And let’s not forget that there is a concerted effort not only to remove undocumented immigrants, but to stem LEGAL immigration, which are viewed by many as being democratic strongholds in electoral politics.
But I’m sure that’s just about protecting America and is in no way political… /s
The Electoral College is pre-gerrymandered by design, thanks to the small-state bias. That is the entire purpose of the Electoral College; to ensure that the wealthy maintain control of the state.
State level gerrymandering gives partisan control of electoral administration. Voter suppression and disenfranchisement plays a major role in American elections.
State level gerrymandering also has a more indirect role in Presidential elections. The knowledge that your vote is functionally meaningless in local affairs provides a strong incentive not to vote at all, and severely handicaps the development of local political organising.
I know there is a joke available here… what is it?!? Car crashes at 15 mph are a lot safer since Nader? Maybe they’re both going 15, but one of them is in an Orange Pinto?
It really isn’t. It predates the telegraph ffs. Maybe it’s a relic, but we here in the US could ultimately achieve the same effect without a constitutional convention, and would a constitutional convention be a good idea at all just now?
What we need to do is make participation in the political process more like playing video games or like attending cool little exclusive parties. What the hipsters go for.
Ok smarty pants. If gerrymandering the maps doesn’t help a party win an election… why do they do it? Because it does rig an election.
Some of the more subtle ways to twist an election…
https://twitter.com/elisefoley/status/961726683672989697
As with chattel slavery/prison slavery, the 3/5ths Compromise never went away. It just changed form.
One of the things we somewhat woke pinkos have been bitching about for decades is the hypocrisy of the US talking democracy for other nations and never really doing anything to promote in any way the matters, preferring instead to enable (to say the absolute least) fascist states.
Great to see (JK) that our war against democracy is being practiced here as well. Obviously, GOP anti-vote efforts has eliminated the hypocrisy we’ve been whining about. MAGA, right?
If only the people who wrote the constitution had an idea that might have influenced this one…
Folks… we could get this passed, it’s already >50%
I’m starting to think that we are witnessing a fascist coup d’etat in slow motion.
Starting?
Trust me, the Republican party did not plan for a slippery loose cannon populist demagogue former Democrat to use them as a flag of convenience. (I do get their mailings and phone calls, you know.)
He’s playing the GOP as hard as he’s playing anyone else.
So… American Fascists are retarded? 
The Congressional Apportionment Amendment is rather a dead letter. At the US current population, it would allow the Congress to fix the number of representatives, as long as the number wouldn’t fall below 200 or above about 6000. That’s an awfully broad range, and the current 435 is within it.
Thing is, it isn’t though. AND it has the benefit of being actual. It’s quite open for debate. A state can still pass this. Tomorrow. As is. MOST HAVE.
And it does not fix the limit quite as you say, it would require a lot of work to get it down to 435.
The idea is basically “how do we dilute the power of money in politics” - and the answer is have 6,000 member of the House.
And you, why do you hate the First Amendment? 
Huh? The rule is:
At least 1:30,000 people, until there are 100 Representatives
Then at least 1:40,000 people until there are 200 Representatives
Then at least 200 Representatives, but not more than 1:50,000 people.
And yes, I know that in the legislative history of the amendment, the final word ‘more’ had read ‘less’ - but that’s not the form in which it was submitted to the States for ratification.
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the
Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty
thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the
proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not
less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative
for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives
shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so
regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred
Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty
thousand persons
IANAConstL, we may disagree, but i also think we’re getting at different things. My goal is to reduce the influence of money in the process specifically by vastly increasing the number of representatives in the house. I may have misread things but passing this would void the subsequent apportionment acts and the precedents under them, leading to a likely vastly expanded house. Maybe not 6K but I’d be glad to trade down to 2K. Either way it revisits the issue without a constitutional convention.
Depends on the election. Not all elections are equal.
Congress? You bet. Gerrymandering is the best way to win.
State legislatures? No doubt. All the cool kids do it.
County council/Commission/Board of Supervisors? Maybe, more so than pre- Baker v. Carr.
Any statewide election, ie Governor, U.S. Senate, President? Nope. Won’t help.
Those are winner take all (in most cases). Doesn’t matter where the lines are drawn for Congress or anything else in these contests.
Well, I do have the luxury of watching this from another continent, and I guess up until the last two years or so the dumpster fire that is US American internal politics simply wasn’t big enough yet to be that much of a worry over here.
