Texas Republicans unveil congressional map that could gift them five seats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Dems do. They supported a ban on gerrymandering. Every Congressional republican voted against it. So try again.

No, Dems do not. Claude 2 of the gerrymandering bill you referred to was this:

“Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), including by creating any districts where, if based upon the totality of the circumstances, 2 or more politically cohesive groups protected by such Act are able to elect representatives of choice in coalition with one another, and all other applicable Federal laws.”

In other words, this bill preserved VRA mandated gerrymandering while outlawing all other forms of gerrymandering.

As I stated above, there are obvious race neutral anti-gerrymandering structures that both protect the intent of the VRA and forbid gerrymandering. That this bill explicitly protected some gerrymandering (that historically overwhelmingly benefits Dems) tells you the Dems are playing the same exact game. You are just buying into the framing.

Don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I know what it says and it says "IF based on the totality of the circumstances" and in applicable with federal laws. Not "black people get black districts." It's not as rigid as you describe. AND you are ignoring the reasons for the VRA.

Is it your position that the GOP should voluntarily accept the elimination of gerrymandering while preserving a set of gerrymandered districts (in the GOP power geographic power base, no less) that overwhelmingly vote Democrat on a historical basis? Is that what you call fairness? You can’t possibly be a serious person.

You are ignoring the obvious constitutional problems with gerrymandering districts based on race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Why are white ppl such whiny bi---ches? The VRA portions you cite were to combat racism in voting, as a result of Jim Crow and related era practices. It was to REMEDY racism. So stop acting like Dems wanted this out of thin air just to be racist.

What's happening now is not "race neutral" and if you look at the states that voted against the VRA, it's all of the deep south, jim crow states.

First, I’m not white.

Second, the VRA obviously creates a structural advantage for groups as one group gets beneficial gerrymandering. If you outlaw all other forms of gerrymandering while mandating a very specific kind of gerrymandering, you are obviously (a) intentionally advantaging one group over another and (b) undermining your own claims about wanting to do away with the evil of gerrymandering.

If you sincerely want fair elections and to do away with gerrymandering, there are easy, race neutral methods that allow you to preserve exactly what you purport you want to do with the VRA and simultaneously ban gerrymandering. Instead, the proposed solution amounts to “gerrymandering for me, but not for thee.”

If you can’t understand the obvious structural problem you are creating, you are a lost cause.

I didn't say YOU were white but that is the sentiment of many white people. Moreover, IDGAF what your race is.

The fact your claiming that the VRA creates a structural advantage for a historically disadvantaged group, ignoring the reason the VRA existed, AND ignoring the intentional structural advantages that will result from the gerrymandering in the way that the southern states are doing it -giving whites a structural advantage for a generation- tells me a few things. You're a partisan hack. You are deliberately twisting the situation.

Youre entire last paragraph is a joke and is EXACTLY what LA, AL, TX, TN and others are doing. So you oppose that, right?

2024:

Massachusetts
Harris: 61.3%
Trump: 36.5%
HoR delegation
Dem: 9
GOP: 0

Alabama:
Harris: 34.10%
Trump: 64.5%
Dem: 2
GOP: 5

Every state, even those using purportedly non-partisan commissions is gerrymandering structurally advantaged maps for the dominant party.

You cannot possibly expect one side to unilaterally disarm, especially when the other side is preserving its structural advantage.

What is insane here is that you are avoiding my point: my proposal gives you 95% of what you claim to want out of the VRA. You can design a race neutral system that preserves minority voting power in the Deep South, but instead you seem to be fighting it because it would lead to more fair elections nationwide rather than ensuring what you seem to really want: a system that ensures your side wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Why are white ppl such whiny bi---ches? The VRA portions you cite were to combat racism in voting, as a result of Jim Crow and related era practices. It was to REMEDY racism. So stop acting like Dems wanted this out of thin air just to be racist.

What's happening now is not "race neutral" and if you look at the states that voted against the VRA, it's all of the deep south, jim crow states.

First, I’m not white.

Second, the VRA obviously creates a structural advantage for groups as one group gets beneficial gerrymandering. If you outlaw all other forms of gerrymandering while mandating a very specific kind of gerrymandering, you are obviously (a) intentionally advantaging one group over another and (b) undermining your own claims about wanting to do away with the evil of gerrymandering.

