fc2112 said:

---

There is nothing illegal about gerrymandering. Everyone throws the term around like it's a mortal sin, but it isn't.

---

Elections have consequences.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

twk said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Gerrymandering is as old as the republic but that does not mean it is a sustainable path forward. Voting directly for parties like parliamentary systems do, instead of being segmented by house district, would be more representative. At this point though I would put greater odds on the end of the republic than for responsible actors in each party to reassert control.

---

Everyone hates gerrymandering, but nobody has a better alternative. As mentioned before: there are myriad interests beyond red v blue. And if you vote purely for the party you lose even the tenuous connection you have with your representative as well as any ability to primary an turd.

---

Except that pretty much every other country in the world that has legislative elections does have a better alternative. And if you're worried about party-list systems breaking your connection to a specific representative, that's an already-solved problem too:

• Open list systems allow a voter to vote for a specific candidate within their chosen party.
• Mixed-member proportional representation, as in Germany, combines district representatives with party-list representatives.
• Single transferable vote uses ranked ballots, and doesn't require parties to exist at all.
• Or, if you insist on single-member districts, those can be drawn by a non-partisan commission or by an algorithmic method (e.g., shortest splitline).

You're being willfully ignorant here.

---

No, he is simply not caught up in your oikophoboc fantasy. Removing direct election of representatives is just reinforcing the deep state, where you can vote however you like, but things never change.

---

It's not oikophobic (yes, I admit I had to look up the definition) to point out when your country does a dumb thing.

Are you one of those people who thinks that car-dependent suburbia is wonderful, and that it's "communist" to want restaurants to pay their waiters like other employees instead of demanding tips?

---

Every single American oikophobe advocates greater urban density and eliminating tipped wages. Agreeing with the oikophobes on only two issues wouldn't make you one, necessarily, but you might not want to keep running down the list.

t - cam said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

This whole 'gerrymandering is wrong' lecture by Dems is like being chastised by some hollywood **** like DiCaprio or some Kardashian etc. about the importance of pre-marital chastity.

This is a real Democrat “district” in Texas. This is what a stolen house seat actually looks like. pic.twitter.com/th5n0JZrKf

— Jessica 🇺🇸 (@RealJessica05) August 4, 2025

---

That district was established in 2010. Democrats haven't been in position to control the Redistricting in that time. I'd have to imagine any zoning in that time frame would have been supported by a republicans led house.

This was drawn by a republican house to isolate a lot of dems in one area. It's actually an example of stealing other seats.

---

More often than not, in the last 25 years, we've been holding elections under maps drawn by judges. Now, theoretically, judge drawn maps shouldn't be partisan, but in practice, we all know that's not the case. Particularly when the basis for redrawing those maps has been Article 2 of the Voting Rights Act and claims that maps drawn by Republicans did not sufficiently protect minority (D) representation. That's why it will be big deal if the Supreme Court rules that this provision of the VRA is not consistent with the 14th Amendment in the case they are going to hear next Fall. If that happens, there will be a lot less justification for constant redrawing of lines, but let's not pretend that judicially ordered maps are neutral.

t - cam said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Doing it randomly without any new census data is the main issue. Yes gerrymandering is part of the process but only Texas has done this on its own out of cycle as far as I can tell.

I think everyone probably would agree that gerrymandering as a practice intentionally limits the voice of the citizens it's supposed to support.

It's all dumb though and a part of why politics in America suck so bad. I don't believe any of them give a rats ass what the voting public care about. They just align on hot button topic to fire us all up.

---

New York changed its map in 2024...

Ag with kids said:

---

t - cam said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Doing it randomly without any new census data is the main issue. Yes gerrymandering is part of the process but only Texas has done this on its own out of cycle as far as I can tell.

I think everyone probably would agree that gerrymandering as a practice intentionally limits the voice of the citizens it's supposed to support.

It's all dumb though and a part of why politics in America suck so bad. I don't believe any of them give a rats ass what the voting public care about. They just align on hot button topic to fire us all up.

---

New York changed its map in 2024...

---

It was part of a redistricting process that began after the 2020 census. It took them that long to get a map that withstood court challenges. But don't feel bad, you're not the only one that didn't have all the facts about the why.

Ag with kids said:

---

t - cam said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Doing it randomly without any new census data is the main issue. Yes gerrymandering is part of the process but only Texas has done this on its own out of cycle as far as I can tell.

I think everyone probably would agree that gerrymandering as a practice intentionally limits the voice of the citizens it's supposed to support.

It's all dumb though and a part of why politics in America suck so bad. I don't believe any of them give a rats ass what the voting public care about. They just align on hot button topic to fire us all up.

