Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
Agree. They are still blue, but Trump was the lesser of the two evils in their minds.I won't really believe blue states are becoming redder until after the 2026 and 2028 elections.
Agree. They are still blue, but Trump was the lesser of the two evils in their minds.I won't really believe blue states are becoming redder until after the 2026 and 2028 elections.
Yeah but - it’s kind of hard to gerrymander a state with just three districts.Maybe, maybe not as there are already two states that do it this way.
That will also be hard, because in addition to keeping the same population - and populations shift and move - you have to deal with demographics. Race, party. If you pack a group in ONE district - someone will cry foul. If you do the OPPOSITE - distribute Dems or blacks so they have NO majority anywhere - someone will cry foul.That sht needs to stop too. Districts should be drawn logically, not politically.
you have to deal with demographics.
Still won't work. Fact is - IF you want to dilute the black vote - you rewrite districts so they are a minority in every district. You deliberately shape the district so the candidate they want - never has a chance. We want to believe that race doesn't matter - but it's not reality.That's not how it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be population, period.
Hmmm.... Close, but maybe use the last digit of the street address. Pretty random mix.Lets get crazy and have 10 voting districts, In district 1, have all folks that have a zip code that ends in 0, district 2, all folks with a zip code ending in 1...and so on.
I think I stand corrected. Three quarters of the states, not popular vote.I was always told since "electors" are identified in the constitution that the only way to remove the EC would be a constitutional amendment. Makes sense.
As for California, it's lopsided but not "greater than two thirds", it was 58% for the Democrat (Harris) not > 66%.
So, I guess you are in the camp of being okay with states saying "all our votes go to the winner of the state popular vote". And then there are several states wanting their electoral votes to go to the national popular vote winner. You okay with that too?Still won't work. Fact is - IF you want to dilute the black vote - you rewrite districts so they are a minority in every district. You deliberately shape the district so the candidate they want - never has a chance. We want to believe that race doesn't matter - but it's not reality.
ON THE OTHER HAND - you can also take a state like, say, South Carolina - and find a way to concentrate the black vote into a very few districts - and ensure that all of their vote goes to ONE representative.
This - has happened. WE'VE seen this, in Maryland, to erase REPUBLICAN districts, by drawing the maps for Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore to include very Democrat geographies.
So - you really can't say ah, don't worry it's just population - and quietly dominate state politics by telling yourself that.
Nothing bluer than Md. but no President ever campaigns here.
you want to dilute the black vote
find a way to concentrate the black vote into a very few districts
I've got no problem with the way it works NOW. The status quo is fine with me.So, I guess you are in the camp of being okay with states saying "all our votes go to the winner of the state popular vote". And then there are several states wanting their electoral votes to go to the national popular vote winner. You okay with that too?
As apportionment establishes the number of seats in the House and which state gets how many, shouldn't the electoral vote align with those allocations?
BOTH of those are diametrically opposed - if you don't do one, you will do the other.My point is they're not supposed to be diluting any demographic.
Not supposed to be doing that either.
BOTH of those are diametrically opposed - if you don't do one, you will do the other.
It's lose lose.
The way it works now is electoral suppression. As a republic that should not be tolerated. Our representation is divided by district and our electoral input should be likewise.I've got no problem with the way it works NOW. The status quo is fine with me.
Gerrymandering already exists, always has been attempted and it always will be challenged when it is obvious that there is something malevolent as to the intent.I am also saying that doing it the Nebraska way - assigning electors according to wins in congressional districts - will lead to gerrymandering districts so as to distort the outcome. So if anyone thinks it's - more fair - bear in mind, there's the likelihood that will be circumvented.
AND - there's no agreed upon way the redistricting SHOULD work, besides population distribution.
^THIS^Also illegal aliens shouldn't be counted. They aren't citizens and shouldn't be considered residents with any impact on congressional or electoral representation. Just because Democrats want more representation than their political opponents doesn't mean they should get it.
ADULT | CITIZEN |
NON-ADULT | NON-CITIZEN |
Should. But there’s not much incentive NOT to. And population is not enough.They should be drawing the district lines with regard to population, with no regard for race or anything other than a live human body. One of us is misunderstanding the other.
Including PG county in multiple congressional districts has had that effect for sure. There is one congressional district in Maryland that cannot be driven across unless you go through a different district to get to the other side.Still won't work. Fact is - IF you want to dilute the black vote - you rewrite districts so they are a minority in every district. You deliberately shape the district so the candidate they want - never has a chance. We want to believe that race doesn't matter - but it's not reality.
ON THE OTHER HAND - you can also take a state like, say, South Carolina - and find a way to concentrate the black vote into a very few districts - and ensure that all of their vote goes to ONE representative.
This - has happened. WE'VE seen this, in Maryland, to erase REPUBLICAN districts, by drawing the maps for Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore to include very Democrat geographies.
So - you really can't say ah, don't worry it's just population - and quietly dominate state politics by telling yourself that.