… including the 12 year old molestation victim’s testimony?
What, you can’t read?
Evidence that is to be considered in reaching a verdict in a trial should be public.
I can read. I am just surprised. Why?
Why? Now I’m surprised. Public oversight of the justice system.
How would you secure the 12-year-old’s testimony, anyway? The defendant has to get a copy of it, due to the right to confront one’s accusers… What if the defendant then chooses to release it?
That would render all these redistricting questions moot . . .
What I suspect is true is that perfectly drawn districts, taking into account ethnic backgrounds and family income statistics, would result in no minorities being elected to any seat without some ‘white’ voter support.
In a perfectly drawn state, one with 65% whites and 35% blacks, as an example, where each district is 65% white and 35% black…how does a black get elected without white voter backing? Blacks would be a significant voting bloc, yes, one able to largely determine the candidate of the Democratic party, so that the race boils down to a black democrat and a white republican in every state and US Representative race…and if whites tend to vote republican and blacks tend to vote democrat, it is very hard for a black to be elected.
I could be wrong, politics being unpredictable. Maybe the white Dems would all back the black candidate in exchange for appointments, etc.
I guess it depends on your definition of ‘perfectly drawn.’ Because to get districts in a 65-35 state that all reflected that breakdown, you’d almost surely have to draw some districts with very interesting boundaries.
But if the standard for perfection is strictly some measure of compactness, then a state with that breakdown with several legislative districts would almost surely have some “majority minority” districts.
Yup, and it would more fairly represent the state based on how its population actually voted rather than where they live
And if big rural portions of the state have no representation - screw them. Because politics aren’t local, are they?
But, they do, because the voters who live there do. Remember, we are talking about a system where no one has any representation geographically, and no one’s vote is strengthened nor weakened by their location of residence. If you’re a Pub voting in a solid-blue county under a single-member-district system, you might as well stay home on e-day; but under a PR system your vote has exact the same effect as if you lived in a solid-red county or in a purple/swing county.
Example: Illinois. Currently 6 out of 18 US House Representatives are Republican. I suspect under proportional system, none out of 18 would be.
Do you understand at all how this works?! Under a PR system, if 30% of Illinois voters vote Republican, the Pubs get 30% of the seats – in the state legislature, that is; at the national level, only national aggregate vote-totals would matter, how many American voters voted Pub. Individual members of the HoR would no longer have any official connection to any state, let alone district.
Please pick up a book and read how proportional systems work
That’s even worse. So you may have no reps from some states at all. None. How will those states be represented, exactly? Politicians will campaign/make promises etc. in NY, CA, IL. No one will do so in ND, DE, WY, SD, or AK.
Who cares?
ND, DE, WY, SD and AK do. And under US Constitution you need them to approve in order to get to that proportional representation system. Well, you need 3/4 of the states, but you know what I mean.
Yes, but you seem to be discussing it on the merits rather than as a matter of whether it can practically be passed. Anyway, politicians won’t make promises to states, they’ll make them to people. If one guy makes a promise to California, and a rival wants to make a promise that will benefit the same number of people in flyover states, he can do so.
“All politics are local”. US is an enormous country, both in population and (more importantly) in geographical area, so it is even more true here.
… and?