Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Pennsylvania Republicans Love Gerrymandering

Page 1 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

02 Apr 2018, 6:15 pm


https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/politics/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-impeachment/index.html

This is the electoral map of Pennsylvania that Republicans think is acceptable.
VVV
Image
What a mess! What a disgrace!

Here is the new map proposed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
VVV
Image
Doesn't that look neater?


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

02 Apr 2018, 6:31 pm

Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

02 Apr 2018, 6:38 pm

kokopelli wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.

I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if Texas voted over 50% for Republicans but ended up sending 3/4 of their delegation as Democrats, as is what's happening in Pennsylvania.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

02 Apr 2018, 7:05 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.

I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if Texas voted over 50% for Republicans but ended up sending 3/4 of their delegation as Democrats, as is what's happening in Pennsylvania.


That's kind of like arguing that there is nothing wrong with driving while you are drunk as long as you don't kill someone.

Wrong is wrong regardless of results.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

02 Apr 2018, 7:29 pm

So does most politicians when it helps them. They hate it when it hurts them.


_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”

Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.


DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

02 Apr 2018, 7:43 pm

kokopelli wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.


Why can't we just get rid of all the gerrymandering and make the system fair?


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

02 Apr 2018, 8:07 pm

kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.

I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if Texas voted over 50% for Republicans but ended up sending 3/4 of their delegation as Democrats, as is what's happening in Pennsylvania.


That's kind of like arguing that there is nothing wrong with driving while you are drunk as long as you don't kill someone.

Wrong is wrong regardless of results.

Yes, but you're implying they're equal, which they aren't. There's much more gerrymandering in favor of Republicans than there is for Democrats. I'm certainly for no gerrymandering at all because of that fact, lose 2 gerrymandered democratic seats, gain four gerrymandered republican seats: sign me up, can you say the same?



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

02 Apr 2018, 10:53 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.

I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if Texas voted over 50% for Republicans but ended up sending 3/4 of their delegation as Democrats, as is what's happening in Pennsylvania.


That's kind of like arguing that there is nothing wrong with driving while you are drunk as long as you don't kill someone.

Wrong is wrong regardless of results.

Yes, but you're implying they're equal, which they aren't. There's much more gerrymandering in favor of Republicans than there is for Democrats. I'm certainly for no gerrymandering at all because of that fact, lose 2 gerrymandered democratic seats, gain four gerrymandered republican seats: sign me up, can you say the same?


If there is currently more gerrymandering by the Republicans, it is because they control more states. That has hardly always been the case. For example, in Texas the Democrats have historically been the ones doing the gerrymandering -- the Republicans are quite new at it.

States controlled by the Democrats are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor and states controlled by the Republicans are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor.

To blame either one over the other is just plain ignorance.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

03 Apr 2018, 6:30 am

kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.

I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if Texas voted over 50% for Republicans but ended up sending 3/4 of their delegation as Democrats, as is what's happening in Pennsylvania.


That's kind of like arguing that there is nothing wrong with driving while you are drunk as long as you don't kill someone.

Wrong is wrong regardless of results.

Yes, but you're implying they're equal, which they aren't. There's much more gerrymandering in favor of Republicans than there is for Democrats. I'm certainly for no gerrymandering at all because of that fact, lose 2 gerrymandered democratic seats, gain four gerrymandered republican seats: sign me up, can you say the same?


If there is currently more gerrymandering by the Republicans, it is because they control more states. That has hardly always been the case. For example, in Texas the Democrats have historically been the ones doing the gerrymandering -- the Republicans are quite new at it.

States controlled by the Democrats are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor and states controlled by the Republicans are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor.

To blame either one over the other is just plain ignorance.


Enlighten yourself: Gerrymandering facts



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

03 Apr 2018, 7:43 am

Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.

I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if Texas voted over 50% for Republicans but ended up sending 3/4 of their delegation as Democrats, as is what's happening in Pennsylvania.


