.
>>1304287>Felons already can vote again.Not in every state.>Repeal of universal suffrage.In other words "people I don't like shouldn't be allowed to vote">Outlawing of political partiesNon-partisan elections would be a good thing, but there shouldn't be an issue with having parties campaign and fundraise for their preferred candidates. The bad thing would be if two major parties make it so that anyone outside of those two parties don't have a shot of being elected (like how the system is now)>Outlawing of ranked choice votingWhy do you prefer first-past-the-post? It's the voting system that represents the will of the voters the least. It's the voting system where people can't really vote for whom they are most ideologically aligned with, in fear of them acting as a spoiler for the candidate they are slightly less aligned with (but has a better shot a winning) which leads to the candidate they aren't aligned with at all winning.>Universal implementation of jungle primariesWouldn't jungle primaries (and, by extension, a non-partisan general election) be better served by ranked choice?>Electoral college used in all state-wide electionsThis is irredeemably retarded, and I'm now convinced you're just trolling. Not even gonna read the rest of your post.
>>1304290No. Ranked choice is stupid. First past the post with jungle primaries is better. The only thing I'd change would be a mandatory run-off between the two top candidates unless it's 85% or more for one, rather than 60% or more.>This is irredeemably retarded, and I'm now convinced you're just trolling. Not even gonna read the rest of your post.Aww. Don't be that way.
>>1304291I think "using ranked choice in a jungle primary to determine the top two, then using FPTP for those top two in the general" is a fair compromise.
>>1304298Well, if we implement all my other election and voting reforms, then ranked choice won't be so bad. Compromise accepted under that condition.
>>1304302Nah, I don't think disenfranchising everyone you don't like are terms that I would agree to.
>>1304310Like or dislike doesn't factor into it. By my own rules I'd be disenfranchising myself. It's a matter of taking away voting rights from people who do not contribute, or would have ulterior motives behind their voting choices. It would also weed out the unfit. Giving every retard a say is unproductive, and detrimental. Would you ask the janitor for a second opinion to your oncologist's diagnosis? No. That's absurd. So why would you allow people who cannot get even their own lives together to have a say in how an entire nation is run? While not everyone who is an employed married male head of household who is in good standing with the law would be the best person to ask about foreign policy, they are at least the most invested in the well being of the nation. At least more so than the welfare queen, crack addict, socialist, dropout, or woman.If we must have democracy, then we must only allow those of the highest caliber in our society to participate in it. To do otherwise just makes the entire system a farce. Simply allowing everyone to have a say renders the entire process moot as it just because a simple popularity contest rather than what's best for the nation or it's most productive citizens.
>>1304287You're a dumbass who doesn't want to live in a democracy.Why pretend to love America when you hate everything that makes it great?
>>1304313>By my own rules I'd be disenfranchising myself.So you admit that you're a retard who wouldn't be trusted to vote in your superior republic, but for some reason you're capable of designing it? Your plan is just as good as any plan provided by a crackhead or the other fictional enemies you've been programmed to hate. Why should anyone care about your stupid plan?
>>1304384Worse, that and on doesn't even pay attention to its own posts. Just look at the post you reply to and compare it to the giant list of changes to see how disjointed his thought process is. Can't keep it coherent from one post to another.
>>1304382>who doesn't want to live in a democracyCorrect. Also: America is not, nor was it ever designed to be 'democratic.'>>1304384I'm not designing a 'superior republic.' I'm suggesting bringing it back to what this nation once was.>>1304398In what way is it disjointed? All three of you can only think in terms of what you want for yourselves, not what is best for everyone, or the nation at large.That is why 'democracy' is a failure. It devolves into petty vengeance politics and reactionary bickering.
>>1304384>So you admit that you're a retard who wouldn't be trusted to vote in your superior republic, but for some reason you're capable of designing it?Universal suffrage is the exact reason why homeless crackheads have the same right to decide the fate of the nation as productive members of society.Initially, our republic only allowed votes to white land owners. If implemented today, that would solve most of our problems.
>>1304407>In what way is it disjointed?The one reply doesn't follow from the other. For fucks sake, all you had to do was go back and ready the replies, the issues are glaring.Basic writing skills 101. Well, now also basic reading skill, dipshit.Your own posts clearly demonstrate that (you) cannot think for yourself.
>>1304408>Initially, our republic only allowed votes to white land owners. If implemented today, that would solve most of our problems.And when corporations own all the land? What then?
>>1304410>what if all the people who were only allowed one vote still had one vote?Gee anon I dunno.
