Category: 2015 General Election (Page 3 of 4)

Trey “Benghazi” Gowdy’s Partisan Sham

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 9, 2015

CONTACT: Morgan Finkelstein, morgan@vademocrats.org

Oops! Virginia Republicans Forgot To Pretend Benghazi Investigation Isn’t A Partisan Sham, Got Shut Down By Own Guest

Trey "Benghazi" Gowdy

Trey “Benghazi” Gowdy

For once, the Republican Party of Virginia may have been too honest when it came to promoting The Fundraiser Formerly Known As “Beyond Benghazi.” Apparently the featured guest, Rep. Trey Gowdy, is still trying to convince America that his House Oversight Committee’s umpteenth Benghazi investigation is legitimate. After press caught wind of the RPV’s plans to fundraise off of this partisan witch hunt, Gowdy canceled his Richmond appearance to save face.

Of course, more than half a dozen Benghazi investigations have turned up no nefarious activity – just more and more taxpayer dollars being used to fund Gowdy’s political ambition. It’s painfully obvious that these investigations are simply partisan red meat to throw to the GOP base. Getting caught red-handed admitting that, however, was clearly just too much for Gowdy to take.

“This is a huge embarrassment for the Republican Party of Virginia,” said Morgan Finkelstein, press secretary for the Democratic Party of Virginia. “Virginia Republicans managed to kill two birds with one stone: they exposed the partisan nature of the Benghazi witch hunt and the sad state of their own organization all in one go.

“This is yet another nail in the coffin for the legitimacy of these baseless political attacks and flagrant misuse of Committee power. It’s time to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and time on this partisan charade.

Hypocrisy in the 17th

GERRYMANDERING is the deliberate manipulation of legislative district boundaries to advantage or benefit a particular party or group, or to cause disadvantage or harm to an opposing party or group. It distorts the electoral process, undermines democracy, and renders legislative elections a meaningless exercise. It’s a conflict of interest for the legislature to draw it’s own district lines.

Nevertheless, the measure has been approved by both chambers and sent to Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

Certainly Reeves must understand the perception of hypocrisy when he votes in favor of reforming the process only to introduce legislation designed to circumvent it for his own political gain..

Virginia Republicans Continue to Block Free and Fair Elections

In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts. The resulting district apportionment is known as a gerrymander; however, that word can also refer to the process. When used to allege that a given party is gaining disproportionate power, the term gerrymandering has negative connotations.

Original-1812-Gerrymander[1]Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the newly drawn state senate election district of South Essex created by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists. The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts as a dragon-like “monster.” Federalist newspaper editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry’s last name.

In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as “majority-minority districts.”

The primary goals of gerrymandering are to maximize the effect of supporters’ votes and to minimize the effect of opponents’ votes. These can be accomplished through a number of ways:

  • “Cracking” involves spreading voters of a particular type among many districts in order to deny them a sufficiently large voting bloc in any particular district. An example would be to split the voters in an urban area among several districts wherein the majority of voters are suburban, on the presumption that the two groups would vote differently, and the suburban voters would be far more likely to get their way in the elections.
  • “Packing” is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts. In some cases, this may be done to obtain representation for a community of common interest (such as to create a majority-minority district), rather than to dilute that interest over several districts to a point of ineffectiveness (and, when minority groups are involved, to avoid possible racial discrimination). When the party controlling the districting process has a state-wide majority, packing is usually not necessary to attain partisan advantage; the minority party can generally be “cracked” everywhere. Packing is therefore more likely to be used for partisan advantage when the party controlling the districting process has a state-wide minority, because by forfeiting a few districts packed with the opposition, cracking can be used in forming the remaining districts.
  • “Hijacking” redraws two districts in such a way as to force two incumbents of the same political party to run against each other in one district, ensuring that one of them will be eliminated, while usually leaving the other district to be won by someone from a different political party.
  • “Kidnapping” aims to move areas where a certain elected official has significant support to another district, making it more difficult to win future elections with a new electorate. This is often employed against politicians who represent multiple urban areas, in which larger cities will be removed from the district in order to make the district more rural.

These tactics are typically combined in some form, creating a few “forfeit” seats for packed voters of one type in order to secure more seats and greater representation for voters of another type. This results in candidates of one party (the one responsible for the gerrymandering) winning by small majorities in most of the districts, and another party winning by a large majority in only a few of the districts.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Madison County Democratic Committee

Website by Ren LeVallyUp ↑

We are in the fight of a generation.
We are in the fight for a generation.

Our strength lies in both our numbers and the level of involvement of our members.

Please consider joining us as a voting member https://madisondems.org/about-us/join-the-mcdc/

 

2023 Founders Dinner - I'm a Democrat