Eichenwald On Why Democrats Should Block Trump Supreme Court Nominee

 Who's Kurt Eichenwald?

Eichenwald's huge book on Enron, Conspiracy of Fools, was a masterpiece of putting all the pieces of that puzzle together in a page turner of a book that became a best seller.  His book about the FBI, The Informant  was made into a movie.  Here's Wikipedia's description of his most recent book:

"In 2012 he published his fourth book, 500 Days. Also a New York Times bestseller, the book chronicled the events in governments around the world in the 500 days after the 9/11 attacks. It revealed details of the American program of NSA eavesdropping, torture policy, the American government's briefings on the coming attacks before 9/11, and the details of debates within the British government."

This guy is relentless in his investigative reporting and he's an elegant writer.  Again I use  Wikipedia to explain those skills:

"During his first months of college, Eichenwald sustained a concussion, which was soon followed by noticeable epileptic seizures. Diagnosed with epilepsy in November of his freshman year, he continued to attend school despite repeated grand mal seizures.[3]
After having two outdoor seizures on campus, he was dismissed from Swarthmore, in apparent violation of federal law.[3] He contacted the United States Department of Health and Human Services and fought his way back into school,[3][4] an experience that he has credited with giving him the willingness to take on institutions in his muckraking reporting.[citation needed] He graduated with his class in 1983, receiving a degree in political science, with distinction.[3]"

What does it mean to be hypocritical?

From the Cambridge dictionary:

"hypocritical, adjective,  It’s hypocritical for him to criticize her for doing the same things that he does."

One of the things I find most galling is the Republicans' hypocrisy for complaining that the Democrats are doing the very things they began the moment Obama become president.  It would make sense that Republicans think the Democrats are doing this for purely partisan reasons, since this appears to be the Republicans' motive. (Recall McConnell proclaiming the Republicans' top priority in 2009 was to prevent Obama's reelection.)  But they must understand that the Democrats have legitimate grave fears about the future of this nation, because a number of Republicans have already expressed such concerns.

Why Eichenwald believes Democrats must go all out to reject the Gorsuch nomination

I'm offering these excerpts from a Kurt Eichenwald article in Newsweek because he says what I'm thinking, but he does a much better job than I can at tying up all the loose ends.

It's his reasoning why the Democrats should oppose Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court.  He begins that his opposition and this article violate his long held beliefs about how a democratic government should run.  He acknowledges that Gorsuch is well qualified and had he been nominated in the past, he would have supported him.

His objections come from how the Republicans have violated the process of democracy by the way they obstructed Obama's court appointments.

"Gorsuch, unfortunately, must be sacrificed on the altar of obscene partisanship erected by the Republicans in recent years. Temper tantrums designed to undermine the Constitution for naked political purposes cannot be rewarded. Our government cannot survive the short-term games-playing that has replaced fidelity to the intent of the Founding Fathers’ work in forming this once-great nation. 

This goes back to the unconscionable decision of Republicans who refused to consider any nominee put forward by President Barack Obama following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, another eminently qualified candidate, who served as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the second most important court in the nation. But in a decision that will go down as one of the greatest abuses of the Constitution in this nation’s history, the Senate’s Republican majority, under the leadership of their unprincipled majority leader, Mitch McConnell, declared they would not give Garland hearings, would not examine his qualifications and would not take a vote."

He then discusses the rule McConnell made up about not approving a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of the presidency, saying the slot should be reserved for the next president.  Eichenwald blasts this made up rule as pure partisanship and unrelated to any Senate precedents or tradition, citing 24 such last year nominations, 21 of which were approved.

Then he quotes from several letters written by different groups of legal scholars vehemently denouncing the Senate Republicans' refusal to bring Garland to a floor vote.  He shows the mendacity of the Republicans offering philosophical rules about the last year of the presidency by quoting Sen. Grassley in Obama's first term of office refusing to rule on a nominee for the DC circuit court by making up another rule about not breaking the four-four ideological balance in that court.  He proceeds:

"This might explain why Democrats now say the Supreme Court should remain divided in the same way—four justices appointed by Democratic presidents, four by Republicans—for the rest of Trump’s term. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that President Trump puts up,” said Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. 'I promise you.'”

He then cites a liberal think tank, Americans for a Progressive Judiciary, declaration that it would be perfectly honorable and constitutional for Democrats to block every single Trump court appointment. He ends his paragraph on that think tank with this quote:

 “If you truly believe that a particular nominee would wreak havoc on America, why not do everything you can to stop him?” 

