Let the Republican Vote Rigging Continue!

[Anonymous]

Well, do you think Texas voting changes will be like Pennsylvanias? Any takers?

No, no, no, my friends. This state will remain winner take all, and by taking all I mean that in the most gerrymandered sense possible at the congressional level. Check out their plan for allocating the new seats based on the 2010 census. Almost all the population growth was in the Hispanic community, and it is doubtful that thy will end up with a single new majority hispanic district. The freaking state is 38% Hispanic.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/09/justice-department-rejects-texas-congressional-redistricting-plan/

[Anonymous]

Well apparently they have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The court has bounced their plan and they will likely not have time to file another before the election.

[Anonymous]

Oh come on. Both sides do it whenever they have the opportunity to be in charge.

Neither the republicans or democrats have a monopoly on this type of gerrymandering.

Blame them all, not just one party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on. Both sides do it whenever they have the opportunity to be in charge.

Neither the republicans or democrats have a monopoly on this type of gerrymandering.

Blame them all, not just one party.

Amen - did anyone note the districts redrawn in VA by the Democrat controlled (at the time) Senate? Totally happens all the time with both parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on. Both sides do it whenever they have the opportunity to be in charge.

Neither the republicans or democrats have a monopoly on this type of gerrymandering.

Blame them all, not just one party.

1. I believe this is a unique failure. I can't recall a time when the court actually had to reject a plan. Usually this is settled with DOJ and never even sees a court.

2. Texas is 40% hispanic. Of the 32 congressmen, I bet they have six hispanics. How is that possible?

[Anonymous]

Look at California's crazy districting. They have districts that weave and snake all over the place that make no sense when you look at neighborhoods. It is designed so you cannot get a republican or even moderate elected, even in conservative leaning areas.

It goes on all the time with both parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at California's crazy districting. They have districts that weave and snake all over the place that make no sense when you look at neighborhoods. It is designed so you cannot get a republican or even moderate elected, even in conservative leaning areas.

It goes on all the time with both parties.

Citation required.

[Anonymous]

Republicans don't have to this because they are sure to win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans don't have to this because they are sure to win.

Them why in fact did they? There is no defense for the Texas redistricting plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at California's crazy districting. They have districts that weave and snake all over the place that make no sense when you look at neighborhoods. It is designed so you cannot get a republican or even moderate elected, even in conservative leaning areas.

It goes on all the time with both parties.

Citation required.

http://swdb.berkeley.edu/resources/california_journal_links/congress.html

Look at this map. Districts splinter off like spiders, jump over mountains, link towns that have no geographical proximity to each other:

http://swdb.berkeley.edu/pub/data/MAPS/2010_over_under/2001_congressional_over_and_under.pdf

Look at the Wikipedia description of gerrymandering. Most of the examples are from California and Illinois, but there are crazy examples from both parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Their new California redistricting is very controversial as well, for creating districts that virtually guarantee Democratic control over the state for the forseable future:

http://www.redistrictingca.org/news-and-community/2011/07/7-28-11-california-redistricting-maps-released/

If you look at this problem honestly you will see it is a problem with both parties depending on who is in charge, and especially with incumbants trying to hold on to power.

[takoma]

I think the issue is not whether both parties do it, but whether there are legal limits. As I understand it, the Texas GOP transgression was racial or ethnic discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at California's crazy districting. They have districts that weave and snake all over the place that make no sense when you look at neighborhoods. It is designed so you cannot get a republican or even moderate elected, even in conservative leaning areas.

It goes on all the time with both parties.

Citation required.

http://swdb.berkeley.edu/resources/california_journal_links/congress.html

Look at this map. Districts splinter off like spiders, jump over mountains, link towns that have no geographical proximity to each other:

http://swdb.berkeley.edu/pub/data/MAPS/2010_over_under/2001_congressional_over_and_under.pdf

Look at the Wikipedia description of gerrymandering. Most of the examples are from California and Illinois, but there are crazy examples from both parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Their new California redistricting is very controversial as well, for creating districts that virtually guarantee Democratic control over the state for the forseable future:

http://www.redistrictingca.org/news-and-community/2011/07/7-28-11-california-redistricting-maps-released/

If you look at this problem honestly you will see it is a problem with both parties depending on who is in charge, and especially with incumbants trying to hold on to power.

Do you realize of the three California examples in Wikipedia, one was created by Republicans and one was bipartisan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at California's crazy districting. They have districts that weave and snake all over the place that make no sense when you look at neighborhoods. It is designed so you cannot get a republican or even moderate elected, even in conservative leaning areas.

It goes on all the time with both parties.

Citation required.

http://swdb.berkeley.edu/resources/california_journal_links/congress.html

Look at this map. Districts splinter off like spiders, jump over mountains, link towns that have no geographical proximity to each other:

http://swdb.berkeley.edu/pub/data/MAPS/2010_over_under/2001_congressional_over_and_under.pdf

Look at the Wikipedia description of gerrymandering. Most of the examples are from California and Illinois, but there are crazy examples from both parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Their new [b]California redistricting is very controversial as well, for creating districts that virtually guarantee Democratic control over the state for the forseable future:

http://www.redistrictingca.org/news-and-community/2011/07/7-28-11-california-redistricting-maps-released/

If you look at this problem honestly you will see it is a problem with both parties depending on who is in charge, and especially with incumbants trying to hold on to power.

Do you realize of the three California examples in Wikipedia, one was created by Republicans and one was bipartisan[/b]?

Sure. As I said there are examples from both parties and it is an incumbent problem, not limited to one party. The last gerrymandered districts in CA were bi-partisan. The complaint with the newest redistricting is that it is designed to maintain an unbreakable democratic majority in California indefinitely. I am sure if the republicans were in charge there with the same majorities it would be the opposite problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at California's crazy districting. They have districts that weave and snake all over the place that make no sense when you look at neighborhoods. It is designed so you cannot get a republican or even moderate elected, even in conservative leaning areas.

It goes on all the time with both parties.

Citation required.

http://swdb.berkeley.edu/resources/california_journal_links/congress.html

Look at this map. Districts splinter off like spiders, jump over mountains, link towns that have no geographical proximity to each other:

http://swdb.berkeley.edu/pub/data/MAPS/2010_over_under/2001_congressional_over_and_under.pdf

Look at the Wikipedia description of gerrymandering. Most of the examples are from California and Illinois, but there are crazy examples from both parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Their new [b]California redistricting is very controversial as well, for creating districts that virtually guarantee Democratic control over the state for the forseable future:

http://www.redistrictingca.org/news-and-community/2011/07/7-28-11-california-redistricting-maps-released/

If you look at this problem honestly you will see it is a problem with both parties depending on who is in charge, and especially with incumbants trying to hold on to power.

Do you realize of the three California examples in Wikipedia, one was created by Republicans and one was bipartisan[/b]?

Sure. As I said there are examples from both parties and it is an incumbent problem, not limited to one party. The last gerrymandered districts in CA were bi-partisan. The complaint with the newest redistricting is that it is designed to maintain an unbreakable democratic majority in California indefinitely. I am sure if the republicans were in charge there with the same majorities it would be the opposite problem.

Not exactly. California's redistricting agenda is to protect incumbents, which is why there is so much bipartisan support for the redistricting.

Texas is around 40% hispanic yet only about 20% of congressmen are hispanic. That's not great but what totally sucks is that Texas gets four new congressional seats due almost entirely to the hispanic population growth, and the resulting plan will probably result in fewer hispanic members of congress. W.T.F?