Reply to Texas Republicans unveil congressional map that could gift them five seats

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Texas Republicans unveil congressional map that could gift them five seats"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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)[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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. 
[/quote]

So you are fine with the subjugation of minority voters. Got it.[/quote]

Obviously I am not.  And you clearly are not engaging with what I am saying.

Again, you can quite easily find a way to preserve minority voting power in a race neutral way that 95% of people accept as fair and it is not subject to constant political and legal challenge.  You can literally achieve what the VRA purports to achieve.  But instead, the proposal is to maintain racially gerrymandered districts while banning all other forms of gerrymandering which creates obvious structural disadvantages to one group and structural benefits to another.  That will constantly be subject to political and legal challenge.

Think about it this way.  The top 10% rule in Texas university admissions is race neutral, but in effect it acts to significantly diversify the flagship universities in Texas.  In other words, you achieve desired DEI goals.  You know what is never challenged legally and is never seriously challenged politically in Texas?  The Top 10% rule.  It is race neutral, it is fair, it is easy to understand.  Does any one side get exactly what it wants?  No.  But it works as a balanced outcome because of the aforementioned attributes.

Find solutions like that and you can have 95% of what you want forever on this issue.  Fail to find those solutions and you are just inviting never-ending legal and political challenge.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics