Texas VS. California Redistricting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Callatoroy
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 117
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
C

Callatoroy

Iconic Member
Messages
2,253
Could this be a rare topic that mainstream republicans and democrats find common ground on? I listened to the texas speaker of the house on this issue yesterday and then listened to comments from newsome and other california reps threatening to "fight fire with fire" and both sides sounded like the most spoiled, immature, entitled children I have ever heard. I can't imagine the mainstream residents of either state are happy with the childish arguments and willful hypocrisy displayed. It was the absolute lowest that politics can get. Gerrymandering is all it amounts to and I wonder if moderates on both sides of the aisle agree it should be abolished?
 
Absolutely 100% I think that gerrymandering should be banned at the federal level. In 2021 a bill was brought before the House in which every single Democrat voted to ban gerrymandering, and every single Republican voted against the bill. I think that the fighting fire with fire approach is nothing more than a race to the bottom, and that applies to both sides of the aisle. Completely agree with you that both sides sound like morons right now, both California and Texas.

That said, I do at least appreciate the Democratic states that are willing to play the GOP’s game, finally. It’s not good for any of us, obviously, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but it’s high time the Democrats stop bringing a kazoo to a bazooka fight.
 
Callatoroy said:
Could this be a rare topic that mainstream republicans and democrats find common ground on? I listened to the texas speaker of the house on this issue yesterday and then listened to comments from newsome and other california reps threatening to "fight fire with fire" and both sides sounded like the most spoiled, immature, entitled children I have ever heard. I can't imagine the mainstream residents of either state are happy with the childish arguments and willful hypocrisy displayed. It was the absolute lowest that politics can get. Gerrymandering is all it amounts to and I wonder if moderates on both sides of the aisle agree it should be abolished?
Click to expand...
It wasn’t that long ago that there was a Congressional bill to eliminate gerrymandering. All Dems voted in favor, all Pubs voted against it.
 
CFordUNC said:
Absolutely 100% I think that gerrymandering should be banned at the federal level. In 2021 a bill was brought before the House in which every single Democrat voted to ban gerrymandering, and every single Republican voted against the bill. I think that the fighting fire with fire approach is nothing more than a race to the bottom, and that applies to both sides of the aisle. Completely agree with you that both sides sound like morons right now, both California and Texas.

That said, I do at least appreciate the Democratic states that are willing to play the GOP’s game, finally. It’s not good for any of us, obviously, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but it’s high time the Democrats stop bringing a kazoo to a bazooka fight.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the bill. I'm not aware of the amendments to the bill that MIGHT have caused the pubs to vote against it. Maybe it did, but I doubt the bill was a simple as "Gerrymandering will be abolished in any way, shape, or form beginning on this date." I do know that both have been doing it for a very long time and both are acting as if they are somehow justified because the other side is doing it. Saying all republicans voted against a bill to abolish it and all democrats voted in favor is misleading at best because they have been doing it for decades. It's never as simple as that.

That said, I certainly would like to see it abolished and have to think that most sane people on either side can see how destructive it is.
 
Callatoroy said:
I'm aware of the bill. I'm not aware of the amendments to the bill that MIGHT have caused the pubs to vote against it. Maybe it did, but I doubt the bill was a simple as "Gerrymandering will be abolished in any way, shape, or form beginning on this date." I do know that both have been doing it for a very long time and both are acting as if they are somehow justified because the other side is doing it. Saying all republicans voted against a bill to abolish it and all democrats voted in favor is misleading at best because they have been doing it for decades. It's never as simple as that.

That said, I certainly would like to see it abolished and have to think that most sane people on either side can see how destructive it is.
Click to expand...
yeah, now that I do not know- I have no idea what, if any, additional riders were on that bill. i’d have to look it up and read it because I’m curious. Here is a quick link I found might be helpful for both of us:

www.brennancenter.org

Annotated Guide to the For the People Act of 2021

The For the People Act would transform our democracy by making it fairer, stronger, and more inclusive. The Brennan Center explains the key provisions of this historic bill.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org
 
CFordUNC said:
yeah, now that I do not know- I have no idea what, if any, additional riders were on that bill. i’d have to look it up and read it because I’m curious. Here is a quick link I found might be helpful for both of us:

www.brennancenter.org

Annotated Guide to the For the People Act of 2021

The For the People Act would transform our democracy by making it fairer, stronger, and more inclusive. The Brennan Center explains the key provisions of this historic bill.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org
Click to expand...
  • Republican Advantage: Historically, Republicans have been more assertive in their gerrymandering efforts and have gained a greater advantage from the practice. For instance, following the 2010 census, Republicans leveraged control over redistricting in numerous states, resulting in maps that gave them a significant advantage in the House of Representatives.
  • Democratic Gerrymandering: Democrats also engage in gerrymandering in states where they control the redistricting process. For example, in Illinois, Democrats drew districts to solidify their control and reduce the number of Republican-held seats.
  • Recent Trends: After the 2020 census, Democrats have also adopted aggressive redistricting strategies, sometimes in response to Republican gerrymandering. However, in some states, like California, where Democrats have strong majorities, independent commissions handle redistricting, limiting partisan gerrymandering.
It's important to note that state courts are increasingly active in striking down gerrymandered maps, regardless of the party responsible, according to The New York Times. Despite both parties participating in the practice, the overall effect of gerrymandering at the national level might be somewhat balanced or even cancel out, according to a 2023 study.

I'm assuming that the 2023 study was the Yale study. Don't know for sure. For the sake of conversation, I will acknowledge that pubs engage in more overt gerrymandering but don't know why that is. I know california supposedly has an "independent" element to their redistricting but again, don't know why that is given their supermajority. Maybe that was enacted after they acquired their supermajority to appear more "balanced". Maybe not, I don't know that much about it. My point is would this issue find common ground between most mainstream people, regardless of political affiliation?
 
