Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.
Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.
It’s supposed to be the voters picking the politicians, now it’s the politicians picking the voters.
They should assign each district by zip codes pulled out of a hat.
I would actually like you to do that. I'd really be interested to see how that would work in your state.
Let’s say you have 10 districts and 1000 zip codes. You categorize the zip codes by population only. Then you parcel them out to the districts giving each district roughly the same amount.
I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.
Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.
The other solution, a "neutral" way of doing things is quite frankly bullshit. Someone will always try to gain advantage, someone will always get it.
At least when the politicians themselves do it, the bias is out in the open, and admitted to.
The answer is to take the politicians out of designing their own districts.
California did that- the Democratic Party and politicians fought the changes and they were both wrong- and over-ruled by California voters.
Erm..... Given what a disaster California is.... not sure if that's who you should use as a model.... Just sayin.
If the Democrats in California could still Gerrymander the districts- there would be fewer Republicans in the House right now.
I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.
Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.
The other solution, a "neutral" way of doing things is quite frankly bullshit. Someone will always try to gain advantage, someone will always get it.
At least when the politicians themselves do it, the bias is out in the open, and admitted to.
The answer is to take the politicians out of designing their own districts.
California did that- the Democratic Party and politicians fought the changes and they were both wrong- and over-ruled by California voters.
Answer:
Gerrymandering is the only way Congressional districts are drawn.
Or short answer:
Neccessary.
WisconsinI have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.
Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.
Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.
So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?
It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.
The differences may not be in whether the elected officials are more to the extreme left or right- but that voters are not getting the leaders that they want.
This is an example of how the results are unfair to Democrats, but in reality both parties have done this for their own parties advantage- AND for the advantage of elected officials who want to keep getting elected.
How do you end up with 54% of the votes- and 36% of the seats? Gerrymandering.
Look at the illustration below- in a perfect world the 5 districts would be 2 gold and 6 purple- representing the actual allocation of voters. Statistically in a world without gerrymandering this average out to work. But politicians don't want voters to have that choice, so they devise districts to protect their jobs- and their party.
Is that an actual state, or made up numbers?
So I just looked up the Wisconsin map. It doesn't look super Gerrymandered to me.
Wisconsin's congressional districts - Wikipedia
So 54% is democrat over all... which again means little to nothing, since some districts are massively democrat, and some are massively republican.
Additionally there are only 7 total seats. So it was going to be split 4 to 3 somehow. It was either going to be
This is ridiculous. Now that I know which state this is, your entire point implodes.
I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.
Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.
The other solution, a "neutral" way of doing things is quite frankly bullshit. Someone will always try to gain advantage, someone will always get it.
At least when the politicians themselves do it, the bias is out in the open, and admitted to.
The answer is to take the politicians out of designing their own districts.
California did that- the Democratic Party and politicians fought the changes and they were both wrong- and over-ruled by California voters.
Erm..... Given what a disaster California is.... not sure if that's who you should use as a model.... Just sayin.
If the Democrats in California could still Gerrymander the districts- there would be fewer Republicans in the House right now.
What they do in their state, is their business. It doesn't bother me.
What business is it of mine, who California sends to congress?
Do you think whether they send another Democrat, or another Republican, changes how many needles are on their streets? Do you think it will change them demanding more money for Amtrak whether they send another Democrat or Republican? No it won't.
Let California be California. Let Ohio be Ohio. I'll deal with my state, and you deal with yours. Let's be a people that stops shoving our noses up each others butts all the time. Trying to control how everyone else operates in the world, is what self-centered busy bodies do.
Doesn't matter the worse offenders of Gerrymandering ae the democrats, No one complained for 50 years about their gerrymandering until Republicans suddenly started winning state legislatures then suddenly people like serious were "concerned". Every State was forced to Gerrymander by democrats in the US Congress for 30 years. Not a peep and even now when seriously complains he ALWAYS uses a republican example.I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.
Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.
Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.
So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?
It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.
The differences may not be in whether the elected officials are more to the extreme left or right- but that voters are not getting the leaders that they want.
This is an example of how the results are unfair to Democrats, but in reality both parties have done this for their own parties advantage- AND for the advantage of elected officials who want to keep getting elected.
How do you end up with 54% of the votes- and 36% of the seats? Gerrymandering.
Look at the illustration below- in a perfect world the 5 districts would be 2 gold and 6 purple- representing the actual allocation of voters. Statistically in a world without gerrymandering this average out to work. But politicians don't want voters to have that choice, so they devise districts to protect their jobs- and their party.
Is that an actual state, or made up numbers?
Doesn't matter the worse offenders of Gerrymandering ae the democrats, No one complained for 50 years about their gerrymandering until Republicans suddenly started winning state legislatures then suddenly people like serious were "concerned". Every State was forced to Gerrymander by democrats in the US Congress for 30 years. Not a peep and even now when seriously complains he ALWAYS uses a republican example.I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.
Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.
Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.
So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?
It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.
The differences may not be in whether the elected officials are more to the extreme left or right- but that voters are not getting the leaders that they want.
This is an example of how the results are unfair to Democrats, but in reality both parties have done this for their own parties advantage- AND for the advantage of elected officials who want to keep getting elected.
How do you end up with 54% of the votes- and 36% of the seats? Gerrymandering.
Look at the illustration below- in a perfect world the 5 districts would be 2 gold and 6 purple- representing the actual allocation of voters. Statistically in a world without gerrymandering this average out to work. But politicians don't want voters to have that choice, so they devise districts to protect their jobs- and their party.
Is that an actual state, or made up numbers?
The other solution, a "neutral" way of doing things is quite frankly bullshit. Someone will always try to gain advantage, someone will always get it.
At least when the politicians themselves do it, the bias is out in the open, and admitted to.
The answer is to take the politicians out of designing their own districts.
California did that- the Democratic Party and politicians fought the changes and they were both wrong- and over-ruled by California voters.
Erm..... Given what a disaster California is.... not sure if that's who you should use as a model.... Just sayin.
If the Democrats in California could still Gerrymander the districts- there would be fewer Republicans in the House right now.
What they do in their state, is their business. It doesn't bother me.
What business is it of mine, who California sends to congress?
Do you think whether they send another Democrat, or another Republican, changes how many needles are on their streets? Do you think it will change them demanding more money for Amtrak whether they send another Democrat or Republican? No it won't.
Let California be California. Let Ohio be Ohio. I'll deal with my state, and you deal with yours. Let's be a people that stops shoving our noses up each others butts all the time. Trying to control how everyone else operates in the world, is what self-centered busy bodies do.
No problem then- you are just fine with gerrymandering and the corruption is encourages.
Who picked those districts?
Republican judges or Democrat judges?Districts should be designed by computers based on court approved parameters
Who picked those districts?
Which politicians should do your version of gerrymandering?
I'm still waiting for the whiners come up with an alternative.
Who draws up the gerrymander plans that people get to vote on?Politicians should have nothing to do with setting the districts
Selecting your voters....people lose
You don't seem to understand that there is no viable alternative.No problem then- you are just fine with gerrymandering and the corruption is encourages.
Then Why do they spend millions on it, and do it, if it "did nothing"....?I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.
Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.
Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.
So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?
It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.
The courts, a nonpartisan citizens groupWho draws up the gerrymander plans that people get to vote on?Politicians should have nothing to do with setting the districts
Selecting your voters....people lose
Politicians, or people appointed by politicians?
You really don't have a substitute for gerrymandering, so just admit it.
