Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 86 of 97 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896 ... LastLast
Results 1,276 to 1,290 of 1451
  1. #1276
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,230

    Democrats and Gerrymandering

    https://twitter.com/lynnsweet/status...389787648?s=20

    Only republicans do this right? Iím sure weíll have a bunch of dems outraged at this?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #1277
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    62,907
    Canít wait to see all the lefties defending gerrymandering. Donít let me down


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  3. #1278
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    43,955
    This all comes back the same argument of voter suppression and voter rights. If Democrats are gerrymandering districts its only to protect or re-establish their footing in a certain area much like Republicans are doing or have done as well. None of it is right but this wouldn't happen if people just left voter rights alone and let things play out democratically.

    Imagine all of this nonsense continuing on because of false voter fraud allegations.
    Last edited by metswon69; 10-16-2021 at 03:00 PM.

  4. #1279
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    102,731
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Canít wait to see all the lefties defending gerrymandering. Donít let me down


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I literally posted this in another thread. I don't like the tactic at all. Not one bit. I support federal legislation to ban the practice. I am hoping that the Manchin bill to ban the practice outright...

    ...and here comes the but...

    There are absolutely no signs of Republicans stopping the practice. We are seeing almost all the population growth from states like Texas come from people who are brown or black and yet what did their state do? They gerrymandered their districts to almost universally increase the representation of white citizens. They in fact made sure to put two popular POC politicians in one district to force them to compete in the same primary.

    Long story short, fight fire with fire! Fight to bar the practice but take full advantage of what Republicans won't make illegal in the short term.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  5. #1280
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    https://twitter.com/lynnsweet/status...389787648?s=20

    Only republicans do this right? Iím sure weíll have a bunch of dems outraged at this?
    Those districts are ridiculous. We need to end gerrymandering, legislatures shouldnít have the ability to draw districts.

  6. #1281
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I literally posted this in another thread. I don't like the tactic at all. Not one bit. I support federal legislation to ban the practice. I am hoping that the Manchin bill to ban the practice outright...

    ...and here comes the but...

    There are absolutely no signs of Republicans stopping the practice. We are seeing almost all the population growth from states like Texas come from people who are brown or black and yet what did their state do? They gerrymandered their districts to almost universally increase the representation of white citizens. They in fact made sure to put two popular POC politicians in one district to force them to compete in the same primary.

    Long story short, fight fire with fire! Fight to bar the practice but take full advantage of what Republicans won't make illegal in the short term.
    In other words you think itís okay because the republicans are doing it. Lame


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #1282
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,891
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Those districts are ridiculous. We need to end gerrymandering, legislatures shouldnít have the ability to draw districts.
    Who should re-draw districts when elimination or addition of districts is required by census data?

  8. #1283
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,792
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Who should re-draw districts when elimination or addition of districts is required by census data?
    An independent commission. Or redraft the law to either lock districts in place or leave it up to a nonpartisan computer algorithm that creates equally sized districts by population regardless of other data points (such as political affiliation). Or award each party a set number of representatives based on the proportion of the electorate (I.e. if a state voted 57% Republican and 43% Democrat the state would dish out 6 representatives to Republicans and 4 to Democrats).

    Thereís definitely a way to do this without being so partisan or unfair.

  9. #1284
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,891
    That sounds like you are in favor of gerrymandering. What would stop the commission, when eliminating a congressional seat, from simply placing 2 representatives from the same party in a district so that party would lose one of the seats regardless of population maps?
    I agree that having districts that go around areas with high population density should be discouraged.

  10. #1285
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    102,731
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Those districts are ridiculous. We need to end gerrymandering, legislatures shouldnít have the ability to draw districts.
    I would love to see Manchinís bill get some traction. There are parts I donít like about it but it would be far preferable to the current system. We really need to get rid of these decertification efforts and audits on audits and other abuses that Republicans are lining up in states that they know they will lose.

  11. #1286
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,792
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    That sounds like you are in favor of gerrymandering. What would stop the commission, when eliminating a congressional seat, from simply placing 2 representatives from the same party in a district so that party would lose one of the seats regardless of population maps?
    I agree that having districts that go around areas with high population density should be discouraged.
    Sounds like you have no idea what Iím talking about. Whatís to stop the commission from doing as you say? The fact their are no -partisan? The fact that you could make that expressly against the rules?

    I donít know what you mean by your last sentence but the idea of the algorithm would be it was determine districts by equal populations, so a district could be 300 square miles and another 3 sq miles so long as they each have equal populations.

  12. #1287
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,891
    If they are 60-40 Democratic or Republican, the majority will win out and they will design the districts the way they want -- to the advantage of the party they represent.
    I have seen some great district distributions for large population states, but neither party would like them. They frequently pit 2 incumbents against each other in either primary or general elections and there are a few open seats.
    My point is to have a district that rings a large city (lets say Houston Texas) and have the city split up into other districts.

  13. #1288
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,792
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    If they are 60-40 Democratic or Republican, the majority will win out and they will design the districts the way they want -- to the advantage of the party they represent.
    I have seen some great district distributions for large population states, but neither party would like them. They frequently pit 2 incumbents against each other in either primary or general elections and there are a few open seats.
    My point is to have a district that rings a large city (lets say Houston Texas) and have the city split up into other districts.
    Thatís what happens now. A non-partisan commission wouldnít change their makeup based on the vote, thereíd always be an equal amount of Dís and Rís on the commissionÖ

    Or in the other idea I suggested, if the voting was 60-40 Democrat-Republican, the number of Representatives would be locked in at 6 to 4, so the side that got 60% couldnít then draw districts to where they get an 8-2 representative advantage.

  14. #1289
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,891
    A non-partisan commission would be a good idea. I misunderstood what you wrote. I apologize for that.

  15. #1290
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    102,731
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    A non-partisan commission would be a good idea. I misunderstood what you wrote. I apologize for that.
    Plenty of states do it and it works. I think they they should be required to use mathematical formulas that require the minimum surface area to avoid districts being so gerrymandered.

Page 86 of 97 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •