Respect: When Do We Throw a Flag

The American flag, NFL team players, and yet another divisive public contest over “Who’s American?” Does this sound like the important national issue of the day, week, month, year, decade, century? Certainly, it’s much more important than say than the state of national healthcare, taxes, security, the economy, or many many other issues. So given its penultimate standing of what’s truly important, it seems only appropriate to provide it with an American Intelligence Test treatment.

Of course, the test really isn’t about “Who’s American?” and hopefully you were prepared for that. This test in this case is with respect to Respect; about what determines or defines our social values, and our view of respect. The inclusion of the American flag in the test is simply as a resonance point that has clearly demonstrated itself to be quite effective in evoking an immense reaction. Whether you respect the test on Respect is itself a measure; not a measure of respect itself but a measure of what you may actually respect. The test still remains a measure of intelligence which you can choose to try an understand or reject.

We are now going to wave a flag (at least partially red) to see how you react.

Question A:   We must start with the obvious question. Is it disrespectful to not stand and salute the American flag when the national anthem is played?

(1). Yes

(2). No

(3). Sometimes, yes; sometimes no

Question B:   What does the Flag stand for?

(1). United States of America

(2). Freedom

(3). Values

(4). Independence

(5). Sacrifice

(6). Faith

(7). Hope

(8). Duty

(9). Strength

(10). All the above

(11). All the above and many other things

Question C:   What is respect?

(1). Appreciation

(2). Commanding regard for importance or authority

(3). Reverence

(4). Honor

(5). Authoritative

(6). Sacred

(7). Refer to

(8). Consideration

(9). Politeness

(10). All of the above

Question D:   Are there legal requirements for behavior regarding the American flag?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question E:    For each action below, indicate if the act respects(R)/disrespects(D) the American flag.

(1). Standing

(2). Wearing

(3). Saluting

(4). Kneeling

(5). Raising one’s fist

(6). Laying flag over military coffin

(7). Putting hand over heart

(8). Sitting

(9). Burning

(10). Praying

Question F:    Which of the following does respect for the flag out-weigh or override?

(1). Freedom of Speech

(2). Prayer

(3). Freedom of Assembly

(4). Right to Work

(5). Rights not enumerated in the Constitution

(6). Right to petition the government

(7). Freedom of Religion

(8). Pursuit of Happiness

(9). Freedom of the Press

(10). Equal treatment under the law

Question G:   Who gets to decide what defines respect for the flag?

(1). US Government

(2). Congress

(3). Your parents

(4). Military

(5). Politicians

(6). States

(7). President

(8). You

(9). Corporations

(10). Public

(11). Veterans

(12). Religious leaders

Question H:   If you are required by law to ‘respect’ the flag, do you actually respect it?

(1). Yes

(2). No

(3). Doesn’t matter, but at least you don’t offend others.

Question I:      Is something that is traditional therefore required?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question J:    If the people, institutions or ideals that are used as the basis for demanding and justifying ‘respect’ for the flag would not themselves agree with those demands, which side has the final authority to determine if it is ‘required’? Select all groups below have members on both sides of this issue?

(1). Public

(2). Military

(3). Law Enforcement

(4). Corporations

(5). Veterans

(6). Federal Government

(7). Supreme Court

(8). Congress

(9). Political Action Committees for any of following: Freedom of Speech, Expression, Choice, Religion, …

ANSWERS:

Answer - A:  3 – Sometimes, yes; sometimes no.

Rationale - A:      The answer depends upon context, if for no other reason than everything depends upon context. If you can’t imagine some situation where it would just be wrong to stand when someone plays the national anthem in the presence of the American flag, then you aren’t trying. Consider the following: Soldiers on a battlefield where the enemy raises the flag and plays the anthem. Factory workers on assembly line with a flag on wall and the national anthem plays during a sports broadcast played over announcement system. Watching a sporting event at home which shows the flag and plays anthem at the start of the game (whether alone or with friends/family). You’re driving your car with a flag and the national anthem plays on the radio. You’re protesting a federal seizure of cattle on public land and exercising your Second Amendment right.

So, if any of these would constitute a reason for you to not come to your feet and salute the flag then you have drawn a line. When you draw a line, you defined two acceptable sides. If you don’t draw a line, well that’s just foolish.

Another facet of this question is the ‘standing’ expectation. Is ‘standing’ the only form of respect that one can make to the flag? It’s traditional for sure, but is it the only way to show respect?