---

New York changed its map in 2024...

---

North Carolina 2016
Florida 2016
Virginia 2016

Urban Ag said:

---

We need to gerrymander the ever living **** out of this state and so should every other red state.

It's what the dems do. Play their game. Play it harder.

Set the left back decades. The time is now.

---

Yep.

I didn't even realize how bad MA did it.

Trump lost 36-61.

MA House Representatives?

100% D - 0% R (10-0)

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

twk said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Gerrymandering is as old as the republic but that does not mean it is a sustainable path forward. Voting directly for parties like parliamentary systems do, instead of being segmented by house district, would be more representative. At this point though I would put greater odds on the end of the republic than for responsible actors in each party to reassert control.

---

Everyone hates gerrymandering, but nobody has a better alternative. As mentioned before: there are myriad interests beyond red v blue. And if you vote purely for the party you lose even the tenuous connection you have with your representative as well as any ability to primary an turd.

---

Except that pretty much every other country in the world that has legislative elections does have a better alternative. And if you're worried about party-list systems breaking your connection to a specific representative, that's an already-solved problem too:

• Open list systems allow a voter to vote for a specific candidate within their chosen party.
• Mixed-member proportional representation, as in Germany, combines district representatives with party-list representatives.
• Single transferable vote uses ranked ballots, and doesn't require parties to exist at all.
• Or, if you insist on single-member districts, those can be drawn by a non-partisan commission or by an algorithmic method (e.g., shortest splitline).

You're being willfully ignorant here.

---

No, he is simply not caught up in your oikophoboc fantasy. Removing direct election of representatives is just reinforcing the deep state, where you can vote however you like, but things never change.

---

It's not oikophobic (yes, I admit I had to look up the definition) to point out when your country does a dumb thing.

Are you one of those people who thinks that car-dependent suburbia is wonderful, and that it's "communist" to want restaurants to pay their waiters like other employees instead of demanding tips?

---

Are you one of those people that think public transportation-dependent urban living is wonderful as opposed to the car-dependent suburbia?

Illinois has 17 with 14 Democrats (82%)

2024 election - Harris carried the state 54/43
2020 Election - Biden carries the state 58/41
2016 Election - Clinton carries the state 55/38
2012 Election - Obama carries the state 58/41
2008 Election - Obama carries the state 62/37

Even in the best year when a home grown boy is running, the Dems are 20% over represented

You win by winning.

Are we still acting like Red v. Blue are just two sides of the same nation with slight disagreements? Each side is an existential threat to the other and it should be treated that way.

Ag with kids said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

We need to gerrymander the ever living **** out of this state and so should every other red state.

It's what the dems do. Play their game. Play it harder.

Set the left back decades. The time is now.

---

Yep.

I didn't even realize how bad MA did it.

Trump lost 36-61.

MA House Representatives?

100% D - 0% R (10-0)

---

How can it be that bad? Has anyone offered an explanation? I just know there every time a red state attempts to redraw maps, it seems the lib judges get involved and nix it. So how is it that MA can be that lopsided?

gbaby23 said:

---

You win by winning.

Are we still acting like Red v. Blue are just two sides of the same nation with slight disagreements? Each side is an existential threat to the other and it should be treated that way.

---

Agree. Redraw them and screw the left!

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

t - cam said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Doing it randomly without any new census data is the main issue. Yes gerrymandering is part of the process but only Texas has done this on its own out of cycle as far as I can tell.

I think everyone probably would agree that gerrymandering as a practice intentionally limits the voice of the citizens it's supposed to support.

It's all dumb though and a part of why politics in America suck so bad. I don't believe any of them give a rats ass what the voting public care about. They just align on hot button topic to fire us all up.

---

New York changed its map in 2024...

---

It was part of a redistricting process that began after the 2020 census. It took them that long to get a map that withstood court challenges. But don't feel bad, you're not the only one that didn't have all the facts about the why.

---

Why didn't their first map survive court challenges?

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

t - cam said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Doing it randomly without any new census data is the main issue. Yes gerrymandering is part of the process but only Texas has done this on its own out of cycle as far as I can tell.

I think everyone probably would agree that gerrymandering as a practice intentionally limits the voice of the citizens it's supposed to support.

It's all dumb though and a part of why politics in America suck so bad. I don't believe any of them give a rats ass what the voting public care about. They just align on hot button topic to fire us all up.

---

New York changed its map in 2024...

---

It was part of a redistricting process that began after the 2020 census. It took them that long to get a map that withstood court challenges. But don't feel bad, you're not the only one that didn't have all the facts about the why.