I’m sure these words of principle enrage conservatives. I’m sure they believe that the Democrats' allowing the high court to continue in its current hobbled state throughout Trump’s term is un-American and destructive to our country. In fact, these statements have already been roundly condemned on Fox News, with numerous pundits ripping at the Democratic Party (or Democrat Party) for allowing its thirst for partisan advantage to blind it to our constitutional principles. And if you’re a conservative, I hope you seethe at those statements. 

Why? Because it exposes your grotesque hypocrisy. 

You see, I lied. Feinstein never said anything about the Democrats refusing to confirm any Trump nominee for the next four years—that was actually Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, in statements he made when most of the political world believed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was going to be president. As for the comment from the Americans for a Progressive Judiciary? I made up the name; as far as I can tell, no such organization exists. Instead, I was quoting the conservative publication The Federalist, which, once again, was writing at a time when almost no one believed Trump would win, to justify engaging in a blanket refusal to ever confirm any Clinton nominee.
Now if you’re a conservative who was angered by those statements when you thought they came from Democrats—and now that you know they were uttered by your partisan brethren, you’re scrambling to justify them—face facts: You are lying and self-deluded."

His argument against approving Trump nominees?  The Republicans have broken all pretense of respecting the constitutional role of the US Senate to advise and consent on presidential court appointments.  Instead they have simply blocked as many as they could for pure partisan short term gain.  It's a precedent the Democrats cannot let them get away with.  He takes a swipe at Alito as

“'the worst justice in history' ©, as I’ve previously written." 

He argues that Alito's opinions are predictable and he (Eichenwald):

"enjoy[s] trying to predict what assertions of nonexistent fact he will employ in his arrogant effort to reach the outcome he desires."

But this is not a gratuitous swipe at Alito.  It's part of his argument that the Supreme Court is now a partisan body and will be as long as Alito is on it.

Eichenwald's justification for his change of heart is this:

"The Republicans cannot be allowed to reap the rewards of unprincipled obstructionism that sets a precedent that will destroy the last remnant of our country’s constitutional credibility."

He continues:

"So what should the Democrats do? Fight. Recognize the nature of the other party. There is no longer reason; there is no longer fidelity to our history or to the founders’ intents; there is no longer compromise. Republicans cannot be allowed to benefit from their efforts to undermine the intent of the framers of our Constitution. (To give you an idea of how bad this could become if Democrats don’t fight, think of this: That conservative commentator writing for The Federalist who was justifying obstructing every Clinton nominee argued that Republicans, as an option, could constitutionally just let the Supreme Court die if it could be done without paying too high a political price. There is no limit to how far the Republicans may go.)"

He then goes on to explain why, even if the Republicans vote to remove the 2/3 vote for Supreme Court approval, the Democrats should now block Gorsuch.  I'll let you see how he ends his argument over at the Newsweek site itself.  It's not a strategy I would have thought of.

But I do want to put in a plug for understanding the Prisoner's Dilemma problem and the Tit-For-Tat strategy that research suggests is the best way to combat an opponent that refuses to cooperate.  It's a critical lesson that Democrats need to understand and adapt in their strategy.

I've written about the Prisoner's Dilemma before and if you don't know it, or the Tit-for-Tat strategy, I'd strongly recommend you check out the explanations in this earlier post.  It helps explain a lot of what is going on in the world - conflicts that get resolved and those that don't.  Basically it shows that cooperation, in the long run, wins.  Unless your opponent always reneges.  In that case the opponent will always win.  Until you also copy his strategy.  If that leads to mutual cooperation, both will do better.  If both sides continue to renege then both sides go into a downward lose-lose spiral.

A Few Important Links You Might Want To Check Out

Here are a few links that have come my way over the last week.  I thank the people who first posted them - you'll recognize who you are.  These all pushed my brain around a bit and are worth checking out.

1.  New heat storing technology  - Despite the fact that we know of how people have repeatedly been proven wrong throughout history when they said one idea or another is impossible, we still say that today - particularly about alternative energy.

"The technology uses the chemical sodium hydroxide (NaOH), commonly known as lye, to store the heat. When dry sodium hydroxide is exposed to water, it undergoes a chemical reaction that releases a large amount of heat. In sunlight, that water evaporates, drying out the sodium hydroxide and resetting the reaction. The dry sodium hydroxide is very stable, which means it can be stored for months or even years as long as it isn't exposed to water."