Answer - B:  10

Rationale - B:      I presume that this was an easy question; if not then it completely validates the following. It should be obvious just from the recent public uproar and dispute over the ‘NFL kneeling’ issue that there are as many views on what the flag means as there are people to tell you. While many of these views will share common concepts, there will be different opinions that just won’t be able to be reconciled as possibly compatible. But it’s the incompatibility that may be the most accurate definition of what our nation’s flag stands for.

The flag means many things to many people but doesn’t require an absolute agreement and adherence to a given definition. In fact, the idea that there is a ‘required’ meaning for the flag would be a fundamental violation and disregard for many of the ‘things’ that people see the flag standing for. The equivalent of a logical inconsistency.

Answer - C:  All but 6 and 7.

Rationale - C:      Respect is a human concept that has many characteristics and meanings. This renders it not just a complex concept to define but makes any consensus accepting an absolute definition impossible. This indicates that most people would have a ‘common’ general understanding of what respect means but would have areas where their ‘agreement’ diverged from each other. Most of the time, there is a sizeable overlap among people such that we see others being ‘respectful’ and don’t question who is right. But this leaves those instances where we see someone acting contrary to our own notions of ‘respect’ and thus see a disrespectful person.

What produces additional difficulties is that ‘respect’ is always in the context of ‘something’ else. You don’t have ‘respect’; you have ‘respect’ for something. Under the topic of this test, the flag is the thing and the flag is also a concept that refers to many other things (See Question B). So while it’s simple for you to know what you feel is ‘respect’ and for what (e.g., US Flag), it is not at all simple for everyone to be on the same page as you when you have to make it clear what you and what they mean. Given the need for clarity, the next test question will perhaps be interesting.

Answer - D:  1 - Yes

Rationale - D:      Treatment of and etiquette toward the US flag is legislated in the US Code of Law; however, the code was found to be unconstitutional as it conflicted with First Amendment rights. The US Code regarding the flag is still there but it isn’t enforced due to our guaranteed rights.

From a moral and ethical perspective, any legal requirement that compels ‘respect’ for the flag would effectively negate the true meaning of ‘respecting the flag’ from being an actual sign of respect. It would be no more meaningful than compelling people to acknowledge someone as God and expecting that those thus compelled actually believe that person is God.

Answer - E:  First, let’s agree you are doing this in the presence of a US flag.
Respect: Marginally 6,   Disrespect: 9 (if burning of flag is intended as insult)
6 – is more respect for military individual, the flag is part of that respect.
All other actions could be completely independent of the flag being present.

Second, let’s agree the action was directed specifically at the flag.
Respect: All could be.   Disrespect: 9 (* unless it was for proper disposal of flag)

Third, let’s agree the national anthem is playing in conjunction with a flag.
Respect: traditionally 1, 3, 6, 7;    Disrespect:  9 (unless part of disposal ceremony);  Disputed: 4, 5, 8;   Unclear: 2, 10

Rationale - E:      For the first condition: there is a flag; it is important that the action that is being performed and being witnessed is directly tied to the flag. If not, then the basis for claiming that the action is disrespectfully is a subjective judgement where you cannot know what someone else is thinking about. So now it’s a question of does intention matter?

Under the second condition: the act is connected to the flag. For each action there are circumstances where the act would appear completely acceptable and not disrespectfully. That doesn’t mean that each act is overtly respectfully, it may be neutral and be neither or once again depend upon the intentions of the individual acting.

The third condition: playing national anthem in presence of flag. This is the situation that is most representative of the national ‘flag’ issue. The actions in dispute are those other than 1, 3, 7, and 6 if it happens. 9 – Burning (as insult) is by its intention disrespectful. The remaining acts would have to be understood in context of the intentions of the individual(s) acting. It may be hard to see how the act is respectfully but that doesn’t mean it isn’t. I have a hard time thinking of how 8 – Sitting could be but that’s me and I am not everyone else, but I don’t know why kneeling would be wrong. Kneeling is a sign of respect for other situations, so other than tradition it’s offensiveness is subjective.

Answer - F:  None

Rationale - F:      Respect is not a right, it isn’t legislated, and it has very little standing as any type of behavior for which you can be held legally culpable. All the choices are things which you do have a legal claim upon and for which you could be held legally responsible if you infringed upon others’ right to them.

