2 ms·

>Well, they did, Well no. They REDMAP'd it. That was impolite, so to speak: not technically illegal, but sufficiently unethical that in 2004 the Supreme Cour

>Well, they did, Well no. They REDMAP'd it. That was impolite, so to speak: not technically illegal, but sufficiently unethical that in 2004 the Supreme Court basically said they'd ban it if only they had some consistent standard to apply. This year they might have that consistent standard, and starting with North Carolina and Wisconsin, the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so permanent. In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so permanent. > In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy. The GOP has controlled the House for only six years running. Before that, the Democrats controlled it for four - before that, the GOP controlled it for six, and before that, the Democrats controlled it for 61 years, with the exception of one term (1947, under Truman). During the vast majority of that time, the Senate was also under Democratic control as well, although the Senate has leaned slightly more right than the House fairly consistently ever since the Seventeenth Amendment was passed. I agree that a democratic system should not be controlled by a single party, but it's rather silly to say that the GOP has a "permanent Congressional majority" given how recent their majority is.