6 ms·
>We just had an election in Alabama that proved this view incorrect. Even in seemingly "safe" districts your vote can matter. That's how safe districts become s
by rev_bird 9y ago
>We just had an election in Alabama that proved this view incorrect. Even in seemingly "safe" districts your vote can matter. That's how safe districts become safe.
It's kind of counter-intuitive, but the election of a Democrat in Alabama actually provided a lot of discouraging data about gerrymandering. While a Democrat won the state-wide popular vote, if those votes had been cast in the House districts, Republicans would have won six of the state's seven seats. Gerrymandering doesn't really help as much in a Senate race, but in House races, it's everything.
- ModernMech 9y agoSame goes for the recent Virginia election. Democrats outvoted Republicans by a wide margin in November, yet they might not even gain control of the house of delegates.
- awinder 9y agoThis topic is very much in legal flux right now and will be going before the Supreme Court. I think election results like in Alabama can feature prominently in arguments but even more persuasive are more academic models which can compare degrees of gerrymandering. Anthony Kennedy was looking for just that kind of rigor and now it’s available. What is unquestionable is that in a very tangible way, Garland would have provided a crucial vote here. He would have been on the court with a Clinton presidency, instead a partisan extremist is. The path to progress is by participating in the current system so that you hold power to make things better. Things would have gotten better directly on this issue with a Clinton presidency. So if you’re not participating because you think that’s the quicker path to progress, I think this issue provides a large point against that logic.