TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”

[rjs330]

No. They pretty much just started doing what the republicans do. And it was the republicans who started screaming about it.


Gov. Abbott of Texas had a conniption over it. All that work he did to disenfranchise democrats, all for nothing.

What scares them, is a level playing field. For good reason.

There never has been a level playing field. Both sides do it and both sides complain about the other side doing it.

Abbott whined, iver Democrats and Democrats whined over Abbott. Tit for tat. I'm done with this whole dumb conversation. Its nothing but a bunch of partisan hypocrisy.

 

[rjs330]

Thats absurd. As much as Im an environmentalist, its people who need representation in congress. Not grass and ants. No people are entitled to more powerful representation than others just because of where they live

Well of course it would have to include people otherwise who would vote to the candidates? Hey look i didnt say my idea was perfect. It would need some tweeks somehow, but it would stop gerry mandering and make things more even. Maybe something along the lines of a gride and the grids would have to have so many people per square mile based on total population. Just brain storming. Some portions of the grid would be bigger while others would be smaller. If you have 20 representatives then you get 20 grids. And each of those grids have to have the same amount of people in them. Squares or rectangles. Like an excel spread sheet.

 

[rjs330]

The key is that each group should have representation proportional to their proportion of the population.

That supports gerrymandering.

 

[The Barbarian]

The key is that each group should have representation proportional to their proportion of the population.

That supports gerrymandering.

No. It's precisely opposed to Gerrymandering. The point of Gerrymandering is to give specific groups more representation than their share of the population.

 

[JSRG]

The key is that each group should have representation proportional to their proportion of the population.

I don't quite agree on that, because that's not what a district-based system is supposed to accomplish. The goal of a district-based system is that each district has their own representative to represent the specific interests and desires of that district. If a state is uniformly 51% Democrat and 49% Republican, the result of this, even if you don't do any gerrymandering at all, will be that Democrats will win 100% of the seats despite winning 51% of the votes.

If someone wants proportional representation, then go with proportional representation where everyone votes for their preferred party and then that party gets that percentage of the seats. (not many countries have fully proportional representation though, more commonly they have a mix of districts and proportional representation) I think proportional representation would be good to have, although I would still want some of them to be elected by districts because I think some representatives should have a real tie to particular areas--this might require an increase in the size of the House of Representatives, but whatever, the US has one of the largest disparities in the world when it comes to size of population versus size of legislature; there's little reason it can't double its size.

This is not to say, of course, that the goal of gerrymandering is to make it less representative of population proportion, but a district based system is not supposed to nor should it inherently provide "proportional" representation. This idea also has the problematic effect of reducing all races to Republican vs. Democrat despite the fact that the candidates themselves do play a real role in the issue (this is one issue with proportional representation: The fact it turns it into only the political party mattering rather than the actual candidates, though again this is mitigated by a mixture of proportional and districts, which I think the United States would be smart to adopt)

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't quite agree on that, because that's not what a district-based system is supposed to accomplish. The goal of a district-based system is that each district has their own representative to represent the specific interests and desires of that district.

Which is why there is Gerrymandering. If politicians can carefully draw districts to break up specific groups so that they never get a representative they want, then the system is corrupt.

 

[A2SG]

As I've said twice now, the analogy is inane. It has no real point.

And yet, it did. Apparently you missed it, and continue to.

-- A2SG, oh well, I tried....

 

[durangodawood]

Well of course it would have to include people otherwise who would vote to the candidates? Hey look i didnt say my idea was perfect. It would need some tweeks somehow, but it would stop gerry mandering and make things more even. Maybe something along the lines of a gride and the grids would have to have so many people per square mile based on total population. Just brain storming. Some portions of the grid would be bigger while others would be smaller. If you have 20 representatives then you get 20 grids. And each of those grids have to have the same amount of people in them. Squares or rectangles. Like an excel spread sheet.

Ah I see. I had thought you were suggesting giving each representative equal square miles regardless of population.

There's a lot to consider in devising fair and meaningful districts, I think. Squares seem to divide communities or regions completely arbitrarily. I'd want to see how the current non partisan commissions do it in places like, recently, CA. before concocting my own notions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

‘Utterly foolish’: Redistricting roadblocks leave Republicans wary of White House push​

“The whole thing is just utterly foolish,” said Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), who is pushing a bill to end mid-cycle redistricting after his seat was redrawn to favor Democrats. “Frankly, the [House] speaker needed to show more leadership from the beginning on this.”

[Glad to see Kiley's listening to the voters of our great state. Not exactly what we said, but it's a move in the right direction.]

“I was never in favor of doing all this redistricting stuff anyway,” said Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.). “Should not have opened that box.”

California-based Republican strategist Rob Stutzman predicted the effort will end as “a possible debacle” if the Texas ruling holds.

“This will have been a ready, shoot, aim exercise by Trump,” he said.

Kiley said Republicans’ assumption they could end the redistricting battle with an advantage was a miscalculation.

“It was very clear that it was going to have this domino effect, and that's exactly what we're seeing,” he said.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm thinking that Trump was supposing that the democrats would never stoop so low as to Gerrymander states they controlled.

