Gerrymandering

[BigRedBuster]

 

[nic]

Looks like tit-for-tat gerrymandering and lawsuits from both sides. We need independent committees to draw up district boundaries…. IF being independent is still possible

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/midterm-elections-gop-redistricting-lawsuits-gerrymandering

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, nic said:

Looks like tit-for-tat gerrymandering and lawsuits from both sides. We need independent committees to draw up district boundaries…. IF being independent is still possible

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/midterm-elections-gop-redistricting-lawsuits-gerrymandering

 

That would definitely be nice, and you bring up a good question in relation to potential committees 

[DevoHusker]

 

 

[Moiraine]

On 2/5/2022 at 10:05 AM, nic said:

Looks like tit-for-tat gerrymandering and lawsuits from both sides. We need independent committees to draw up district boundaries…. IF being independent is still possible

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/midterm-elections-gop-redistricting-lawsuits-gerrymandering

 

 

 

There can be laws made that make it harder to do. E.g., no district can have more than 6 sides to it. A side would be defined either as a straight line or a natural boundary (e.g. a river or a lake). 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Born N Bled Red]

 

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

I wish the supreme court or the senate could just come out and say there can be no district that leans more than 10% in favor of one party or the other. Or in states like Nebraska or California every district must contain an amount of registered voters that are proportional to the total registrants in the state, so in Nebraska, if 35% are registered Dems, 25% are registered I and 40% are registered R- then the make up of every district must be within 3 percentage points of those values across the state. 

[BigRedBuster]

27 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

 

I wish the supreme court or the senate could just come out and say there can be no district that leans more than 10% in favor of one party or the other. Or in states like Nebraska or California every district must contain an amount of registered voters that are proportional to the total registrants in the state, so in Nebraska, if 35% are registered Dems, 25% are registered I and 40% are registered R- then the make up of every district must be within 3 percentage points of those values across the state. 

There wouldn't be able to be any districts in central and western Nebraska. 

[Born N Bled Red]

15 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

There wouldn't be able to be any districts in central and western Nebraska. 

 

Western would be a challenge, Central is doable if you include Colfax and Madison and Saline Counties. Otherwise, you could go horizontally across the state. 

[RedDenver]

23 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

 

I wish the supreme court or the senate could just come out and say there can be no district that leans more than 10% in favor of one party or the other. Or in states like Nebraska or California every district must contain an amount of registered voters that are proportional to the total registrants in the state, so in Nebraska, if 35% are registered Dems, 25% are registered I and 40% are registered R- then the make up of every district must be within 3 percentage points of those values across the state. 

This is a silly notion that would codify the 2 parties as the only political forces that matter. And makes no sense  since the entire purpose of districts is to have local representation in government. This is just gerrymandering in another form.

 

There's any number of ways to create various methods or algorithms that can divide up a state without considerations for political leanings.

[Archy1221]

 

[Archy1221]

Seems like a crazy amount of States this is happening with, both R and D controlled.   

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Seems like a crazy amount of States this is happening with, both R and D controlled.   

Good….because it’s bull s#!t. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[DevoHusker]