If you sincerely want fair elections and to do away with gerrymandering, there are easy, race neutral methods that allow you to preserve exactly what you purport you want to do with the VRA and simultaneously ban gerrymandering. Instead, the proposed solution amounts to “gerrymandering for me, but not for thee.”

If you can’t understand the obvious structural problem you are creating, you are a lost cause.

I didn't say YOU were white but that is the sentiment of many white people. Moreover, IDGAF what your race is.

The fact your claiming that the VRA creates a structural advantage for a historically disadvantaged group, ignoring the reason the VRA existed, AND ignoring the intentional structural advantages that will result from the gerrymandering in the way that the southern states are doing it -giving whites a structural advantage for a generation- tells me a few things. You're a partisan hack. You are deliberately twisting the situation.

Youre entire last paragraph is a joke and is EXACTLY what LA, AL, TX, TN and others are doing. So you oppose that, right?

2024:

Massachusetts
Harris: 61.3%
Trump: 36.5%
HoR delegation
Dem: 9
GOP: 0

Alabama:
Harris: 34.10%
Trump: 64.5%
Dem: 2
GOP: 5

Every state, even those using purportedly non-partisan commissions is gerrymandering structurally advantaged maps for the dominant party.

You cannot possibly expect one side to unilaterally disarm, especially when the other side is preserving its structural advantage.

What is insane here is that you are avoiding my point: my proposal gives you 95% of what you claim to want out of the VRA. You can design a race neutral system that preserves minority voting power in the Deep South, but instead you seem to be fighting it because it would lead to more fair elections nationwide rather than ensuring what you seem to really want: a system that ensures your side wins.

DP. No gerrymandering at all. That's the answer. Who said anything about only one side "disarming". Interesting that you would use that term.

There should be no gerrymandering. The number of reps from each party from a given state should represent the percentages of people from a given party in each state. Representation.

Stop blathering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Why are white ppl such whiny bi---ches? The VRA portions you cite were to combat racism in voting, as a result of Jim Crow and related era practices. It was to REMEDY racism. So stop acting like Dems wanted this out of thin air just to be racist.

What's happening now is not "race neutral" and if you look at the states that voted against the VRA, it's all of the deep south, jim crow states.

First, I’m not white.

Second, the VRA obviously creates a structural advantage for groups as one group gets beneficial gerrymandering. If you outlaw all other forms of gerrymandering while mandating a very specific kind of gerrymandering, you are obviously (a) intentionally advantaging one group over another and (b) undermining your own claims about wanting to do away with the evil of gerrymandering.

If you sincerely want fair elections and to do away with gerrymandering, there are easy, race neutral methods that allow you to preserve exactly what you purport you want to do with the VRA and simultaneously ban gerrymandering. Instead, the proposed solution amounts to “gerrymandering for me, but not for thee.”

If you can’t understand the obvious structural problem you are creating, you are a lost cause.

I didn't say YOU were white but that is the sentiment of many white people. Moreover, IDGAF what your race is.

The fact your claiming that the VRA creates a structural advantage for a historically disadvantaged group, ignoring the reason the VRA existed, AND ignoring the intentional structural advantages that will result from the gerrymandering in the way that the southern states are doing it -giving whites a structural advantage for a generation- tells me a few things. You're a partisan hack. You are deliberately twisting the situation.

Youre entire last paragraph is a joke and is EXACTLY what LA, AL, TX, TN and others are doing. So you oppose that, right?

2024:

Massachusetts
Harris: 61.3%
Trump: 36.5%
HoR delegation
Dem: 9
GOP: 0

Alabama:
Harris: 34.10%
Trump: 64.5%
Dem: 2
GOP: 5

Every state, even those using purportedly non-partisan commissions is gerrymandering structurally advantaged maps for the dominant party.

You cannot possibly expect one side to unilaterally disarm, especially when the other side is preserving its structural advantage.

What is insane here is that you are avoiding my point: my proposal gives you 95% of what you claim to want out of the VRA. You can design a race neutral system that preserves minority voting power in the Deep South, but instead you seem to be fighting it because it would lead to more fair elections nationwide rather than ensuring what you seem to really want: a system that ensures your side wins.

DP. No gerrymandering at all. That's the answer. Who said anything about only one side "disarming". Interesting that you would use that term.

There should be no gerrymandering. The number of reps from each party from a given state should represent the percentages of people from a given party in each state. Representation.

Stop blathering.

Try to keep up.

