Gerrymandering the editorial page

Demo-Dopes are doing what Dopes do.  When they cannot win an election they run to a judge to overturn the results.  A Lefty Lib PA judge has ruled that the congressional districts drawn by the PA legislature are unconstitutional.  Instead he thinks he should draw up the districts.  Makes sense right.  Why let elected officials do that when an unelected unaccountable life-time Lefty Lib appointee says he's better qualified?  

Gerrymandering is the new hot topic for the Dopes.  They are not against the practice per se, they are against the practice when they are not the ones engaging in the practice.  Then they run to a judge.

Gerrymandering is a BS practice no matter who engages in the practice. As soon as you offer a remedy such as, "Okay let's pass a law that requires that congressional districts consist of contiguous townships with no more than two townships per district divide north-south or east west between contiguous congressional districts" the left goes nuts.

"You can't do that!!!!"  Why?  "It will underrepresent minorities!!!!  Many of the most gerrymandered districts in America are set up to insure a minority representative!!!"  So you're for gerrymandering? "Well yeah, but only as long as it favors us!!"     

Well a gerrymandering letter showed up in the local fish wrap.  So Lex took the opportunity to demonstrate the JG's own gerrymandering.  

Today's JG rantRe: Linda Mills’ letter “Gerrymandering skews Indiana’s elections” of Apr 5, 2018 & Barb Foland Mathews’ letter “AN easy decision” of Apr 6, 2018 

I was surprised to read a letter condemning gerrymandering on the editorial page of the JG.  Why?  Well it’s clear by the content of the editorial page that the JG not only supports gerrymandering it actively engages in the practice with regard to what it chooses to run on this page.

Given the political make up of Indiana’s Third District and the dearth of letters on the JG editorial page in support of the Second Amendment, it’s pretty clear that the JG’s highly principled truth-seeking editors are gerrymandering logical, thoughtful and well-written letters supporting  nature’s first law and constitutionally protected right of self-defense straight into the trashcan.  Instead we get a steady diet of emotional, incoherent, ignorant Lefty Lib gun grabbing rubbish.

While I am not delighted with JG’s decision to gerrymander the truth off of its editorial page with regard to the Second Amendment, I am overjoyed at their decision to gerrymander letter after hate-filled angry letter condemning (trigger warning) President Donald J. Trump.  Who knew that the left’s reservoir of intense loathing for Trump would continue to overflow for S-I-X-T-E-E-N months?  Remarkable.

What makes the Left’s tantrum particularly enjoyable is that many Trump supporters actually disagree with few, if any, of the accusations leveled at Trump. The only thing shocking about a porn star charging an affair with Trump is that ANYBODY is shocked by it. So if (trigger warning) President Donald J. Trump is as bad as these Lefty Lib letters claim, how bad is crooked Hillary to have lost to such a man? 

That’s why letters like Barb Foland Mathews’ are so wonderful.  Flaws and all and while spending about one-third the money, (trigger warning) President Donald J. Trump by sheer force of personality beat crooked Hillary like a drum and drove a three foot 2X4 through her soulless political heart. And it was wonderful. 

Every time the JG gerrymanders another “Trump sucks” letter onto this page, I get to relive the glory that was the evening of Nov 8, 2016.  Thank you. 

Gerrymandering skews Indiana's elections

According to Citizens for Fair Elections, “On the state legislative level, Republicans received 58 percent of the votes in Indiana in the 2016 elections. Yet, they hold 82 percent of the state Senate seats and 70 percent of the state House seats. Interestingly enough, Republicans also controlled the process that drew these district lines in 2010.” This means Indiana, by definition, is gerrymandered.

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court recently forced the redrawing of its districts to end decades of gerrymandering, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law. The drawing of maps by the party in power makes no sense – regardless of which party is doing the drawing. We, the voters, have the right to expect our votes will count in a fairly run election process. Gerrymandering skews the vote intentionally for the benefit of one set of political players, and democracy loses every time.

The Indiana legislature has repeatedly killed bills that call for an independent redistricting entity to draw the maps. This year, the Republican-led legislature offered a watered-down version of a bill that asks the party in power “to consider and adopt modifications to the initial proposed plans that deviate from the redistricting standards” when redrawing the districts. That hardly solves the problem when the party in power is able to choose either to amend or disregard criteria as it sees fit.

Gerrymandering means the scales are tipped in favor of the ruling party. Until this changes, Indiana votes aren't being fairly counted. That isn't democracy, and it isn't good for any of us who want our votes to count.

Linda Mills

Fort Wayne

An easy decision

The majority of American voters have realized that Donald Trump is a dangerous demagogue, an ignorant and immoral embarrassment to our country. But most Republicans in Congress, including Jim Banks, are still blindly complacent with Trump's ill-conceived policies and childish tweets.

Like many Americans, I'm concerned about the future of our economy. I'm afraid our infantile president will get us all blown up. I grieve for what will happen to our environment. And I'm angry that the spineless majority in Congress refuses to acknowledge that the emperor has no clothes. I don't understand this attitude unless they are all afraid of losing the racist alt-right vote, even if it means losing the votes of intelligent Americans.

We all need to wake up and pay attention in the midterm elections this year. We should not be voting for members of Congress who do not have the moral courage to stand up against a bad president with dangerous ideas. The voting record of Banks shows he has voted in support of the Trump agenda about 94 percent of the time.

And for me, this makes voting for a strong, sharp candidate like Courtney Tritch a no-brainer.

Barb Foland Mathews