2.  Since White House comment lines are reported shut down, someone has set up the website https://whitehouseinc.org.  You leave your phone number and email and someone will call you back and connect you to a Trump property somewhere around the world where you can leave your comment.  The site says,

"Foreign leaders and Wall Street executives know that if they want to reach out to our President, they can just connect with his business associates. Now the American people have a direct line to Trump too."

3.  Commodifying Language - This is a ten page letter from a company called Language Inc. about the financial outlook (good) for companies that privatize public information.  Lots to think about here.


4.  Lit Hub on What to Do during these times  Get inspiration on how to resist.



5.  State Department is Taking ppeople off the Global Entry program - Americans of Iranian-descent are reporting that though they've signed up and paid to be on the Global Entry program and been vetted after a thorough investigation, they are getting notices that they no longer qualify.  How long are we going to let Steve Bannon run the US?


6.  Thirteenth (the movie) is a available at Netflix.
This isn't an easy movie to watch, but if anyone wants to understand why Black Lives Matters matters, then they need to watch how incarceration has been aimed at enslaving blacks in a way that everyone - including the Clintons - could get behind.  It shows how by using the word criminal instead of black, they could get blacks off the streets, and could keep them from voting forever.  Don't argue with me about this until you watch the movie.

"Get Happy"

From Forbes:

"Americans spent $11 billion in 2008 on self-improvement books, CDs, seminars, coaching and stress-management programs–13.6% more than they did back in 2005, according to Marketdata Enterprises, an independent Tampa-based research firm that tracks everything from adoption agencies to funeral homes. Latest forecast: 6.2% annual growth through 2012."

A Health Affairs article says Americans spent $201 Billion on mental health.





Yet here's this coffee copy telling be to just 'get happy.'  We could save a lot of money if this works!

At first I dismissed the idea.  But then I started wondering how many people see a message like this and smile.  A smile isn’t happiness, but it’s a step in the right direction.  And if it works for even a few people that’s a big deal.

So I’m curious if any of you readers have ever been moved by a message like the one on the coffee copy to smile, or even more ambitiously, to change your mood to happy.

The next question, of course, is whether a different message on the cup - visual or verbal - would be more effective.  A cartoon?  A picture of something soothing or uplifting?  A green cup rather than a red cup? (I wanted to give you a link, but everything I'm pulling up is a short zippy piece with no backup evidence and lots of click bate.  Don't want to impose that on you.)

Of course, I realize that the real objective of this message is probably for consumers to associate the coffee in this cup with being happy.  When you buy this cup of coffee, they are saying, you buy happiness.  And as with any addiction, a copy of coffee brings people temporary relief, if not happiness.  Because if coffee drinkers were actually happy people without the coffee they wouldn’t need another cup to get happy.

Trump: A View From Spain

Cartoon by Tomás Serrano and used with permission

I met Tomás Serrano when he was visiting Alaska.  He's a Spanish artist, cartoonist, and architect who does wicked caricatures and probing portraits.  I've linked to his website since we first met.

My interpretation of this cartoon is that the world outside the US, at least Tomás' world, takes heart in watching the American people stand up against Trump.

In the short run, I expect that the protesters won't have access to the field that they have in this cartoon, and that Trump will score some goals by playing on a secret field, like he did with the travel ban - consulting with none of the professionals or with the Republicans in Congress even.

But in the long run, let's all hope that the worst of his policies will be ruled foul by the refs, and if we're lucky, Trump will be ejected from the game.  Let's remember, though, the advice to be careful what you wish for.  His stand-by is Pence, whose ideology may be worse, but masked in a more reasonable appearing style.

But if the protests are sending reassuring messages to the rest of the world, that a large percent of American people are as appalled as they are, then that's a big step toward recovering our 'brand,' to use logic that Trump might understand.

You can see more of Tomás Serrano's work at his website.

Why Wait Till 2020, Let's Ask For An Annulment Of The Election

OK, so you're really drunk when you get married, and you really didn't know what you were doing and you married someone you didn't even know the person you married.   If you're Catholic, you can get an annulment.

So I was thinking the same should hold true for an election.  So I looked up the grounds for an annulment of a marriage in the Catholic church.  We could incorporate some of these as part of a constitutional amendment.

For example, the document I found starts like this:

Grounds for Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church  There are very well defined canonical grounds for Marriage Annulment. Once these have been established marriage Annulment can proceed. It is important to understand the grounds for Marriage Annulment before making application, and if in doubt you should consult your local priest.