1. Amy Klobuchar introduces anti-gerrymandering bill in Senate.

2. Bill bans gerrymandering on face, but then mandates that VRA-required gerrymandering be respected, thus creating a structural advantage for one side.

3. Dems vote for it, GOP does not.

4. People like you pounce, paraphrasing: "see, GOP is anti-democracy".

5. People like me: "hey, we can actually create an anti-gerrymandering construct that is race neutral, fair, and preserves what the VRA is supposed to do. The number of reps from each party from a given state should represent the percentages of people from a given party in each state. Representation."

6. People like you: "stop blathering".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Black representation isn't eliminated.

Democrats have pushed gerrymandering for decades as a way to count representation that is not naturally there. That game is being challenged and it's high-time it was.

Put down the kool-aid, buddy. the idea that Dems are the ones doing majority of gerrymandering is flatly incorrect. Further, there is nothing "natural" about the way TX, LA, AL, etc. are drawing their districts. GTFOH with your bs.

No gerrymandering in Illinois?

[Anonymous]

Voting Rights Act section 2, does not mention redistricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Why are white ppl such whiny bi---ches? The VRA portions you cite were to combat racism in voting, as a result of Jim Crow and related era practices. It was to REMEDY racism. So stop acting like Dems wanted this out of thin air just to be racist.

What's happening now is not "race neutral" and if you look at the states that voted against the VRA, it's all of the deep south, jim crow states.

First, I’m not white.

Second, the VRA obviously creates a structural advantage for groups as one group gets beneficial gerrymandering. If you outlaw all other forms of gerrymandering while mandating a very specific kind of gerrymandering, you are obviously (a) intentionally advantaging one group over another and (b) undermining your own claims about wanting to do away with the evil of gerrymandering.

If you sincerely want fair elections and to do away with gerrymandering, there are easy, race neutral methods that allow you to preserve exactly what you purport you want to do with the VRA and simultaneously ban gerrymandering. Instead, the proposed solution amounts to “gerrymandering for me, but not for thee.”

If you can’t understand the obvious structural problem you are creating, you are a lost cause.

I didn't say YOU were white but that is the sentiment of many white people. Moreover, IDGAF what your race is.

The fact your claiming that the VRA creates a structural advantage for a historically disadvantaged group, ignoring the reason the VRA existed, AND ignoring the intentional structural advantages that will result from the gerrymandering in the way that the southern states are doing it -giving whites a structural advantage for a generation- tells me a few things. You're a partisan hack. You are deliberately twisting the situation.

Youre entire last paragraph is a joke and is EXACTLY what LA, AL, TX, TN and others are doing. So you oppose that, right?

2024:

Massachusetts
Harris: 61.3%
Trump: 36.5%
HoR delegation
Dem: 9
GOP: 0

Alabama:
Harris: 34.10%
Trump: 64.5%
Dem: 2
GOP: 5

Every state, even those using purportedly non-partisan commissions is gerrymandering structurally advantaged maps for the dominant party.

You cannot possibly expect one side to unilaterally disarm, especially when the other side is preserving its structural advantage.

What is insane here is that you are avoiding my point: my proposal gives you 95% of what you claim to want out of the VRA. You can design a race neutral system that preserves minority voting power in the Deep South, but instead you seem to be fighting it because it would lead to more fair elections nationwide rather than ensuring what you seem to really want: a system that ensures your side wins.

Are they doing it without the census data mid-decade? No? then not the same?
And while you are complaining, take a look at Wisconsin or Ohio or Indiana, or..I could go on, but your complaints fail.

[Anonymous]

