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.
"So you think its fair a GOP general assembly can gerrymander districts in such a way that makes it nearly impossible for Democrats to get elected?"
The DEMS held the general assembly for 100 YEARS.
If you think THEY didn't gerrymander the districts to favor themselves, I have bridge to sell you.
It could be said that the GOP is FIXING what the dems did for 100 years.
You're right, it could be said - but if you do, nobody's going to take you seriously. You genuinely don't get that simply breaking it in a a different way is not the same as fixing it? Fixing it is correcting the system so that it doesn't happen anymore to either side, not simply using the same dishonest tool to your own advantage just because you have the chance.
You do see the difference, don't you? What is it that genuinely matters to you - fixing the system, or the fact that now that your side has the upper hand, there's no need to fix it? I mean, I've read enough of your posts that I pretty much already know the answer, but I thought it would interesting to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel again.
Probably legal gerrymandering to create minority majority districts in accordance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was the stipulations of that act that helped Southern Republican legislators with the acquiescence of minority Democrats, to maximize the number of safe Republican districts by concentrating the heavily Democratic minority vote into a few minority districts. There was a district in North Carolina that resembled a snake on the map that was created that way.
Looks like NC may be getting more than just a Democratic governor. A federal court ruled that the GOP controlled general assembly must redraw their heavily gerrymandered district lines and hold a new election next year.
Sorry but although it is true that "they all do it" that is not a very good defense. If you click open up the OP's message and click on the court determination you can see one of the districts they are speaking of, it looks like a snake. We need independent districting commissions, some states have moved in that direction but not nearly enough.
This is one of the reasons we return the same fools to both parties year after year, the election is over before it begins. Addressing this glowing deficiency in our election system should be bipartisan.
Strange that this went through in 2011, well before they removed a key provision of the Voter Rights Act in June 2013 requiring pre-approval. Texas and some other states waited on their redistricting until right after Section 5 was removed.
Can't pull it up now. The previous Congressional map was far from a thing of beauty either, but was generally a fair map with multiple competitive districts.
The filthy Democrats here in Maryland have gerrymandered the State so badly that it went from a split 4-4 Congressional delegation to a 7-1 split in favor of Democrats.
Democrats whine about "disenfranchising" people, but they love to do it to those who disagree with them.
Can't pull it up now. The previous Congressional map was far from a thing of beauty either, but was generally a fair map with multiple competitive districts.
Hmm. Nope. That one had been gerrymandered by the Democrat controlled general assembly and governor in 2002, the state was sued and they were forced to change that one too.
There was no primary in 2004 because of it and we ended up with a very late state caucus with almost no participation.
I'm glad they are ending the practice of creating districts specifically to create a win for only a Black candidate.
The filthy Democrats here in Maryland have gerrymandered the State so badly that it went from a split 4-4 Congressional delegation to a 7-1 split in favor of Democrats.
Democrats whine about "disenfranchising" people, but they love to do it to those who disagree with them.
Democrats did gerrymander in Maryland, but wasn't it 5-3 and 6-2 on the Presidential level?
Hmm. Nope. That one had been gerrymandered by the Democrat controlled general assembly and governor in 2002, the state was sued and they were forced to change that one too.
There was no primary in 2004 because of it and we ended up with a very late state caucus with almost no participation.
I'm glad they are ending the practice of creating districts specifically to create a win for only a Black candidate.
The actual districts wound up being competitive. In 2008, under those lines Obama won 7 districts, McCain won 6. Under the current lines McCain won 10 of the 13 districts. That is some serious gerrymandering.
The actual districts wound up being competitive. In 2008, under those lines Obama won 7 districts, McCain won 6. Under the current lines McCain won 10 of the 13 districts. That is some serious gerrymandering.
The districts have absolutely nothing to do with the Presidential election.
Furthermore, the 2008 districts were drawn under court order. They were not the districts the Democrats came up with in 2002.
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.
