> and also implies political causes. > So it's useful to identify this as not something a journalist or credible outlet would actually put their name to. Why?

> and also implies political causes. > So it's useful to identify this as not something a journalist or credible outlet would actually put their name to. Why? And is the bottom line point wrong? Gemini, citing a Pew Research study, seems to agree that Republicans lost 3-5 seats due to apportionment errors: https://share.google/aimode/9yPrkEU1U08abPWzF https://share.google/aimode/9yPrkEU1U08abPWzF > An independent analysis by the Pew Research Center and election data experts calculated exactly how those specific errors altered the final map. If the census had perfectly matched the PES estimates, the seats would have shifted as follows: [table showing apportionment errors cost Texas and Florida 1 seat each, and gave Minnesota, Rhode Island, and New York 1 undeserved seat each. Fucking up 5 House seats for a decade seems like a firing-worthy offense.