Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dislike what's going on these days, but bear in mind: some of us remember when "democracy" often excluded people who could not pay a poll tax, people under 21 (old enough to be drafted for combat but not old enough to vote), and most particularly people of color. My grandparents remembered when "democracy" excluded women. Owning real estate was often a requirement for voting; tough luck, white sharecroppers. This game is as old as the concept of democracy itself.
Democracy in these United States has always been a conditional proposition. Perhaps it will be more conditional in the next election than it was in the last election. The trend has been to reduce conditionality but it's always been a two-steps-forward-one-step-back matter.
Yet we somehow offer the slogan “First in Freedom” as an option on our license plates. (sigh)
The word "freedom" never appears in the Declaration of Independence. The word "free" does, 5 times, but only one of those refers to people. Nor does the word "freedom" ever appear in the original Constitution. The word "free" occurs only once -- ironically, in the three-fifths clause. You have to go into the Bill of Rights for explicit freedoms.
NC is a fantastic state. People are rushing here. We have multiple cranes in our sky's because of the booming economy we have. There is so much opportunity for my family. NC is very successful compared to most other states of the nation and has been for decades. Something must be working right around here.
That can slow down at any time. Companies put plans on hold during HB2 and it can happen again. Who then will be paying for all the rural republicans to have services?
You are assuming that republicans were evenly distributed across the state, which isn't true. They were heavily concentrated in the western part of the state. There was no way for repubs to make up 40% of the congressional delegation due to this. Thats not gerrymandering. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And again, I'll say that whether or not gerrymandering occurred in the past is irrelevant to whether it should be occurring today. Whataboutism isn't an excuse.
Nobody claimed that 40% of the congressional seats had to be GOP. The point is that more than 0-2 should have been Republican in those years under fair districts. And when you think about it, the fact that Republicans aren't weren't evenly distributed across the state actually further discredits your argument. Consider this: If voters accounting for 40% of the popular vote in a state with 11 or more US House seats are heavily concentrated within one general area, you'd expect more than 0% or 9% or 18% of congressional seats in the state to go to candidates backed by those voters in a system that allocates congressional seats based on population (and requires proportionate and equal representation across districts). It would be different if GOP voters were more widely spread around the state and the legislature, thus, couldn't faithfully draw additional GOP seats at risk of creating extreme, weirdly configured (non-compact) districts that courts at the time had disfavored on multiple occasions. But, by your own admission, that wasn't the case in NC.
It's really interesting that you actually think (despite all the evidence to the contrary, to include evidence that has shown many of your earlier statements to be completely and utterly false, such as "everyone being a Democrat" in NC and, thus, no need to gerrymander) that Democrats in the NCGA would not draw maps to maximize their partisan power at the expense of the political opposition. That would be a first in the history of politicians drawing maps in this country!
Moving on, whataboutism isn't an excuse. But hypocritical outrage over matters when the shoe is on the other foot makes arguments today fall on deaf ears as it shows that many don't actually care about partisan gerrymandering as a concept, but rather only when it disfavors their partisanship. Again, I don't bring up this point to justify partisan gerrymandering one way or the other, but to shine the light on hypocritical outrage.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 05-01-2023 at 09:04 PM..
Nobody claimed that 40% of the congressional seats had to be GOP. The point is that more than 0-2 should have been Republican in those years under fair districts.
And in fact, the 91st, 92nd, 93rd and 97th congresses had 4 repubs. The 99th had 5. By the 104th, 8 of the 12 were repub. As the republican party grew in nc, it gained outsized influence, yet according to you was being heavily gerrymandered by the dems. Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
when you think about it, the fact that Republicans aren't weren't evenly distributed across the state actually further discredits your argument. Consider this: If voters accounting for 40% of the popular vote in a state with 11 or more US House seats are heavily concentrated within one general area, you'd expect more than 0% or 9% or 18% of congressional seats in the state to go to candidates backed by those voters in a system that allocates congressional seats based on population (and requires proportionate and equal representation across districts). It would be different if GOP voters were more widely spread around the state and the legislature, thus, couldn't faithfully draw additional GOP seats at risk of creating extreme, weirdly configured (non-compact) districts that courts at the time had disfavored on multiple occasions. But, by your own admission, that wasn't the case in NC.
Your logic escapes me. If districts have to be compact then how does one create republican majority districts where there are few republicans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
really interesting that you actually think (despite all the evidence to the contrary, to include evidence that has shown many of your earlier statements to be completely and utterly false, such as "everyone being a Democrat" in NC and, thus, no need to gerrymander) that Democrats in the NCGA would not draw maps to maximize their partisan power at the expense of the political opposition. That would be a first in the history of politicians drawing maps in this country!
Its not about what I think, its about facts and reality. Are you denying that from the early to mid 20th century NC was not overwhelmingly democratic? You actually think tens of thousands of north carolinians were eager to vote republican during the great depression?
I'm not sure I follow your logic of secession erasing the history of our revolution.
I did ultimately look up what it references.
As for my logic. If you’re in a marriage, get divorced, get married again, that collapses, and you crawl back to your original partner…not sure you get to claim your original anniversary on state license plate….something like that.
Well, I will say that I'm glad that we were able to vote in Democratic Governor Roy Cooper and Attorney General Josh Stein. Ask yourself this:Would the NC GOP have gotten behind the policies of a DeSantis-like Republican Governor?
Ask yourself this:Would the NC GOP have gotten behind the policies of a DeSantis-like Republican Governor?
We'll find out next year when Mark Robinson runs for governor
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
