Republicans are the primary beneficiaries of gerrymandering

If they didn’t keep doubling down on racism they could be using the changing demographics of the country to their advantage.

Take the Latino vote. As a group, immigrants from Latin American countries are

  • More likely to work blue-collar jobs
  • More likely to attend church regularly
  • More likely to support “family values”
  • More likely to have a stake in issues that impact rural America (like agriculture)

In any sane world a party that supports the things the Republicans claim to stand for would be salivating over the prospect of Latino voters making up a growing portion of the electorate. In reality the opposite is true because the GOP has chosen to appeal to the racists within the party instead of reaching out to those who would otherwise be a natural fit for their stated ideals.


I’m not a tech guy, but it seems that the tools available after the 2010 Census must have been far, far more powerful than those in 2000 or 1990; John Burton was so very proud of the district he carved out for his brother in the Bay Area back in the 1980 reapportionment (“My contribution to modern art”) but the weapons to do so are just that much more powerful. Barring a deeply unlikely GOP wipeout in the states listed above in 2018/2020, this will be even more pronounced next time around.


If Americans want party-proportional representation, y’all need to move to a system that explicitly accomplishes that.

I’ve been saying that for a while now, but my fellow citizens are scared by math.

1 Like

For the most part it’s not the citizens who need to be convinced. To state the obvious: it’s hard to change an unfair system when every elected official in a position to change that system is one of the beneficiaries of it.


Thats for the people to organize new parties. But the GOP is corrupt, and has acted in several ways as an anti-democratic institution. I say Disband, and let them start over from scratch.


Well yeah, there’s definitely that. Even harder when those people have convinced the general electorate that "If you change the system, THE OTHER will win. " and the general cognitive dissonance of “Congress sucks. No, my guy is cool, it’s the rest of them.”

Again, obviously both of those come out of the former in the first place, but if you add change being hard for people in general and throw numbers or mentions of other countries at them, their eyes glaze over.


This is also why Black Conservatives vote Democrat.


@anon50609448 @alexjago51
We agree. Or at least, some of us do.

"His piece is bigger!" (Parent switches pieces). "His piece is still bigger!"
It happens with (some) children, and I give politicians even less credence.
Also, since we don’t technically legally mandate two parties, I wonder whether you could legally require that only democrats and republicans have a voice in the redistricting.

1 Like

Both parties have engaged in gerrymandering,

One side sees a slight advantage at times while the other had strategic non-profit think tanks designing strategies to gerrymander in order to win more seats and disenfranchise minority voters. This is not a “both sides” issue, but the GOP trying to game the system.

Do some Dems seek advantage? Yeah. But it is in no way equal, and the false equivalency disclaimer is not necessary.


The reason Democrats have fewer opportunities is because the GOP has taken gerrymandering to a whole new level. They had a strategic plan to take over state houses in time for the Census and use their control to gain outsized control. By doing so they guarantee control of redistricting.

It’s not that Democrats don’t have the opportunity, but that when they had the opportunity they didn’t use it to lock in control. They could have, but did not. Then the GOP could, and did.

It’s not apples and apples.


I have never had that problem when the children are involved in the process I described. When one cuts and the other chooses first has led to mathematically precise models every time. This is not about ME being fair, its about them not wanting the other to benefit from THEIR cut.

Like all things, your mileage may vary, but it has always worked for me.


I’m more scared by the Constitutional Convention that would likely be needed to do it, and the loss of freedoms it would include.


Although it may seem appropriate to divide the realm up with a straightedge, geography and demography don’t always cooperate.

Mountain ranges, rivers, even the boundaries of cities can seem hopelessly irregular.

How’s this for a metric? It should be possible, using a coarse map, for the overwhelming majority of district residents to ascertain which district they belong to.


I’d like to point out that it’s important for everyone to participate in the census in 2020.


I myself would lean toward caution and say “Captain Just-In-Case”.



It worked for my mom as well, but I’ve heard stories (not witnessed myself)
of it having that failure mode. More importantly, I trust small children
much more than political parties to have beliefs like “there exists a
consistent, persistent reality external to my desires and whims.”


The conservative projection in all of this, claiming false voters, is them projecting their guilt for gaming the system for control.


"So We’ve Got That Goin’ For We, Which is Nice.”


Fixed (and so on).