Answer - G:  8 – You and 10 – Public

Rationale - G:     This is the closest that I can come to an answer for who decides. In reality, it’s both and neither; which of course unfortunately make no sense without some explanation. Unless you believe that ‘Respect’ is something that can be imposed upon you and that you are forced to accept and by acting as directed are thus ‘respectful’ then the only way that ‘respect’ works is for you do decide what it means to you. Now you can’t do that by yourself, since ‘respect’ involves how you relate to our American society, system, values, and views; which fundamentally is shaped by how the public view of ‘respect’.

All the other choice options are a particular segment or reflection of how ‘respect’ is thought of by those groups or institutions. Even in those groups there are wide ranging variants of views, so there will never be a universal view or definition of ‘respect’; at best you get a majority view; and at that point you are once again staring at can you make someone else ‘respect’ the flag by force?

Answer - H:  2 – No

Rationale - H:      The arguments in questions D and G address the contradiction of ‘respecting’ the flag because you are ‘compelled’ to act as if you do. I have often had to ‘act’ like I valued someone’s view in business when I didn’t; I simply valued that they be given the opportunity to express them.

Answer - I:  This had to be a gimme. 2 – No

Rationale - I:        A tradition is just something that people choose to do. Even those individuals who participate in the tradition can choose to stop or change it as they feel at any time. If someone uses the argument that it’s a tradition in America that people are to be treated justly; I would argue that it’s not traditional, it’s the Law.

Answer - J:  All of the above

Rationale - J:       1 – should be obvious. All the others are groups with individuals who hold many differing views on many things. For some members, the view that the Flag stands for those who have, do and will defends the nation and our Constitutional rights, and way of life. This includes some who believe that they are defending the right of other citizens to exercise their freedom of speech (expression) even if it offends them.

Amer. Intelligence Test: Is Health Insurance Different From Home or Other Insurance?

America’s policy on Health Insurance is about to change again; but don’t worry it won’t be the last time. Eventually Congress may determine what it wants the nation’s healthcare policy to be and toss out a new set of rules; or they will simply let the President’s executive order sort itself out across the nation, the healthcare industry and insurance business. Will this fix the problems? As surely as our political leaders have solved the nation’s other problems, particularly healthcare itself, they will deliver the same degree of competence to the health insurance dimension for us. So, I am sure you are all feeling much more assured and at ease with this outcome. Please duck and cover.

Even though all the issues and risks with health insurance are now resolved, it may be interesting to see how well our representatives have understood the needs and reality of health insurance. Based on their decisions you can validate if the answers to the following test conform to theirs. While it would be nice for the issue to be done with, it isn’t because insurance is a system that responds to the factors that control it. We either have created a national approach to healthcare insurance that fixes the problems we were facing or we didn’t. Which is it?

Question A:   Are the financial demands and requirements of health insurance different from those of home insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, or life insurance?

(1). Yes

(2). No

(3). They cannot be compared

Question B:   Is there any portion of healthcare that is or should be a citizen’s right?

(1). Yes

(2). No

(3). We don’t seem to be able to decide as a society

Question C:   Within the healthcare / health insurance industry, which of the following industry segments is the major cost-causer?

(1). Insurance companies

(2). Hospitals

(3). Physicians

(4). Drug companies

(5). Government

(6). Medical equipment manufacturers

(7). Financial/Investment industry

Question D:   Who should decide when a life-saving treatment is too expensive to be covered by one’s insurance?

(1). You, the insured

(2). Insurance company

(3). State regulatory board

(4). Federal regulatory board

(5). Statistical model

(6). Financial model

(7). Courts (and obviously lawyers from both sides)

(8). Congressional legislation

(9). No one, there should not be a limit

Question E:    Is healthcare and health insurance dealt with in the same way that we handle the counterparts of insurance for home, or auto, or flood, or life?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question F:    If a health young person (or their parents) decides to not purchase health insurance and is injured in a sports activity which requires a lifesaving medical procedure beyond their affordability (e.g., two-times their total assets’ value) should it be public policy that they die due it being beyond their means to pay for?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question G:   Do High-Risk insurance pools provide a more cost-effective approach to pre-existing conditions, specific genetic populations, or demographically variable cost markets?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question H:   Is there a public cost to having uninsured people in the population?

