Justice Department sues Texas over GOP-drawn voting maps

I am sorry. I don't think you know the definition of gerrymandering. PLease prove me wrong by showing me an example of gerymandering. I gave an example of a state where the voters were 50/50 for each party and yet a congressional map ends up with 7 of one party and 3 of the other party in congress with on top of that zero chance of losing control of that congressional majority. After all, as @Zero pointed out, it is nearly impossible to flip a district that is +6PVI. In this example the 7 districts are roughly at +17PVI. Or put another way, the odds of flipping those 7 districts are about the same as turning Wyoming blue, or Californa red. So we have a permanent 7-3 districting depite a 50/50 spit in this example. What makes this example so pernicious is that the republicans here could lose 20 percent of the vote (ie go from a 50/50 split in the state to 40-60 and STILL hold on to a 7-3 lead)
I think you ignore the part where in 3 districts the split is 100 to 0. It is that split that makes the others so advantageous to one party.
In real life, gerrymandering is much harder to show as often of course, districts have like minded voters, and the distribution of voters is not at all even throughout a state. But if you can't agree that this theoretical distribution is gerrymandering (because it is a textbook case of it) then I really can't help you. Looking forward to how you define gerrymandering

 

If 50% of the voters in an election are Republican and 50% are Democrats but Democrats get 70% of the seats how is that fair or democratic?

That has nothing to do with attracting voters and everything to do with abusing the system to overrule the wishes of the people.

 

WE got forty million people in CA, if a few thou want to leave, hey, we're totally okay with it.

Guess what , we still got forty million people who PREFER TO STAY here.

A helluva lot more than your state.

 

My state had a net gain… Yours not so much

 

They are accurate descriptions of corrupt dirtbags that attempt to exercise illegitimate authority and attack parents for standing up to corrupt lying school boards.

When the GOP retakes the Majority, they need to cut DOJ's budget by 5% a month, every month until this old corrupt dirtbag resigns.

 

The GOP had a great 2010 election and controlled a lot more maps than they had previously. The 2018 and 2020 election were run on the maps drawn after the 2010 election. According to the popular fake news propaganda to explain why Dems aren't doing well in Congressional elections, if you check the percentage of vote won by Democrats compared to the number of seat they won, you should find a great pro GOP lean in election victories, correct?

Of course this is correct or your point has no meaning. Have you ever double checked?

I have, in BOTH elections, the percentage of seats the Democrats won exceeded their total percentage of the Congressional popular vote, and you know what? We didn't hear a peep of protest out of the Democrats, after either election when they won seat total percentages in excess of their popular vote percentage.

 

Not when you merely assume your point.

 

Nonsense. If Democrats want more competitive districts, they should draw them. The most partisan districts in the country are Democrats and the vast majority were drawn by Democrats.

More nonsense. First, understand that this entire pile of crap is designed to explain why Dems are going to lose their House majority, and it's an argument that claims "We Wuz Robbed!" Not "gee, did we get sidetracked from the issues important to the voters?" or "Was it a bad idea to cheerlead rioters?" or "Now that murder and rape has skyrocketted, was 'Defund the Police' maybe a dumb policy position?" or "Is calling parents that speak up at School Board meetings 'Domestic Terrorists' maybe the dumbest move of all?"

When you say "We Wuz Robbed!" what you are actually saying is "we don't have to change anything." Always beware of the 'answer' that requires nothing of you, and "It's Gerrymandering!" is an 'answer' that let's you off the hook rather than engage in self-reflection and self-examination. Further, it's utter crap.

Think about your claim. As you have shown above, the GOP was heavily involved in drawing the post 2010 maps, therefore, the maps that the 2018 and 2020 congressional elections were run on, therefore, if you point is true, we should find the GOP winning percentages of the seats far in excess of their percentage the national Congressional vote. Right? Yes this is right. If this isn't your position, your position is incoherent. But, is that what we find if check the numbers?

2018 election
435 House seats up for election:
Dems' won 235 seats, or 54% of the seats on 53.4% of the popular vote. They won two seats in excess of their popular vote. If what the Fake News propaganda liars were peddling to you were true, you would see the percentage of seats they won be LESS than their share of the popular vote. So, maybe 2018 was unusual, let's check 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

2020 election

Dems won 222 seats, or 51% of the seats on 50.8% of the vote. If they won 50.8% of the seats, they would have only won 221 seats. So once again, Dems do no lag their national vote total in percentage of seats won, they exceeded it. The opposite of what we would expect to find if the claim others sold you on were true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

Fake News. My math is impeccable and my arguments are brilliant. I've just taught you a great deal, and more broadly the importance of testing the claims these fake news clowns and idiots with national microphones are feeding you.

