New York lawmakers draw redistricting map that boosts Democrats

Wait. I thought only the GOP does this?
How is it OK for the Dems to do this, but not the GOP?
Anyone? Anyone?




https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...witter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

 

Democrats call out everyone else to deflect from their own power addiction... Perhaps in the next congress, NY can be made to supply their plans for congressional review to ensure they aren't being all racist like they are....

 

The bipartisan commission that consisted of 5 Dems and 5 GOP members couldn't come up with a unified proposal:

https://www.thecity.nyc/politics/20...ission-sends-dueling-maps-to-albany-lawmakers

That's why the Dem legislature took over.

I am against this, but I also can see that the Dems cannot unilaterally disarm in the gerrymandering race, when it appears that the GOP is winning, because they hold more state legislatures that can gerrymander maps to oblivion.

Something has to be done about this. This is hurting the country from both sides (although more so from the GOP side), and virtually guarantees extremist candidates, because the main opponent is the primary opponent from the own party, not the other party candidate. It is no wonder that the House is so polarized, and it is going to get worse.

 

How does gerrymandering affect the elections? It shouldn't. Even if a pocket of area has more conservatives than democrats(or vice versa), they are human beings before they are democrats or republicans, the opportunity to earn their vote is just the same. The only reason gerrymandering is a thing is that we decide to vote r/d regardless of the merits of the politician. That's a bigger problem than gerrymandering and is in fact the source of gerrymandering.

 

Gerrymandering redraws electoral maps to give one party an advantage, by either concentrating or diluting voters. For example, in GOP states, it is fashionable to concentrate Dem voters from suburbs with more urban districts, so they get one "safe" Dem district, while the surrounding GOP districts have diluted Dem voters and are, thus, more safe for Republican candidates. Overall, it leads to more districts, in which the party that wins the district is pre-determined by the makeup of the voters, which was pre-determined by meddling politicians in the first place. it's like politicians picking their voters rather than the other way around. If a Repub or Dem cannot lose against the opposing party candidate in their district, the main opponent is the primary candidate from the same party. How do you win primaries? By going to the extreme. That's exactly what has ben happening in the House, and this is why it is so polarized with so many nutjobs. I see, however, that you don't care about this. Why? Because you think it helps your party. Everything for power, right? Can't blame the politicians when their voters behave the same way.

 

A lot of states are enacting "bipartisan commissions" to handle redistricting and counteract the effects of gerrymandering. To me this result in New York demonstrates that there is no such thing as bipartisan, there is no such thing as working together for the common good. It's an endless struggle between two opposing sides, neither willing to give an inch, and the rest of us are just stuck in the middle of their little games.

I had an idea once that districts should be drawn based on a mathematical formula. You feed in the population density data of the entire state, specify how many districts you want, and it spits out the district map. Even if a state tried to do that, there would be accusations that the formula was designed to benefit one side, so you can't win no matter what you do.

Side note: New York consistently ranks among the worst states for voter turnout. In 2016 only 57.2% of voting age citizens went to the polls. Seems to me there's a lot of New Yorkers who don't bother voting because they feel their voice isn't heard. Perhaps the state should be focusing on those people. Increased voter turnout could easily turn a blue district red or vice versa.

 

Partisan gerrymandering SHOULD be illegal.

 

Please define "partisan gerrymandering".

 

drawing Congressional district lines in a way so as to MAXIMIZE the number of opposing voters in one district, thereby reducing the chance they will vote against your party in another district you wish to remain under your parties control.

its much more advantageous for the GOP to make one district 95% Democrat and their district 10% Democrat, than have them be 80% Democrat and 40% Democrat. The 40% district could possibly swing Democrat, and the GOP doesnt want that

 

How can you prove that? If we outlawed "partisan gerrymandering" we would then need to enforce said law in court, meaning a prosecutor would need to prove that a group of lawmakers drew their district map for that specific reason.

Just so I'm clear, would you consider the example in the OP "partisan gerrymandering"?

 

That pulled that **** in California years ago... and here we are today. Democrats have turned the "Golden State" into a **** hole.

 

Also... I remember just recently when Democrats claimed Gerrymandering is "racist". Did that just change?

Hypocrites.

 

Its happening in Florida right now because the FL Repub legislature is rolling over like absolute useless cucks. Democrats are being given massive gains based on no practical legal substantiation, and they're still not happy - they want more. Someone is paying them off, I cant think of any other excuse.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/flori...es-first-map-that-gives-democrats-more-seats/

 

Don't underestimate the Republican Party's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Democrats will take any opportunity, legal or not, to chance election outcomes. Consider all the Secretary of States / AG's for states throughout the nation that changed election laws when they have zero authority to approve Mail in Ballots, Drop Boxes, Harvesting, Extensions, etc. That power is put solely in the hands of State Legislators. Even state courts are supposed to be hands off. But, here we are.

Until Republicans actually stand up for the law, we are all hosed, and I don't see them doing it any time soon in most states.

 

Everyone thinks midterms will be a Red Wave blowout but I'm not convinced. Those changes to voting that you mentioned, and more, took place with a single pen-stroke and went into effect practically overnight. But to challenge their illegality and effect an overturn, even in a pre-pandemic state, takes years of advancing through multiple levels of often Dem-activist controlled courts. Only scant few number of the illegal voting changes enacted by leftist activist judges and such will be nullified by midterms.

Also, I don't think the right has the numbers to pull off the victory they're looking for. The radical left indoctrinates at breakneck speed, they have practically absolute control of education media and the internet, the right cant even attempt to come close to that level of influence. Plus the radical left imports invaders by the millions per year (and strategically placing them) and they, as well as the welfare underclass in general, drastically out-breed (and over-breed) all other Americans. We also talk a lot about how people are fleeing blue states like its a good thing, its not. Those people are fleeing the destruction they invoked but we have absolutely no indication that they even recognize why it happened much less are now dedicated to not repeating it. So not only cant the right not win by pure numbers, they cant win by selective victories in key areas - at least in my opinion.

 

I don't have a party. I'm saying it's irrelevant. A democrat voter can still be convinced(cross-voters are a thing, it's how Trump won in 2016.) Likewise for the Republican voter, they can be convinced by democrats. Obama had won a portion of Republicans in the 2008 elections for an example. It's possible.

But by defining voters by ideology(and by voters voting via ideology) that's what gets the radicalization that you're talking about. You care more for the symptom than the actual thing.

 

When you actually decide to vote, let us know.

 

You don't vote, so you have no actions to back up your words.

 

It’s not ok.

 

Is this what PF has been reduced to?

 

of course.

congressional districts should be in clear even shapes, and never take into account race, previous voting paterns, sex, ethnicity, etc.

 

I'm in total agreement with you there.

The problem I see is that every time they change the map, it is always going to hurt one party and help the other, intentionally or not. That means no matter what new map is proposed, someone is going to complain about it, even and smooth though it may be.

The other problem is that the ones making the decision are the ones that benefit from it. It's an inherent conflict of interest. It's like when legislators vote to raise their own pay. Democracy is hardly incorruptible. It depends on the voters holding their elected officials to account. Unfortunately we've been derelict in our duty for so long that shenanigans like this have become the norm.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself...

It's too bad Congress couldn't do anything about this...

/s

 

if repubs agree to law preventing this, I am all for it

if not, then both sides have at it

 

yep, if one side does it, the other HAS to do it too