Well, it is still bi-partisan in a lose sense, at least in the same as a poorly functioning congressional committee is. And maybe better, even a bad, gerrymandering, loaded commission might still be “better” than just having the majority in the house load things one way.
But non-partisan districting does work, elsewhere in the US and elsewhere in the world, and it’s clearly the way to go.
ShivaX
1922
Well it works good when people complain about it.
“This was approved by a bi-partisan commission!”
Nevermind that there were 11 of one party and 5 of the other.
Well yeah, there’s a point at which it’s a completely misleading fig-leaf. I guess the trick is convincing the politicians that non-partisan systems work fine elsewhere and that they should accept the one-time possibility of some of their number losing their seats.
Once it’s in place both sides benefit, quite apart from the really obvious democratic advantages.
Do de do, no suppression here.
In this case, the woman was trying to help her son get a free Photo ID at the DMV, as is his right under the new statutes. At first she was told the charge for the supposedly-free ID would be $28, and that was only after she convinced a clerk that there had been enough “activity” in her son’s bank account, as used by the clerk to determine whether or not he actually resided in the state.
And that was for an affluent white resident. If you’re a homeless person in WI, as the woman’s interview with another clerk in the video suggests, you can pretty much just forget about being able to vote at all under the new law.
An official at the Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation confirmed to The BRAD BLOG that those seeking the Photo ID for free, must actually know to request it during the application process, as required by the language, she told us, in the new state statute.
Not unsurprisingly, the USSC says that those exact shenanigans are a violation of the 24th amendment.
Unfortunately it’d require some skilled necromancy to bring this before Earl Warren’s SCOTUS.
Yeah, I had read that it was non-partisan, but obviously that’s not the case. And I guess it is a little better than what you get in a state like Illinois where the party in control just gets to spring the redistricting map on the minority.
When we moved to Wisconsin, the process of proving we were actual residents just for purposes of getting drivers’ licenses was tortuous, and that was for a relatively affluent white family under the old law. So it must be pretty nigh impossible for a poor, minority person without any residence documentation.
Why don’t the Republicans just come out and say it – you should be a white property owner to be allowed to vote.
ShivaX
1931
Some have hinted at it.
After all its what the Founding Fathers wanted.
Timex
1932
How do you go about proving it? Most states require something like a utility bill, I believe. What kind of requirements does WI have?
Lum
1933
That was one thing we had to bring, which by itself was a pain in the ass. I wanted to get all those things, like the new driver’s licenses, car registrations, etc., before I had to go back to work. But, of course, there’s no way to get a utility bill right after moving in, because you have to go through at least one billing cycle. So there was another day I had to take off of work a month later, just to take care of that crap.
It’s been a few years, but, as I recall, they wanted other stuff as well. One piece of mail wasn’t enough. I remember them saying the deed to the property wasn’t sufficient proof, because it didn’t prove you actually lived there.
Generally speaking, if the Republicans actually came out and said what they wanted they’d have no chance of achieving it. Their greedy Ayn Rand goals require clever framing to be palatable to a majority of (poor) voters – quite in contrast to the (sadly now putative) goals of the Democratic party, which sound good and up lifting when you shave away all the trappings and pursue them boldly (see FDR, etc.).
So it’s little surprise the GOP so rarely comes out and says what it’s after. Why do they want tax breaks for the rich, for example? Simply so the rich will have more cash and power, but of course they can’t paint it that way and so spin it as Latrine (Trickle Down) Economics, which is flimsy and never works, but lets them come off as earnest believers in the common good with a wacky approach, rather than venal shills, bankers, and industry barons.
If that’s the case it’s surprising that the Republicans, being the voice of the few, have so much power in a democracy. One would think the many, the not wealthy, would vote their own interests ahead of the interests of the few, the wealthy.
That this doesn’t happen leads me to believe that the system is tilted in favor of the wealthy.
Uh, yeah… Welcome to the recursive power of influence and cash.
As the poor/rich cash divide continues to widen it’ll only worsen, as fewer and fewer non-rich people have the financial scope to donate politically while it gets easier and easier for the richest to simply buy elections (indirectly, to be sure!).
But hey, cash == free speech, and who’d want to oppose free speech. :-/
Alstein
1938
The only natural counter to that is rebellion- or worse. We need a good old-fashioned rebellion for people to take things seriously.
I don’t know. Things were worse in the US during the Gilded Era than they are now, and yet they improved substantially without any sort of full scale rebellion/revolution.
Alstein
1940
That’s because the Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt were scared that there was going to be one. There was a Socialist party forming and gaining momentum. You need something to strike a fear in the ruling class- it doesn’t have to be violent, but it has to be something that truly scares them, and it’s much harder to scare them now then it was 100 years ago. There was also plenty of violence with unionbusting and counter-unionbusting.
I’m also not saying full scale revolution.
