Reply to Virginia referendum - if you hate MAGA, vote YES (even if your mailing says to vote 'No')

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Virginia referendum - if you hate MAGA, vote YES (even if your mailing says to vote 'No')"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If you want to snuff out the voices of every Virginian who lives outside of NoVA, vote YES. [/quote]

I truly, curiously, want to know what you think about the redistricting in Texas and other places that preceded this.[/quote]
+1 DeSantis is keeping the Florida legislature in session waiting on the results of this so they can gerrymander again to try to keep Trump’s power unchecked if it passes.[/quote]

Did you actually think this gerrymandering nonsense will just stop if VA passes this? You can't be that naive.[/quote]
It would stop if any Republicans voted for the national ban, but they did not.

Florida’s constitution bans partisan gerrymandering but DeSantis doesn’t care.[/quote]

Personally, I'm all in favor of a nationwide ban, assuming it's Constitutional. But we all know that the bills offered up by the Dems weren't serious. With the exception of the (I believe) most recent one from last September, they all have been attached larger bills with all sorts of strings attached (i.e mandatory mail in voting, ranked choice voting, etc) that made them non-starters. And the one from last Fall had some legitimate Constitutional concerns about state sovereignty and "independent" commissions. So all of them were DOA and the Dems knew it, but it allowed them to posture politically.

If there were a truly "Naked Bill"—like a 5-page document that simply said, "Districts must be compact, contiguous, and drawn by a [b]bipartisan 50/50 commission[/b], with no other changes to voting laws"—it would be very hard for anyone to vote against. The fact that such a bill has NEVER been the primary focus of EITHER party tells you that both sides still want to keep the gerrymandering "card" in their back pocket, just in case they get the chance to use it, or as some on here have argued "need" to use it.

Here's the real rub though. As Virginians we can only control what happens in Virginia and we FIXED it in 2020 for ourselves. Our anti-gerrymandering process works. Now the Dems are trying to blow that up and it's shameful.

[/quote]

Bipartisan is the issue - it should be an independent commission.

While the 2020 changes could be noted as progress, they were also deeply flawed, as demonstrated by the commission's performance. 
[/quote]

Actually it should be both -  an independent, bi-partisan commission. There's no such thing as "non-partisan", if that's what you're eluding to.

As far as VA's commission goes, it's not only [b]independent[/b] & bipartisan, it's also citizen-involved. That's even better. I've heard other people mention it's deeply flawed, but have yet to hear an example. As for performance, I'd argue it it did a remarkable job. The constitutional amendment stipulates that if the commission cannot come to an agreement (a supermajority, which is a very a good safeguard) in time, it would go to the VA Supreme Court. If you remember, that was during early COVID which posed a huge logistical nightmare for them. Unfortunately they could not get it done so enter the VA Supreme Court. They took the necessary steps to avoid any hint of partisanship by appointing 2 "Special Masters" - one from each party - to hammer it out. They did and the end result were very fair congressional maps, by any objective measure. Put simply, it worked![/quote]

It’s not independent if legislators are on the commission.

They couldn’t get it done because Rs weren’t participating in good faith. They knew it’d go to the conservative SC.

The commission should be nonpartisan and independent.

[/quote]

It worked, and there’s no such thing as “non-partisan”[/quote]
Didn’t it not work since the court had to do it?[/quote]

That is how the process was laid out, voted on and passed in a landslide. As a result, the current maps are objectively fair. It worked [/quote]

No, the commission failed. Bipartisan doesn’t work. 
[/quote]

It worked, and you sound like a totalitarian [/quote]

Objectively, the commission failed because of partisan issues — which is why the best practice is nonpartisan.

At a minimum, no politicians.

[/quote]

It worked. Objectively, the process worked as intended. The resulting maps and election results are the proof.

Again, there is no such thing as nonpartisan. Human nature prevents it. Bipartisanship is the only way to achieve fairness.[/quote]

The commission failed. Period. But they did have a backup process in place.

Bipartisanship doesn’t work when Rs don’t do anything in good faith. Absolutely no politicians on the commission.

[/quote]

It worked. Period. There was no “backup process”. It was all part of THE process and it worked.

And bipartisanship also worked to get it passed. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

For the last time, it worked

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics