Dumb fucks took safe Republican districts and tried diluting them just enough to steal as many seats as possible. Turns out that doesn’t work when your public opinion takes a nose dive.
Yeah, a lot of people don’t know in detail how gerrymandering works. For it to work you need to pack as many D voters as possible into a small number of districts and add a few extra R voters to all the remaining districts. You have to dismantle the safe R districts because you need to distribute those voters among the other districts.
In a standard election that works because the Ds get a huge win in a small number of districts and the Rs get a bunch of tight wins in a larger number of districts, so the Rs win.
But, when there’s a huge wave election, the small number of R voters they added to districts aren’t enough and not only do the Ds get a huge win in a few small districts, they also win some of gerrymandered R districts. There’s nothing safe anymore.
If you don’t gerrymander, you naturally get some safe R districts, some safe D districts and some toss-ups. But, gerrymandering has to eliminate the safe R districts to shift those voters around.
Well said. I was brushing my teeth getting ready for bed when i made my comment last night and didn’t have the brain power to explain it as well as you did.
It’s a bit tricky to understand, and to explain. But, if you don’t understand it, you think it’s just a way of ensuring that you get more R districts.
IMO, it’s important to know how it can backfire if you underestimate the number of R voters you need to add to the D districts to flip them.
Anyhow, I hope that one result of this election is that more places go with laws to ensure gerrymandering can’t happen. It’s absolutely bullshit that parties get to draw districts to pick the voters they want. There are some places (Minnesota?) that have non-partisan commissions that draw the maps. That’s how it should be done.
We’ve got non-partisan maps in CO as well, but we actually got rid of them as a reaction to the gerrymandering Repubs were doing in Texas and other states. It really needs to be fixed at a national level - since a state by state solution is basically like the honor system.
since a state by state solution is basically like the honor system.
One of the strengths and also weaknesses of the US system is that states handle their own elections. If there’s a problem with how elections are run, at least it doesn’t become national. OTOH, you have things like this, where a state can decide to do the right thing, but another state can be dishonest and gerrymander for one party.
I wonder if there’s a solution you can do where it’s the honour system backed up by a nuclear option if other states don’t follow the rules. Like, say that an electoral commission should create 3 maps, one gerrymandered for Ds, one gerrymandered for Rs, and one fair one. If other states play fair, the fair one will be used. If any state defects and gerrymanders to favour one party, then the map that combats that gerrymandering goes into effect.
It could be really effective if a bunch of states band together and say that they will all issue fair maps, but they all agree to switch in case another state doesn’t play fair. That way you could have something like the Republicans gerrymandering Texas, or the Democrats gerrymandering California, and either way this defensive pact is activated. Maybe by doing it this way, you could even get typically Republican states to enter the pact.
The tough part then is proving that another state is gerrymandering to favour a specific party, and deciding if that crosses the threshold. But, at least it’s not just the honour system.
Just restore the originals. I honestly don’t want to see them stoop that low if they don’t have to. Just revert them so it doesn’t look they are being just as pety as they were.
Fuck that “when they go low we go high” bullshit. Give it back to them 100 fold do everything possible to lock these monsters up and get them out of power
Is there really any “original” we can go back to? Gerrymandering’s been happening for so long - the word was first used in 1812. Entire towns have been created since then. Numerous states have joined the union. Political parties started and died out.
Dumb fucks took safe Republican districts and tried diluting them just enough to steal as many seats as possible. Turns out that doesn’t work when your public opinion takes a nose dive.
Yeah, a lot of people don’t know in detail how gerrymandering works. For it to work you need to pack as many D voters as possible into a small number of districts and add a few extra R voters to all the remaining districts. You have to dismantle the safe R districts because you need to distribute those voters among the other districts.
In a standard election that works because the Ds get a huge win in a small number of districts and the Rs get a bunch of tight wins in a larger number of districts, so the Rs win.
