SCVA - "Not so fast."
-
I heard that TN has a 7 R to 0 D map they are looking to instate.
IL supposedly has a 17-0 D vs R map they have as a possibility.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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."
-
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?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login