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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Democrats have in many states reduced potential black representation by spreading out their districts to other areas to elect more white Democrats. Only in the South do they use the Voting Rights Act to get the government to discriminate and make black majority districts.

The problem is really that white Democrats tend not to vote for black Democrats. An exception is 2008 nationally, but even there a majority of white Democrats voted for Hillary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Supreme Court ruled its current map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

And a district court ruled they cannot go forward with elections undern their current map.

they CAN use the current map, they are choosing not to. Please just stop

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?

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)

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.

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?

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.

If a state has 40% democrats, then it should have 40% representation at the state and federal level. The GOP believes that unless a part has the majority, the other party should be completely silenced.

Just own it. We all see it for what it is.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:Taking a look at these districts, it is clear Democrats leveraged a misreading of the Voting Rights Act to go out of their way to create black majority districts.

Now in response, Democrats in states they control will look to change the black majority districts to dilute them them and spread them into other districts to gain seats.

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.