(1). Yes

(2). No

ANSWERS:

Answer - A:  2 - No

Rationale - A:      Insurance is a product that like any other product has a cost, a price and either a profit or loss based on how its particular market-events transpire. If cost (payouts) exceed price (premiums) then the insurance company could go bust or will need to raise rates/lower costs. While each insurance market serves different environments, each operates fundamentally the same.

Answer - B:  3 – We can’t decide

Rationale - B:      There is both a recognized division in our society and what I’ll call an unacknowledged reality. On the political dimension we have folks who hold you are not guaranteed any right to medical treatment as a right, and we have those who argue that you are. I suspect neither is completely right nor completely wrong; but that will hardly settle the disagreement.

I believe every state mandates that hospitals provide emergency medical care. There’s nothing about that care which renders its cost free and there is no way to avoid the financial balance sheet, so it gets paid for. If states require this treatment under their law, how is that not a right? I’m sure we can quibble, but if it’s something that you have a valid legal claim to then whatever word you use is going to ultimately equate to you have a ‘right to’ that healthcare.

Now what about the ‘should’ have part of the question? Here the issue is convoluted in the sense that does a society have any reason to provide any healthcare to the public at large? Since the US and its states provide a large number of healthcare services to the public across a wide range of social areas there certainly must be some logic to providing it. Does that constitute a right? If our society’s interests are in danger from not providing such healthcare, would the US be fulfilling its obligations to the public/nation if it did not do this? If it must be done by the nation for the nation then it’s a right.

Does this mean all healthcare is a right? No. But that doesn’t answer the question or settle the issue. I think we have reached the state of “Complexity”. This is a question that needs sound, rational and reasoned judgement. Thus it is not suitable for politicians.

Answer - C:  2 – Hospitals

Rationale - C:      This is simply just the industry segment that has the biggest portion of healthcare spending about a third. You might think that physicians got most of the money, but you have to realize that a large percentage of physicians are employees of hospitals. Now Item 7 – Finance/Investment isn’t easily quantified nor even readily recognized as a part of the healthcare industry; however, we are talking about businesses and a that includes the profit-motive. So, the drive for profits (the imperative for profit) is necessarily pushed on all the segments. As long as we are dealing with a free-market with competitive players that are not constrained by externally imposed requirements or interferences in allowing the market to decide, then fair prices would be expected. Now, if you believe that the healthcare industry is a free-market then you do not understand healthcare in the US. Don’t jump to the conclusion that it’s realistically possible to just operate healthcare as a free-market; there is no reason that that is likely to be achievable or even actually beneficial. Healthcare is like most things in the universe, it’s never as simple as you wish it was; and if you think it is then you probably don’t competently understand what you think you do.

Answer - D:  2 – Insurance company

Rationale - D:      Since insurance is a business contract, the terms and conditions are defined within the contract that you choose to purchase or not. At least that’s the way it should be in a perfect world, which of course we don’t live in. But in a capitalistic system this would be the primary determining principle. In reality, the ability of the consumer (purchaser) to competently understand the product is highly improbable, so the need for Items 3 through 7 to be logically involved is going to play a role. Item 8 – Congress will also play their role but this will be to mostly screw up a reasoned and principled approach to delivering healthcare in the best interests of the nation.

Answer - E:  2 – No

Rationale - E:      If you didn’t purchase home, auto, flood or life insurance and suffer a loss then you or your heirs suffer the consequences. If you don’t purchase health insurance, then depending upon the nature of your infirmity you may yet receive medical treatment in emergency rooms or because state law requires treatment be provided in certain circumstances.

Similar efforts are not going to be part of home, auto, flood or life insurance. If the flood is declared a national disaster, then a loan may be extended under favorable rates. There is clearly something different about healthcare in our societal views and values. This shows that the rules we use must suit our values, principles and the common good.

Answer - F:  2 – No

Rationale - F:      This is the correct answer for a society that values life. The problem is that the social value doesn’t handle the financial facet of our healthcare system or policy. The dilemma is that both answers are actually true, since we are not talking about a known fixed situation. Healthcare varies widely, and the financial aspects of that healthcare are just another complex dimension. The cost of one instance may fall within a healthcare policy that is accepted as national policy, another instance doesn’t fit within the parameters of that same policy. The difficulty of course is setting the policy. Unfortunately, we rely upon the most ill-suited and incompetent people to define our national policy and thus we have the inane healthcare system that is a national issue and national disgrace. Yes, we let Congress make the policy.

