Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

essentialsaltes said:

There's nothing wrong with the numbers; it's your expectations about what minority parties should receive in a system based on 50%+1 voting.

Connecticut's boundaries haven't changed significantly in years. But as the state got bluer, Republicans shrank from a majority of districts to zero, using the same lines.

View attachment 369014

Click to expand...

Yes - the historical approach will show if a party is just less popular than they used to be, or if any boundaries changed. Good idea

Always in His Presence said:

Sure:

Click to expand...

Thanks. It makes it a whole lot easier to reply to and to read.

Always in His Presence said:

MA: 36% Republican, 0 seats

Click to expand...

Some one (it could be that gerrymandering site I linked yesterday) said they *tried* to create a GOP majority district and they couldn't. The GOP voters in Massachusetts weren't concentrated enough to make a Republican district.

Always in His Presence said:

CT: 42% Republican, 0 seats

Click to expand...

The movement of old GOP friendly district to the Dems was illustrated above.

Always in His Presence said:

ME: 46% Republican, 0 seats

Click to expand...

LOL. Maine actually has a GOP district (R+4) that Trump one the single EV from all three times. The residents would rather narrowly elect "moderate Dem" Jared Golden in each one of those.

Always in His Presence said:

NM: 46% Republican, 0 seats

Click to expand...

I believe this has also been discussed above. Cook Political Report rates the 3 districts as D+7, EVEN, and D+3. (Even means that the district is expected to vote in parallel with the overall D/R trend of the nation. That 2nd district should be quite winnable for the GOP.

Always in His Presence said:

NH: 48% Republican, 0 seats
RI: 42% Republican, 0 seats

Click to expand...

2 states with 2 members each.

Always in His Presence said:

VT: 32% Republican, 0 seats

Click to expand...

Vermont only has one seat. There is only one party that can hold it and at 32%, I hope you don't think you have a chance for it.

Always in His Presence said:

HI: 38% Republican, 0 seats

Click to expand...

Again just 2 seats. One is metro Honolulu, the other the rest of the state. Not sure how you find enough republicans to make a district.

Always in His Presence said:

DE: 42% Republican, 0 seats

Click to expand...

Also only one seat. There can not even be gerrymandering because there are no districts.

Always in His Presence said:

Also, as to some of the blue states that were benevolent enough to give us a smidgen:

CA: 38% Republican. only 9 of 52 seats (20.9%)
IL: 44% Republican. only 3 of 17 seats (17.6%)
NY: 43% Republican. only 7 of 26 seats (26.9%)
MD: 34% Republican. only 1 of 8 seats (12.5%)
NJ: v46% Republican. only 3 of 12 seats (25%)
OR: 41% Republican. only 1 of 6 seats (16.7%)

Each is an instance where the Democrats have a marked advantage and Republicans are under represented or not represented at all. I've never heard a Republican Representative walk out of their chambers in protest over it. But, boy howdy let the Democrats loose five seats in Texas and there is a holy conflagration.

Click to expand...

The web page I linked yesterday has lots of information about how to measure gerrymandering. Everyone agrees that Illinois is not only gerrymandered, but badly so. (As is North Carolina)

Always in His Presence said:

Sure:

MA: 36% Republican, 0 seats
CT: 42% Republican, 0 seats
ME: 46% Republican, 0 seats
....etc.....

Click to expand...

So? These statistics are meaningless without:-

1. COMPARISON
You must also show what the Democrat vote was. If the Democrat vote was SMALLER than the Republican vote, then you might have an issue. Kind of like how Hillary won 2.9 MILLION more votes than Trump - but still lost the election. What on earth?

2. HISTORY
Do you have any 'before and after' a map redraw? Otherwise what are we looking at? Your statistics are MEANINGLESS without any evidence of actual gerrymandering.

3. SYSTEMIC
Just as Hillary lost the 2016 election yet still got 2.9 MILLION more votes - there may be other systemic issues with different states in how their electoral systems work. Not EVERYTHING is gerrymandering - unless you're saying Donald's 2016 win was rigged?

Your 'data' does not demonstrate anything as it stands. You may even have a case. But you have not rationally proved anything until you can demonstrate how many states where the Democrats got LESS votes yet still won the majority of electorates - and with a before and after map redraw as well.

Otherwise - dare I spell this out? - you may just be facing the fact that the Republicans are not as popular in some states as the Democrats. I mean, democracy, right?

Always in His Presence said:

and Republicans are under represented or not represented at all. I've never heard a Republican Representative walk out of their chambers in protest over it. But, boy howdy let the Democrats loose five seats in Texas and there is a holy conflagration.