So what are some of the grounds that might apply here?

• Insufficient use of reason (Canon 1095, 10)
• Grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning essential matrimonial [presidential] rights and duties (Canon 1095, 20)
• Psychic-natured incapacity to assume marital [presidential] obligations (Canon 1095, 30)
• Ignorance about the nature of marriage [presidency] (Canon 1096, sec. 1)
• Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2)
• Fear (1103)

I think most of my readers can figure out the logic one could use to argue most of these.  But there's one more that might need a little clarification because the metaphor is not perfect.  While the Catholics talk about marriage and then "you or your spouse", we're talking about the 'election' in part and the 'presidency' in part.  And the 'you' here is the 'voters' and the 'new president' is the spouse.  But after the election, we have to talk about the nature of the presidency.  

With that in mind, I offer one more ground for an annulment:

• Willful exclusion of marital [presidential] fidelity (Canon 1101, 12)

My thinking here is that the president thought he could take on the presidency and still keep his old partner (the Trump businesses).  I think that qualifies as willful exclusion of presidential fidelity.  He's just put his businesses in his sons' houses where he can sneak a visit any time he goes over for dinner.  

Boys' Life Explains What Makes A Good Leader - UPDATED

I had a chance to glance at the January 2017 Boys' Life magazine while waiting for my granddaughter at the doctor's office.  (Just a routine post birthday checkup.)

I sometimes forget about the huge impact the Boy Scouts had on my life.  The organization gave me lots of opportunities to go camping.  I got leadership training at Philmont in New Mexico and Sequoia National Park.  I learned how to plan, organize, and run a meeting as a teenager.  There are a lot of good skills I learned with them.

And I had a subscription to Boys' Life too.

But in recent times the Boy Scouts have had some issues with their stand against gay scouts that have cast an unfortunate (though not unjustified) cloud over the organizations.  So I paged through the magazine.

One of the first articles was an "Ask Pedro" column.  (I didn't find any old Boys' Life magazines in my mom's garage so I can check my memory, which thinks maybe Pedro was answering questions 60 years ago.)

Here's the way the head of the Boy Scouts describes the quality needed for leadership that's published in the January 2017 Boys' Life magazine.

"You want to be a leader others want to follow, and you always need to put the other person first."

The Boy Scouts is NOT a liberal organization by any stretch of the imagination.  As I thumbed through this issues 52 pages, I saw mostly white boys.  All group pictures were white kids.  There were two girls pictured.







The only faces of color were a kid with an Hispanic name who had helped clean up Louisiana after a flood,

and two dark skinned comic faces - one teaching a white kid how to compost, the other used to show how to make a balance board.      

























Most of the boys pictured looked like this.  I know there have to be black boy scouts, but they didn't have any actual photos of them.











There was also an ambiguous picture (another cartoon who was maybe Asian, maybe white, maybe Hispanic) who was identified as an electrical engineer. You can judge for yourself.  But given that "everyone knows Asians are good at math" . . .

The point here is that even the boy scouts -  known as a pretty conservative organization that seems to have trouble finding actual photos of kids of color, but makes an effort to include a few in Boys Life, even if they are cartoons, has a description of a leader that essential say Trump is not the Boy Scouts' image of a leader.

[UPDATE Jan 31, 2017 - The Boy Scouts announced yesterday that they are changing their policy to accept transgender scouts.

American People Are Starting To Fight Back

When FDR called for Americans of Japanese descent to be rounded up and put into camps, most Americans did nothing in protest.  A number took advantage of the situation to take possession of the property of those rounded up.  Though there were exceptions as the movie The Empty Chair documents.

But when Donald Trump ordered a ban on refugees and Muslims, American people went to the courts to file suit against the president, and they went to the airports to protest the holding of refugees and others held in airports from being sent back.

We've had presidents who have done things people disagreed about.  But we haven't had a president who ignores every tradition, every norm, every law, every norm of decency that interferes with his whims.  We've never had a president who has put into place so many people who have no regard for the basic values of the Constitution and the law.

We've watched this sort of thing happen in other countries, but we're only just learning how to handle someone who comes to power and abuses that power every day in his first week as president.  But we're learning.  I'm proud of the people who are finding their voice and their power to stop the illegitimate actions of this elderly child president.

There will be a backlash.  The real test is when people get hurt, even killed.  We all have to stand up and assume the role fate demands we play.  I hope we learn this quickly and well and that Congress sees where the power of the people lies and stops Trump before he carries out any of the orders he got from Putin*.

