SCVA - "Not so fast."

[Andrea B]

Now do New England.

[jon-nyc]

Massachusetts and Rhode Island wouldn’t have a gop house seat unless you specifically gerrymandered it to create one. Probably Rhode Island too. The gop votes are too dispersed. Vermont has one at-large seat so no gerrymandering is possible there.

Maine could probably support one with naturally drawn districts. NH has two districts and the state does swing. CT I’m not really sure.

[Mik]

Lots of current attention to a decades old issue. I do agree that race should not be a deciding factor in districting. But that too can be taken too far.

[Andrea B]

@jon-nyc said:

Massachusetts and Rhode Island wouldn’t have a gop house seat unless you specifically gerrymandered it to create one. Probably Rhode Island too. The gop votes are too dispersed.

Maine could probably support one with naturally drawn districts. NH has two districts and the state does swing. CT I’m not really sure.

Fair points, but the whole "Muh Democraceeee!" fails in any apportionment which doesn't reflect the proportion of Dem vs GOP voters. When the GOP has 40% of the electorate in Massachusetts and 0% of the representation, all you're doing is making the case FOR gerrymandering.

[Axtremus]

@Andrea-B said:

Fair points, but the whole "Muh Democraceeee!" fails in any apportionment which doesn't reflect the proportion of Dem vs GOP voters. When the GOP has 40% of the electorate in Massachusetts and 0% of the representation, ...

Independents make up 45% of US voters (Gallup, 2026 January). Yet you don't see anywhere near that proportion of independent legislators in Congress.

Go ahead and make the argument for gerrymandering to get more independents into Congress.

[taiwan_girl]

@Mik said:

I do agree that race should not be a deciding factor in districting. But that too can be taken too far.

I mentioned before, but for me, it really isn't race, but politics. The democrats want to have areas with more black people because they think that they will vote democrat. The republics at least say straight up that they are changing the areas to get more votes for their side.

If the democrats "framed" it that way, maybe the court would have allowed it. "We are changing the areas to get more votes for our side, and it just so happens that it means there are more black people in this particular voting area."

[Mik]

Of course it's politics, but that doesn't mean race is not a deciding factor for that particular side. There are few governmental processes more prone to chicanery than drawing districts.

[LuFins Dad]

The Virginia thing was legally dead in the water before it began. It wasn’t a redistricting. It was an attempt to amend the constitution for 4 years, then go back to the previous version. I trust you guys see the problems inherent?

[Andrea B]

No shame.

None.

[taiwan_girl]

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/12/south-carolina-redistricting-vote-fails-00917584

The South Carolina Senate just made it harder for the state to redraw its congressional map, resisting pressure from President Donald Trump.
Lawmakers on Tuesday failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to approve a measure that would have allowed them to take up a vote on redistricting even after the legislative session ends later this week. Five Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against the proposal.

Republican Gov. Henry McMaster could still call a special session, though his office has so far dismissed that idea.

[jon-nyc]

I wonder how much of that is out of respect for Jim Clyburn.