---

It got challenged for being too politically driven and having a disparate impact to minimize the votes of so many dissidents in NY.

Likewise, Texas' map (part of 16 states) was hampered in the early 2000's because we still had to get 'pre-clearance' as part of a consent decree with the DoJ via a federal court that enough racist affirmative action districts were included, so folks like Eric Holder, bigot/gun runner, had real supervisory/veto power. I think that went away (thanks to Paxton, fwiw) in 2019.

fc2112 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

t - cam said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Doing it randomly without any new census data is the main issue. Yes gerrymandering is part of the process but only Texas has done this on its own out of cycle as far as I can tell.

I think everyone probably would agree that gerrymandering as a practice intentionally limits the voice of the citizens it's supposed to support.

It's all dumb though and a part of why politics in America suck so bad. I don't believe any of them give a rats ass what the voting public care about. They just align on hot button topic to fire us all up.

---

New York changed its map in 2024...

---

North Carolina 2016
Florida 2016
Virginia 2016

---

North Carolina 2016 - Court struck down the new map and it had to be redrawn.

Quote:

---

In the 2010 cycle, North Carolina's legislature passed a congressional plan (SB 453), state Senate plan (SB 455), and state House plan (HB 937) on July 27, 2011, which were precleared on Nov. 1, 2011. The congressional plans were struck down by a federal court on Feb. 5, 2016; a remedial congressional plan (SB 2) was used in the 2016 and 2018 elections, but struck down in state court as a partisan gerrymander on Oct. 28, 2019. The legislature drew another remedial congressional plan (H 1029) on Nov. 15, 2019.

---

https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/north-carolina/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2023-10-25

Florida 2016 - Court struck down the new map and it had to be redrawn.

Quote:

---

In the 2010 cycle, Florida's legislature passed congressional maps (SB 1174) on Feb. 9, 2012, which were struck down on July 10, 2014 (2014 elections were held under the existing 2012 map). The legislature passed remedial maps (SB 2-A) on Aug. 11, 2014; on July 9, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court held that substantially more portions of the 2012 map were invalid. After the legislature failed to agree on a subsequent remedial plan, the Florida Supreme Court on Dec. 2, 2015 approved a remedial map drawn by the courts.

---

https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/florida/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2022-04-22

Virginia 2016 - Court struck down the new map and it had to be redrawn.

Quote:

---

In the 2010 cycle, the state legislature deadlocked on a congressional plan in 2011; after the 2011 elections, with unilateral Republican control, the state legislature passed HB 251 on Jan. 20, 2012, which was signed by the Governor on Jan. 25, 2012, and precleared on Mar. 14, 2012. The plan was struck down on Oct. 7, 2014, based on an unjustified predominant use of race; on Jan. 7, 2016, the federal court drew a remedial plan itself.

---

https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/virginia/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2021-12-28

See a pattern here?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not oikophobic (yes, I admit I had to look up the definition) to point out when your country does a dumb thing.

Are you one of those people who thinks that car-dependent suburbia is wonderful, and that it's "communist" to want restaurants to pay their waiters like other employees instead of demanding tips?

---

Are you one of those people that think public transportation-dependent urban living is wonderful as opposed to the car-dependent suburbia?

---

I'd rather be able to just walk to most places I need to go. As I did when I was a college undergrad.

And now that my mother has health issues that increasingly make it more difficult for her to drive -- thank God that she happens to live within a few blocks of a major commercial street, where she can (and regularly does) walk to the nearby Dollar General to buy essentials.

The only advantage I see in suburbia is getting away from certain urban demographics.

But this is getting off-topic.

Sounds complicated . We need simple. The more complicated it gets the more subject to corruption it'll be. Jmo.

fc2112 said:

---

Illinois has 17 with 14 Democrats (82%)

2024 election - Harris carried the state 54/43
2020 Election - Biden carries the state 58/41
2016 Election - Clinton carries the state 55/38
2012 Election - Obama carries the state 58/41
2008 Election - Obama carries the state 62/37

Even in the best year when a home grown boy is running, the Dems are 20% over represented

---

The trendline in Illinois is going to turn it into the next Ohio.

I have looked at precinct data from the Chicago area during the 2024 election...... there are several precincts in Cook County that went GOP for the first time EVER - including the neighborhood Tim Pool grew up in.

I know it seems impossible.... but the GOP is on track to flip the state if they keep up the populist message.

unimboti nkum said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

There is nothing illegal about gerrymandering. Everyone throws the term around like it's a mortal sin, but it isn't.