World, we want you to know we are planning on taking our country back from this madman.**



*If these aren't orders from Putin, they might as well be - take down NATO, take down the EU, weaken the US Intelligence Agencies, destroy US relations with countries like China, and, it appears more and more, take down the USA.

**I don't use this term lightly.  And the man who has called everyone who has opposed him all sorts of disparaging things, has not standing if he protests when people do the same to him - especially when they are close to or right on the mark.

Meanings of "Pay" - As In "Mexico Will Pay For The Wall"

There are two basic meanings in English of the word "PAY."

One is a free market sort of concept where people sees what they need or want, and voluntarily give someone the money for the product or service.

The other is a more sinister concept, more like retribution from someone who has the power to 'make you pay."  It's what the Mafia are said to do to knee caps.

So when Trump says the Mexicans will pay, one way or the other, it seems like demanding protection money.  Trump said he'd build a wall and get the Mexicans to pay.  Now he's trying to keep his promise to his angrier supporters, by demanding Mexico pay 'voluntarily' or, if not, he'll find some other way to punish them.

I do have to say here, that this is not new behavior by Americans toward foreign countries that didn't do as the US wanted.  The embargo of Cuba is an example.  But there have been many cases of clandestine retribution.   The difference today is that Trump says these things out loud.

AIFF2016: Suggestions for Next Year's Film Festival

Overall, the 2016 Festival went well.  There were lots of good films, lots of visiting film makers, and some nice extra touches - like music before some films.  On the opening night, for instance, the Alaska based band whose music was in the opening night film, played before the film.  That was some thoughtful planning.

But there are always improvements to be made and here is my list for next year.

1.  Scheduling -

This is my biggest issue.  Here are two guidelines I'd like the schedulers to strive to follow.


A.  Maximize number of films someone can see.  From one time slot to another, there should be enough time for viewers to get to any of the next films.   Here's an example of what I mean.  Below is the first Saturday morning schedule. ( I realize it's hard to see the details, but you can get the basics points.)

Top row (A,B,C,D) - films that began between 11:30am and 12.  The blue-green stars indicate how many of the four following films a viewer has enough time to get to.
Someone watching film B could get to four.
Someone watching A or C could get to three.
Someone watching D could only get to two.

The pea-green circles show the number of prior films from which one could get to  the next set of films (E, F, G, and H).

Why not schedule the end times and starting times so someone could get from any of the first four to any of the second four?  This also has to take into consideration walking distance between venues.

All it takes is paying attention to
a.  how long each program is
b.  adjusting the starting times (and thus the ending times) of A, B, C, and D 
c.  adjusting the starting times of E, F, G, and H

They didn't need big adjustments as the following image shows.  A few minutes this way and that.

By starting the longest showings of A, B, C, and D a little earlier and slightly adjusting the starting times of E, F, G, and H, the movie goers' options are greatly improved.  They can see ANY of the following four films from any of the previous four films.  And it can work for the next set of films (I, J, K, and L) as well.

If someone is trying to see two particular films, it's not possible if the two are playing in the same slot.  Festival goers understand they can't see every film.   But one shouldn't have conflicts between slots.  (Slot meaning here - all the films that are showing between, say, 11:30 and 1pm, and then 1:15 and 3pm, etc.)

B.  It should be easy to see the films in competition in each category.

Films in competition are the ones the reviewers thought were the best.  I haven't always agreed, but overall, that's a good guide for picking out better films in a very crowded, generally unknown field.  So it should be easy to find and to watch the films in competition in each category.

For feature length films 

a.  they shouldn't be shown at the same time
b.  they should be marked as films in competition so it's easy to identify them
c.  as much as possible, feature length docs and features, shouldn't play at the same time

Shorts and supershorts
These are more complicated because they are shown in programs with other films.

a.  put as many shorts in competition together in the same program as possible
b.  don't have orphans - just one film in competition in any program
c.  put the films in competition at the beginning or end so someone doesn't have to sit through the whole program to catch them
d.  show more of the short, particularly the short shorts, before feature length films - this year, for example, "Arrival" was shown on GayLa night before "Real Boy."
e.  pay attention to which films are repeated in different showings - there were some shorts I saw three or four times and others I never got to see

2.  Other Issues 

Indicate Films in Competition in the list of selected films on the website
This has been the usual practice, but this year this was only done for the Docs and Short Docs.  There was a place for them to be marked, but they just weren't.  Even though the festival was notified in advance, it didn't get done.  Aside from alerting viewers, it's important information that verifies what a film maker says about her film.