Answer - G:  No

Rationale - G:     This is a mathematical matter of the economics of healthcare. High-risk pools are nothing more than a “left-hand doesn’t know what the right-hand” is doing ploy. It doesn’t make the healthcare costs more affordable, it just moves the “peas” around. The most likely outcome is that it adds to overall costs of healthcare and reduces the quantity and quality of care provided. It’s been shown that High-Risks pools don’t work so trying again will be a good test of Einstein’s advice.

Answer - H:  1 – Yes

Rationale - H:      As noted above we treat uninsured individuals within our healthcare system. We may not provide every and all medical services to them, but we don’t spend zero on them either. If we remember the principles of economics and laws of physics then you should connect the dots immediately. If the uninsured don’t pay, who exactly does?

American Intelligence Test: Gerrymandering - Would You Trust A Political Party With Your Freedom?

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided to hear another case on Gerrymandering. The case has the potential to be important if for no other reason than it deals with a fundamental pillar of our democratic system: the equality of every vote. I am sure that it will come as no surprise that one of the most corruptive and unethical elements of our political process has attempted to use their office to abuse, deny and erode our freedoms: Yes, the political parties.

While it is neither unexpected nor unreasonable for political parties to seek to maintain their influence and power; it is nonetheless a vile, dishonorable, immoral, and ignoble means to place their interests above America’s principle of freedom and democracy. Power may corrupt the good, but imagine what power does to those who start out floating in the cess-pool.

On the issue of gerrymandering that will be before the Court, the question and decision may turn on how the Justices understand and view the fundamental rights of citizens when challenged by the interests of political parties. One dimension of this issue will surely focus on the “states’ rights” versus individual’s rights and an insistence of this being a federal government over-reach interfering with those “state’s rights”.

How would you judge? Well before you answer, you might want to see how you’d answer the following questions. [You may also want to consider the arguments that will be made by both sides on the case when argued before the Supreme Court.] Determining what principle(s) are paramount to other conflicting principles will depend upon how you understand and value the respective factors. How the Justices do, we will have to wait and see. Let’s hope that they have principles and values that illuminate our freedoms.

Question A:   What is the objective of gerrymandering?

(1). To group voting districts by income levels

(2). To insure a balanced distribution of population with geographic area within a state

(3). To protect incumbent politicians’ reelection chances

(4). To create voting districts that allow one political party to dominate votes

(5). To create voting districts that dilute one or more groups’ influence in election outcomes

(6). To create voting districts that aggregate areas with shared/common interests

Question B:   Who engages in gerrymandering?

(1). Politicians

(2). Voters

(3). Federal Election Commission

(4). The political party currently in the majority in a state after a census

(5). Congress

(6). State legislatures

(7). Federal and Supreme Courts

(8). Commissions that perform redistricting tasks for a given state

Question C:   Do you live in a state were districts are gerrymandered?

(1). Yes

(2). No

(3). I don’t know

Question D:   What factors do you believe are appropriate to use in creating voting districts?

(1). Income level

(2). Race / Ethnicity

(3). Political party

(4). Religious affiliation

(5). Educational level

(6). Economic interests

(7). Business interests

(8). Geography

(9). Population density

(10). None

Question E:    Is gerrymandering legal or illegal in the US?

(1). Legal

(2). Illegal

(3). I don’t know

Question F:    Should there be a penalty for states or their politicians where a court finds them guilty of political gerrymandering?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question G:   Is it possible to create voting districts that are free from gerrymandering?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question H:   What prevents political parties from engaging in gerrymandering?

(1). It’s illegal

(2). Nothing

(3). Federal and Supreme Courts

(4). Federal Election Commission

(5). Voting Rights Act

(6). Congress

(7). States’ judiciaries

(8). Access to Information (the ‘light of day’)

Answers:

Answer - A:  3, 4 and/or 5

Rationale - A:      Gerrymandering is the process of creating an electoral advantage for one political party over another/others. Items 3, 4 and 5 represent conditions or instances of what would constitute the purpose of gerrymandering.

2 is a requirement of establishing voting districts that are equally apportioned by the state’s population. This constrains or limits what can be done in creating voting districts whether gerrymandering is being attempted or not.

6 is a dimension/factor that is used to explain situations that appear to have no other rational justification for deviating from other rules/guidelines used in redistricting processes.