Some of these are entirely possible and even likely, others are just straight up impossible without some extraordinary measures employed to make it happen.
>Dems can and possibly will eliminate California’s remaining four GOP districts (+1-4)
>They will probably draw a 8-0 or 7-1 map before 2028 in Colorado (+3-4)
>Dems can draw a 17-0 or 16-1 map in Illinois, but it’ll be the most hideous baconmander you’ve ever seen, and likely require them dismantling all of their minority-majority districts (+2-3)
>Democrats can theoretically redraw an 8-0 map in Maryland, but it’s extremely rush with Larry Hogan appointees controlling the Supreme Court. If they lose a lawsuit, the stunt could backfire and they may actually lose a seat there (-1 to +1)
>Democrats have no ability to legally redrawing Minnesota at the moment. They don’t even have a trifecta in the state. Their only path would be to hijack the Minnesota Supreme Court and force a new map drawn by Dem judges. Considering that Minnesota already has a fair map, doing this would mean all bets are off and the national implications of such a thing could be drastic. ( +0 I don’t see this happening at the moment)
>Democrats would have to amend the New Jersey constitution. They have the votes to do this in the legislature as well as the general public. The bigger problem is trying to peel off two GOP seats, which is what they probably would aim for. (+1-2)
>Democrats tried to force through an extreme gerrymander in New York after the 2020 census and were defeated in court. Since then, the Court of Appeals has moved further to the Left. It’s not impossible for them to eliminate about three or four GOP held districts, though one of them already voted for Harris in 2024 (+3-4)
>There’s basically nothing stopping Democrats from abolishing the remaining GOP district in Oregon, aside from internal party debates over who gets what part of Portland (+1)
>See above with Minnesota. Pennsylvania already has a fair map and Democrats have no ability to redraw the state outside of direct intervention by the Supreme Court. Doing so would be an egregious power grab that goes far beyond anything any Red state has attempted thus far. Even trying to do this would have unforeseen consequences. (+0)
>Washington State and Wisconsin is in the same situation as PA and MN. Democrats have no legal path to redrawing either. They don’t have the votes to amend the state constitution in Washington, and they don’t hold a trifecta in Wisconsin, so their only option is judicial fiat. I don’t know what they expect to happen if they try to pull this stunt in three separate states, but they’re dangerously delusional if they believe America will ever be the same after weaponizing the courts like this.
Overall, we’re probably looking at a swing of 10-19 seats between now and 2028. That’s enough to more than offset the redraws we’re expected to see in the South as a result of the Callais decision. The GOP will have to expand the map by revisiting Indiana, going after the St. Louis seat in Missouri, eliminating two of the Dem seats in Ohio, dismantling the Omaha seat in Nebraska, undoing the Dem gerrymandering in Utah, and being even more aggressive in Florida and Texas.
If Republicans aren’t prepared to do all of this to counter what’s coming they will lose the redistricting war. At some point we’ll see both sides begin to run out of targets and it’s a just a matter of which side is willing to go further to win. That entails going after Dem seats in Kansas and Kentucky, which I haven’t colored on this map.
There will be a host of loser-cons in the GOP, particularly in states in Indiana and Utah who will refuse to go along with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Why are white ppl such whiny bi---ches? The VRA portions you cite were to combat racism in voting, as a result of Jim Crow and related era practices. It was to REMEDY racism. So stop acting like Dems wanted this out of thin air just to be racist.

What's happening now is not "race neutral" and if you look at the states that voted against the VRA, it's all of the deep south, jim crow states.

First, I’m not white.

Second, the VRA obviously creates a structural advantage for groups as one group gets beneficial gerrymandering. If you outlaw all other forms of gerrymandering while mandating a very specific kind of gerrymandering, you are obviously (a) intentionally advantaging one group over another and (b) undermining your own claims about wanting to do away with the evil of gerrymandering.

If you sincerely want fair elections and to do away with gerrymandering, there are easy, race neutral methods that allow you to preserve exactly what you purport you want to do with the VRA and simultaneously ban gerrymandering. Instead, the proposed solution amounts to “gerrymandering for me, but not for thee.”

If you can’t understand the obvious structural problem you are creating, you are a lost cause.

I didn't say YOU were white but that is the sentiment of many white people. Moreover, IDGAF what your race is.

The fact your claiming that the VRA creates a structural advantage for a historically disadvantaged group, ignoring the reason the VRA existed, AND ignoring the intentional structural advantages that will result from the gerrymandering in the way that the southern states are doing it -giving whites a structural advantage for a generation- tells me a few things. You're a partisan hack. You are deliberately twisting the situation.

Youre entire last paragraph is a joke and is EXACTLY what LA, AL, TX, TN and others are doing. So you oppose that, right?

2024:

Massachusetts
Harris: 61.3%
Trump: 36.5%
HoR delegation
Dem: 9
GOP: 0

Alabama:
Harris: 34.10%
Trump: 64.5%
Dem: 2
GOP: 5

Every state, even those using purportedly non-partisan commissions is gerrymandering structurally advantaged maps for the dominant party.

You cannot possibly expect one side to unilaterally disarm, especially when the other side is preserving its structural advantage.

What is insane here is that you are avoiding my point: my proposal gives you 95% of what you claim to want out of the VRA. You can design a race neutral system that preserves minority voting power in the Deep South, but instead you seem to be fighting it because it would lead to more fair elections nationwide rather than ensuring what you seem to really want: a system that ensures your side wins.