Click to expand...

INTENT
What is your intent here? To justify gerrymandering - but only when Republicans do it?

Also - the Democrats are not losing these electorates in a fair democratic election. These electorates are being STOLEN from them through the immoral practice of gerrymandering - where the politicians choose the voters they want - not the other way around.

I don't know how a democracy that is centuries older than Australia has not sorted this out yet with sea-to-shining-sea American Electoral Commissions independently, objectively, mathematically drawing up your electorates in a bipartisan manner - but "this is how America do!"

Australia has had our own issues with Gerrymandering at the state level. (The Federal Commission seems to have avoided that for most of our short history.) I'm no expert in it, but there was some bad Gerrymandering in Queensland until 1989 when they finally formed a more independent Electoral Commission. The maps were redistributed in 1991, ready for the 1992 election.

As we Federated in 1901 - that's 88 years into that State's history.
Western Australia had a few weighting issues until the 2000's - but again - that's 100 years.

How long have your States had to get this right?

Independent Electoral Commissions should be a constitutionally protected Department (Committee in USA?) that are independent of whatever party wants to cook the books that year. It's just one of the foundations of a modern democracy!

Gavin Newsom is right to redistribute California if the Republican party are going to cheat in Texas. Given you guys haven't got your democratic foundations set up yet, it's only fair!

Hans Blaster said:

Thanks. It makes it a whole lot easier to reply to and to read.

Some one (it could be that gerrymandering site I linked yesterday) said they *tried* to create a GOP majority district and they couldn't. The GOP voters in Massachusetts weren't concentrated enough to make a Republican district.

The movement of old GOP friendly district to the Dems was illustrated above.

LOL. Maine actually has a GOP district (R+4) that Trump one the single EV from all three times. The residents would rather narrowly elect "moderate Dem" Jared Golden in each one of those.

I believe this has also been discussed above. Cook Political Report rates the 3 districts as D+7, EVEN, and D+3. (Even means that the district is expected to vote in parallel with the overall D/R trend of the nation. That 2nd district should be quite winnable for the GOP.


2 states with 2 members each.

Vermont only has one seat. There is only one party that can hold it and at 32%, I hope you don't think you have a chance for it.

Again just 2 seats. One is metro Honolulu, the other the rest of the state. Not sure how you find enough republicans to make a district.

Also only one seat. There can not even be gerrymandering because there are no districts.

The web page I linked yesterday has lots of information about how to measure gerrymandering. Everyone agrees that Illinois is not only gerrymandered, but badly so. (As is North Carolina)

Click to expand...

Thank you for that. It puts it into numerical context for us.

But he still has to address these 3 issues as well - to make any assertions about the rather bland data he's attempting to cry conspiracy about.

Always in His Presence said:

WOW! you went from not know what we were talking about to and expert in less than a day - amazing.

Click to expand...

FIRST - that's your problem - not mine. I knew you were talking about the Californian state system and was just comparing how the different systems in Australia work. Go back and read my post! I was comparing big picture vote counting systems, not mistaking California for a Federal system. If you can't follow the basic argument, that's your comprehension issues, not mine. (Unless I made a typo in a previous post? I have had a lot of insomnia lately.)

Back to your meaningless numbers! I could copy and paste a bunch of numbers in here and what would it mean?
Your numbers are bland and meaningless until you can put them into context.

If you cannot answer the following, maybe you need to concede that it IS fair that Gavin redraws California in an effort to save America from Project 2025?

Remember to ask yourself this one question before you cheer on Republicans warping your democracy even further away from its roots.
One question! It's so important, I'll make it bigger.

"Would I be happy with the OTHER team having these powers?"​

Do you want a Constitutional Democracy - or do you want to go back to Monarchy?

1. COMPARISON
You must also show what the Democrat vote was. If the Democrat vote was SMALLER than the Republican vote, then you might have an issue. Kind of like how Hillary won 2.9 MILLION more votes than Trump - but still lost the election. What on earth?

2. HISTORY
Do you have any 'before and after' a map redraw? Otherwise what are we looking at? Your statistics are MEANINGLESS without any evidence of actual gerrymandering.

3. SYSTEMIC
Just as Hillary lost the 2016 election yet still got 2.9 MILLION more votes - there may be other systemic issues with different states in how their electoral systems work. Not EVERYTHING is gerrymandering - unless you're saying Donald's 2016 win was rigged?
Your 'data' does not demonstrate anything as it stands. You may even have a case. But you have not rationally proved anything until you can demonstrate how many states where the Democrats got LESS votes yet still won the majority of electorates - and with a before and after map redraw as well.

wing2000 said:

To be exact with the president's quote: "We are entitled to five more seats."