Whether 1 is used in redistricting is possible but may not be driven by a gerrymandering objective or may be, it would require additional information to make any assessment of its purpose.

Answer - B:  1, 4, 6

Rationale - B:      Given the objectives of gerrymandering in Question A, the state politicians and political entities are the agents of gerrymandering. The extent to which they engage varies by how overtly, covertly, or casually these individuals and groups feel they can get by with it and that they need it to achieve their objectives.

Commissions (8) may or may not engage in gerrymandering. Just because a commission was established doesn’t mean that it isn’t in service to the dominate political group in the state.

Voters (2) are the objects of gerrymandering and not directly involved in it. Of course some voters may be pleased with the results of gerrymandering to the extent that it unequally serves their interests at the expense of other voters.

The FEC (3) is basically a political entity that serves the interests of the political parties, so they don’t interfere with what the parties do.

Congress is a primary beneficiary of gerrymandering, so they don’t get in the way.

The courts (federal level) hold gerrymandering as illegal; however, the identification of when a redistricting plan is gerrymandered versus when it is not, is not a determination that comes without difficulty.

Answer - C:  43 states have more than one congressional district and thus provide the opportunity for gerrymandering. Since politicians are involved directly or indirectly in these states’ redistricting efforts, the probability for gerrymandering abuse increases with every state that has more than 2 districts (that is, 38).

Rationale - C:      Thirty-seven states establish voting districts through their legislatures.

There are seven (7) states only have one voting district and thus cannot engage in gerrymandering. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t just that they can’t, and must use other means to influence the voting process.

Five (5) states use commissions to perform redistricting. This doesn’t mean that politics and politicians are unable to accomplish gerrymandering via those commissions but they have to do it more indirectly.

One (1) states uses non-partisan staff to perform the task which the legislature votes on. Does this mean they do or don’t gerrymander? No, an evaluation of the process would be necessary to determine if it is just accomplished via a different mechanism than most states.

Answer - D:  8 is the best answer. 6 and 7 have some validity. 9 may play some role.

Rationale - D:      By their very nature districts have to be geographically (8) defined. It stands to reason that there are aspects of geography that may provide a reasonable and logical basis for justifying their alignment with one regional district over another. Of course, this requires that an opposite adjustment/alignment is required to off-set that division.

Tied to geography may be economic or business considerations that would be the basis for an alignment decisions above (8) with its corresponding offset/trade in population representation.

Race and ethnicity are factors that present problems since one of the goals of gerrymandering may be focused on negating or diluting the voting influence of groups based on race or ethnicity, which means that these factors are relevant but how to accommodate them is one of the dimensions of the redistricting process that has to be understood and justified.

1, 4 and 5 are not appropriate factors to drive districting decisions.

Answer - E:  2

Rationale - E:      Gerrymandering is illegal. This is contingent upon a redistricting effort as having been conducted with the intention of providing a political advantage to one party over others. The politicians of course in states where they work to gerrymander the districts will insist that they had such intentions. Given the level of trust we all have in politicians, we would thus expect few to no cases of gerrymandering in the US.

If you don’t know, perhaps you might want to consider if you are an informed voter and whether you should thus vote.

Answer - F:  Yes

Rationale - F:      The reason for a penalty for the politicians is that a basic principle in our form of government is that if you break the law, you should pay a price for doing so. If there is no real penalty for engaging in gerrymandering then there is no reason not to do it.

Answer - G:  Yes

Rationale - G:     With today’s knowledge, technology, and information there is no reason that the states’ districting processes cannot be open, well-defined, democratic, verifiable, and following the principles and values of our nation and its people. The fact that our political leaders cannot find it in their personal honor, integrity and fealty of office is simply emblematic of the corruptive nature of our political parties.

Answer - H:  2

Rationale - H:      The ongoing, recurring and persistent implementation of gerrymandered districts, of defeats in court cases, and in the self-evident topography of their plans is empirical evidence that our parties and politicians are addicted to gerrymandering.

Despite being illegal, the courts (3) are the only entities that will intervene when cases are brought forward; but this requires a responsive approach as opposed to a preventative one. Gerrymandering is permitted unless an after the fact charge is made that voters rights were violated. The concept of preventing the violation at the beginning is absent from our current environment.

It’s not hard to fix the process or to prevent the illegality; but there must be a reason to make engaging in gerrymandering more unpalatable than abiding by our democratic principles and values.