Memberships - I don't know how many people are aware of AIFF memberships, what they mean, and what benefits members get. (I don't.)  Membership is not pushed on the website or at the festival.  I suspect more people would join if it were pushed a little.

Locations
49th Brewery basement room - all seats are at the same level and the screen isn't elevated so it is hard to see films,  particularly those with subtitles.  On weekend nights there was a lot of noise from nearby rooms.  Having food available is good.

Alaska Experience Small Theater - temperature regular goes from cold to hot to cold to hot.  If you sit under a vent it's really bad.  Also latecomers have to walk in at the front and opening the door lights up the screen.  Otherwise, it's a cozy little theater.

When scheduling, remember that it probably takes about ten minutes to get from the Brewery to the Alaska Experience and another ten or so to the museum.

Award titles - get them consistent
  Generally, the awards have been titled:  Winner, First Runner Up, and Honorable Mention.  But at least one of the announcers at the Awards ceremonies used other names, like Winner, Second Place, and Third Place.  I'm not sure the official names are the best.  Would someone not associated with the festival who hears "Honorable Mention" realize this is a third place honor?  It might be useful for the board to consider what names they want to use.  And then get everyone to use them consistently.

World Premiers - Mark any films that are world or North American premiers in the schedule, online, and announce it before the film is shown.

Computer Instructions  -  The audience shouldn't have to see the projectionist's computer screen.  It happened often enough - particularly at the Alaska Experience Theater - to be something worth mentioning here.



All that said, I think this was one of the better run festivals.  The volunteers were great - helpful, cheery, thinking on their feet.   The festival remains low key and, from what I hear from the film makers, one of the most hospitable festivals around.

This Video Overview Succinctly But Thoroughly Explains Redistricting And Gerrymandering In The USA

I watched a video today which spells out very clearly and accurately the electoral problems in the US based on our redistricting process.  (It's below.)

I say this as someone who knows a little bit about redistricting

I blogged the Alaska Redistricting Board that met from 2011 through 2013.  I learned a lot about redistricting both in the Alaska and in the US.

Among the things I learned (and are echoed in the video):

• Whoever controls the state governorships and legislatures generally gets control of redrawing the maps.  That includes the congressional districts (this doesn't matter in states like Alaska where there is only one member of congress) and the state legislative districts
• There are a number of different ways to gerrymander (make the maps so they favor your party):
• "The first method is called the "excess vote." It is an attempt to concentrate the voting power of the opposition into just a few districts, to dilute the power of the opposition party outside of those districts that contain an overwhelming majority of the opposition's voters. [Sometimes called 'packing.']
• The second method is know as the "wasted vote." This method of gerrymandering involves diluting the voting power of the opposition across many districts, preventing the opposition from having a majority vote in as many districts as possible.
• Finally, the "stacked" method involves drawing bizarre boundaries to concentrate the power of the majority party by linking distant areas into specific, party-in-power districts."  (I originally posted this list on a blogpost on Anchorage redistricting.  It comes from Matt Rosenberg.)  
• The Republicans were much more sophisticated and foresightful before 2010 and had captured a large majority of state governorships and legislatures.  Thus they controlled redistricting in most states.   This resulted in the House of Representatives having far more Republicans than the number of Republican voters would likely have produced if all districts were fairly drawn.
• These lopsided districts limit the likelihood Democrats will retake the majority in the House of Representatives.  Some long shot ways Democrats can win in these districts:  
• get out the vote of people who generally don't vote, and do so in huge numbers.
• enough Democrats move into the Republican districts to even the lopsided-ness
• Unless Democrats capture enough state governorships and legislatures, the Republicans will be able to keep control after the 2020 census redistricting.
• The US Senate's two Senators per state is itself a form of gerrymandering which gives the many smaller states a lopsided influence in the Senate.

Here's the video, it gives a great overview of what's wrong.





If all the people who marched last weekend and are organizing to resist the Trump administration want to make a real difference, I'd suggest they take a good look at redistricting in their states and how to either change the system or get more seats on the redistricting board. Here are some starting resources.

• All About Redistricting - Loyola University (LA) Professor Justin Levitt's website on redistricting 
• The Redistricting Game - Here you can do your own redistricting and learn the ways to use and abuse the system.

For Alaskans, here's the list of all the posts I did on the Alaska Redistricting Board.