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.

You’re complaining that a proposed bill follows the law that was in place at the time.

I am not comparing about it. I’m telling you it exposes the bill for what it really is: a power grab meant to disadvantage the opposition via mandated gerrymandering in very specific circumstances.

If Amy K was serious about ending gerrymandering there is an easy, obvious way to do it. But her party would have to give up the advantages it receives from gerrymandering. She (and the party) are clearly unwilling to do that.

Klobuchar's bill is a power grab? You're a joke. What are R's willing to do? Besides cheat mid-cycle? Let's hear it.

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?

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.

You’re complaining that a proposed bill follows the law that was in place at the time.

I am not comparing about it. I’m telling you it exposes the bill for what it really is: a power grab meant to disadvantage the opposition via mandated gerrymandering in very specific circumstances.

If Amy K was serious about ending gerrymandering there is an easy, obvious way to do it. But her party would have to give up the advantages it receives from gerrymandering. She (and the party) are clearly unwilling to do that.

DP. The real benefactors of gerrymandering are the GOP. Come on. No way they could preserve their majority if voting districts were fair.

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.

Redistricting shluld be algorithm and not left to politicians. Too much time and emotional capital is wasted on this. Make the algorithm public, vote on it, then run it. We have the rules now.

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.

You’re complaining that a proposed bill follows the law that was in place at the time.

I am not comparing about it. I’m telling you it exposes the bill for what it really is: a power grab meant to disadvantage the opposition via mandated gerrymandering in very specific circumstances.

If Amy K was serious about ending gerrymandering there is an easy, obvious way to do it. But her party would have to give up the advantages it receives from gerrymandering. She (and the party) are clearly unwilling to do that.

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.

You’re complaining that a proposed bill follows the law that was in place at the time.

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.

So you are fine with the subjugation of minority voters. Got it.

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.

The absurdity is politicians choosing their own districts. There are 435 seats in the House. Maybe 10 percent are competitive today.

John Roberts and the Supreme Court have been a nightmare for American democracy. That's where the problem is. From Citizens United to gerrymandering. The Roberts Court has been a disaster for the American experiment.

John Roberts wife is making $22 million placing lawyers into Big Law. The depth of corruption is breathtaking in the Roberts Court. Clarence Thomas's RVs and sketch real estate are nothing compared to the Roberts family.

The Supreme Court is gone. And because of John Roberts dereliction and corruption, the House is gone too.

American democracy is in big trouble. Actually, it's already gone. We are basically Russia at this point.

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.

You understand slavery happened here, right? And that righting a historical wrong is kind of important, no?

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.

So you are fine with the subjugation of minority voters. Got it.

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.

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.

+1

note that it is the confederate states that are moving back to being confederate states again.

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.