5 ms·

> > > the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote > The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander.

> > > the party in power will never allow this to make it to the floor of the House for a vote > The implication here is that the Democrats don't gerrymander. This is patently false. I don't think that's really the implication. At the moment it is pretty clear that the GOP currently overall benefits more from gerrymandering [1]. And they are in power, despite having lost the popular vote [2]. The GOP has control over the WH and both chambers, it'd therefore be political suicide to change the system now in a way that'd hurt them. > The Democrats are just pissed that the Republicans did a massively better job at it in the past decade. They've obviously also gerrymandered, I fail to see what that has to do with OPs point? Are you really arguing that to be able to be against the concept of gerrymandering, you've to give up any chance of ever actually being able to do anything about it? [1]: https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380 https://www.apnews.com/fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

dvt 9y ago
> Are you really arguing that to be able to be against the concept of gerrymandering, you've to give up any chance of ever actually being able to do anything about it? Not really. I'm arguing that most (in all honesty, probably all) gerrymandering complaints by Democrats are sour grapes because they got outplayed. In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked sources. Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. I will say that sometimes, gerrymandering is racially- or religiously-motivated (SCOTUS heard a case on this a few months ago IIRC), so it can be very problematic in a few edge cases. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/californiajust-proved-that-redistricting-reform-isnt-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/?utm_term=.35637e4379e3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca...
- shitlord 9y ago
  > Gerrymandering is honestly not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. Please provide more evidence for this claim. Just because it's true in CA doesn't necessarily mean it's true for the rest of the country.
- anarazel 9y ago
  > In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked sources. I fail to see how that's an argument for anything. Unless maybe, if you want to argue that Delaney is voting against his personal interest. > Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca.... That primarily seems to be an argument for it not being that a huge issue in CA. Or maybe that the mechanisms for redistricting weren't great in CA. Given that a significant numbers of states have houses with significantly different party percentages than the popular vote suggests, this is a hard to understand argument.

dvt 9y ago

> Are you really arguing that to be able to be against the concept of gerrymandering, you've to give up any chance of ever actually being able to do anything about it? Not really. I'm arguing that most (in all honesty, probably all) gerrymandering complaints by Democrats are sour grapes because they got outplayed. In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked sources. Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. I will say that sometimes, gerrymandering is racially- or religiously-motivated (SCOTUS heard a case on this a few months ago IIRC), so it can be very problematic in a few edge cases. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/californiajust-proved-that-redistricting-reform-isnt-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/?utm_term=.35637e4379e3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca...

shitlord 9y ago
> Gerrymandering is honestly not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. Please provide more evidence for this claim. Just because it's true in CA doesn't necessarily mean it's true for the rest of the country.
anarazel 9y ago
> In fact, Delaney himself was "first elected in a gerrymandered district created specifically for him," according to @mobilefriendly's linked sources. I fail to see how that's an argument for anything. Unless maybe, if you want to argue that Delaney is voting against his personal interest. > Gerrymandering is generally not that big of a deal and cracking down on it doesn't solve much, as populations are naturally segmented[1]. > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/ca.... That primarily seems to be an argument for it not being that a huge issue in CA. Or maybe that the mechanisms for redistricting weren't great in CA. Given that a significant numbers of states have houses with significantly different party percentages than the popular vote suggests, this is a hard to understand argument.