That's kind of like arguing that there is nothing wrong with driving while you are drunk as long as you don't kill someone.

Wrong is wrong regardless of results.

Yes, but you're implying they're equal, which they aren't. There's much more gerrymandering in favor of Republicans than there is for Democrats. I'm certainly for no gerrymandering at all because of that fact, lose 2 gerrymandered democratic seats, gain four gerrymandered republican seats: sign me up, can you say the same?


If there is currently more gerrymandering by the Republicans, it is because they control more states. That has hardly always been the case. For example, in Texas the Democrats have historically been the ones doing the gerrymandering -- the Republicans are quite new at it.

States controlled by the Democrats are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor and states controlled by the Republicans are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor.

To blame either one over the other is just plain ignorance.


Enlighten yourself: Gerrymandering facts


The article is discussing only the elections in 2016. I don't think anyone is contending that the Republicans did not have the edge on gerrymandering in that election. That is hardly the case throughout history, though. Some elections it is the Republicans who benefit most and in other elections it is the Democrats who benefit most. Both major parties are grand masters at gerrymandering.

To argue that the Republicans benefit the most from gerrymandering based on only a single election demonstrates a complete failure in logical abilities. It's like arguing that since Trump won the election in 2016, every President in history resembled an Oompa Loompa.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

03 Apr 2018, 9:48 am

kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.

I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if Texas voted over 50% for Republicans but ended up sending 3/4 of their delegation as Democrats, as is what's happening in Pennsylvania.


That's kind of like arguing that there is nothing wrong with driving while you are drunk as long as you don't kill someone.

Wrong is wrong regardless of results.

Yes, but you're implying they're equal, which they aren't. There's much more gerrymandering in favor of Republicans than there is for Democrats. I'm certainly for no gerrymandering at all because of that fact, lose 2 gerrymandered democratic seats, gain four gerrymandered republican seats: sign me up, can you say the same?


If there is currently more gerrymandering by the Republicans, it is because they control more states. That has hardly always been the case. For example, in Texas the Democrats have historically been the ones doing the gerrymandering -- the Republicans are quite new at it.

States controlled by the Democrats are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor and states controlled by the Republicans are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor.

To blame either one over the other is just plain ignorance.


Enlighten yourself: Gerrymandering facts


The article is discussing only the elections in 2016. I don't think anyone is contending that the Republicans did not have the edge on gerrymandering in that election. That is hardly the case throughout history, though. Some elections it is the Republicans who benefit most and in other elections it is the Democrats who benefit most. Both major parties are grand masters at gerrymandering.

To argue that the Republicans benefit the most from gerrymandering based on only a single election demonstrates a complete failure in logical abilities. It's like arguing that since Trump won the election in 2016, every President in history resembled an Oompa Loompa.

It's been that way since the 1980's, and it's only gotten more extreme over the last decade. As for Sheila Jackson's seat: hers looks like that not to ensure she's elected, but to ensure that 2 Republicans get in to her one seat, else it would be 1 Republican / 1 Democrat and 1 seat up for grabs. Again, I'm all for no gerrymandering, it would vastly help my side of the aisle, can you say the same?



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

03 Apr 2018, 4:10 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that the Democrats don't try to use the same tactics?

Take a look at Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston some time.

I consider it hypocritical for Democrats to complain about Republican gerrymandering and Republicans to complain about Democratic gerrymandering.

I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if Texas voted over 50% for Republicans but ended up sending 3/4 of their delegation as Democrats, as is what's happening in Pennsylvania.


That's kind of like arguing that there is nothing wrong with driving while you are drunk as long as you don't kill someone.

Wrong is wrong regardless of results.

Yes, but you're implying they're equal, which they aren't. There's much more gerrymandering in favor of Republicans than there is for Democrats. I'm certainly for no gerrymandering at all because of that fact, lose 2 gerrymandered democratic seats, gain four gerrymandered republican seats: sign me up, can you say the same?


