When they are in charge, the Dems gerrymander too. But it's not good for democracy, period.
On a warm Friday night in the St. Mary’s Catholic Church parking lot, sweating men sipping cold beers dipped fish fillets into bubbling deep fryers as children played on the bouncy castle.
This down-home fish fry used to be a regular stop for U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, a moderate Republican who grew up in this former coal town in Central Illinois. But that was before new district lines drawn in 2021 pushed him into far more conservative terrain — and into competition with a fellow GOP incumbent.
To keep his job in Congress, Davis had to square off with Rep. Mary E. Miller, a member of the right-wing Freedom Caucus who closely aligned herself with former president Donald Trump. In the primary campaign, she assailed Davis for his willingness to compromise with Democrats and to acknowledge Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.
Miller, the hard-liner, won the 2022 race. Davis, the consensus-seeker, was out.
The bitter Republican feuding was not merely a symptom of the broader civil war in the national party. Rather, it was prompted by the actions of Illinois Democrats, who used their supermajority in the legislature to redraw district lines in a way that would strengthen their already titanium-solid lock on power.
The strategy worked, adding one Democratic seat to the Illinois delegation and trimming two Republican ones as GOP voters were packed into a smaller number of districts.
The new map also accomplished what experts say gerrymandering does with ruthless efficiency, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are responsible: hollowing out the moderate political center and driving both parties further toward the ideological fringes.
“Gerrymandering undermines a key element of democracy, which is competition,” said Harvard University government professor Steven Levitsky.
Politicians representing more-evenly split districts fear general election competition and therefore tend to govern more moderately, Levitsky said. But those in lopsided districts worry more about primary challenges and become responsive to the extremes in their party.
The consequences were on vivid display during the past couple of weeks in Congress as a small group of hard-right Republicans drove the government to the brink of a shutdown and then expelled Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from the post of House Speaker, the first speaker in the nation’s history to be ousted by members of his own party. The eight GOP members who voted to reject him represent districts that are safely Republican, with little to fear in general-election contests against Democrats.
When they are in charge, the Dems gerrymander too. But it's not good for democracy, period.
I agree except there is no real world way to prevent it. Every state does it and probably always have.
Before anyone says it yes California gerrymanders.
Their bipartisan commission exists of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats with parties to the left of California democrats making up the rest.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 4:57 pm
I agree except there is no real world way to prevent it. Every state does it and probably always have.
Before anyone says it yes California gerrymanders.
Their bipartisan commission exists of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats with parties to the left of California democrats making up the rest.
But I doubt you'll be interested in entering into any discussion that would minimize it - because without it, your side would be the minority. The majority of Americans in Congressional races vote for the Democratic candidate, when you do the math.
A federal judge says Georgia's political maps must be redrawn for the 2024 election
ATLANTA — A federal judge has ruled that Georgia's congressional and state legislative districts must be redrawn before the 2024 election, reshaping the fight for control of Congress and the Georgia legislature.
In a 516-page order released Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones wrote that the current political maps drawn by Republican lawmakers after the last census violate the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Black voters.
But I doubt you'll be interested in entering into any discussion that would minimize it - because without it, your side would be the minority. The majority of Americans in Congressional races vote for the Democratic candidate, when you do the math.
Your op/Ed lost credibility when it cited the California system as an example of eliminating gerrymandering.
The California system us absolutely gerrymandering. As I know you would agree with if it were an equal number of dems and Republicans with the balance being made of parties to the right of the GOP.
Humans are not going to eliminate gerrymandering.
As for the gerrymandering talking point it really doesn't exist to the extent you and others claim.
The senate is close to 50/50 and the makeup of the house reflects that.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 2:36 pm
Your op/Ed lost credibility when it cited the California system as an example of eliminating gerrymandering.
The California system us absolutely gerrymandering. As I know you would agree with if it were an equal number of dems and Republicans with the balance being made of parties to the right of the GOP.
Humans are not going to eliminate gerrymandering.
As for the gerrymandering talking point it really doesn't exist to the extent you and others claim.
The senate is close to 50/50 and the makeup of the house reflects that.