---

Exactly. It's great when my team does it, terrible when theirs do

---

I once read a suggestion that if you want to stop gerrymandering you institute a requirement dictating a maximum perimeter to area ratio. That way you don't end up with districts that look like spiders, barbells and other weird geometric shapes

Burdizzo said:

---

unimboti nkum said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

There is nothing illegal about gerrymandering. Everyone throws the term around like it's a mortal sin, but it isn't.

---

Exactly. It's great when my team does it, terrible when theirs do

---

I once read a suggestion that if you want to stop gerrymandering you institute a requirement dictating a maximum perimeter to area ratio. That way you don't end up with districts that look like spiders, barbells and other weird geometric shapes

---

Yeah, each should have a center point and expand outward till you have the necessary population to occupy a seat. You'd have to finagle some but would actually represent a region that makes sense to the people that live there. As a Collin county resident it doesn't make sense for my representative to also represent Longview which I think is part of the new proposal.

It does make sense if you want to optimize the number of representatives from your party .

For those that say this shouldn't be partisan . It absolutely is 100% partisan by its very nature .

Burdizzo said:

---

unimboti nkum said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

There is nothing illegal about gerrymandering. Everyone throws the term around like it's a mortal sin, but it isn't.

---

Exactly. It's great when my team does it, terrible when theirs do

---

I once read a suggestion that if you want to stop gerrymandering you institute a requirement dictating a maximum perimeter to area ratio. That way you don't end up with districts that look like spiders, barbells and other weird geometric shapes

---

Technically, it should be perimeter divided by the square root of area, to create a dimensionless number.

For a circle, this ratio is 2*sqrt(pi) = 3.5449. For a square, it's 4. For an equilateral triangle, it's 4*sqrt(3) = 6.9282.

So, I think a reasonable limit would be somewhere around 8.

Of course, you'd have to define "perimeter" in a way that avoids the coastline paradox.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

unimboti nkum said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

There is nothing illegal about gerrymandering. Everyone throws the term around like it's a mortal sin, but it isn't.

---

Exactly. It's great when my team does it, terrible when theirs do

---

I once read a suggestion that if you want to stop gerrymandering you institute a requirement dictating a maximum perimeter to area ratio. That way you don't end up with districts that look like spiders, barbells and other weird geometric shapes

---

Technically, it should be perimeter divided by the square root of area, to create a dimensionless number.

For a circle, this ratio is 2*sqrt(pi) = 3.5449. For a square, it's 4. For an equilateral triangle, it's 4*sqrt(3) = 6.9282.

So, I think a reasonable limit would be somewhere around 8.

Of course, you'd have to define "perimeter" in a way that avoids the coastline paradox.

---

The mechanics aren't that difficult. The challenge is getting both sides to agree to it.

Quote:

---

In Illinois in 2024 the Presidential race was 55-45 to Dems yet they hold a 13-4 lead in congressional seats.

---

California went 62-38 for Harris in 2024.

California has 40 state senators & representatives - 75% of them are Democrats.

Wait. It gets better.

California has 52 congressional representatives - 43 of which (nearly 83% !) are Democrats.

Governor Newscum can KMA. Both sides.

Quote:

---

How can it be that bad? Has anyone offered an explanation? I just know there every time a red state attempts to redraw maps, it seems the lib judges get involved and nix it. So how is it that MA can be that lopsided?

---

Democrats are power-mad hypocrites. Their press will never cover their gerrymandering the way it covers republicans. They do not care.

Biz Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

In Illinois in 2024 the Presidential race was 55-45 to Dems yet they hold a 13-4 lead in congressional seats.

---

California went 62-38 for Harris in 2024.

California has 40 state senators & representatives - 75% of them are Democrats.

Wait. It gets better.

California has 52 congressional representatives - 43 of which (82% !) are Democrats.

Governor Newscum can KMA.

---

Massachusetts has 9 congressional reps...exactly ZERO are Republicans...I'm sure they would have LOVED to threaten TX, but they'd already shot their wad.

Going to be an arms race

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Gerrymandering is as old as the republic but that does not mean it is a sustainable path forward. Voting directly for parties like parliamentary systems do, instead of being segmented by house district, would be more representative. At this point though I would put greater odds on the end of the republic than for responsible actors in each party to reassert control.

---

Everyone hates gerrymandering, but nobody has a better alternative. As mentioned before: there are myriad interests beyond red v blue. And if you vote purely for the party you lose even the tenuous connection you have with your representative as well as any ability to primary an turd.

---

Except that pretty much every other country in the world that has legislative elections does have a better alternative. And if you're worried about party-list systems breaking your connection to a specific representative, that's an already-solved problem too:

• Open list systems allow a voter to vote for a specific candidate within their chosen party.
• Mixed-member proportional representation, as in Germany, combines district representatives with party-list representatives.
• Single transferable vote uses ranked ballots, and doesn't require parties to exist at all.
• Or, if you insist on single-member districts, those can be drawn by a non-partisan commission or by an algorithmic method (e.g., shortest splitline).

