The state of Wisconsin does not choose its state legislature in free and fair elections, and it has not done so for a very long time. A new lawsuit, filed just one day after Democrats effectively gained a majority on the state Supreme Court, seeks to change that.
The suit, known as Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, seeks to reverse gerrymanders that have all-but-guaranteed Republican control of the state legislature — no matter which party Wisconsin voters supported in the last election.
In 2010, the Republican Party had its best performance in any recent federal election, gaining 63 seats in the US House of Representatives and making similar gains in many states. This election occurred right before a redistricting cycle, moreover — the Constitution requires every state to redraw its legislative maps every 10 years — so Republicans used their large majorities in many states to draw aggressive gerrymanders.
Indeed, Wisconsin’s Republican gerrymander is so aggressive that it is practically impossible for Democrats to gain control of the state legislature. In 2018, for example, Democratic state assembly candidates received 54 percent of the popular vote in Wisconsin, but Republicans still won 63 of the assembly’s 99 seats — just three seats short of the two-thirds supermajority Republicans would need to override a gubernatorial veto.
The judiciary, at both the state and federal levels, is complicit in this effort to lock Democrats out of power in Wisconsin. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), for example, the US Supreme Court held that no federal court may ever consider a lawsuit challenging a partisan gerrymander, overruling the Court’s previous decision in Davis v. Bandemer (1986).
Three years later, Wisconsin drew new maps which were still very favorable to Republicans, but that included an additional Black-majority district — raising the number of state assembly districts with a Black majority from six to seven. These new maps did not last long, however, because the US Supreme Court struck them down in Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2022) due to concerns that these maps may have done too much to increase Black representation.
What an awful comment, that somehow 13 people upvoted because they don't understand how our democracy works.
Grouping people together geographically is not a bug, it's a feature. It's a good thing. You WANT neighbors to be choosing the people who govern them.
Strong disagree. I believe in proportional representation, if Democrats get 50% of the votes for a given legislature, they get 50% of the seats, and vice-versa for the Republicans. Neighbors often have different interests and I believe that in a democracy decisions should be made by the majority.
I like the idea of proportional representation, but I feel like there's a lot of value in having a "local" representative who's job is to be your representative. In pure PR systems it's hard to know who you actually voted for, and it's much harder to figure out who's representing you specifically. You're voting purely for the party and no one representative is your point of contact.
That's true, the problem is just it's really hard to have properly localized representation on a national level when your nation has millions of people. U.S. Representatives oversee hundreds of thousands of people and many senators serve millions, there's no way for them to get to know their constituents.
Yeah that's a big flaw with the US system. I don't think senators should exist in their current role. Blocks of representatives should serve the state's interests, land shouldn't get a vote - people should.
Limiting the size of Congress was a terrible decision. Ideally you should have a representative for something like every 50k or 100k people. That way it's still a diverse group you're representing, but it's manageable to actually be available for a decent number of them.
I fully agree, this is in large part what I meant by proportional representation. I don't mind the process of districting and making sure those districts are decently small, I just don't like that in large part that the democratic process in the United States is geared towards smaller states. I'm fully aware that the states at America's founding wouldn't go for abolishing the Senate or the electoral college, but things have changed and it's time for the government to change too.
Problem is humans fall into the trap of tyranny of the majority. A simple majority does not lead to mutualistic leadership, it leads to revenge based point keeping for when your group is finally back on power.
The American system is kinda designed around trying to prevent this by requiring compromise or else you have gridlock.
It's designed around creating a tyranny of a minority, also known as plain tyrrany.
If by minority you mean white men, agree! If by minority you mean co-opted by oligarchic and capitalistic control masquerading as everyones favorite social issue, agree!
But the ability to discuss and compromise amongst elected officials was the actual Hallmark of our system. Compromise, it got us this far then totally stopped around Nixon when bi-partisanship started up get goosed by the rich.
So yeah, we're oligarchic at this point, but that's the end game of any system that lets money control the system. They don't actually care about religion or LGBT people, those are the levers that you pull for us lab rats.
Go look up how the Senate and the House works. The separation of powers and the way the US government is organized is legitimately brilliant and it is all done on purpose to both limit power of any one part of government but also give individuals power in different ways and on different levels. One side represents a state as a whole because some issues affect an entire state, while the other side takes a state and breaks it up into districts because for other issues more local control is far better.
This is especially important for larger states or states with very varying areas (NYC is so vastly different than Utica). If I live in Utica, what happens in NYC is important simply because of the sheer size of the place both in population and wealth and industry and everything else. But for local issues me and my neighbors should be deciding what happens in our district. The layout of the US government covers both these issues.
You can shit on the way our government is run all you want, but the way it was set and organized is a different story. It is foolish to think a simple straight vote across the board is a good system.
I'm genuinely astonished that anyone can look at US history and call this organization of government a success.
Seriously. It was a solid first draft of a solution in a world that didn't have many contemporary examples to draw from, but then it was just left as a draft and almost never updated (with a few notable modifications for which "all men" were created "equal").
There's a reason we don't instill a clone of our own form of democracy when we regime-change a place.
Shitting on the US has become the new cool thing to do, so congrats on being a trendy edgel0rd.
And yet even as the US has become the world's whipping boy for all its ills, EVERY time something happens around the world, everyone comes running to the US to solve its problems. They don't run to China. They don't run to the EU. They don't run to Brazil or anywhere else.
War breaks out in the EU's literal backyard, and yet the biggest support from Ukraine doesn't come from its neighbors who would be most affected by a runaway Putin. Nope. The US is in there as soon as possible helping them out.
Earthquake hits some 3rd world country, and the US is shipping supplies before the ground stops shaking.
Pandemic spreads across the globe, and it's not the UK or Japan leading the effort to donate vaccines.
Spare me the anti American rhetoric. It gets old and rather tiring to hear from clueless fucks who have a bone to pick.
"Anytime who disagrees with me is stupid!"