It's a truism that grifters are themselves quite gullible.

 

[JSRG]

I'm thinking that Trump was supposing that the democrats would never stoop so low as to Gerrymander states they controlled.

It's a truism that grifters are themselves quite gullible.

I may not have the highest opinion of Trump's intelligence, but I expect he's aware that Democrats can and will gerrymander, given that plenty of Democratic-controlled states have done so. For just one example, take Illinois's notorious congressional district map (source):

More plausibly, he (or whoever was the one who suggested it to him) thought that the Democrats had already gerrymandered so much in their states that they really couldn't gerrymander harder enough to make up for the gains the Republicans hope they'd with their Texas gerrymander, but overlooked the way California could increase it, or thought it unlikely that its citizenry would embrace gerrymandering so much as to actually deliberately vote for it.

 

[The Barbarian]

I may not have the highest opinion of Trump's intelligence, but I expect he's aware that Democrats can and will gerrymander, given that plenty of Democratic-controlled states have done so. For just one example, take Illinois's notorious congressional district map (source):

I'm thinking that as corruption goes, Texas has nothing on Illinois. But the real question is whether or not there are more potential seats to be gained from blue states than red states by Gerrymandering. California's case suggests that there are.

 

[Belk]

1) I don't go to bars.



Sounds like a real problem for hypothetical guy. He really should deal with himself.



I kinda feel sorry for hypothetical guy as you describe him. What an empty, broken life, just beating up random people.



Or, I could just go somewhere else, since apparently the owners don't care enough to stop hypothetical guy from smacking their other customers around for no apparent reason.



Oh boy! Adulation and praise from a bunch of drunks! (2) I don't drink beer). And now I kind of feel sorry for hypothetical guy number two that craves acceptance from random drunks in a bar.



Why on earth would I care what a bunch of drunks think about me?



I already told you, I'll just go somewhere else where hypothetical guy that beats me up for no reason isn't allowed.



Not obscure. Inane.

a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/


noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

1. a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
   • a correspondence or partial similarity.
     "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
   • a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
     "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
   • Logic
     a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
     "argument from analogy"
     

 

[probinson]

a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/


noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

1. a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy betweenthe workings of nature and those of human societies"
   • a correspondence or partial similarity.
     "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
   • a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
     "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
   • Logic
     a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
     "argument from analogy"

I know what an analogy is. I also know what a false analogy is. Perhaps you should Google that as well. Here, I'll get you started:

Noun​

false analogy (plural false analogies)

1. (logic) An informal fallacy applying to inductive arguments, in which the similarity in one respect of two concepts, objects, or events is taken as sufficient to establish that they are similar in another respect in which they actually are dissimilar.

 

[Belk]

I know what an analogy is. I also know what a false analogy is. Perhaps you should Google that as well. Here, I'll get you started:

Noun​

false analogy (plural false analogies)

1. (logic) An informal fallacy applying to inductive arguments, in which the similarity in one respect of two concepts, objects, or events is taken as sufficient to establish that they are similar in another respect in which they actually are dissimilar.

Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I may not have the highest opinion of Trump's intelligence, but I expect he's aware that Democrats can and will gerrymander, given that plenty of Democratic-controlled states have done so. For just one example, take Illinois's notorious congressional district map (source):
View attachment 373978

More plausibly, he (or whoever was the one who suggested it to him) thought that the Democrats had already gerrymandered so much in their states that they really couldn't gerrymander harder enough to make up for the gains the Republicans hope they'd with their Texas gerrymander, but overlooked the way California could increase it, or thought it unlikely that its citizenry would embrace gerrymandering so much as to actually deliberately vote for it.

Ooh ooh, can I play?

Check out our last couple iterations:
(2003-2013)

(2013-2023):

They've since been made normal, but it was pretty wild for a while.

 

[probinson]

Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

And I'm rubber and you're glue.

I'm so glad we could elevate the level of discussion in this thread.

 

[camille70]

Supreme Court lets Texas keep new congressional map while legal battle continues

The ruling is a major win for the Trump administration and Texas Republicans, who engineered the map to give the GOP control of 30 of the state’s 38 congressional districts.

Supreme Court orders Texas to use 2025 map amid legal battle

The ruling is a major win for the Trump administration and Texas Republicans, who engineered the map to give the GOP control of 30 of the state’s 38 congressional districts.

www.texastribune.org

Texas can use its new, GOP friendly congressional map while a legal challenge plays out, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, temporarily pausing a lower court ruling that had blocked the map from going into effect.

With the Dec. 8 candidate filing deadline fast approaching, the high court’s decision likely means Texas’ new map will be used for the 2026 midterm elections.

Justice Samuel Alito ruled that it was “indisputable” that Texas’ motivation for redistricting was “pure and simple” partisan advantage, which the court has previously ruled is permissible. A federal judge had previously ruled that the state likely engaged in racial gerrymandering, a claim Alito rejected. The three liberal justices dissented.


The ruling is a major win for Republicans in Texas and nationally. President Donald Trump had pushed Texas to redraw its map over the summer, hoping to secure five additional GOP seats to shore up the party’s narrow majority in the U.S. House through the midterms.