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.
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]?
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.
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.
Them why in fact did they? There is no defense for the Texas redistricting plan.Anonymous wrote:Republicans don't have to this because they are sure to win.
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.
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.
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.