When we were dealing with print newspapers and you had to go to the library to look up information, we were easier to fool. Now we are reading on computing devices with a search bar that gives you instant access to massive amounts of information, so devise a test and test the claims being made.

You're welcome!

 

Just wow…you know that what you just posted actually supports the OP, REPUBLICAN gerrymandering

When you have a district that is +36, that means that all the dems were thrown into one district, and the other 10 districts around it are now +4 +5 republican.

FFS man…

 

I hope millions move, to all the swing states

 

The people who left California are not democrats. Or at least not the ones that moved to my state. I’ll take them with no worries. Not that my state needs anymore red votes anyway. We’re solid red all day long

 

Uhhhh FFS man, which party do you think drew the districts for California, New York, Illinois, Washington and Massachusetts?

 

I will give you a break and let you know later why your argument is flawed, but let's go back to this great rebuttal of yours.
So the redistricting was done in 2010. So curious that you only site numbers from 2018 and 2020. Why would that be?
Oh, maybe because the very first election after the redistricting had the republicans getting 47.7 percent of the popular vote versus 48.8 by the democrats and yet they ended up with 234 seats vs 201 for the democrats. So a minority of the popular vote and a very large minority in congress. They ended up with 27 more seats than their percentage!
How about 2014? Oh there again the republicans outperform their popular vote margin biggly. 51.2 percent nets them 247 seats (rather than the 222 that they should have had). Well what about 2016? Natch. 49.1 percent of the popular vote nets them 241 seats (rather than the 213 that percentage represents).
So there's that. (one could argue that the dems have worked hard over the last 6 years to overcome this gerrymandering to actually get their real representation in congress).
But overall, you are still arguing about how some people talk about gerrymandering to try to counter the argument that gerrymandering exists. How people talk about it is irrelevant. If some guy wants to run on the issue of gerrymandering rather than ten other things, that is his loss (or win depending on how it is perceived). The dems have been doing poorly in local elections. Due to a lot of issues. Gerrymandering is just one of the issues and it is only relevant in some states and it's not always the same party (no dem is running on gerrymandering in Massachussetts I can guarantee you that). This doesn't mean it is not a real thing. Why you would argue that it isn;t is beyond me.
Remember the OP is about Texas and their redrawing of the map. You think that the republicans who are drawing these districts are going to do so fairly (republicans have 23 congressmen vs 13 dems in congress despite voting for trump only 52 percent to 46 percent)? I certainly dont. The 2010 redistricting was a travesty in some states. I just don't want that to happen again in 2020. On either side of the aisle. I have no doubt that delaware isn't going to help republicans there or Massachussetts isn't going to carve out a republican district in it's central area. Gerrymandering is a real problem.
Not asking that every state carve out districts to perfectly represent the political split of the state, after all these congressional districts are supposed to put together people that need similar representation. Kind of normal that you end up with large majorities of democrats in an urban district for example, and large majorities of republicans in a rural district. Not normal to carve these districts up in a way that is designed strictly to skew the numbers in your favour.

Anyways, off to work. I will leave you with this thought regarding voting in wisconsin in 2014
Despite receiving 51 percent of the votes statewide in 2012, Democrats won only 39 of 99 Assembly seats. In 2014, Republicans won roughly the same percentage of votes statewide, but won 63 seats, a 24-seat disparity, judges wrote.

As to your argument, you have to look at gerrymandering state by state, as a country wide picture has too much noise in the data (unopposed seats for example, there were 27 unopposed seats in 2018 1ç of the democratic seats) and as I said earlier, there are many democratic states that also have practiced gerrymandering.

 

My points are flawless.

I double checked the most recent two elections to see if the claims hold much water, they don't.

What the hell does that mean? They worked to change minds? That's what any sensible person running for election does. You want to know another neat trick? Don't call parents civic minded enough to go to School Board meetings "Domestic Terrorists."

Fake News. Gerrymandering exists and the most lopsided districts are Democrat, most of those were drawn by democrats. If Democrats want more balanced districts then Democrats should draw them.

Gee, you think? Dems hate the American People. They call us racists, terrorists, religious nuts. They treat Churches as second rate, they want us disarmed, they want to force the police to stand down, they post bail for rioters. Sneering and dripping disdain gets returned as well it should. And all the lies. The blizzard of "Russian Collusion" repeated by most of the idiots in the news, parrotted by top elected and appointed officials, hiding Hunter, do you think no one has noticed that Dems aren't particularly trustworthy? I'm sure there is wonderful core in there somewhere, but they aren't holding the reins, chairing the committees or national spokes-liars. Hell, look at how they abuse their own, Sinema.