DP. No gerrymandering at all. That's the answer. Who said anything about only one side "disarming". Interesting that you would use that term.

There should be no gerrymandering. The number of reps from each party from a given state should represent the percentages of people from a given party in each state. Representation.

Stop blathering.

Try to keep up.

1. Amy Klobuchar introduces anti-gerrymandering bill in Senate.

2. Bill bans gerrymandering on face, but then mandates that VRA-required gerrymandering be respected, thus creating a structural advantage for one side.

3. Dems vote for it, GOP does not.

4. People like you pounce, paraphrasing: "see, GOP is anti-democracy".

5. People like me: "hey, we can actually create an anti-gerrymandering construct that is race neutral, fair, and preserves what the VRA is supposed to do. The number of reps from each party from a given state should represent the percentages of people from a given party in each state. Representation."

6. People like you: "stop blathering".

Why are you sock puppeting and coming back to every post with the same standard lines?

You'r e a joke. And a moronic one who has little sense of history and the purpose of the VRA, why it was needed, and how it worked.

Further, if the bill was not to R's liking they could negotiate a better one or find a compromise. A novel concept for today's GOP. But, no, they do what they always do and obstruct.

GOP is absolutely anti-democracy. Look what they've done mid-cycle in red states. Look what they're doing now post-scotus. Declaring a "state of emergency" to change primaries 6 months before election day. Look at the election results denial, despite being turned down in the courts time and again. Look at the attempts to undermine mail in voting. Look at attempts to restrict student voting. Look at the GOP supporting the absurd SAVE Act. Trump demanded GA find him more votes. And they the crowning jewel of the GOP's anti-democratic soul: insurrection and trying to violently change a democratic election. And all of this despite no evidence of significant voter fraud.


So yeah, that cheating. That's anti-democracy. GOP cannot win without cheating and they prove that time and again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Why are white ppl such whiny bi---ches? The VRA portions you cite were to combat racism in voting, as a result of Jim Crow and related era practices. It was to REMEDY racism. So stop acting like Dems wanted this out of thin air just to be racist.

What's happening now is not "race neutral" and if you look at the states that voted against the VRA, it's all of the deep south, jim crow states.

First, I’m not white.

Second, the VRA obviously creates a structural advantage for groups as one group gets beneficial gerrymandering. If you outlaw all other forms of gerrymandering while mandating a very specific kind of gerrymandering, you are obviously (a) intentionally advantaging one group over another and (b) undermining your own claims about wanting to do away with the evil of gerrymandering.

If you sincerely want fair elections and to do away with gerrymandering, there are easy, race neutral methods that allow you to preserve exactly what you purport you want to do with the VRA and simultaneously ban gerrymandering. Instead, the proposed solution amounts to “gerrymandering for me, but not for thee.”

If you can’t understand the obvious structural problem you are creating, you are a lost cause.

I didn't say YOU were white but that is the sentiment of many white people. Moreover, IDGAF what your race is.

The fact your claiming that the VRA creates a structural advantage for a historically disadvantaged group, ignoring the reason the VRA existed, AND ignoring the intentional structural advantages that will result from the gerrymandering in the way that the southern states are doing it -giving whites a structural advantage for a generation- tells me a few things. You're a partisan hack. You are deliberately twisting the situation.

Youre entire last paragraph is a joke and is EXACTLY what LA, AL, TX, TN and others are doing. So you oppose that, right?

2024:

Massachusetts
Harris: 61.3%
Trump: 36.5%
HoR delegation
Dem: 9
GOP: 0

Alabama:
Harris: 34.10%
Trump: 64.5%
Dem: 2
GOP: 5

Every state, even those using purportedly non-partisan commissions is gerrymandering structurally advantaged maps for the dominant party.

You cannot possibly expect one side to unilaterally disarm, especially when the other side is preserving its structural advantage.

What is insane here is that you are avoiding my point: my proposal gives you 95% of what you claim to want out of the VRA. You can design a race neutral system that preserves minority voting power in the Deep South, but instead you seem to be fighting it because it would lead to more fair elections nationwide rather than ensuring what you seem to really want: a system that ensures your side wins.

DP. No gerrymandering at all. That's the answer. Who said anything about only one side "disarming". Interesting that you would use that term.