But, when there’s a huge wave election, the small number of R voters they added to districts aren’t enough and not only do the Ds get a huge win in a few small districts, they also win some of gerrymandered R districts. There’s nothing safe anymore.
If you don’t gerrymander, you naturally get some safe R districts, some safe D districts and some toss-ups. But, gerrymandering has to eliminate the safe R districts to shift those voters around.
Well said. I was brushing my teeth getting ready for bed when i made my comment last night and didn’t have the brain power to explain it as well as you did.
It’s a bit tricky to understand, and to explain. But, if you don’t understand it, you think it’s just a way of ensuring that you get more R districts.
IMO, it’s important to know how it can backfire if you underestimate the number of R voters you need to add to the D districts to flip them.
Anyhow, I hope that one result of this election is that more places go with laws to ensure gerrymandering can’t happen. It’s absolutely bullshit that parties get to draw districts to pick the voters they want. There are some places (Minnesota?) that have non-partisan commissions that draw the maps. That’s how it should be done.
We’ve got non-partisan maps in CO as well, but we actually got rid of them as a reaction to the gerrymandering Repubs were doing in Texas and other states. It really needs to be fixed at a national level - since a state by state solution is basically like the honor system.
One of the strengths and also weaknesses of the US system is that states handle their own elections. If there’s a problem with how elections are run, at least it doesn’t become national. OTOH, you have things like this, where a state can decide to do the right thing, but another state can be dishonest and gerrymander for one party.
I wonder if there’s a solution you can do where it’s the honour system backed up by a nuclear option if other states don’t follow the rules. Like, say that an electoral commission should create 3 maps, one gerrymandered for Ds, one gerrymandered for Rs, and one fair one. If other states play fair, the fair one will be used. If any state defects and gerrymanders to favour one party, then the map that combats that gerrymandering goes into effect.
It could be really effective if a bunch of states band together and say that they will all issue fair maps, but they all agree to switch in case another state doesn’t play fair. That way you could have something like the Republicans gerrymandering Texas, or the Democrats gerrymandering California, and either way this defensive pact is activated. Maybe by doing it this way, you could even get typically Republican states to enter the pact.
The tough part then is proving that another state is gerrymandering to favour a specific party, and deciding if that crosses the threshold. But, at least it’s not just the honour system.
I’m looking forward to some democrat gerrymandering.
If Republicans thought this was bad
Should they gerrymander to solidify control for a cycle or 2? Probably. So they need to? Maybe not.
I think most areas would lean Democrat if maps were fairly drawn. There would definitely still be some GOP strongholds but they would be fair.
Just restore the originals. I honestly don’t want to see them stoop that low if they don’t have to. Just revert them so it doesn’t look they are being just as pety as they were.
Fuck that “when they go low we go high” bullshit. Give it back to them 100 fold do everything possible to lock these monsters up and get them out of power
Nah, unmander everything and make it illegal, preferably by constitutional amendment.
Is there really any “original” we can go back to? Gerrymandering’s been happening for so long - the word was first used in 1812. Entire towns have been created since then. Numerous states have joined the union. Political parties started and died out.
We’d kind of have to start from scratch.
I think they mean the originals from this decade, i.e. the 2020 census
Yes.
Yeah, the country didn’t even have the west coast yet then
It barely had the east coast…
I didn’t expect Louisiana to be a state that early, but yeah we didn’t have many states and a handful of modern states were Mexico at the time
The fight against fascism is critical to our nation. More important than being nice.
Nice isb for after we crush racism.
Should set a law that you can only draw a district with 4 straight lines.
No, because gerrymandering actually has a place. It can be used to elevate the voice of minorities so we don’t just end up with mob rule.
Just give seats proportional to the votes a party got. So kinda like how most developed nations do it.
Would also dismantle your bullshit 2 party system
(Im not trying to defend the democratic systems in Europe, they still suck, but they’re a whole lot better than the US system)
I would love to throw out our dumb system and replace it with a parliamentary system.
Literally dumb as it is called a dummymander.