• 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!

Leaked chart by Politico shows winners and losers in California's redistricting. Wow.

Gatsby said:
I love that he included the tiny states in his complaint. Like...are you really shocked that you got 0 of Vermont's 1 seat in the House of Representatives? Were you expecting to get more than that? :ROFLMAO:

As for redistricting being a threat to democracy, my preference, in order, would be:
1. A nationwide ban on gerrymandering and a simple nonpartisan algorithm to draw all districts for all states.
Click to expand...
So you would want a sort of regimented period that you have to do redistricting in regards to how often the census is taken?

You must have an option for redistricting because populations change.
Gatsby said:
2. Punching Republicans in the dick as hard as possible, since they will inevitably do the same.
3. Unilateral disarmament and still getting punched in the dick.

If you want a nationwide ban on gerrymandering, great, let's talk about that. If you don't, then you don't get to complain.
Click to expand...
You can't Ban gerrymandering populations change that's why we have census.

For example there's been a population transfer from certain states to others so the larger states that are losing population need to have fewer seats and the states that are gaining population need to have more seats.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So you would want a sort of regimented period that you have to do redistricting in regards to how often the census is taken?
Click to expand...
Yup. Once per decade, after the census is taken. In between the election in 0-ending years and the election in 2-ending years.
CLAX1911 said:
You must have an option for redistricting because populations change.
Click to expand...
There is. That's the purpose of the decennial census and redistricting.
CLAX1911 said:
You can't Ban gerrymandering
Click to expand...
You can make gerrymandering a lot less effective, by applying a simple nonpartisan algorithm and letting computers draw the districts for all states. The districts still won't be perfect of course, but the partisan unfairness will be greatly reduced and basically in a random direction for each state, so the noise will more-or-less cancel out over time and across all states.
CLAX1911 said:
populations change that's why we have census.
Click to expand...
??
Are you under the impression that I want to cancel the census? 🤔
CLAX1911 said:
For example there's been a population transfer from certain states to others so the larger states that are losing population need to have fewer seats and the states that are gaining population need to have more seats.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
It's completely idiotic.

Republicans and Democrats and Texas and California are behaving like little kids in a sandpit:

You destroyed my sand castle, I will destroy your sandcastle.

*cry baby, cry.*

If these plans are turned into actions, TX will have almost exclusively R districts left and CA only D districts.

What purpose is there left then for voters to go vote ?

None.

At least not for the US House. Because the parties are drawing up 98% of the 435 districts how they want.

The solution:

Abolish direct candidate voting.

A state like CA with its 54 votes will fill the MPs by proportional votes in the election: If 60% voted for the D-line, the Ds get to fill 32 seats with their people.

A state like TX with 40 votes, if 55% vote R, gets to fill 22 seats with Republicans. The parties will determine who will fill those seats internally. Candidates are no longer directly elected by voters.
 
Fletch said:
When Newsome doesnt retaliate.
Click to expand...
This is so Trump. You expect democrats to sit quietly while our democracy is taken over and destroyed by the right and their billionaire oligarchs?

I have no idea who will win this war in the end, but I'll guarantee you one thing, we're not going out without a fight. Newsom is doing exactly what dems have been waiting for. A leader who's willing to bring a gun to a gun fight, metaphorically speaking.
 
Fletch said:
Texas is going to do it and whatever California does, it does.
Click to expand...

Does not make it any better, this consistent evolution if not escalation of politicians picking their voters is not good for anyone.
 
Jezcoe said:
I agree. This is not how healthy democracies act.

**** Trump for pushing us here.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that, being in this position only entrenches political establishment at the expense of the voter.
 
MAGAnificent said:
And ofcourse they are basing all of that on Democrat party financed opinion polls in California.
Click to expand...
Is there any news you folks don't like that you don't believe is rigged? 🤣
 
Lord of Planar said:
The Texas districts being proposed are correcting past redistricting that artificially favor democrats. I seriously doubt the same can be shown for the California districts.
Click to expand...

Look at Texas legislature majorities.

Tell the class the last time the DEMs were there majority party in the Texas Legislature.

