Supreme Court sides with GOP in Alabama election map case

Cry about democratic states then. If, as you write, you believe this behavior is unconstitutional, call out your own peeps.

 

I

No sir. Whining about Republican gerrymandering when the democrats abused the process for DECADES; nearly half a century. THAT is pathetic.

 

I posted this in the recent thread about NY gerrymandering:

"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."

You were saying?

Plus, CA has an independent redistricting commission, so the Dems have unilaterally disarmed in CA. They did the right thing in CA, which is good, but they can't count on the GOP to do the right thing, so they'll lose the House because the GOP is more ruthless in the gerrymandering race.

 

The map on the right isn't any less partisan than the map on the left. There is no way that District 7 on the map on the right should be so ridiculously large. It may even be too large on the map on the left.

 

Not. I'm simply pointing out this is done by both parties. Want a truce? Stop shooting.
And I will get behind voting rights legislation just as soon as your party gets behind votor ID, limiting mail in votes to legitimately needy voters, eliminating night time drop boxes, vote harvesting, pushing for non citizens to vote, etc. Deal?

I didnt think so.

 

Then perhaps your perspective is falsely premised. Democrats are the problem, just as much as you feel republicans might be. When NY redistricted, you were upset about republicans just not rolling over. You seem to feel it's ok then, except that republicans' rights can be disenfranchised. That seems to sum up precisely what your position is.

 

Gosh, you seem to think that if one does it, then the other should do it!

And, to think that I pointed out the problem with that only a short number of posts back.

 

Democrats are the most notorious users of gerrymandering to ensure voting ghettos. Here you are cheerleading. Why do you feel its ok when democrats disenfranchise others?

 

No, I don't want any "truce".

I want an effort to stop gerrymandering and other assaults on representation by the people.

And, I'd also point out that vote by mail is MORE representative and MORE free of manipulation that is in person voting. The whole ID thing is a red herring used to preserve the power that officials have in twisting election outcomes using the opportunities presented by polling places.

 

When will you read posts and respond to what is said rather than try to put words in the mouths of others??

Go back and read my post.

THEN, think about it.

 

I VERY CLEARLY stated that gerrymandering needs to end.

How did that warrant the nonsense in this post of yours?

 

I've been very clear that all gerrymandering needs to be eliminated.

Why are you trying so hard to politicize this issue??

 

Yep - just look at the OP. It clearly shows that the map is not accurately representative, but goes on to celebrate the posted corruption - of both the party and scotus. You can't make this sh!t up!

 

To make an informed reply I would request that someone post every adjustment starting in 1952. That was when Democrats held every seat, blacks couldn't vote and Republicans were extreme longshots everywhere. Was there any possible way to draw the lines back then to give the Republicans a fighting chance anywhere?
How did it change in 62? How did it change in 72 with Democrats still dominant and blacks allowed to vote. The present map has problems. The proposed solution is not a solution at all.
There must be a way to draw the map in which whites would have a majority in all 7 districts. There would be 3 places where the Democrats would have a fighting chance, but you might end up with 7 white Republicans.

 

Here is another post I made in the NY redistricting thread:

"Let's look at the map:


Partisan control of congressional redistricting after the 2020 elections, with the number of U.S. House seats each state will receive.
blue Democratic control
red Republican control
yellow Split or bipartisan control
green Independent redistricting commission
grey No redistricting necessary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States

Now, it looks like the Dems have already waved the white flag. Why? because they have scruples and generally prefer independent or bipartisan districting. That's going to cost them the House, because obviously most GOP controlled states will do everything in their power to disenfranchise Dem voters. Here is how it works:



It's easy to see how drawing the "correct" districts can result in the minority getting the majority of seats. It's really the politicians picking their voters, not how it should be, voters picking politicians.

Of course, the Trumpers will defend it to their death, because they like themselves their minority rule. And then they'll brag when they get 30 more House seats in the 2024 election, while being represented by only 48% of voters. In their minds, it means the silent majority had spoken. In reality, the GOP just cheats to stay in power -- on all fronts.

But, let's whine about NY, the ONE large population state where Dems can actually make some gains, and where they gave the GOP a chance in a bipartisan commission, but the GOP blew it, because they didn't get their will."

Now, compare red and blue on that map? Who has the advantage? Clearly red. Why? Because Dems unilaterally gave up CA to a independent commission. In contrast, FL and TX, the two largest GOP states, are firmly in GOP redistricting control, allowing them to gerrymander to attain a firm minority rule. Anyone who can read a map can see the problem. And while the Dems are no innocent, they gave up a huge advantage to the GOP, who, though gerrymandering and vote restriction laws will be able to hold on to minority rule in the House for years.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but you clearly have a misconception about how congressional districts are drawn. All congressional districts must have roughly the same population. since there are areas of very high density in terms of population (ie cities) and areas of very low density, it is clear that to have equal populations in districts, you can not have the same size districts. I don't think anyone questions that in any way shape or form. or to make it clear, here is a congressional map of New York. Notice that 15 districts of NY city could fit into, I dunno, 1/20th of district 21? Yet each distict has roughly the same population. Size is absolutely irrelevant. Distribution is.
Always funny to see when republicans show a map of the US with large swaths of red to show how they are doing so well, and somehow not understanding that that teeny tiny dot of blue that is Los Angeles county has a greater population than 10 states...combined!

 

Aw. So when you wrote that NY had to just ignore their republican members, you weren't exactly critical, were you. You blamed Republicans for not acceding to democrats. That doesn't sound like "all" to anyone.

 

Of course!

If disproportionate population districts were allowed, then extreme cases would be fine. If you had 10 districts you could give 9 of them to the homes of staunch supporters of your party and the rest of the state to the other millions of the population!

But, gerrymandering does NOT require different population districts to be allowed.

 

Yes. I don't think you got the pojnt I was making to a previous poster. But we agree: gerrymandering has nothing to do with the population of each district (which by law has to be roughly equivalent) it is all about how you aportion it.
I was trying to clear things up for a previous poster who somehow thought that the geographic size of a district mattered

 

That's absolute rubbish. I did not say that.

Are you in favor of gerrymandering, or NOT??

Do you see our process of democracy something that is legitimate to attack - with gerrymandering, polling place manipulation, assaults on our capitol, etc.

Or, do you see it as an important way for our government to be held to the will of the people?

 

See the figure I posted above:



It clearly illustrates how just about any outcome can be generated, depending of how the lines are drawn, but clearly violating the equal representation of voter makeup in a state.

This is going to destroy democracy, if nothing is done. It's clearly parties picking their voters, not voters picking the party. The outcome is pre-determined by the maps, not by the will of the voters. It favors extremists in each party, as I have discussed before. I don't think this is what the founders had in mind when they set up the rules.

 

It's so weird. Democrats, myself included, have posted on these boards over and over that gerymandering is wrong. Regardless of who does it. I think that CA and NY gerrymandering is wrong. I am on the record saying that. I have yet to read a republican stating the same thing here. Happy to be corrected. Or you can be the first republican to state openly on these boards that what just happened in Alabama was wrong?

 

Yes. I don't know how many times I can say that I agree with you for you to read what I actually said. I completely agree with the images that you posted. That is the very defintion of gerrymandering. Completely on board. 100 percent. gerrymandering bad. I am against gerrymandering. From both parties.
We good?

 

Yes, we are good, I wrote the last post to confirm yours not to be antagonistic. Sorry, if this came across the wrong way.

 

Oh please. Get off your high horse! Democrats know they are about to lose big and are gerrymandering like no ones business!

New York Legislature OKs gerrymander that could net Democrats 3 more seats