You're being willfully ignorant here.

---

There is no world where a ranked ballot system is anything but the worst system, except outside of totalitarian regimes where assemblies are hand picked by the dictator.

Ranked ballot system is a sure fire way to get the worst candidates elected.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Gerrymandering is as old as the republic but that does not mean it is a sustainable path forward. Voting directly for parties like parliamentary systems do, instead of being segmented by house district, would be more representative. At this point though I would put greater odds on the end of the republic than for responsible actors in each party to reassert control.

---

Everyone hates gerrymandering, but nobody has a better alternative. As mentioned before: there are myriad interests beyond red v blue. And if you vote purely for the party you lose even the tenuous connection you have with your representative as well as any ability to primary an turd.

---

Except that pretty much every other country in the world that has legislative elections does have a better alternative. And if you're worried about party-list systems breaking your connection to a specific representative, that's an already-solved problem too:

• Open list systems allow a voter to vote for a specific candidate within their chosen party.
• Mixed-member proportional representation, as in Germany, combines district representatives with party-list representatives.
• Single transferable vote uses ranked ballots, and doesn't require parties to exist at all.
• Or, if you insist on single-member districts, those can be drawn by a non-partisan commission or by an algorithmic method (e.g., shortest splitline).

You're being willfully ignorant here.

---

And that open system looks like crap to me. For starters, it's confusing as hell - we already have a stupid electorate, making them do calculus to decide a candidate isn't going to help things. The other thing about it is that a candidate can be "elected" to a seat without getting more votes than somebody not simply because of how they are ranked on a list? That's just dumb.

I'm just going to assume the other examples you loft so high are probably not all that great either.

Which is why it is vociferously opposed in places where Democrats control the re-districting/election machinery/courts etc. Even deep blue Mass. rejected it, and it wasn't simply 'republicans' who shot it down, by any measure.

But in red states like Alaska, the Soros/Murk swine push for it all-in.

YouBet said:

---

I hope it worked in the Rs favor.

---

Part of Gerrymandering is playing the game that you give up a seat in an area but by doing so you increase numbers in another area that may have been borderline pre-redistrict lines. SheJack's district is a great example - it was drawn to ensure a democrat rep, but it was done at the expense of Al Green's district, which became red because the gerrymandered district peeled off a good chunk of his voting base.

Both sides play the game, both sides scream bloody murder when the other side is at bat. It's politics. At some point in our lifetime it's almost certain that the dems will officially take over Texas lege and they will redistrict again, and the R's will throw a temper tantrum when they do just like the Dems are doing now.

Look Out Below said:

---

It should be. For both sides. This should not be a partisan issue.

---

OK. Explain how that would work.

Who or where is this non political, non partisan, benevolent, all knowing, non elected body that also has the (political) power to do that????

If there isn't one then it's political and partisan.

nortex97 said:

---

Which is why it is vociferously opposed in places where Democrats control the re-districting/election machinery/courts etc. Even deep blue Mass. rejected it, and it wasn't simply 'republicans' who shot it down, by any measure.

But in red states like Alaska, the Soros/Murk swine push for it all-in.

---

...and look at the result. Murkowski. Who sucks and isn't anything close to an actual R and screws us over more than not.

It's an absolute garbage way to elect somebody because you end up with everybody's 5th best choice and a candidate that would have been obliterated in an typical general election.

Look Out Below said:

---

Because, from a percentage standpoint, it doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people in the state? You think Republican Californian's are happy about what is happening over there to them? They are getting screwed too.

---

Which is why we need to do everything we can to limit democrat power.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not oikophobic (yes, I admit I had to look up the definition) to point out when your country does a dumb thing.

Are you one of those people who thinks that car-dependent suburbia is wonderful, and that it's "communist" to want restaurants to pay their waiters like other employees instead of demanding tips?

---

Are you one of those people that think public transportation-dependent urban living is wonderful as opposed to the car-dependent suburbia?

---

I'd rather be able to just walk to most places I need to go. As I did when I was a college undergrad.

And now that my mother has health issues that increasingly make it more difficult for her to drive -- thank God that she happens to live within a few blocks of a major commercial street, where she can (and regularly does) walk to the nearby Dollar General to buy essentials.

The only advantage I see in suburbia is getting away from certain urban demographics.

But this is getting off-topic.

---

Then move somewhere you can do that. Amazing how that would fix your problems.