• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gerrymandering - whether by D's or R's - is a national disgrace...what should be done about it?

Shrink726

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
3,740
Reaction score
6,668
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It is nothing less than stealing people's votes, their voice in the governance of their own country. It's about as morally justifiable as breaking into someone's house and taking their valuables or stealing a 65" TV from a store.

And yet the Supreme Court has turned a blind eye to this moral outrage.

If Texas succeeds in disenfranchising almost half of its population, it's going to create a domino effect the likes of which this country has never seen. And millions of people will lose their right to determine what kind of governance they want in the country they live in.
 
As long as the Supreme Courts (State and Federal) keep upholding certain republican gerrymandered maps, nothing can or will ever be done about it. Dems need to use all their power to do the same thing in areas where they can. We must fight a gun battle with a bigger gun. Bringing a knife hasn't been working.
 
Agree 100%, but it's a damn shame.

We're supposed to be better than this.
 
What we should do about it is both a good and difficult question.

I honestly can't think of a way to remove gerrymandering that doesn't resort to some form of identity politics, e.g. grouping together voters by race or income level. Any way the those demographics are sliced they'll be accusations the divvying favors those doing the divvying (and chances are those charges are going to be reasonable as parties, like people, function on self-interest and self-preservation).

In other words, the "solution" to gerrymandering will always be "my side's approach to gerrymandering."
 
What you wrote makes no sense.

Gerrymandering is identity politics. If you remove it, you're removing the problem.
 
RIP U.S. Democracy said:
What you wrote makes no sense.

Gerrymandering is identity politics. If you remove it, you're removing the problem.
Click to expand...
Understood, but I don't think it will ever be removed, which is my point.

For example, are you prepared to remove raced-based gerrymandering? If done, it will gut the Black Congressional Caucus, a very loyal voting block for the Democrats.
 

Not allowing US House districts to contain parts of more than one county would help. My (very gerrymandered) congressional district contains parts of 4 counties (but no entire county) and parts of two cities about 80 miles apart.

Texas's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
 
That's an interesting idea, but if done I think the gerrymandering effort will simply shift to drawing (or rather redrawing) county lines.
 
NatMorton said:
Understood, but I don't think it will ever be removed, which is my point.

For example, are you prepared to remove raced-based gerrymandering? If done, it will gut the Black Congressional Caucus, a very loyal voting block for the Democrats.
Click to expand...
What you don't seem to fundamentally understand is that it is Republicans that create those black Democratic districts.....because they want to minimize African American representation in the states.

Probably the two worst gerrymandered states in the country, Wisconsin and North Carolina, were performed by the Republican majorities in those states. Those are both 50/50 states, yet the representation in both states heavily favor Republicans. Those crazy looking districts where African Americans were essentially put on separate islands was done by Republicans, not Democrats.

It makes you feel good to whine about the Congressional Black Caucus, but you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
 

Please, both parties benefit from it and both parties want it.

​

 
NatMorton said:
That's an interesting idea, but if done I think the gerrymandering effort will simply shift to drawing (or rather redrawing) county lines.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but at least each voter (in most counties/cities) would have the same ballot choices.
 
Please try answering my question.
 
NatMorton said:
Which is the entire point of gerrymandering, once you corral the "right" mix of voters.
Click to expand...

The point of gerrymandering is to create more ‘safe’ (or mostly ‘safe’) seats for one political party.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The point of gerrymandering is to create more ‘safe’ (or mostly ‘safe’) seats for one political party.
Click to expand...
IMO, I think it's to create more seats.

Overly simplified math for illustrative purposes, a state has 1 million voters, with 55% of them Democrats, and 10 House seats. The goal of Democratic gerrymandering isn't to create, say, 7 districts with 80% majorities. It's to create 10 districts, each with a 55% majority.

The risk, of course, is that the party in goes too far and overly dilutes their majorities, turning safe seats into swing districts.
 
Gerrymandering is identity politics.
 
aociswundumho said:
Please, both parties benefit from it and both parties want it.

​

Click to expand...
What a pathetic response.

The worst gerrymandering is done by Republicans, like in N. Carolina and Wisconsin. And anyone who has studied this issue knows it.
 

Nope, by creating only a few (2 or 3) districts with mostly (say 70% to 80%) republicants, the remaining (7 or 8) districts would lean even more (above 60%) towards demorats. BTW, to get 10 House seats would require having 7 to 8 million voters.
 
NatMorton said:
Just to be clear, you think the Democrats, for the most part, do not gerrymander, yes?
Click to expand...
Of course they do. But they don't create permanent majorities with their gerrymandering....the way that Republicans do.

North Carolina is a 50/50 state.....Republicans currently control 10 House seats. Democrats only control 4 House seats. That's a ****ing joke. It's equally bad in the NC state government representation.

Nothing like that can be found on the Democratic side.

You obviously don't want to have an honest discussion about who is the bigger sinner here.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, by creating only a few (2 or 3) districts with mostly (say 70% to 80%) republicants, the remaining (7 or 8) districts would lean even more (above 60%) towards demorats. BTW, to get 10 House seats would require having 7 to 8 million voters.
Click to expand...
That's not quite my example. Carrying the math out from that example, there are 1m voters in this fictional state, 550k Dems and 450k Republicans.. If they all were reliable voters, and in a model where they were spread out uniformly across every neighborhood in the state, almost anyway you slice it the state would produce 10 Democratic Reps in the House. If instead, the model had voters flocked together in nice, neat bundles we'd expect that state to send between 5 and 6 Democrats to the House every two years and between 4 and 5 Republicans.

Democrats would be gerrymandering toward the first model. Republicans would aim for the second.
 
NatMorton said:
What do they create with their gerrymandering?
Click to expand...
An advantage....that's what. Like all gerrymandering.

Why don't you address the real problems....like in North Carolina and Wisconsin?

I already explained how you were wrong about your "Congressional Black Caucus" bullshit garbage.....and now you are going off on one of your stupid tangents again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…