9 blue states have ZERO Republicans in Congress.

[Nostra]

You are a dumbass. The states in the OP include democratic ones that have only one congressman. Show me the gerrymandering? If you were any dumber I’d be afraid you would forget how to breathe.

View attachment 1148629

Now do Illinois.

GO!

 

[BlindBoo]

Proportional representation would more fairly and democratically allot seats in the Peoples House.

But the last thing either of the two dominate parties want is fairness.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Proportional representation would more fairly and democratically allot seats in the Peoples House.
But the last thing either of the two dominate parties want is fairness.

It also requires an un-passable amendment to the constitution.

 

[Nostra]

Proportional representation would more fairly and democratically allot seats in the Peoples House.

But the last thing either of the two dominate parties want is fairness.

Pretty sure the Founding Fathers were way smarter then you, Simp.

 

[ColonelAngus]

So, If Texas ends up having no Dems in the House, it is fine because lefties sure AS **** do not cry about Dem only states.

**** YOUR HYPOCRISY.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. THAT IS WHAT OBAMA PREACHED!

 

[M14 Shooter]

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. THAT IS WHAT OBAMA PREACHED!

Correct.
Democrats can ride along, but they have to sit in the back of the bus.

 

[Nostra]

Correct.
Democrats can ride along, but they have to sit in the back of the bus.

You forgot…..and STFU.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Correct.
Democrats can ride along, but they have to sit in the back of the bus.

I always liked the back of the bus.

 

[BlindBoo]

It also requires an un-passable amendment to the constitution.

Nope. There is nothing in our Constitution that prohibits the states from that option. The only barrier for the states is a federal law requiring single districts.

I have found success comes in a can. Because you only have failure with a can't.

It wont happen of course because the benefactors of the two parties own the Media, and they will never broch the subject

 

[Dragonlady]

Huh? They're leaving because their economic policies are out of whack. California's taxes are too high and people are moving to lower tax states.

New york is in the same boat. High cost of living. Sure, those states may give more than they receive in federal funding, but they're losing a ton of people too.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. If SALT deductions weren’t the problem, why did Trump raise them to $40,000 in the big ugly bill?

If Democrats moving to red states wasn’t a problem for these red states, Texas wouldn’t be gerrymandering the state to keep Democrats from getting elected. And Florida, and other Red States wouldn’t be following suit.

Nothing says the GOP is running scared and out of control like this push to destroy voting rights ahead of the 2026 midterms.

 

[Paddlefoot]

 

[citygator]

Now do Illinois.

GO!

Deflection. Go! You posted misleading and inaccurate information. I will address Illinois as soon as you admit to posting misleading information suggesting that states were gerrymandered when it is 100% impossible for them to be gerrymandered.

 

[Dragonlady]

When you want to change the government, you do what the Progressives have done. Since the 1930's. Massive power in the House for most of the years until the 1980's and even until the 90's. The reason you are questioned is due to the fact you have maxed out your usefulness and jettisoned the people that voted for you to move on to other agendas.

Yes, you come up with policies that HELP the American people - like the New Deal, and people vote for these policies.

Since 1980, Republicans have been gerrymandering red states so that Democrats can NEVER control the states, and they could win back the House.

By 2018, the House Districts were so thoroughly gerrymandered that Democrats needed to win 57% of the popular vote to retake the House.

They did it but only because of the incredible incompetence of the Republican Party.

 

[citygator]

Now do Massachusetts.

GO!

The Democrats submitted this bill last year that banned gerrymandering in all states including Massachuttes and Illinois. Every single Democrat voted for it. Every single Republican voted against it.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/BILLS-118s3750is.pdf

The bill would set spell out comprehensive criteria for congressional redistricting including:

• Banning partisan gerrymandering by prohibiting drawing maps that favor or disfavor any political party,
• Providing an explicit right for private citizens to file legal challenges under this law,
• Requiring that districts be drawn to represent communities of interest and neighborhoods to the extent possible,
• Barring people, legislatures and states from asserting legislative privilege over lawsuits brought under the act,
• Setting clear deadlines for when maps must be enacted and
• Mandating that redistricting plans are subject to public comment in an open and transparent manner.

U.S. Senate Democrats Introduce Sweeping National Redistricting Bill

Read more here.

www.democracydocket.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope. There is nothing in our Constitution that prohibits the states from that option. The only barrier for the states is a federal law requiring single districts.

The fact the constitutions requires electoral districts, where the people directly vote for the person representing them, negates the possibility of proportional representation w/o an amendment.

It wont happen of course because the benefactors of the two parties own the Media, and they will never broch the subject

It wont happen because at least 13 states will vote down the amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since 1980, Republicans have been gerrymandering red states so that Democrats can NEVER control the states, and they could win back the House.

All you do is lie.

By 2018, the House Districts were so thoroughly gerrymandered that Democrats needed to win 57% of the popular vote to retake the House.

All you do is lie.

 

[Paddlefoot]

 

[BlindBoo]

The fact the constitutions requires electoral districts,

Nope.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 1:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S2-C1-1/ALDE_00001031/

"A major innovation in constitutional law was the development of a requirement that election districts in each state be structured so that each elected representative represents substantially equal populations. Although this requirement has generally been gleaned from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,1 in Wesberry v. Sanders,2 the Court held that construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2, that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s."

No where is districting mentioned in the 14th either. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

To be implemented nationwide would require an amendment as it would be stupid/suicide for any single state to implement it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope.

Yep.

"A major innovation in constitutional law was the development of a requirement that election districts in each state be structured so that each elected representative represents substantially equal populations. Although this requirement has generally been gleaned from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,1 in Wesberry v. Sanders,2 the Court held that construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2, that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S2-C1-1/ALDE_00001031

Districts = the people directly vote for the person representing them

This negates the possibility of proportional representation w/o an amendment.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yep.

"A major innovation in constitutional law was the development of a requirement that election districts in each state be structured so that each elected representative represents substantially equal populations. Although this requirement has generally been gleaned from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,1 in Wesberry v. Sanders,2 the Court held that construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2, that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S2-C1-1/ALDE_00001031

Districts = the people directly vote for the person representing them

This negates the possibility of proportional representation w/o an amendment.

It's not a constitutional requirement but a rule made up and maintained by both major parities and their controlling interests.

An Amendment would be required to break their hold on the system/circus.