Gerrymandering makes hypocrisy a political punch line

[jc456]

Gerrymandering is a spoil of those in power.

Elections have consequences…..isnt that correct?

again, demofks screaming about how much control they want and have.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

It says specifically ANY districts that are drawn with the purpose of favoring a political party or disfavoring a political party is illegal no matter when. Its not some trick. It was a real bill to end gerrymandering.

Here is the relevant section:

Section 4(f)(2) states that the criteria for compliant redistricting apply to any congressional plan that would be, or is, in effect after the date of enactment of the Act, regardless of when that plan was enacted by the State
View attachment 1147722

Section 6(a)(2) contains a special rule: if a State’s existing redistricting plan (one enacted before the Act’s enactment) does not comply with the new requirements, the State must enact a new compliant plan within 45 days after the Act’s enactment.​

If a State fails to enact a compliant plan by the deadline, a U.S. district court (via a three-judge panel) can step in to develop and impose one—including public hearings and metrics-based evaluations​

I read it the first time genius.

Printing the same bullshit mumbo jumbo all over again but BIGGER AND BOLDER doesn't suddenly, magically delegate it any more relevance than it signaled the first bloody time.

And if you're naive enough to think a three judge panel couldn't be rigged - or "metric based evaluations" would be totally objective - and that this entire bill was not put forward to cement Democrats hold on power while diminishing the GOP's - you're probably naive enough to believe that Trump is truly guilty of tens and tens of felonies which were totally, not at all, politically motivated lawfare.

Oh.....wait.

 

[Nostra]

Gerrymandering is a spoil of those in power.

Elections have consequences…..isnt that correct?

I believe their half black, cuck Messiah said exactly that.

 

[Billiejeens]

So Massachusetts, Illinois, Kalifornia etc are all in violation of the Law.

Good post.

No

Those weren't gerrymandered to benefit one political party or harm a political party, those were simply drawn that way to benefit the people.

 

[citygator]

I read it the first time genius.

Printing the same bullshit mumbo jumbo all over again but BIGGER AND BOLDER doesn't suddenly, magically delegate it any more relevance than it signaled the first bloody time.

And if you're naive enough to think a three judge panel couldn't be rigged - or "metric based evaluations" would be totally objective - and that this entire bill was not put forward to cement Democrats hold on power while diminishing the GOP's - you're probably naive enough to believe that Trump is truly guilty of tens and tens of felonies which were totally, not at all, politically motivated lawfare.

Oh.....wait.

Your accusation was it only addresses new gerrymandering because the dems already did theirs. That is what you said.

I just showed you the bill addresses current lines as well in the same manner. So now you know you were wrong about that.

Now you’re just trying to make more shit up because this didn’t fit your narrative. I can only show you the facts and truth. I can’t make you read and understand it. That is on you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Then why did they offer a bill to end gerrymandering that every single Republican voted against?

Because it would have allowed racial districts that almost always end up being a free seat to the Democrats. Democrats would still be able to gerrymander, but not Republicans.

 

[citygator]

You just owned yourself, Dipsqueeze.

I am not sure what you get out of typing verifiably untrue statements. Maybe you don’t know they’re wrong because of an intelligence deficit or maybe you think people can’t look one post up and see you’re wrong. Either way it’s pretty pointless.

 

[citygator]

Because it would have allowed racial districts that almost always end up being a free seat to the Democrats. Democrats would still be able to gerrymander, but not Republicans.

That is verifiably false. The language is clear. I linked it. Read it for yourself. It specifically says you can’t draw districts to advantage party. It doesn’t rule out rural counties from being in an all rural or urban areas from being in an all urban district. It keeps states from taking a piece of each of those to carve up and mixing them together so that a democrat or a republican has an advantage.

 

[citygator]

You guys just aren’t very smart. Sorry. The reason the dems want to stop gerrymandering and the republican want to keep it is that the benefits are aligned that way. You guys have convinced yourselves Texas is trying to “right a wrong”. They aren’t. Republicans have more gerrymandered districts already but to help out the midterms they need more. That is why Republicans always vote no on gerrymandering laws. That’s it simply.

 

[berg80]

Because it would have allowed racial districts that almost always end up being a free seat to the Democrats. Democrats would still be able to gerrymander, but not Republicans.

The bill called for bipartisan commissions to draw district maps. Not the majority in the state legislature. This would be the case in states run by Repub's and Dem's. Meaning over time there would be no more gerrymandered districts. Repubs hate the idea because they are advantaged by gerrymandering since they control more state governments.

 

[Billiejeens]

That is verifiably false. The language is clear. I linked it. Read it for yourself. It specifically says you can’t draw districts to advantage party. It doesn’t rule out rural counties from being in an all rural or urban areas from being in an all urban district. It keeps states from taking a piece of each of those to carve up and mixing them together so that a democrat or a republican has an advantage.

It doesn't
Although you probably are not capable of accepting that.
That's okay and actually expected.

 

[Independent thinker]

continue to ask the question of these demofks, what is illegal about this gerrymanding exactly?

More of the argument that democracy is an attack on democracy.

 

[citygator]

continue to ask the question of these demofks, what is illegal about this gerrymanding exactly?

Antithetical to representative democracy. It’s not illegal. A law needs to be passed to make it illegal.

 

[berg80]

Democrats never ending hypocrisy about gerrymandering.

Feel free to refute the facts........if you can.

How Gerrymandering Tilts the 2024 Race for the House

Skewed maps give Republicans big advantages in 11 states, mostly in the South and Midwest.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Your accusation was it only addresses new gerrymandering

Wrong again, bucko.

The truth - not my "accusation" - is that it addresses zero gerrymandering.

I dunno what to tell ya - you lose.

You get nothing.

It is what it is.

Sayonara, sucker.

 

[Independent thinker]

HR-1 included a provision to end partisan gerrymandering along with some other proposals to further democratize elections. Dem's introduced it, Repubs refused to support it.

You idiot, that's because the dems already gerrymandered and wanted to pass legislation blocking Republicans from taking back the territory that the dems already gerrymandered.

 

[citygator]

It doesn't
Although you probably are not capable of accepting that.
That's okay and actually expected.

Billie. You offered no support for your sad misguided statement. I link the actual bill then I have posted specific section to refute the critical lies made about it. I can’t do that for you since you offered nothing but insults and what is likely intentional ignorance. You have no interest in looking at the text. You just want to make stuff up because it is easy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That is verifiably false.

You're verifiably wrong.

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,
• Ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
• Providing an explicit right for private citizens to file legal challenges under this law,

It specifically says you can’t draw districts to advantage party.

Sure, not technically, but what do you think the VRA districts do?

 

[citygator]

Wrong again, bucko.

The truth - not my "accusation" - is that it addresses zero gerrymandering.

I dunno what to tell ya - you lose.

You get nothing.

It is what it is.

Sayonara, sucker.

Another beaten foe. Honestly there is nothing easier than debating you guys. I mean it literally takes 30 seconds to link you to the text crushing your lies and apparently his soul.

In fact. This thread just shifted from “it’s democrats who gerrymander” to now “why is gerrymandering wrong?” after it’s becoming more clear to them. lol.

 

[Independent thinker]

The bill called for bipartisan commissions to draw district maps. Not the majority in the state legislature. This would be the case in states run by Repub's and Dem's. Meaning over time there would be no more gerrymandered districts. Repubs hate the idea because they are advantaged by gerrymandering since they control more state governments.

Meanwhile, democrats can maintain their gerrymandered states while republicans would have to wait decades and decades to catch up.