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.
the maps are redrawn AFTER the censuses ... so the maps were redrawn in 2001-2003... based on the 2000 census...so for the 2010 elections, it was based of maps based off the 2000 census
Gerrymandering has been going on since the beginning of the republic—the word itself dates to a 1812 redistricting effort by Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry, which included districts so convoluted that one looked like a salamander.
Democrats gerrymandered extensively in 2000, but with the census of 2010 and the republicans having the majority, they reversed much of the democrat gerrymandering from 2000
First, in the wake of their 2008 electoral losses, Republican activists poured unprecedented amounts of money into the 2010 state legislative elections, particularly in blue or swing states, particularly at the tail end of the election cycle. They made huge gains in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.
Why focus on the states? Because 2010 was a census year, and in most states, state legislatures draw the boundaries of congressional districts. The strategy worked: In 2011, Republicans redrew four times as many districts as Democrats did.
and nationwide the 2000 census and gerrymandering by the democrats, it did favor the democrats, though there were a few sections of various states that ended up favoring the republicans....this happens every decade...why don't you be honest, no matter who is in power, will always redraw to help that party...and the democrats invented it
I bolded your point, because I just realized we weren't disagreeing - what you bolded is exactly what I've been trying to say on here repeatedly. Perhaps I misread your original post when you were referring to the 2000 Census, so I apologize for the confusion. I don't dispute that Democrats have gerrymandered in the past, or that they won't do it again given the opportunity. Being on the left myself, I want the Democrats to gain more traction at the state level, since the Republicans have been the most recent beneficiaries of gerrymandering.
What we need to see is some significant movement in the pending court cases to prevent this practice for good. Let's take the politicization out of how districts are redrawn, especially now that we've seen the technology available at our fingertips. Both sides are now able to use computer programs to draw the districts street by street to obtain the most favorable demographics for their side. It's scary stuff.
the maps are redrawn AFTER the censuses ... so the maps were redrawn in 2001-2003... based on the 2000 census...so for the 2010 elections, it was based of maps based off the 2000 census
Gerrymandering has been going on since the beginning of the republic—the word itself dates to a 1812 redistricting effort by Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry, which included districts so convoluted that one looked like a salamander.
Democrats gerrymandered extensively in 2000, but with the census of 2010 and the republicans having the majority, they reversed much of the democrat gerrymandering from 2000
First, in the wake of their 2008 electoral losses, Republican activists poured unprecedented amounts of money into the 2010 state legislative elections, particularly in blue or swing states, particularly at the tail end of the election cycle. They made huge gains in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.
Why focus on the states? Because 2010 was a census year, and in most states, state legislatures draw the boundaries of congressional districts. The strategy worked: In 2011, Republicans redrew four times as many districts as Democrats did.
and nationwide the 2000 census and gerrymandering by the democrats, it did favor the democrats, though there were a few sections of various states that ended up favoring the republicans....this happens every decade...why don't you be honest, no matter who is in power, will always redraw to help that party...and the democrats invented it
you have already been told you are wrong about who controlled drawing the seats in 2000 like 4 times at this point.
Why do you keep repeating a lie.
Republicans controlled the drawing of the districts in 26 states including ,Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Texas, Colorado, Arizona,Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri.
That means republican legislatures drew 236 of the 435 seats.
I bolded your point, because I just realized we weren't disagreeing - what you bolded is exactly what I've been trying to say on here repeatedly. Perhaps I misread your original post when you were referring to the 2000 Census, so I apologize for the confusion. I don't dispute that Democrats have gerrymandered in the past, or that they won't do it again given the opportunity. Being on the left myself, I want the Democrats to gain more traction at the state level, since the Republicans have been the most recent beneficiaries of gerrymandering.
What we need to see is some significant movement in the pending court cases to prevent this practice for good. Let's take the politicization out of how districts are redrawn, especially now that we've seen the technology available at our fingertips. Both sides are now able to use computer programs to draw the districts street by street to obtain the most favorable demographics for their side. It's scary stuff.
He is wrong, Republicans redrew more districts after the 2000 census than Democrats did.
