Gerrymandering Position Paper Gerrymandering is the irregular redrawing of district lines to give one political party an advantage. Gerrymandering usually starts with a census. Every ten years, it is necessary to recount the people to redistribute the seats for the members of the House of Representatives. If a state gains or loses states it is necessary to reapportion the state.
To Gerrymander something is to manipulate the boundaries of a district to favor one party or class. The information used to choose how to manipulate districts is by census data which means district lines are usually redrawn every 10 years. Is gerrymandering a fair practice? Political parties that are currently in power would say that it is fair because gerrymandering the district lines that are drawn are reviewed by a judge and then made into districts that way. So that means it follows the proper system to do so.
Gerrymandering is a practice that stopped redistricting and goes to establish a political advantage for a specific party or group by manipulating district limits to create biased advantage districts. The process for making a congressional district map in Texas has grown more complex and significant over the years. Districts are usually drawn by politicians that typically have a vested interest in the effect of the new lines; according to laws and regulations they're subject to judicial review. This gives the state the power to control and maintain their districts. The disadvantage is that it allows representatives who could not otherwise get elected, to be elected.
Gerrymandering is defined as “the dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible.” Moreover, the number of Congressional districts in a state is based on the state’s population. Every ten years, the districts can be redrawn as the state’s population number changes. Gerrymandering groups the opposing party’s voters into a few large districts and the controlling party’s voters into various small districts.
Is Gerrymandering a Controversial Topic? Gerrymandering is a process where the ruling political party uses the map of their state to draw lines that create voting districts in favor of their party. The result of this is that it doesn’t reflect the voters political views. For about 200 years the government has used gerrymandering during political elections and it continues to be used today (King, Elizabeth) .
Equality believes wholeheartedly in individualism and the concept of preference which relates strongly to judging others’ true intents and motives. Rand’s short essay explains that, while it is not something many would like to believe of their loved ones, many times people are not simply mistaken or misinformed, but rather know the evil in their actions and proceed to carry them out regardless (Rand, Paragraph 14). While it is true that some members of the Council have been brainwashed and truly believe what they say, the original intent of the many strict laws in place were malicious. Looking in at the society from the outside provides an objective point of view that makes clear that the statutes in action are there to control the citizens and not to help or protect
What is “Gerrymandering”? which until now was something that never crossed my mind until I attended my Political Science class. Interestingly, Gerrymandering is a tradition vested for a political advantage by a political party to manipulate the district boundaries. Gerrymandering can also be used to utilize from a race, ethnicity, class groups or religion point of prospect, simply to benefit a political party. “The word “gerrymander” was coined at a Boston dinner party hosted by a prominent Federalist in March 1812, according to an 1892 article by historian John Ward Dean.
The Dark Side of Gerrymandering Gerrymandering has been around ever since the forefathers of America first started the nations democratic voting system. Gerrymandering is the redistribution of electoral district lines in order to give the redistributors an unfair political advantage (Elliot). While it is technically a legal practice, it allows the political parties in office to find a way to gain political advantages by separating minorities and voters of opposing political parties. The social inequalities and federal dishonesty associated with gerrymandering must be addressed and regulated as it poses a real problem for Americans as their votes are having less and less of an impact on elections. There are two common types of gerrymandering
If a law is unjust, we need to understand that it is okay to break it. For example, King describes to us some situations where past laws were unjust, “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal’” (4). Throughout history, these laws have been broken and overcome. People will act against something they believe is wrong; it is a consequence of a marginalized group in a democratic society.
The central idea of this passage is life will never be fair, but you have to make the best of what you got, and you can not complain. The quote is relating back to the central idea in some ways. The quote itself is saying when leaders try to "cheat" fairness it will not work out for them. " it is a leaders obligation to do the right thing, regardless of whether or not it's perceived as the fair thing". That is another quote that supports the first quote and helps explain it more.
Justice is not the conception of the strong, while the weak are ruled by unjust rulers how Thrasymachus thought. Instead the ruler, rules accordingly establishing just laws even if they seem unfair. Rulers are infallible, thus creating just laws because if a ruler were to make an unjust law for the strong that would place the weak at an advantage creating a flaw in the argument. The ruler would want to create laws that are filled wisdom so that nobody would want to choose the life where an unjust men would be more profitable than a just men. In addition, Socrates demonstrates that an unjust men will not be able to live a more virtuous lifestyle than a just men due to the lack of learning that the unjust men has no recollection of, thus the just men will not be able to get the better of another just men.
He explains that only when the legislature does not act in the best interest of its citizens or if they “endeavour to invade the property of the subject,” do the citizens have grounds for rebellion (). Following from the previous paragraph, when governments attempt to address inequality without the expressed consent of the governed, they may be dissolved. Focusing so singularly on the protection of property and therefore the protection of inequality will directly contrast with
Juliet loses her reason for love “Reason lost the battle, and all I could do was surrender and accept I was in love” This quote by paulo coelho illustrates the way juliet loses her reason for love. In Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet are star crossed lovers whose families hate each other, and their young lives are cut short by an untimely death. Juliet is perceived to be a reasonable character, but she eventually develops a greater passionate love for Romeo that overpowers her reason. juliet can be reasonable throughout the play.
Their focus did not adequately pertain to the actual implementation of these laws. He places emphasis upon the relationship to democracies. He details how in a democracy, it is ruled by all the population, and people elected by them. It is thus full of compromises.
King addresses the characteristics of unjust laws in 3 points. First point being that just laws are always harmonious with natural morale law. Second point being that a just law is one that uplifts human personality as opposed to degrading human personality. Lastly, a just law can only be created in the most democratic manner possible and if it is not, the minority automatically has the right to disobey the law because they had no say in the creation of the law. As for the first point, a natural morale law must be measured by our natural human sense.
