Why Are politician’s redistricting voting maps based on ancient Sociology Tribalism groups instead of the “strange” Supreme Court ruling the Constitution founder’s belief of “one man one vote” in order for courts to easily judge to prevent prevent “gerrymandering” by politicians to obtain power?
The Chicago Tribune Article titled: Fed Court panel upholds Dems legislative districts, reported the following statement.
“The record shows ample evidence of crossover voting to defeat any claim of racially polarized voting sufficient to deny Latino and Black voters of the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in the challenged districts,” the court wrote.”
The Purpose of This Post
Is to relate an ancient wisdom verse and definitions to this conundrum.
A wise king winnows out the wicked; he drives the threshing wheel over them. (Proverb 20:26)
Winnows Definitions – Merriam Webster
(1): to remove (something, such as chaff) by a current of air
(2): to get rid of (something undesirable or unwanted): REMOVE —often used with out
What’s My Point?
In previous posts on this issue, I stated how and why politicians are the root causes of racism problem in the USA and proposed straight line districts be used to remap districts instead of the convoluted shapes of present redistricting maps along with the reasons why.
In this post, the issue to discern is the “strange” ruling of the Supreme Court which is the root cause of why it is so difficult to prove gerrymandering.
The reason being is the Supreme Court did not define what constitutes gerrymandering which for some reason the Chicago Tribune article stated is legal, but the articles state is illegal.
In My Opinion
The Supreme Court ruling on the 1966 Voting Act needs to be changed to add a definition which in essence changed the voting rights act to become a tool for politicians to obtain power.
Sadly though, it also has turn out to be the main reason for the present Sociology Tribalism apparent increasing of in violin racial acts that are occurring in our Nation based on racial judgements based on skin color of “one man, one vote” choices to choose leaders by “their character and experience instead of their tribal groupings” maintained by force rather than reason.
Read the following definitions and the previous posts in the Source Links below.
Should this issue be returned to the Supreme Court to discern (winnows out he wicked practice of political chafe of race tribalism) to obtain a wise definition of districting?
A definition to remedy what has occurred in the past 52 years as a result of tier earlier decision to promote policies to obtain or remain in power based on sociology tribalism of one man one vote based on their choice of character of politicians the choose to represent them based on “the content of their character” instead of tribal race?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Definitions and Excerpts from Source Articles
Tribalism refers to customs and beliefs transmitted and enacted in groups (tribes) sharing a common identity and in which centralized political organization and authority are absent.
Strangely, though, in the half-century history of redistricting legislative seats under that governing principle, the actual way to achieve “one-person, one-vote” has never been spelled out by the Supreme Court.
Gerrymandering is the act of manipulating the boundaries of an electoral district, so as to give one political party more election districts than the other party and, as a result, more votes. Gerrymandering can also be used to help or hurt a demographic in particular, such as the elderly, or the poor. While the process is technically illegal, it is also a difficult thing to prove.
Previous Posts – Redistricting
Content of Their Character