Law [Partisan Gerrymandering News] Florida appeals court reverses ruling on DeSantis’s congressional maps

That's exactly why I asked Mick why he uses Cali as an example of this extreme gerrymandering. Lopsided races or a built in disparity aren't necessarily a bad thing if the demographics of the state bear that out in the election results. Obviously Democrats do gerrymander at times (I think @Edison Carasio posted a bunch of maps of Illinois and we were rolling over Chicago), but we're seeing in some states where it's painfully obvious and without fail, they're turning out to be Republican states. We've been playing whack a mole with the TX GOP for years now, i'd fucking kill for an independent commission. If California is the worst the Democrats can pull off, then bully for them.
Iirc Maryland is probably the best example of Dem gerrymandering. It's 7-1 to congress and about 2:1 in state seats. 60% D votes to 33% R votes, so statewide representation is proportional, but congress isn't.

The idea that California is currently a good example of Dem gerrymandering isn't correct-I think @Arkain2K has posted about this.
 
Iirc Maryland is probably the best example of Dem gerrymandering. It's 7-1 to congress and about 2:1 in state seats. 60% D votes to 33% R votes, so statewide representation is proportional, but congress isn't.

The idea that California is currently a good example of Dem gerrymandering isn't correct-I think @Arkain2K has posted about this.

Yeah, i'm looking at it now, and that looks to be fairly gerrymandered to me.

What I find interesting is that the "Competitive" interpretation of the map has 5 less county splits, but actually increases the democratic advantage by one percentage point. I'm generally a fan of more compact districts, but this is a case where I could see making races highly competitive for the sake of representation (see: more arbitrary districts as they relate to county borders). I suspect you would still see a heavy democratic advantage (since the highly competitive drawing only projects the GOP with one more house seat), but it's a total wash out as is.
 
FWIW, a lot of liberal leaning posters on this board will also denounce it when the democrats do it to.
I haven't noticed more condemnation across party lines on Sherdog by leftists than conservatives.
The reason it comes up more often about the GOP is because their party abuses it more frequently.
If true this would probably because they don't enjoy urban population megacenters.

The Democrats haven't shown any more moral integrity when it comes to playing partisan politics. If anything, especially in the past few years, quite the opposite has been the case. This is the sort of thing that makes me long for first-term Obama who really did make one of the most sincere efforts I've seen to walk down the center of the aisle rather than bobbing and weaving through the safe chairs.
 
In principle, I think that gerrymandering should be left as an unregulated exercise of the political sphere.

However, the founding fathers and architects of our system could never have foreseen the level of disenfranchisement that new technology and analytics have allowed for gerrymandering. It's a science that exceeds previously marginal advantages. It's completely routine now for Democrats to get strong majorities in popular vote only to get like a third of actual seats.

Not only that. But if we were going by some of our founding Fathers principles, we would have thousands of congressmen right now, not 435. We last rasied the number in 1911, when there were 98 million people in the country. And even then we were woefully underrespresnted.

Imagine if the populace was represented to that extent.

Right Wingers love spouting out the Federalist Papers in here, but this one seems to never get mentioned.

The Constitution is silent on the question of whether the House would increase in size as the population of the United States grew. James Madison was among those with concerns that the House would not increase in size, leading to increasingly large districts, which he expressed in Federalist 55. He therefore proposed that the first amendment to the Constitution be one that guaranteed an increase in the House proportional to rising population. The amendment read:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every 30,000, until the number shall amount to 100, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than 100 representatives, nor less than one representative for every 40,000 persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to 200; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than 200 representatives, nor more than one representative for every 50,000 persons.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-representatives/
 
I haven't noticed more condemnation across party lines on Sherdog by leftists than conservatives.
It’s come up frequently recently. It’s pretty one-sided. The right-wingers are either silent or applaud it as an exercise in “state’s rights”. The leftists overwhelmingly condemn it.
 
Gerrymandering is a topic wherein "bothsideism" is problematic. Looking at the Princeton project, Fivethirtyeight, and other objective studies with maps and data, it is not a case of "both sides do it." In fact, the primary beneficiaries of districts drawn in bad faith (Republicans) would prefer the practice to be dismissed with the "both sides do it" or "the other side would do it if they were in power" excuse, since they can't outright deny it anyway. I remember a recent election in Wisconsin where Democrats got like 200K more votes but lost 11 seats. There's not even plausible deniability there.

Good post. "The primary beneficiaries of (insert bad behavior) would prefer the practice to be dismissed with the 'both sides do it' or 'the other side would do it if they were in power' excuse" is almost always true and the big problem with bothsidesism and cynicism in general (used to defend bad actors in all circumstances--not just partisan politics).

On the topic of the thread, I think we're looking at a broader issue of rising ungentlemanly behavior in politics, which leads to the other side reasonably suspecting a further rise, etc. At this point, you pretty much can't blame individuals for playing the game. The rules need to be changed (best solution, which is very unlikely, is proportional representation--which would also be good for people who think that we should have more third-party representation).
 
It's also funny to see this instant movement marshaled to rid ourselves of the Electoral College (that's what we're really talking about) when liberals were gleefully reveling in its projected boon to Hillary's delegate vote in relation to the popular vote in all the major polls over the campaign trail. Meanwhile, Trump supporters hated it and talked about how unfair it was. Then, election night comes, and beliefs flipped overnight.

