Gerrymander based on ideology instead of race

[andy06shake]

Gerrymandering | Definition, Litigation, & Facts | Britannica

 


The Supreme Court FINALLY, did another thing right, they stated that gerrymandering based on skin color is, well, racist.  And just to note, not everyone of any skin color believes the same way.

We look at states like Illinois where just 2 counties that are one ideology, can control and dictate to the rest of the state that is of a different ideology.  Maybe we can have honest representation based on ideology.  Like, what's the word. . . . . . a democracy.

 

Just because not everyone of the same race votes the same way doesn't mean racial gerrymandering stops being a problem.

And as far as im aware counties don't vote.

People do.

Democracy is based on population and majority rule. 

Not how much land an area has...

[IDELB2006]

Let me ask you this, "Why are women stupid enough to sign contracts for less than average pay"?

That's oversimplifying the problem.  While I was growing up, I can recall my mother coming home from work after asking her boss for a raise.

His reply was, if she wanted more money, she needed to marry a man that made more money. 

When you live in a rural area, finding another job may not be an option, and when an employer has an advantage,  it would be bad business not to make use of it.

Especially when dealing with stupid women.

[govshill2]

Has it happened yet? 
Has superficial identification and preference gone anywhere? 
Has the benefit of the largely Tejano South of Texas having a Tejano rep they identify with gone anywhere? 
Have people stopped or wanted to stop voting that way yet? 

How about I bail on this thread with David Draiman now?  
[Video: https://youtu.be/3JUyx_YxCMM?si=q_JPS_JogefafsBn]

Hey look, a liberal just made the "social benefit to a willfully chosen community segregation" argument.... Thats a former white supremacy argument, everything has inverted now. 

*Because I really don*t see anything racist about drawing districts around ANY local racial majority. Even white republicans. 

A collection of happy majorities is their more localized representative districts is better than a uniformity of bitter forced divesity in ridiculous oblong tracts. It's diversity is representated in aggregate, and I think gerrymandering quite literally draws us away from this reality of what people seek in communities more often than not.

So what happens when voters disagree with what you think?  

[govshill2]

You don't seem to comprehended what I posted - "crime" is directly related to the "criminal activity" described in the link in my previous post.

Also, don't ask for things you don't want to learn:

Which political party has gerrymandered more seats in the United States historically?



You know, if it was universally "one person, one vote" in the USA, not only would it be a fairer and more even distribution of power among all the citizens than the Electoral College system,

... and (drum roll):

- it would be impossible to gerrymander!

- nor could you apply unequal voting power to any groupings of any particular ethnicities or tax bracket!

- and the bi-partisan power structure would vanish, too. You could have independents whose policies are better liked than the party followers, that could gain a seat in government.

Wow, such a simple thing to implement that would completely, permanently and absolutely solve several of the US's current political problems. Who'd have thunk it?

They never did Gerrymander The Electoral College. But a Constitutional Amendment could.   

[chr0naut]

They never did Gerrymander The Electoral College. But a Constitutional Amendment could.   

But the Electoral College has been a type of gerrymander right from its inception! No-one has to do anything to 'gerrymander' it. Just look at the power of the District of Columbia!

No-one would be able to gerrymander anything if you had a 'one-person, one-vote' system.

The EC system disenfranchises most of the citizens of America, reducing the power of their vote and giving it away to others.

The EC ensures that just 275 votes are all that are required to win power over a country of about 348,721,077 people.

No matter what the popular vote is, the EC is the vote that actually decides who the government is, which turns your whole election shadow-play into classic "bait and switch".

[DBCowboy]

At this point, we are witnessing the real identity of the Republican Party, the ones who insist "we are not racists." Observe how they erase areas of the map that would have allowed minorities to have representatives.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...d20eed.jpg]

Minorities still have representatives.  To demand that they have the same skin color is racist.

[DBCowboy]

Just because not everyone of the same race votes the same way doesn't mean racial gerrymandering stops being a problem.

And as far as im aware counties don't vote.

People do.

Democracy is based on population and majority rule. 

Not how much land an area has...

Race is only an issue when racists bring it up.

FFS, this is 2026.

Can we stop focusing on skin color?

It's as arbitrary as eye color.

Should we gerrymand for that next?

[andy06shake]

Race is only an issue when racists bring it up.

FFS, this is 2026.

Can we stop focusing on skin color?

It's as arbitrary as eye color.

Should we gerrymand for that next?

Eye colour was never used to deny people representation, block voting, segregate schools and housing, or divide districts to reduce influence.

Race was.

And saying "stop talking about race" does not magically erase racism, DB.

If only the world and the people in it worked that way...

Racism is still a thing, pretty short-sighted to pretend otherwise.

Else organisations like the Ku Klux Klan.

The National Socialist Movement.

Patriot Front.

Or the Aryan Nations gangs, that are so prevalent in your prison system, simply would not exist in this day and age.....and they still do.

[BeyondKnowledge]

But the Electoral College has been a type of gerrymander right from its inception! No-one has to do anything to 'gerrymander' it. Just look at the power of the District of Columbia!

No-one would be able to gerrymander anything if you had a 'one-person, one-vote' system.

The EC system disenfranchises most of the citizens of America, reducing the power of their vote and giving it away to others.

The EC ensures that just 275 votes are all that are required to win power over a country of about 348,721,077 people.

No matter what the popular vote is, the EC is the vote that actually decides who the government is, which turns your whole election shadow-play into classic "bait and switch".

Well, that was the purpose of the electorial college all along. It was to stop the population centers from deciding on the presidential election. 

In a popular vote, all it takes to win is a few big cities to vote the same way. All the less populated areas, 90% or more by area, would have no say in anything. 

It is not a perfect system but it at least forces the candidates to campaign all over instead of just in the big cities. 

If you think this makes being in a big city weaken your vote, then why do you stay there?

[DBCowboy]

Eye colour was never used to deny people representation, block voting, segregate schools and housing, or divide districts to reduce influence.

Race was.

And saying "stop talking about race" does not magically erase racism, DB.

If only the world and the people in it worked that way...

Racism is still a thing, pretty short-sighted to pretend otherwise.

Else organisations like the Ku Klux Klan.

The National Socialist Movement.

Patriot Front.

Or the Aryan Nations gangs, that are so prevalent in your prison system, simply would not exist in this day and age.....and they still do.

And you have BLM, Hispanic groups.  There will always be stupid people.

We shouldn't dumb-down our society or culture to accommodate them.