Democrats Gerrymandering in New York. Yes they steal districts like they accuse Republicans.

[Twilight Hue]

New York Democrats Have Gerrymandered Their Way to a Huge Advantage

This is why I think they are hypocrites.

They do the same exact thing.

This practice ought to be removed. It's why things are so messed up.

 

[Augustus]

New York Democrats Have Gerrymandered Their Way to a Huge Advantage

This is why I think they are hypocrites.

They do the same exact thing.

This practice ought to be removed. It's why things are so messed up.

I still can't believe that is legal in America.

It's something that would be frowned upon even in tinpot corrupt "democracies".

Just create an independent body to draw up districts based on specific, published criteria.

 

[ChristineM]

Happens quite regularly in the UK, conservatives redrawing the map to dilute opposition.

 

[Altfish]

Happens quite regularly in the UK, conservatives redrawing the map to dilute opposition.

Yes, happening currently.

 

[Altfish]

New York Democrats Have Gerrymandered Their Way to a Huge Advantage

This is why I think they are hypocrites.

They do the same exact thing.

This practice ought to be removed. It's why things are so messed up.

Outrageous ... not really, the usually GOP tactic, accuse your opponent of doing what you have been doing for years and mastered the art of.
Next they'll be accusing the Dems of voter suppression.

 

[Father Heathen]

New York Democrats Have Gerrymandered Their Way to a Huge Advantage

This is why I think they are hypocrites.

They do the same exact thing.

This practice ought to be removed. It's why things are so messed up.

It's funny how gerrymandering and hypocrisy didn't seem to bother you until the dems did it. You do realize that your party sets precedence with its own behavior, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Just create an independent body to draw up districts based on specific, published criteria.

There's no way to avoid politics in drawing up districts.
Someone will win, & someone else will lose. Each
side will advocate for its interests.
I'd prefer to eliminate districts entirely.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's funny how gerrymandering and hypocrisy didn't seem to bother you until the dems did it. You do realize that your party sets precedence with its own behavior, right?

Its wonderful how both parties like destroying this country.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its wonderful how both parties like destroying this country.

No, it's only the other party.
Never mine.

 

[Augustus]

There's no way to avoid politics in drawing up districts.
Someone will win, & someone else will lose. Each
side will advocate for its interests.
I'd prefer to eliminate districts entirely.

They tend to be relatively uncontroversial in many other countries.

They also have normal shapes:

What would your preferred option be?

 

[Revoltingest]

They tend to be relatively uncontroversial in many other countries.

They also have normal shapes:

Those sure are some serpentine borders.

What would your preferred option be?

"At large" voting...no districts at all.

 

[Father Heathen]

No, it's only the other party.
Never mine.

Surely you're not implying that's my line of thought, especially out of everyone here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Surely you're not implying that's my line of thought, especially out of everyone here.

Me?
Imply anything?
Surely you're not serious.
But if I had, that post would apply very broadly.

 

[Augustus]

Those sure are some serpentine borders.

Neighbourhoods don't follow straight lines. Population density isn't uniform. Moving a neighbourhood from one district or another would need to be justified according to given criteria (keeping populations balanced, socio-economic similarity, historic or natural boundaries, etc.)

In America everything is highly partisan, but other countries have a neutral civil service that remains in place regardless of the Party in charge. It's not simply whoever won the last election marking their own homework.

Hence it causes no real controversy and no ludicrous boundaries like

 

[Brickjectivity]

There's no way to avoid politics in drawing up districts.
Someone will win, & someone else will lose. Each
side will advocate for its interests.
I'd prefer to eliminate districts entirely.

Computerize the drawing, so nobody can control it. But I have no problem with eliminating districts, either.

Also I think we should merge a lot of states until we have under 20, and we should try to make them of approximately equal population. That will require a lot more than a act of Congress though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Neighbourhoods don't follow straight lines. Population density isn't uniform. Moving a neighbourhood from one district or another would need to be justified according to given criteria (keeping populations balanced, socio-economic similarity, historic or natural boundaries, etc.)

In America everything is highly partisan, but other countries have a neutral civil service that remains in place regardless of the Party in charge. It's not simply whoever won the last election marking their own homework.

Hence it causes no real controversy and no ludicrous boundaries like

Most of government remains in place during regime change.
Creating districts serves one big purpose....to keep 1 party
in power. The effect is that only 2 parties will win. At large
voting would allow 3rd parties some representation.

 

[Stevicus]

New York Democrats Have Gerrymandered Their Way to a Huge Advantage

This is why I think they are hypocrites.

They do the same exact thing.

This practice ought to be removed. It's why things are so messed up.

Politics is about power. That never changes, regardless of the players and the issues of the day.

Things are messed up because the country is messed up - and has been for quite some time.

There is, of course, political division at the federal level, but it also seems apparent in state governments where whichever party holds power wants to shift things to their advantage. The only way to remove this practice would be for the federal government to step in and intervene - or it could be decided in the Supreme Court. But then, that would diminish and reduce states' rights.

 

[Stevicus]

Those sure are some serpentine borders.

"At large" voting...no districts at all.

Some have argued the same thing regarding states, such as calls to eliminate the Electoral College, making all presidential elections based solely on the popular vote, without regard to states or electoral votes. Some might also criticize the representation by state within the Senate, since it gives tiny states like Delaware and Rhode Island the same representation as larger states like California and Texas.

So, if we get rid of districts, why not get rid of states, too?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I still can't believe that is legal in America.

It's something that would be frowned upon even in tinpot corrupt "democracies".

Just create an independent body to draw up districts based on specific, published criteria.

I should look up some history and find out how this practice started.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Most of government remains in place during regime change.
Creating districts serves one big purpose....to keep 1 party
in power. The effect is that only 2 parties will win. At large
voting would allow 3rd parties some representation.

I have a suspicion both want a one party rule and will happily destroy this country to get it.