There should be no gerrymandering. The number of reps from each party from a given state should represent the percentages of people from a given party in each state. Representation.

Stop blathering.

Try to keep up.

1. Amy Klobuchar introduces anti-gerrymandering bill in Senate.

2. Bill bans gerrymandering on face, but then mandates that VRA-required gerrymandering be respected, thus creating a structural advantage for one side.

3. Dems vote for it, GOP does not.

4. People like you pounce, paraphrasing: "see, GOP is anti-democracy".

5. People like me: "hey, we can actually create an anti-gerrymandering construct that is race neutral, fair, and preserves what the VRA is supposed to do. The number of reps from each party from a given state should represent the percentages of people from a given party in each state. Representation."

6. People like you: "stop blathering".

Why are you sock puppeting and coming back to every post with the same standard lines?

You'r e a joke. And a moronic one who has little sense of history and the purpose of the VRA, why it was needed, and how it worked.

Further, if the bill was not to R's liking they could negotiate a better one or find a compromise. A novel concept for today's GOP. But, no, they do what they always do and obstruct.

GOP is absolutely anti-democracy. Look what they've done mid-cycle in red states. Look what they're doing now post-scotus. Declaring a "state of emergency" to change primaries 6 months before election day. Look at the election results denial, despite being turned down in the courts time and again. Look at the attempts to undermine mail in voting. Look at attempts to restrict student voting. Look at the GOP supporting the absurd SAVE Act. Trump demanded GA find him more votes. And they the crowning jewel of the GOP's anti-democratic soul: insurrection and trying to violently change a democratic election. And all of this despite no evidence of significant voter fraud.


So yeah, that cheating. That's anti-democracy. GOP cannot win without cheating and they prove that time and again.

Forgot to add Trump seizing voting machines, voting rolls, and GOP purging voters from rolls.

[Anonymous]

If Democrats don't aggressively redistrict in the face of escalating GOP abuses, it's actually an abdication of responsibility to the voters.

-Max Flugrath

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Dems do. They supported a ban on gerrymandering. Every Congressional republican voted against it. So try again.

No, Dems do not. Claude 2 of the gerrymandering bill you referred to was this:

“Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), including by creating any districts where, if based upon the totality of the circumstances, 2 or more politically cohesive groups protected by such Act are able to elect representatives of choice in coalition with one another, and all other applicable Federal laws.”

In other words, this bill preserved VRA mandated gerrymandering while outlawing all other forms of gerrymandering.

As I stated above, there are obvious race neutral anti-gerrymandering structures that both protect the intent of the VRA and forbid gerrymandering. That this bill explicitly protected some gerrymandering (that historically overwhelmingly benefits Dems) tells you the Dems are playing the same exact game. You are just buying into the framing.

Don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I know what it says and it says "IF based on the totality of the circumstances" and in applicable with federal laws. Not "black people get black districts." It's not as rigid as you describe. AND you are ignoring the reasons for the VRA.

Is it your position that the GOP should voluntarily accept the elimination of gerrymandering while preserving a set of gerrymandered districts (in the GOP power geographic power base, no less) that overwhelmingly vote Democrat on a historical basis? Is that what you call fairness? You can’t possibly be a serious person.

You are ignoring the obvious constitutional problems with gerrymandering districts based on race.

That is what YOU want. You want Dems to unilaterally disarm while you rig the F out of state maps 6 mos before elections, even when early voting is happening in some of those states. You people whined and bit--ed about Virginia being "unfair" despite the fact that is temporary and responsive to R's in Texas and other states. And look what they're doing now. All the States that prompted the VRA in the first place are immediately proving why it was needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Dems do. They supported a ban on gerrymandering. Every Congressional republican voted against it. So try again.

No, Dems do not. Claude 2 of the gerrymandering bill you referred to was this:

“Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), including by creating any districts where, if based upon the totality of the circumstances, 2 or more politically cohesive groups protected by such Act are able to elect representatives of choice in coalition with one another, and all other applicable Federal laws.”

In other words, this bill preserved VRA mandated gerrymandering while outlawing all other forms of gerrymandering.

As I stated above, there are obvious race neutral anti-gerrymandering structures that both protect the intent of the VRA and forbid gerrymandering. That this bill explicitly protected some gerrymandering (that historically overwhelmingly benefits Dems) tells you the Dems are playing the same exact game. You are just buying into the framing.

