(no message)
(no message)
D’s do it where they can as well.
Racism
Homophobia
Xenophobia
Voter Suppression
and now...
Gerrymandering
You guys are whining crybabies when you're not in power. You don't give a shit about these things when you control government.
theirs.
Gerrymandering, and our electoral system which gives disproportionate weight to less populated areas for the senate and electoral college have kept them in bidness. Of course the impact of the system was intentional by the founders.
(no message)
The folks who keep overstating the effects do so, in large part, to avoid taking responsibility for the Democratic Party has become non-competitive in most rural areas and in some cities between the coasts.. The GOP gets to gerrymander because the platform of the Dems is so unappealing in so many areas. If the Dems still appealed to them, they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. The Dems lost these folks at a critical time and it cost them dearly. State legislatures and governorships have been decimated and the things that most affect our lives day-in and day-out happen at the state level, not in Washington.
That’s almost literally true. Midwestern cities are blue.
Gerrymandering gave the GOP the House. Without it - just look at PA now - the Dems will take over.
It’s not only a GOP sin, of course. Maryland is gerrymandered blue.
Your theme of alienation of the white working class is what is exaggerated, not gerrymandering.
South Eastern states, Wisconsin Colorado have taken a look at gerrymandering and have diagnosed it a problem, a problem created by Republican consuming power
Suits have been filed in almost every State where Republicans have Governer control and mostly because their own State rules have been ignored, abused or flat out changed unilaterally.
The Supreme Court has jumped in on several cases and thrown out R’s redistricting as obvious partisanship as recently as this past summer.
Partisan Gerrymandering serves the party in power as a political tool to suppress and deny populations their right to community decisions which benefits their community. And in the large picture to move or keep a party in power.
Otherwise it wouldn’t be done.
Mostly, it is used to gather minorities into districts that can reliably elect a minority. But, both parties do use it to make sure that most seats are locks.
I knew someone on a redistricting committee years ago. It is a shady business, that is for sure.
Maryland is a rare exception of a gerrymandered state for the Dems, because they held the state legislatures.
It much, much more commonly benefits the GOP today.
It should be abolished, either way.
(no message)
Your party's success in locking in seats for minorities is now perceived as a disadvantage? What're you, a racist?
Look, I agree that gerrymandering is bad. But arguing that it helps Republicans more than Democrats is totally bogus, and makes me wonder about your goal. But, if you are really opposed to gerrymandering, we have some common ground.
(no message)
Is your goal to get more control over the gerrymandering process?...a process equally controlled by incumbents in both major parties?
Or, is your goal to get rid of gerrymandering?
I'm starting to suspect the former, not the latter, based on your posts so far. You seem to want to go for a short-term, partisan point win, rather go for a neutral fix to the system.
Most states don't just appoint a committee of Republicans to draw up districts, as you alleged.
Also, let's not pretend that the GOP is the only party trying to control the process. Open borders is an attempt to control the process. So is preventing states from verifying who is voting. The most glaring attempt to control the process was when the Democrats launched an effort to win the office of Secretary of State in every state back in 2006. (See link below.) That was a nod to the effectiveness of Stalin's approach: "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." They went underground in 2010 when they realized how bad that looked, but I don't doubt the effort is still underway.
Some thoughts on your linked article:
It's a fluff piece with very little research as to the actual practices, and the pros and cons of the proposed changes. I'm not opposed to these reforms in general, but I can see how they could be abused, so we would have to be careful.
Yes, some states are changing...but how? Most states have bipartisan committees already. That is, most states don't just default to letting the GOP do it for them, like you alleged. Occasionally, they try to give it to unelected commissions...which turn out to be filled with spouses of the leadership of both parties--I've seen that happen in real life. But, the courts don't often allow legislatures to shirk that constitutional duty.
Making it easier to vote can make ideas less important in an election. The easier you make it to vote, the more Gruber voters there are (something your party has admitted it relies upon--stupid voters), and the more power is retained by the leaders of the parties (you guys say Trump relies on stupid voters too...so why make it easier for stupid voters to vote?). People who care enough to register through a separate process, and update their registration after a purge, are far more likely to inform themselves on the ideas. So, the stated goal of the author (making elections about ideas, not manipulation) of our linked piece is contradicted by some of her suggestions.
As bad as having elected officials in charge, it is probably worse to not have elected officials in charge. At least we can vote out misbehaving elected officials. We can't vote out (or even cut the pensions of) misbehaving bureaucrats. The only thing worse than giving control to elected officials is giving control to non-elected officials.
Link: https://ballotpedia.org/Secretary_of_State_Project
Where Republicans are in control of the State that State is being looked at for partisan Gerrymandering. This isn’t happening in states controlled by Democrats.
Funny how that works.
So, you are just making things up when you post. I guess that is why you accuse others of doing that. You need to believe that others do what you do.
This is how the Democrats in Illinois protect Luis Gutiérrez. Otherwise, he would not be elected.
- which by the way is happening in multiple districts across multiple states by republicans.
instead of condemning the action
Effin Genius.
(no message)
It’s downright noble, in Dim’s puny mind.
(no message)
(no message)
Let’s call it deplorable gerrymandering.
As long as we don’t have voter ID laws to limit the fraud.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)