That’s like telling a cow to eat grass and burp methane…
At least he still thinks he needs control of Congress and sees them as a possible problem if Democrats were to retain control.
What they’re gonna do is redraw all the maps of the states they are in control of, and eliminate ALL Democrat districts. Every single one. They’ll do this and there will be challenges declaring it illegal but by the time it actually comes before a court it’ll be too late to redraw so they’ll just go ahead with the illegal maps and then Democrats won’t just not win the house, they will lose 30+ seats. All because the Republicans are fascists and people refused to vote for democratic candidates last election cycle.
They might, might, leave one or two blue districts per state, but otherwise they will be gone. This is the plan in Ohio and in Florida, it’s happening. It doesn’t matter that it’s BS.
Anyone who helped Trump win, including those who helped Harris lose, will be responsible for the downfall of the American democratic system.
Guess it’s time for some successions.
They didn’t need to be told. Frankly, I’m surprised Texas has room to be gerrymandered even more.
Gerrymandered? You mean Donnytrumpered?
It’s a balancing act. To maximize likely seats won, they need to accurately predict who will vote on that election, which is difficult. Small predicted margins of victory now could evaporate and result in Democrats winning.
Yep, this is the thing people often forget about gerrymandering. The entire point is to take a large margin of victory in an area, and use it to offset your opponents margin in another area, usually by carving into your opponents margin with several of your own.
The more gerrymandered a set of districts is, the more likely they are to be tipped by an unexpected change of turn out by a given group.
One group gets complacent (my vote doesn’t matter in this state, since my party always wins!) or one group gets fired up… And suddenly the story flips.
Hardly newsworthy. Gerrymandering is literally enshrined in our constitution. Congressional maps have always been redrawn by the party in power to ensure that they remain in power.
You’ve never heard of the California Citizens Redistricting Committee before today, huh?
I mean, New York is a close analog, and the relatively minor gerrymander in Democrats’ favor was struck down, which is a large part of why Republicans control the House.
So you’re right that Democrats tried, but also Democratic (and democratic) judges nullified the gerrymander.
I guess it’s classic that they gave up political victory to have the moral high ground. So might as well give them that much?
I live in California and I don’t recall the maps being drawn that way. At one point the State mailed a draft of the new map and explained that it was redrawn in accordance with the change in population. Overall it seemed pretty fair.
AFAIK it’s not enshrined in the Constitution, it’s a Supreme Court ruling that said federal courts have no authority to assess cases of gerrymandering.
Congressional maps have always been redrawn by the party in power to ensure that they remain in power. I would expect Democrats to be doing the same thing if we were talking about California.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If Barack Obama
Told California Democrats
To gerrymander their map so he wouldn’t lose the House
Conservatives would have lost their goddamned minds.
(Again.)
Are you actually going to try to say that Democrats don’t engage in gerrymandering? Really?
Barack Obama wouldn’t tell California Democrats to gerrymander their map so they’d keep the house. He wouldn’t have to, because they’d do it anyway. Just like every other Democrat state would. And just like every other Republican state does. Trump telling Texas to do it is redundant because it’s something that Texas was going to do anyway.
And yes, Conservatives lose their shit when a Democrat does it. And Democrats lose their shit when a Republican does it. Because they both try to play the game under “Rules for thee, not for me” rules. But the fact of the matter is, for better or worse, gerrymandering is a part of our electoral system that both parties routinely engage in in order to maintain their majority.
It’s literally an example of “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”.
There are different kinds of players in the same game. But I agree that the whole ability to bend districts in any favored direction should be removed. There are impartial ways to determine districts that change over time with the population, but neither side likes them because it’s a loss of control and potential loss of seats for both. The irony is that it would favor the left more, just like changing how we vote would favor that lean, but that gets into the issue of what “left” means in the US vs. reality, and maybe that’s part of the problem as well.
This is why I said it’s a case of “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
If our founding fathers were to have set up another method of dealing with changing populations, gerrymandering wouldn’t be a thing and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But the rules set up by our founding fathers was essentially little more than a blueprint for gerrymandering without actually using the word gerrymandering. I don’t have to like it, but I can’t necessarily hate one party or another when they’re both just trying their best to exploit the rules they were given to maximum advantage.
I remember when new Mexico a strong blue state gerrymandering and even though we a Lil guy republican cried and cried but we just said we playing by your rules fuck faces
Are Democrats ok with this or are they also losing their shit?
Of course. Those two scenarios are totally different, though. As different as black and white …