Oh sure, "only look through the keyhole I restrict you to."

Texas has two districts in excess of +30

Texas 13 R+33 Republican
Texas 11 R+32 Republican

A Democrat will not win those seats. That you're all in a dither over. But,

Pennsylvania 3 D+41 Democratic? Not a peep out of you, the most lopsided district in the nation you don't even mention.

California 13 D+40 Democratic
New York 13 D+40 Democratic
New York 15 D+39 Democratic
California 12 D+38 Democratic
Illinois 7 D+37 Democratic
California 37 D+36 Democratic
Georgia 5 D+36 Democratic
Washington 7 D+36 Democratic
Massachusetts 7 D+35 Democratic
California 34 D+34 Democratic
New Jersey 10 D+34 Democratic
New York 5 D+34 Democratic
New York 7 D+34 Democratic
New York 12 D+34 Democratic
Illinois 4 D+33 Democratic
New York 8 D+33 Democratic
California 44 D+32 Democratic
New York 9 D+32 Democratic
California 40 D+31 Democratic

Look at all these. Each a Democrat lock. Not a chance in hell any of these incumbents are going to lose. They could probably crap on the sidewalk, then insert a bull whip and prance door to door and still win by 15 points. These aren't elections, they are give me's and the incumbents, free from election concerns fundraise and spread the money to other districts. Meanwhile you pick and choose and then do the horrified virgin act. It's a little entertaining but, that's about it.

Essentially you are conceding the election and blaming your losses on others. Some folks are big on that.

 

Are you that clueless ?

1. A +36 is actually bad because your saturating a single district
2. Do you even know how California creates their districts......lemme get that for you, you dont.....

 

No, they are rants, sentiments, and, as such, do not merit a proper response.

 

I would say your claim of an assumed point is an assumption.

You'll need to specify.

What is assumed? Specify?

What part of my counter argument is assumed?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...gop-drawn-voting-maps.594913/#post-1073114653

 

If you assume rather than make a point, that creates no burden to me other than to point that out.

 

And yet, here you are, responding.

 

You seem lost. The GOP didn't draw all most of these uncompetitive districts, Dems did.

 

FFS reading comprehension isnt your strong suit is it

 

Actually I'm amazing at it. Your problem is that your claim doesn't hold water.

Dems are facing a pounding, not because of anything that anyone else did to them.

RCP has the GOP up 2.7%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html#!

That should put all these seats within reach of a potential Republican pick up.

1. Arizona 2 D+2 Democratic
2. Connecticut 2 D+2 Democratic
3. Connecticut 5 D+2 Democratic
4. Oregon 5 D+2 Democratic
5. Georgia 6 D+1 Democratic
6. Kansas 3 D+1 Democratic
7. Michigan 5 D+1 Democratic
8. Nevada 4 D+1 Democratic
9. New Hampshire 2 D+1 Democratic
10. New Jersey 7 D+1 Democratic
11. Ohio 13 D+1 Democratic
12. Texas 7 D+1 Democratic
13. Texas 32 D+1 Democratic
14. Washington 8 D+1 Democratic
15. California 10 EVEN Democratic
16. Florida 13 EVEN Democratic
17. Minnesota 2 EVEN Democratic
18. New Jersey 11 EVEN Democratic
19. Pennsylvania 7 EVEN Democratic
20. New Hampshire 1 R+1 Democratic
21. New Jersey 5 R+1 Democratic
22. New York 18 R+1 Democratic
23. Oregon 4 R+1 Democratic
24. Virginia 2 R+1 Democratic
25. Arizona 1 R+2 Democratic
26. Georgia 7 R+2 Democratic
27. Illinois 14 R+2 Democratic
28. Illinois 17 R+2 Democratic
29. Michigan 11 R+2 Democratic
30. Nevada 3 R+2 Democratic
31. Pennsylvania 17 R+2 Democratic
32. Iowa 3 R+3 Democratic
33. New Jersey 3 R+3 Democratic
34. New York 19 R+3 Democratic
35. Virginia 7 R+3 Democratic
36. Michigan 8 R+4 Democratic
37. Wisconsin 3 R+4 Democratic
38. Pennsylvania 8 R+5 Democratic
39. Maine 2 R+6 Democratic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index#By_congressional_district
I suspect the GOP should net a few seats or more of these.

 

You didn't mention what you believed I assumed.

Therefore, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Spit it out, mon

 

A response, but no a 'proper response', i.e., a counter argument.

Know the difference,

 

It's not my job to guide you through a thread, show some pride.