Click to expand...

With NPD - isn't he entitled to everything?

Always in His Presence said:

The Governor want to remove that power from the voters and place it under his authority - a direct move against the Democratic Process.

Click to expand...

Republican response? "Whaaaa! Newsome is doing what we are doing!!! NO FAIR!!!! WHAAAAA!!!!"

The Barbarian said:

Republican response? "Whaaaa! Newsome is doing what we are doing!!! NO FAIR!!!! WHAAAAA!!!!"

Click to expand...

Love it.

But of course - there should be constitutionally prescribed powers delegated to an objective, mathematically driven electoral body that CANNOT be stacked or tinkered with. It's one of the basic foundations to a modern democracy. Australia pretty much had this at a Federal level since we Federated Jan 1, 1901. Our states took a while longer to work it out, the two last ones sorting it about a third of a century ago and a few decades ago.

Australia as a nation is only 124 years old.

How has America not sorted this out yet?

How on earth are you guys debating GERRYMANDERING still?

Always in His Presence said:

NO - it is called being under represented Statewide or in some cases having no representation at all.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry the pictures can't help you understand realirt better.

Always in His Presence said:

I’m sorry common sense evades your reality

Click to expand...

I'm sorry your numbers are meaningless until you can give them some context and answer some questions.

Always in His Presence said:

I’m sorry common sense evades your reality

Click to expand...

I'm sorry your numbers are meaningless until you can give them some context and answer some questions.

Hans Blaster said:

Thanks. It makes it a whole lot easier to reply to and to read.

Some one (it could be that gerrymandering site I linked yesterday) said they *tried* to create a GOP majority district and they couldn't. The GOP voters in Massachusetts weren't concentrated enough to make a Republican district.

The movement of old GOP friendly district to the Dems was illustrated above.

LOL. Maine actually has a GOP district (R+4) that Trump one the single EV from all three times. The residents would rather narrowly elect "moderate Dem" Jared Golden in each one of those.

I believe this has also been discussed above. Cook Political Report rates the 3 districts as D+7, EVEN, and D+3. (Even means that the district is expected to vote in parallel with the overall D/R trend of the nation. That 2nd district should be quite winnable for the GOP.


2 states with 2 members each.

Vermont only has one seat. There is only one party that can hold it and at 32%, I hope you don't think you have a chance for it.

Again just 2 seats. One is metro Honolulu, the other the rest of the state. Not sure how you find enough republicans to make a district.

Also only one seat. There can not even be gerrymandering because there are no districts.

The web page I linked yesterday has lots of information about how to measure gerrymandering. Everyone agrees that Illinois is not only gerrymandered, but badly so. (As is North Carolina)

Click to expand...

Wow.
Not only is that a rebuttal...that's a kneecapping of an argument.

Always in His Presence said:

Feel free to stop trying - your view of America from 16,000 miles away is IMHO very skewed and based on your blog status.

Click to expand...

There's this wonderful new technology called TV - then this even newer one called the internet. We're all connected now - and in other very real ways.

EG: If Trump's NPD causes a nuclear war - that could ruin my whole day.

BLOG
I'm not sure what you mean that my view is "very skewed and based on your blog status" - if you disagree with the general climate emergency that my blog is mainly about - then that's your problem with science, not mine.

DATA CHANGES MINDS

Here's the thing. If you had good arguments, as in really good arguments - you would change my mind. How do I know? Because conversations like these have changed my mind repeatedly. On major topics!

ANTI-NUCLEAR TO PRO NUCLEAR

EG: 21 years ago I became aware of a growing number of professional geologists going on about 'peak oil'. At the time, EV's were uber-expensive toys for the rich, and things looked grim. I hated nuclear, but after long discussions with Eco-Modernists I started to realise I had just grown up in an anti-nuclear culture - and a lot of my fears about nuclear power were totally ignorant. I switched, and for 15 years there was a nuclear activist.

THEN BACK AGAIN

THEN I finally had to admit the whole energy landscape had changed! In the 21 years of my energy activism - the learning rates for renewables had kicked in and crashed the price of EV batteries and wind and solar to just 10% of what they had been back during my environmental awakening.

DATA WINS

All from conversations like this - with people who had more expertise and data than I had. So what do you reckon? Got anything like that to share? Can you give your stats meaning - because right now BLASTER has blasted them to smithereens.

Always in His Presence said:

Yup - the state is 40% Republican in voting who have a 7% representation and they think that is a fair representation.

Click to expand...

No actually they think 40% Republicans ought to have a fair representation of 2%. Now thats fair representation.