If there is currently more gerrymandering by the Republicans, it is because they control more states. That has hardly always been the case. For example, in Texas the Democrats have historically been the ones doing the gerrymandering -- the Republicans are quite new at it.

States controlled by the Democrats are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor and states controlled by the Republicans are going to gerrymander the districts in their own favor.

To blame either one over the other is just plain ignorance.


Enlighten yourself: Gerrymandering facts


The article is discussing only the elections in 2016. I don't think anyone is contending that the Republicans did not have the edge on gerrymandering in that election. That is hardly the case throughout history, though. Some elections it is the Republicans who benefit most and in other elections it is the Democrats who benefit most. Both major parties are grand masters at gerrymandering.

To argue that the Republicans benefit the most from gerrymandering based on only a single election demonstrates a complete failure in logical abilities. It's like arguing that since Trump won the election in 2016, every President in history resembled an Oompa Loompa.

It's been that way since the 1980's, and it's only gotten more extreme over the last decade. As for Sheila Jackson's seat: hers looks like that not to ensure she's elected, but to ensure that 2 Republicans get in to her one seat, else it would be 1 Republican / 1 Democrat and 1 seat up for grabs. Again, I'm all for no gerrymandering, it would vastly help my side of the aisle, can you say the same?


Sheila Jackson Lee's district was gerrymandered the way it is to specifically guarantee the seat to African Americans.

What side do you imagine I'm on?



DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

03 Apr 2018, 4:26 pm

kokopelli wrote:
Sheila Jackson Lee's district was gerrymandered the way it is to specifically guarantee the seat to African Americans.

What side do you imagine I'm on?


Well ... your post history is full of vaguely racist language and global warming denialism. That's why I told you to go back to 4chan.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

03 Apr 2018, 4:30 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Sheila Jackson Lee's district was gerrymandered the way it is to specifically guarantee the seat to African Americans.

What side do you imagine I'm on?


Well ... your post history is full of vaguely racist language and global warming denialism. That's why I told you to go back to 4chan.


BS.

It is not racist to argue that racism is common. In the history of mankind, we have always been suspicious of outsiders. That's just nature.

And I don't deny global warming at all. I welcome it. Between the improved productivity from global warming and the increasing use of GMOs, our prospects of feeding the populations of the world in the future is bright -- at least until the next glaciation begins quite possibly within the next one to two thousand years.



Last edited by kokopelli on 03 Apr 2018, 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

03 Apr 2018, 4:33 pm

kokopelli wrote:
Sheila Jackson Lee's district was gerrymandered the way it is to specifically guarantee the seat to African Americans.

What side do you imagine I'm on?


Yeah, god forbid those African Americans get two seats, which is what would happen if the gerrymandering weren't taking place in Texas (actually they'd get four -- 35 reps from Texas, 12.09% African American population, 35 * .1209 = 4.2).



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

03 Apr 2018, 4:50 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Sheila Jackson Lee's district was gerrymandered the way it is to specifically guarantee the seat to African Americans.

What side do you imagine I'm on?


Yeah, god forbid those African Americans get two seats, which is what would happen if the gerrymandering weren't taking place in Texas (actually they'd get four -- 35 reps from Texas, 12.09% African American population, 35 * .1209 = 4.2).


If voting largely takes place among racial lines, to win four districts there would be two ways it could happen -- either bring back segregation so that African Americans can form their own districts or gerrymander districts in the extreme create districts in which African Americans are a majority.

Suppose that we came up with a computer program to draw the district lines in such a way that they did not take race into account. It is quite possible that no district would have an African American majority.

Or are you suggesting that we do away with districts and elect Representatives based on race. Allocate so many US Representatives to be elected by African Americans, so many to be elected by Mexican Americans, so many by native Americans, so many by Asian Americans, so many by Caucasians and create a separate ballot for each group. When you go to the poll, they give you a ballot based on your skin color. I don't think such a scheme would have a chance.

Like it or not, you are stuck with voting districts.