@navarro’s example of Wisconsin nonetheless represents an accurate depiction of how gerrymandering distorts representation. Even in GOP-majority states like Texas, the Dems are heavily under-represented due to gerrymandering.
And it’s Democrats, not DNC. The DNC doesn’t run state-level candidates, thus Democratic National Committee.
That wasn’t what was under discussion. Gerrymandering was brought up to counter the idea that Trump’s base is too small to drive a win in isolation. Wisconsin was offered as an example of a place where Democrats need a “supermajority” to take control.
But there’s two problems. They just took significant control of Wisconsin without a supermajority in the popular vote. And you probably don’t need a super majority to take total control.
All im saying is the vast majority of places where this impacts control of states or the federal government. Turnout can get up over it. Listing states where we just watched that happen, or where that isn’t the situation at all. Doesn’t really alter the fact that we just watched it happen.
Don’t be pedantic it’s easier to type.
let us not forget the thousands of voting places closed by state republican legislatures and republican election judges over the past two years. almost half of those have been in texas. and given that there is a solid 5 vote majority on the supreme court against protecting voting rights and endorsing the power of money in campaigns it is going to take a very hard effort to work around the difficulties.
let us not forget that 3 million more voters voted for clinton than voted for trump and that was not enough to overcome the inequities baked into the electoral college. it would not surprise me if warren or sanders could lose the electoral college with 4-5 million more votes than trump gets.
i bring this up, not to excuse surrender but instead to clearly understand the forces arrayed against us.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