The only overnight flip I've seen was from @oleDirtyBast4rd. Most people on both sides have long realized that the EC (nothing to do with this thread, BTW) is stupid.
 
I'm against gerrymandering, but Democrats do it, too.

It's also funny to see this instant movement marshaled to rid ourselves of the Electoral College (that's what we're really talking about) when liberals were gleefully reveling in its projected boon to Hillary's delegate vote in relation to the popular vote in all the major polls over the campaign trail. Meanwhile, Trump supporters hated it and talked about how unfair it was. Then, election night comes, and beliefs flipped overnight.

Root your beliefs in principles rather than results, and I'll come along, but I expect to see you crying bloody murder when there is gerrymandering by the Democrats such as there has been in California. Principles, not results.


California congressional districts are drawn by an independent group, not the legislature.
 
The right-wingers are either silent or applaud it as an exercise in “state’s rights”.

With the right it's always about "let the states decide" until a state decides against the right's interests and then it's "we need federal intervention".

It's what Pennsylvania is now doing and exactly what GWB did with Florida in the 2000 election. (And what Sessions seeks to do with weed legalization.)
 
I haven't noticed more condemnation across party lines on Sherdog by leftists than conservatives.
Good examples in this thread, at least, vis-a-vis Maryland. Some in other threads, too. @Arkain2K is a good egg on this issue, but the bulk of gerrymandering apologetics in his thread came from right-wing posters.
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/t...e-on-extreme-partisan-gerrymandering.3630493/

It’s come up frequently recently. It’s pretty one-sided. The right-wingers are either silent or applaud it as an exercise in “state’s rights”. The leftists overwhelmingly condemn it.
Plenty of rw posters also disagree with gerrymandering, but I think it's fair to say that just about all of the apologists here are right-wing.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely love that this issue is finally being taken seriously. Maybe we can thank Arnold the Governator but the Republicans have been at this for a long long time and it's time for the cheating to end and actual American Democracy to being.

I'm feeling like the progress is constantly stymied by people who wish to derail the effort by turning it into a Republicans vs. Democrats thing, when it should be Democracy vs. Gerrymandering thing.

Screw the politicians. Hand the redistricting duties back to the Citizens and this bullshit will go away.
 
Everyone in the state should be allowed to vote for every representative but the representatives should come from districts.
 
The only overnight flip I've seen was from @oleDirtyBast4rd. Most people on both sides have long realized that the EC (nothing to do with this thread, BTW) is stupid.

More intentional lies. This has been clarified time and again for you , but you choose to be a hack and perpetuate this nonsense. My issue with the EC is the winner takes all settup. My issue with that remains.
 
More intentional lies. This has been clarified time and again for you , but you choose to be a hack and perpetuate this nonsense. My issue with the EC is the winner takes all settup. My issue with that remains.

Here's a sample of your previous posts
How could somebody win the electoral and lose the popular? It's almost as if some people aren't being heard...

When Jack called you out in April you admitted to changing your opinion.
I have no principles because I changed my opinion? I learned a lot from that thread. It's why I enjoy arguing. It helps me learn more about a topic. How is that hypocrisy anyways?

You're now claiming that he's lying about you changing your opinion and that your issue remains the same.

Not buying your bullshit isn't "intentionally lying."
 
Gerrymandering is a fucking blight. Why is our current political climate so toxic? Might having something to do with an unprecedented ability for politicians to choose their constituents. The mapping and data tech we have now just completely blew the lid off what was possible with gerrymandering. Redmap was pure comic book villainy. Like, straight out of the Lex Luthor playbook.
If politicians are essentially immune to out-party challenge, then they lose accountability.
We are at such a tipping point with these next couple of cycles. Another 10 years of lopsided GOP gerrymander will be devastating.
 
Good examples in this thread, at least, vis-a-vis Maryland. Some in other threads, too. @Arkain2K is a good egg on this issue, but the bulk of gerrymandering apologetics in his thread came from right-wing posters.
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/t...e-on-extreme-partisan-gerrymandering.3630493/


Plenty of rw posters also disagree with gerrymandering, but I think it's fair to say that just about all of the apologists here are right-wing.

Actually, it was one single idiot who was responsible for 99% of the retarded posts earlier in this discussion, because he can't read.
 
Here's a sample of your previous posts


When Jack called you out in April you admitted to changing your opinion.


You're now claiming that he's lying about you changing your opinion and that your issue remains the same.

Not buying your bullshit isn't "intentionally lying."

His dishonest bullshit is that I changed my opinion because Trump won. My opinion comes from being in a far left leaning state, and nothing to do with Trump.

The thing I learned is that it was intentional so big cities wouldn't "rule over" rural areas.

He is constantly telling people their motive for doing things
 
The Supreme Court PA map completely makes sense by the way. For the areas I know of the state, I would definitely say those lines accurately represent specific communities.
 
The Supreme Court PA map completely makes sense by the way. For the areas I know of the state, I would definitely say those lines accurately represent specific communities.

Libtarded communities
 
Libtarded communities

Most of the red areas are still red where I'd assume they'd be. I think it was the philly suburbs that got the most fucked up. I'm on the west side of the state so I was commenting more on how those lines were drawn. I was really surprised when I looked because they were exactly the way I would've thought it out.
 
Back
Top