No, it doesn’t. Both the House and the Senate, when you add all votes together, swing HEAVILY Democrat. The ONLY reason the Senate is 50/50 is that Alaska, Montana and such states have the same number of Senators each as California. I mean, Alaska has fewer people than several California CITIES have!
gounion wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:34 pm
No, it doesn’t. Both the House and the Senate, when you add all votes together, swing HEAVILY Democrat. The ONLY reason the Senate is 50/50 is that Alaska, Montana and such states have the same number of Senators each as California. I mean, Alaska has fewer people than several California CITIES have!
If that were true the senate would be overwhelming democratic.
gounion wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 4:14 pm
You have many small states with two Senators each, all of which added together don’t have the same population of California.
I guess you can’t do math anymore.
The republican party wins outside of California even bigger outside of California and New York.
The sorting of liberals into large metropolitan areas and conservatives into more rural areas is only one reason. Another is that large states have grown much more quickly than small states. In 1790, the largest state (Virginia) had about 13 times as many residents as the smallest (Delaware). Today, California has 68 times as many residents as Wyoming; 53 times as many as Alaska; and at least 20 times as many as another 11 states.
Together, these trends mean that the Senate has a heavily pro-Republican bias that will last for the foreseeable future.
The Senate today is split 50-50 between the two parties. But the 50 Democratic senators effectively represent 186 million Americans, while the 50 Republican senators effectively represent 145 million. To win Senate control, Democrats need to win substantially more than half of the nationwide votes in Senate elections.
This situation has led to racial inequality in political representation. The residents of small states, granted extra influence by the Constitution, are disproportionately white, while large states are home to many more Asian American, Black and Latino voters.
Currently, one senator represents about 19,600,000 people in California, while in Wyoming, one senator represents about 290,000 people
Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 7:38 am
California has 52 Congressmen 40 democratic and 12 republican. Is California gerrymandered? Or is California 78pct democratic party voters.
Wow, you can't rebut a word I said, so you deflect.
gounion wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 7:54 am
Wow, you can't rebut a word I said, so you deflect.
No your premise is flawed and probably came from a lw source in favor of changing the makeup of the senate.
Yes California and New York are large states which are heavily populated. Which is where those flawed numbers come from.
Conveniently forgetting that places like Rhode Island and Vermont are also democratic strongholds.
The House and Senate have basically the same ratio of Republicans and Democrats. Which shows gerrymandering is not a factor.
Now in your opinion in California gerrymandering. 42 of 54 districts are democratic. But, the state certainly isn't 76 to 78pct democrats.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 8:20 am
No your premise is flawed and probably came from a lw source in favor of changing the makeup of the senate.
Yes California and New York are large states which are heavily populated. Which is where those flawed numbers come from.
Conveniently forgetting that places like Rhode Island and Vermont are also democratic strongholds.
The House and Senate have basically the same ratio of Republicans and Democrats. Which shows gerrymandering is not a factor.
Now in your opinion in California gerrymandering. 42 of 54 districts are democratic. But, the state certainly isn't 76 to 78pct democrats.
You are a walking logical fallacy. You can’t understand how to think straight.
Again, States like Wyoming have two Senators, same as California. And you think that’s fair.
You defend gerrymandering because you believe in minority rule - you think your vote should count more than Zowie’s or Six’s.
Arguing about changing the basic structure of the senate where Senate seats are apportioned in a way other than 2 per state is a waste of time. It would take a constitutional amendment and you won’t get close to the numbers needed to make that type of change.
JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 9:19 am
Arguing about changing the basic structure of the senate where Senate seats are apportioned in a way other than 2 per state is a waste of time. It would take a constitutional amendment and you won’t get close to the numbers needed to make that type of change.
Who is forcing you to waste your time in this thread then?
JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:28 pm
I never told you or anyone else what you could or could not discuss. If you want to be the net nanny you need to brush up on them reading skills.
You can talk about whatever you choose. Matters not to me. I’m only pointing out that what you are proposing won’t get passed.
So chat away till your little hearts content.
Then leave the thread, Joe. You tell us we shouldn’t be discussing it. Then fuck off.