Don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I know what it says and it says "IF based on the totality of the circumstances" and in applicable with federal laws. Not "black people get black districts." It's not as rigid as you describe. AND you are ignoring the reasons for the VRA.

Is it your position that the GOP should voluntarily accept the elimination of gerrymandering while preserving a set of gerrymandered districts (in the GOP power geographic power base, no less) that overwhelmingly vote Democrat on a historical basis? Is that what you call fairness? You can’t possibly be a serious person.

You are ignoring the obvious constitutional problems with gerrymandering districts based on race.

That is what YOU want. You want Dems to unilaterally disarm while you rig the F out of state maps 6 mos before elections, even when early voting is happening in some of those states. You people whined and bit--ed about Virginia being "unfair" despite the fact that is temporary and responsive to R's in Texas and other states. And look what they're doing now. All the States that prompted the VRA in the first place are immediately proving why it was needed.

Make the Confederacy Great Again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Democrats don't aggressively redistrict in the face of escalating GOP abuses, it's actually an abdication of responsibility to the voters.

-Max Flugrath

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Democrats have wanted to racially gerrymander for perceived political advantage.

There are obvious, race neutral ways to get rid of gerrymandering.

Call me when someone starts pushing that option.

Is it race neutral what the southern red states are doing now? Eliminating black representation out of proportion to population?

Look, the very first thing Any Klobuchar’s anti-gerrymandering bill did was protect VRA mandated gerrymandered districts.

If people are being serious about eliminating gerrymandering, just mandate that state-level HoR delegations are allocated by party vote at the state level. Thus, if Alabama votes 60/40 Republican/Democrat, then the state delegation is proportionally 60/40. Inverse the proportions for Massachusetts.

1. You would need to figure out rounding.

2. This clearly preserves the INTENT of the VRA in a race neutral way.

3. This clearly protects the Constitutional allocation system that gives the smaller states marginally more weighted representation.

4. Bonus: this would actually make electoral fights about courting and moving voters in the middle, not the extremes.

I’m some random dude on the internet. If I can figure this out, then certainly the people in Congress have already figured it out. But they aren’t pushing for this solution because everybody is just trying to maximize partisan advantage in their own way.

Yes, the people in Congress have figured it out. The problem is the GOP like having their built in advantages and are not interested in fairness or anything having to do with a functioning democracy (or republic)

Yes, the second clause of Klobucher’s preserving VRA mandated racial gerrymandering was just a just a happy coincidence, right?

This isn’t a GOP or Dems as-the-bad-guy issue. They are both doing it for partisan advantage. If you really want to get rid of gerrymandering then do it in a race neutral manner.

Dems do. They supported a ban on gerrymandering. Every Congressional republican voted against it. So try again.

No, Dems do not. Claude 2 of the gerrymandering bill you referred to was this:

“Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), including by creating any districts where, if based upon the totality of the circumstances, 2 or more politically cohesive groups protected by such Act are able to elect representatives of choice in coalition with one another, and all other applicable Federal laws.”

In other words, this bill preserved VRA mandated gerrymandering while outlawing all other forms of gerrymandering.

As I stated above, there are obvious race neutral anti-gerrymandering structures that both protect the intent of the VRA and forbid gerrymandering. That this bill explicitly protected some gerrymandering (that historically overwhelmingly benefits Dems) tells you the Dems are playing the same exact game. You are just buying into the framing.

Don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I know what it says and it says "IF based on the totality of the circumstances" and in applicable with federal laws. Not "black people get black districts." It's not as rigid as you describe. AND you are ignoring the reasons for the VRA.

Is it your position that the GOP should voluntarily accept the elimination of gerrymandering while preserving a set of gerrymandered districts (in the GOP power geographic power base, no less) that overwhelmingly vote Democrat on a historical basis? Is that what you call fairness? You can’t possibly be a serious person.

You are ignoring the obvious constitutional problems with gerrymandering districts based on race.

That is what YOU want. You want Dems to unilaterally disarm while you rig the F out of state maps 6 mos before elections, even when early voting is happening in some of those states. You people whined and bit--ed about Virginia being "unfair" despite the fact that is temporary and responsive to R's in Texas and other states. And look what they're doing now. All the States that prompted the VRA in the first place are immediately proving why it was needed.

The Voting Rights Act is still there. Section 2 makes no mention of redistricting. It was liberal judges that invented that interpretation to get extra seats for Democrats. When originally done, it didn't matter as much for partisan purposes as Democrats held a lot of these seats.