(Hint, the last few decades it was the GOP.)

WW
 
Gatsby said:
Do you support a nationwide ban on gerrymandering, or only in states where gerrymandering benefits Democrats?
Click to expand...

I support Congress exercising their constitutional power over federal elections to mandate bi-partisan commissions drawing of districts that the legislature then accepts or rejects but cannot modify.

WW
 
Nothing like a race to the bottom.

I mean who gives a shit about the voters, politicians winning at any and all costs is what matters….
 
WorldWatcher said:
Look at Texas legislature majorities.

Tell the class the last time the DEMs were there majority party in the Texas Legislature.

(Hint, the last few decades it was the GOP.)

WW
Click to expand...
Yes it was. My understanding it the actions were mandated to increase democrat presence. Probably by some judicial actions that no longer apply. I only read a brief paragraph on it.
 
Tender Branson said:
Republicans and Democrats and Texas and California are behaving like little kids in a sandpit:
Click to expand...
No, Republicans started a massive power grab to protect the pedophile and Democrats responded.

And Democrats haven't responded nearly hard enough. It needs to be so hard that neither party will try the Texas bullshit ever again.

Btw, why do you side with authoritarians? That not something you were taught about in school? Do you even know how it always turns out? Is WWII just so far away from you that you don't care?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes it was. My understanding it the actions were mandated to increase democrat presence. Probably by some judicial actions that no longer apply. I only read a brief paragraph on it.
Click to expand...

1755354739855.webp

Texas State Legislature

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org
.
.
.
So now blame someone else?

WW
 
CaughtInThe said:
No, Republicans started a massive power grab to protect the pedophile and Democrats responded.

And Democrats haven't responded nearly hard enough. It needs to be so hard that neither party will try the Texas bullshit ever again.

Btw, why do you side with authoritarians? That not something you were taught about in school? Do you even know how it always turns out? Is WWII just so far away from you that you don't care?
Click to expand...

I do not „side with authoritarians“.

I side with common sense.

And if Dems are for example idiotic on the border/immigration/integration … I side against them.
 
Taco started this partisan pissing match, the DNC is responding in kind, and the American voter gets ****ed.
 
venice_ca said:
Please see #52.

In California there are almost as many voters registered with no party affiliation as there are registered Republicans. Less than a 2% difference between the two groups.
Click to expand...
As, so you ignore the other states listed.

You can usually assume unaffiliated voters split in the same proportion as the Dem/Rep split. Your argument seems to be the unaffiliated 100% support Dems in CA. That is some blind loyalty.
venice_ca said:
In addition, since 2010 the state has the permanent California Citizen Redistricting Commission composed of five members from each of the two parties with the largest number of registered voters, plus another four members with no political affiliation. All serve a 10-year term.
Click to expand...
Ah, the same commission that Newscum wants to bypass since it won’t rubber stamp his authoritarian power grab? How do you feel about that?
 
Gatsby said:
I love that he included the tiny states in his complaint. Like...are you really shocked that you got 0 of Vermont's 1 seat in the House of Representatives? Were you expecting to get more than that? :ROFLMAO:

As for redistricting being a threat to democracy, my preference, in order, would be:
1. A nationwide ban on gerrymandering and a simple nonpartisan algorithm to draw all districts for all states.
2. Punching Republicans in the dick as hard as possible, since they will inevitably do the same.
3. Unilateral disarmament and still getting punched in the dick.

If you want a nationwide ban on gerrymandering, great, let's talk about that. If you don't, then you don't get to complain.
Click to expand...
Make sure you don’t complain about the Dakotas or Montana going forward then.

After living in MD and watching Dems thwart the will of the people at very turn, I am 100% against gerrymandering. The Fems need to be punched in the dick and hope it ****ing hurts in 2026.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Look at Texas legislature majorities.

Tell the class the last time the DEMs were there majority party in the Texas Legislature.

(Hint, the last few decades it was the GOP.)

WW
Click to expand...
That is because the Democrat positions are not welcome in Texas and they run such great candidates like Francis Robert O’Rourke, the fake Hispanic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom