Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why so much love for a white Congressman, as the sign of decline of black voting power?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP gerrymandering the median seat to Trump+8.5 could make the House unwinnable for Dems in all but the biggest of wave elections.

Dems have no choice but to redraw maps everywhere they can. By 2028, they may be able to target up to 19 seats the GOP now holds as detailed in this thread

https://bsky.app/profile/stephenwolf.bsky.social/post/3mknerar5nk2e

Then let's just close this country down as a republic and be done with it. I see nothing but a poorer, divided, hell hole for my kids and grandkids.

Yes that's what MAGA wants. They want Gilead. They know their numbers are dwindling so cheating is the only way they can hold onto power.

Dems need to fight fire with fire. Should they just lay down and let Rs gerrymander the f* out of every red state?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Georgia is the only state in the South where Black people are considered human it seems

At least for now. Let's see how the elections are this fall. If it doesn't go well for the Dems, then 2028 will be ugly there too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP gerrymandering the median seat to Trump+8.5 could make the House unwinnable for Dems in all but the biggest of wave elections.

Dems have no choice but to redraw maps everywhere they can. By 2028, they may be able to target up to 19 seats the GOP now holds as detailed in this thread

https://bsky.app/profile/stephenwolf.bsky.social/post/3mknerar5nk2e

Then let's just close this country down as a republic and be done with it. I see nothing but a poorer, divided, hell hole for my kids and grandkids.

Anonymous wrote:Georgia is the only state in the South where Black people are considered human it seems

Anonymous wrote:Georgia is the only state in the South where Black people are considered human it seems

Anonymous wrote:The GOP gerrymandering the median seat to Trump+8.5 could make the House unwinnable for Dems in all but the biggest of wave elections.

Dems have no choice but to redraw maps everywhere they can. By 2028, they may be able to target up to 19 seats the GOP now holds as detailed in this thread

https://bsky.app/profile/stephenwolf.bsky.social/post/3mknerar5nk2e

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.