I bolded your point, because I just realized we weren't disagreeing - what you bolded is exactly what I've been trying to say on here repeatedly. Perhaps I misread your original post when you were referring to the 2000 Census, so I apologize for the confusion. I don't dispute that Democrats have gerrymandered in the past, or that they won't do it again given the opportunity. Being on the left myself, I want the Democrats to gain more traction at the state level, since the Republicans have been the most recent beneficiaries of gerrymandering.
What we need to see is some significant movement in the pending court cases to prevent this practice for good. Let's take the politicization out of how districts are redrawn, especially now that we've seen the technology available at our fingertips. Both sides are now able to use computer programs to draw the districts street by street to obtain the most favorable demographics for their side. It's scary stuff.
I agree that we need to take to politicization out of how districts are redrawn, the question is how...redrawing is mandated by the constitution based on the census
for example NY lost a seat due to the change in population...
NY has 27 districts (reps)
NY has 62 counties
NY population is 19.8 million with nearly 9 million in NYC alone
only 27 reps..yet 62 counties..with 5 of those counties making up NYC
to use existing county lines:
if you did by county lines..it would average out to each district is 2.29 counties....which 2 would be combined..which one would be split
would you combine two heavy democratic counties...or have one of each???
NC has 13 districts (reps)
NC has 100 counties
NC population is 10.2 million
only 13 reps..yet 100 counties
if you did by county lines..it would average out to each district is 7.69 counties....which 7 would be combined..which one would be split
how do you draw maps that makes dems happy, makes repubs happy, represents the entire demographics
the party in charge will always try to push favoring odds in their favor...so the question is what is the answer to ; taking out the politicization out of how districts are redrawn
you understand that gerrymandering STARTED WITH THE DEMOCRATS AND IS NAMED AFETER THE DEMOCRAT
YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT AFTER EACH CENSUS THE DISCTRICTS BY LAW MUST BE REDRAWN TO REFLECT THE POPLUATION CHANGES
Why are you shouting?
The census does determine districts' redrawing, but the way those districts are redrawn depends on state law.
Some states use bi-partisan commissions to do the job, while others allow the majority part of the moment to do it.
When a bi-partisan commission redraws district boundaries, it only happens when both sides are satisfied with the new boundaries. The boundaries change only through compromise and mutual consent. That's not gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering occurs when the majority party is allowed to redraw the district boundaries to suit them and puts a district in their favor.
In my state, a bi-partisan redrawing happens. Neither party is ever fully satisfied, but by law, the commission must stay at the job until it's complete. They can't quit until it's completed.
If every state was to do it the same way there would be no gerrymandering. It took my state a public referendum to stop the gerrymandering here and get a bi-partisan committee.
It matters not how gerrymandering began at all. That's nothing but a false flag. But it you don't want it, you can do like we did here and start a referendum in your state. When one passes, the howling won't stop, but the process is as fair as it can be.
The census does determine districts' redrawing, but the way those districts are redrawn depends on state law.
Some states use bi-partisan commissions to do the job, while others allow the majority part of the moment to do it.
When a bi-partisan commission redraws district boundaries, it only happens when both sides are satisfied with the new boundaries. The boundaries change only through compromise and mutual consent. That's not gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering occurs when the majority party is allowed to redraw the district boundaries to suit them and puts a district in their favor.
In my state, a bi-partisan redrawing happens. Neither party is ever fully satisfied, but by law, the commission must stay at the job until it's complete. They can't quit until it's completed.
If every state was to do it the same way there would be no gerrymandering. It took my state a public referendum to stop the gerrymandering here and get a bi-partisan committee.
It matters not how gerrymandering began at all. That's nothing but a false flag. But it you don't want it, you can do like we did here and start a referendum in your state. When one passes, the howling won't stop, but the process is as fair as it can be.
wasn't shouting..hit the capslock accidently, and didn't feel like retyping
Hmmmm, wasn't he supposed to be gone in the first two years?
And please, bring on the endless subpoenas. Show the country that Dems care NOTHING for doing the job they were elected for, and only care about payback.
the republicans redrew more after the 2010 census...after the 2000 census was a majority democrat redrawing
You are wrong. I even gave you a link that shows legislative control after the 2000 Census. I even gave you the number of seats republicans controlled (236). That is obviously more than half of 435, meaning Republicans redrew more districts.
At this point you simply refuse to admit you are wrong, and that is sad and shows the state our politics are in.
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.
