Pennsylvania's Supreme Court Throws Out the State's Gerrymandered Map

It should be minority rights, majority rule. One person, one vote. Regardless of any other factors other than eligibility.
Why should someone who lives in a remote area get to have their vote count for more than anyone elses?
People in densly populated areas shouldn't count for more either. They should all have the same weight.
Per person. Again, minority rights, majority rule. One person, one vote!

-Meta

 

Election districts shouldn't be based on race.
You want to help black people? Then push for more affirmative action or contribute reparations.

-Meta

 

Mob rule?

Mob rule is the unlawful control of a political situation by people (not necessarily a majority) operating outside of the conventional established mechanisms through the use of intimidation and possibly violence.
It should not be confused with the idea of democracy or rule by the majority.

So again I ask...

Why should someone who lives in a remote area get to have their vote count for more than anyone elses?
You don't think that giving one person's vote more weight is unfair?

-Meta

 

I'm not saying you have to support/provide reparations, or push for more affirmative action.
Just pointing out that if you wanted to help black people, those options make a lot more sense than arguing we need to muck up our elections
by factoring in things that unfairly give certain types of individuals more voting power than others.

-Meta

 

That's what local governments (mayors, city councils, boards, counties, municipalities, townships etc.) are for.
When it comes to matters that pertain to an entire state, every person who lives in that state should have their vote count the same.
No one's vote should count for any more or less as far as representation goes than the next person. Do you think I'm wrong about this?
If so, then please explain. Why should rural votes be weighted any differently than urban votes?

-Meta

 

I think Google's point was that there is room for improvement,
and that we shouldn't fall into the trap of letting appeals to tradition prevent us from realizing that improvement.

 

Perhaps, but then that is beside the point here, since, at least while we are talking about things such as who the states are sending to federal offices (as well as federally granted/recognized rights), at least in that particular regard, the federal government does have a legitimate interest in how those elections are set up. And even if that wasn't the case, the ideals of rule by the majority and one person one vote ought to still stand on their own merits regardless.

-Meta

 

I'll try to make it super clear then...

We should not be gerrymandering......Period.

End any practices that unfairly gives black voters more weight than others.
Similarly get rid of districting which unfairly gives black voters less weight than others.
Make every person's vote count just as much as the next person's, regardless of race, regardless of rural/urban status, or political affiliation.
To that end, districts need to all have about the same number of people in them, and should not be trying to group certain people up or split certain groups apart. No weird tentacles...make the districts square/rectangular, or as close as reasonably possible.
This Goofy Kicking Donald Duck nonsense needs to stop!

-Meta