Voters approve gerrymandering the f*ck out of California in favor of Democrats

cawacko said:
Yes, Texas is redistricting under pressure from Trump but you’re pivoting away from what you said that wasn’t correct.
Click to expand...
No, I am not. I added redistricting done by ballot initiative in the search for fair districts, that would benefit no party, but reward the voters .
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, she didn't. She has no authority to decide what plan congressional districts will be drawn up to. Sure, she can declare the plan isn't lawful but has ZERO authority to decide which plan is used. That's for the legislature to decide. Just another rogue judge overstepping her authority.
Click to expand...
It's her duty to administer the law within the state constitution's boundaries. Just another rogue poster who does not understand the law.
 
Nordberg said:
No, I am not. I added redistricting done by ballot initiative in the search for fair districts, that would benefit no party, but reward the voters .
Click to expand...
That’s not what your earlier post said but that aside, glad we agree independent commissions are the way to go.
 
Jake Starkey said:
It's her duty to administer the law within the state constitution's boundaries. Just another rogue poster who does not understand the law.
Click to expand...
It is not her duty to set the state's congressional district boundaries. If they are not legal her responsibility ends with adjudging that rendering a verdict and returning the issue to the legislature where that responsibility lies.
 
Stone said:
But what's happening elsewhere? LOL. The Ds as a whole will lose seats across the country. You gained nothing,...in fact you LOST seats.
Click to expand...
It depends on two factors: how aggressive the gerrymandering, and the amount of election shift that happens. If Texas over gerrymanders, and then Hispanics shift away from trump, both are very possible, Republicans may lose seats in Texas. California is more securely Democratic, so they have less risk of aggressive gerrymandering backfiring.

Democrats regularly get 45% of the vote in Texas. Hispanics are watching fellow Hispanic Americans being attacked by ICE, and questioning whether they should vote for the party of trump. That could rise the number closer to 50%. With districts planning to be 1% in Republicans favor, a several point shift would make them a Democratic win.

Republicans regularly get 35% of the vote in California. I doubt there is much chance they will do better in 2026, so districts engineered to be 5% in Democrats favor will be Democratic wins.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Your dreaming.

The most the gerrymander could add is 5, and likely it will be 4.
Click to expand...
Aggressive gerrymandering could add 9 seats. If you slice up Republican support, connecting it to greater Democratic populations, it will mean wiping out the Republicans. The danger would be by diluting Democratic areas, a vote shift could hand more seats to the Republicans...

But I just do not see a major vote shift in the party of trump's favor. I could be wrong.
 
You are not wrong, Walt. This strategy may have well opened a sink hole under the GOP, as MAGA more and more betrays America First.
 
Walt said:
We can continue to complain about Texas starting it,
Click to expand...
They didn't start it. You deny the history of gerrymandering.
Walt said:
and thanking California for retaliating.
Click to expand...
They are "retaliating" based off of a lie (that gerrymandering "started with Texas"). This is a war that, IF Republicans wish to win, then Democrats CAN'T win.
Walt said:
With retaliation, hopefully it will stop happening.
Click to expand...
:rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2:

There are several states out there that are controlled by Republicans that plan on redistricting before the 2026 midterm elections. Even MORE of those states will do so if SCOTUS makes a particular ruling regarding the VRA.

Are Democrats going to "retaliate even more" when that happens? What states would retaliate? (Hint: Democrats have already fully [or near-fully] gerrymandered most of their states)
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, they didn't. The courts were supposed to be only advisory to other branches of government and not capable of making up law or usurping the powers of a legislature or the executive branch like this judge in Utah is doing.
Click to expand...
If you wanted the 2021 ballot measure overturned, you should have done it back at the beginning of November. Demanding a judge ignores the law is just wrong.
 
Walt said:
If you wanted the 2021 ballot measure overturned, you should have done it back at the beginning of November. Demanding a judge ignores the law is just wrong.
Click to expand...
The judge is overstepping her authority. She can toss out the redistricting plan. What she can't do is impose one she chooses on the state.
 
gfm7175 said:
They didn't start it. You deny the history of gerrymandering.

They are "retaliating" based off of a lie (that gerrymandering "started with Texas"). This is a war that, IF Republicans wish to win, then Democrats CAN'T win.

:rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2:

There are several states out there that are controlled by Republicans that plan on redistricting before the 2026 midterm elections. Even MORE of those states will do so if SCOTUS makes a particular ruling regarding the VRA.

Are Democrats going to "retaliate even more" when that happens? What states would retaliate? (Hint: Democrats have already fully [or near-fully] gerrymandered most of their states)
Click to expand...

This round of gerrymandering started because Trump wanted Abbott to redistrict the state for next year's elections.

California kicked its ass for doing so.
 
Crepitus said:
They started it.
Click to expand...
Because all history started yesterday.

No state had EVER gerrymandered before Texas did this year, Obama Akbar.

{In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past} - Karl Marx, founding father of the democrat party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top