Pennsylvania’s new congressional districts are gerrymander-free — and Republicans are angry (Amish, election)

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by stburr91

I'm not a Republican, but I chime in here.

Are the democrats fighting this new district map?

If not, then it's democratic gerrymander.

There, that was simple.

So it is a gerrymander because they aren't challenging, not exactly.

Care to give an actual example..

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by Smash255

So it is a gerrymander because they aren't challenging, not exactly.

Care to give an actual example..

If dems aren't fighting this in court, it's democratic gerrymander.

Both sides work to set the districts in their favor, period, full stop.

Stop with the partisan nonsense.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by stburr91

If dems aren't fighting this in court, it's democratic gerrymander.

Both sides work to set the districts in their favor, period, full stop.

Stop with the partisan nonsense.

Not fighting it doesn't mean it's a gerrymander.

Again, can you come up with a gerrymander in this map? Give an example, which district & how?

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by stburr91

I'm not a Republican, but I chime in here.

Are the democrats fighting this new district map?

If not, then it's democratic gerrymander.

There, that was simple.

Simple, but not logical.

The Democrats may be accepting the new district map because they think it's a fair and reasonable way to draw up the districts.

[le roi]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

It has now been gerrymandered for the benefit of the Democrats

Based on what evidence?

Originally Posted by stburr91

I'm not a Republican, but I chime in here.

Are the democrats fighting this new district map?

If not, then it's democratic gerrymander.

There, that was simple.

Uh, no, that's not what "gerrymander" means.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by le roi

Based on what evidence?




Uh, no, that's not what "gerrymander" means.

Been waiting on an explanation myself on how this map is a gerrymander, still nothing....

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by stburr91

If dems aren't fighting this in court, it's democratic gerrymander.

This has got to be one of the dumbest logic I've ever encountered.

.

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

Originally Posted by beb0p

This has got to be one of the dumbest logic I've ever encountered.

.

You new here?

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by stburr91

If dems aren't fighting this in court, it's democratic gerrymander.

Both sides work to set the districts in their favor, period, full stop.

Stop with the partisan nonsense.

Of course you have a problem with “democratic” districts.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

Pardon me, you are right, they are elected. But it is 5-2 Democrat court and the map they recommended is apparently more favorable to the Democrats than the map the Democrats in the state legislature had originally requested.

The fix is in.

The state legislature didn't do its job, so the court had to step in. What part of that do you not understand?

Originally Posted by jas75

Partisan considerations aside, Pennsylvania voters are better served being in districts that are more of a cohesive geographic entity rather than an assortment of locations drawn together in convoluted lines to maximize power for one party. The legislature does have the responsibility to draw seats, but failed to do so within the state's constitutional requirements, so ultimately the courts had to take over the process.

THANK YOU!!!!!

Originally Posted by phantompilot

How can the courts draw districts when that isn't their job?

They obviously usurped a power they don't have, for partisan purposes.

The Legislature has the sole authority to make laws and to draw districts. Courts have no such power.

Wrong. See above.

Originally Posted by petch751

Redrawing the map of Pennsylvania districts boost Democrats nationally in their quest to take control of the U.S. House, and leaves district boundaries up in the air barely three months before May's primary election.

Of course Democrat Tom Wolf (who wants higher taxes on everyone) wants this.

Wolf's proposal for the Congressional districts was rejected by the court. Please try to follow along.

Originally Posted by petch751

Once Democrats secure power they will do what they have always done – raise taxes, more illegals, and lash out to blame Republicans when the economy goes south again…. and laugh.

Now you're just being silly.

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

So, some far left academic who voted for Obama twice and no-doubt passionately supports the Democrat party and the far left redrew the map - a task assigned to him by a 5-2 Democrat court - which the court then very predictably approved.

This is why the legislature is constitutionally responsible for drawing these maps and not some activist, partisan court.

Wrong again! See above ...

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

Hoping they do the same thing here in Ohio soon.

It is ridiculous that I live in NW Ohio yet I am in the same congressional district as the City of Cleveland....very ridiculous

Agreed - you must live in the 9th? Probably more seagulls than people in that district.

When I lived in Cincinnati, my Congressional district changed three times - first I was in the 2nd District with the eastern 'burbs, then in the 1st with the rest of the city, and then back in the 2nd. Ridiculous doesn't begin to cover it!