>>1304409>no real explanation>just ad hominemsOkay.
>>1304276But still, how would I drive across state lines and show up at a random polling place and vote? They'll ask for my ID and say you're at the wrong place. End of story. I was actually between houses in 2020 and showed up at the wrong place and they said nope.
>>1304426Its convenient to ignore that voter fraud basically never happens and gets caught when it does. Its more convenient to ignore that the more people that vote, the harder it is for voter fraud to occur. Really, we should adopt Australia's mandatory voting. If you don't vote, you get fined. I'd rather literally have only crackheads able to vote than this retards vision of corporations ruling the country
>>1304428I feel you should have to take a basic 10-15 questionnaire to be qualified to vote. If you don't understand the basic principals of how the system works and is structured, you shouldn't have a say on it.
>>1304429Republicans will never allow mandatory voting because they would lose every single time, so don't worry about it.
>>1304411The fuck is wrong with you?Can you make even a single honest reply?
>>1304414Hey, ass-wipe, the explanation was in the first reply.Learn to fucking read, you moron.
>>1304429>If you don't understand the basic principals of how the system works and is structured, you shouldn't have a say on it.It'll disenfranchise too many republican voters, so it'll never happen
>>1304430>>1304430They already do. Being a Republican in America is being a minority. [i drop this often and they seethe at this]
>>1304434>I am proud that Democrat propaganda worksUh. OK. Glad you're happy.
>>1304432You're just here to waste time, huh? Okay. Here's your last (You).
>>1304428What a wonderful concept. Go vote for two monsters who hate you, or get fined. Fuck the poor, eh?
If political influence and rigging weren’t a factor, what would be the most fair way to handle political districts? Divide each state into 100 randomly chosen groups of people regardless of geographical area? Chosen by a psuedo random open source computer system? Voting held via a transparent blockchain system?
The NC Republicans have sneakily been some of the most corrupt and scheming politicians in America but because NC gets inexplicably skipped over in news cycles nobody ever discusses it. t. 828
>>1304457You're perfectly able to throw your vote away on a third party if you choose.
>>1304457Sounds like you don't want to live in a democracy. Thats fine, go submit to the ruler of your choice somewhere else. Free men live here.
>all this bickering about muh ideal state in this threadJust remember this is the official Republican position:>The lawsuit argues that the state constitution guarantees the right to fair elections, and it says the new districts violate that promise. The Republican-led legislature argues that no such right exists, since it's impossible to define what "fair" means.
>>1304456I'm not here to spoon feed you what you provided, you shit for brains imbicile.
>>1304553And in a democracy you submit to the ruler of someone else's choice. Oooh. Big improvement.
>>1304556So you're just mad that I said something you disagree with, and are throwing a little tantrum. Got'cha. Typical spoiled brat libtard.
>>1304616Wow, how the fuck are you even able to breath on your own?You see anger? That is laughter at your inability to keep up from one post to another, your own fucking posts. Haha, gos you are one horse faced shit for brains dipshit.
>>1304625>It's not the same because... IT JUST IS OKAY???????????????Yeah, lmao. Okay. Lemme guess, it's "not your duty to educate me" or some other such inane faggotry?You're just so fucking mad you can't even formulate a coherent counterargument. You just make up imaginary issues with the posts that you can't even properly articulate as to what those problems happen to be. They're there, though. According to you.
>>1304633O have no clue what you are even taking about now. You can honestly quote posts so there is no point in continued discourse.All i did want point out that post B didnt logically follow from post A. The asshattery that followed is all on you, dipshit. You can't be bothered to follow your own posts. If you need to be spoon fed you only have to beg for it now. Instead of discovering for yourself you instead double down on being a shit brain. you just want too wallow in your own shit pile.
>>1304657Sounds like you have reading comprehension problems. Or you're just a shitstirring leftist agitator.
>>1304671I'm not the one whose posts, back to back, are contradictory, asswipe.I just love how anyone the dares to not suck your ass is a leftist. That is very tell ing about you as a person. The illogical conclusions in your posts paint a very poor picture of you.
>>1304692Yet you cannot even point out what is actually contradictory. So yes. Stupid -and- a leftist shitstirring agitator.
>>1304276>refusal to vote is still someone's right and forcing them to vote violates the 1st amendment.Just write 'uncommitted' on the ballot then.
>>1304705You don't know the difference between 'cannot' and 'wont', you shit brained ass-wipe.Nothing I've posted can be construed by anyone with more than a single brain cell as being leftist or rightist. Take that for what it is.