CFordUNC said:
yeah, now that I do not know- I have no idea what, if any, additional riders were on that bill. i’d have to look it up and read it because I’m curious. Here is a quick link I found might be helpful for both of us:

www.brennancenter.org

Annotated Guide to the For the People Act of 2021

The For the People Act would transform our democracy by making it fairer, stronger, and more inclusive. The Brennan Center explains the key provisions of this historic bill.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting. I understand why it got no republican support.
 
1moretimeagain said:
It wasn’t that long ago that there was a Congressional bill to eliminate gerrymandering. All Dems voted in favor, all Pubs voted against it.
Click to expand...
Such a misleading statement. There was a bill that was proposed and eliminating gerrymandering was but a tiny fraction of the bill.
 
Callatoroy said:
  • Republican Advantage: Historically, Republicans have been more assertive in their gerrymandering efforts and have gained a greater advantage from the practice. For instance, following the 2010 census, Republicans leveraged control over redistricting in numerous states, resulting in maps that gave them a significant advantage in the House of Representatives.
  • Democratic Gerrymandering: Democrats also engage in gerrymandering in states where they control the redistricting process. For example, in Illinois, Democrats drew districts to solidify their control and reduce the number of Republican-held seats.
  • Recent Trends: After the 2020 census, Democrats have also adopted aggressive redistricting strategies, sometimes in response to Republican gerrymandering. However, in some states, like California, where Democrats have strong majorities, independent commissions handle redistricting, limiting partisan gerrymandering.
It's important to note that state courts are increasingly active in striking down gerrymandered maps, regardless of the party responsible, according to The New York Times. Despite both parties participating in the practice, the overall effect of gerrymandering at the national level might be somewhat balanced or even cancel out, according to a 2023 study.

I'm assuming that the 2023 study was the Yale study. Don't know for sure. For the sake of conversation, I will acknowledge that pubs engage in more overt gerrymandering but don't know why that is. I know california supposedly has an "independent" element to their redistricting but again, don't know why that is given their supermajority. Maybe that was enacted after they acquired their supermajority to appear more "balanced". Maybe not, I don't know that much about it. My point is would this issue find common ground between most mainstream people, regardless of political affiliation?
Click to expand...
I gotta feel like it would be an issue where a lot of folks could find common ground, because I really do believe that most people reside between the “political 40’s” and generally want government that works effectively. Gerrymandering is a great way to ensure that only the extremist crazies get into Congress and that Congress generally grinds to a halt.

Speaking for myself personally, in a perfect world I’d love to be able to vote for both Republicans and Democrats and base it on which candidate is closer to my preferred policy aims in any given election cycle. I’d like to get to a place where it doesn’t feel like an existential crisis when your preferred party doesn’t win. But right now, it feels like the ideological pendulum swings so violently based on which party wins an election, so it’s virtually impossible to be a moderate or independent voter and not have a very strong voting lean.
 
CFordUNC said:
I gotta feel like it would be an issue where a lot of folks could find common ground, because I really do believe that most people reside between the “political 40’s” and generally want government that works effectively. Gerrymandering is a great way to ensure that only the extremist crazies get into Congress and that Congress generally grinds to a halt.

Speaking for myself personally, in a perfect world I’d love to be able to vote for both Republicans and Democrats and base it on which candidate is closer to my preferred policy aims in any given election cycle. I’d like to get to a place where it doesn’t feel like an existential crisis when your preferred party doesn’t win. But right now, it feels like the ideological pendulum swings so violently based on which party wins an election, so it’s virtually impossible to be a moderate or independent voter and not have a very strong voting lean.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with almost everything stated here. Adamantly opposed to gerrymandering.
 
I think there’s an argument to be made that gerrymandering in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s gerrymandering for partisan advantage that’s the problem.
 
CFordUNC said:
I gotta feel like it would be an issue where a lot of folks could find common ground, because I really do believe that most people reside between the “political 40’s” and generally want government that works effectively. Gerrymandering is a great way to ensure that only the extremist crazies get into Congress and that Congress generally grinds to a halt.

Speaking for myself personally, in a perfect world I’d love to be able to vote for both Republicans and Democrats and base it on which candidate is closer to my preferred policy aims in any given election cycle. I’d like to get to a place where it doesn’t feel like an existential crisis when your preferred party doesn’t win. But right now, it feels like the ideological pendulum swings so violently based on which party wins an election, so it’s virtually impossible to be a moderate or independent voter and not have a very strong voting lean.
Click to expand...
I agree with you; but, the “I vote for the candidate and not the party” ideal runs aground once elected.

Susan Collins in Maine is allowed to vote as a moderate conservative when the GOP doesn’t need her vote.

Once elected, your carefully selected moderate conservative will vote MAGA when the GQP needs the vote.

Democrats haven’t been able to successfully lasso “moderate conservatives” such as Joe Manchin or loons like Kirsten Sinema.
 
Callatoroy said:
  • Republican Advantage: Historically, Republicans have been more assertive in their gerrymandering efforts and have gained a greater advantage from the practice. For instance, following the 2010 census, Republicans leveraged control over redistricting in numerous states, resulting in maps that gave them a significant advantage in the House of Representatives.
  • Democratic Gerrymandering: Democrats also engage in gerrymandering in states where they control the redistricting process. For example, in Illinois, Democrats drew districts to solidify their control and reduce the number of Republican-held seats.
  • Recent Trends: After the 2020 census, Democrats have also adopted aggressive redistricting strategies, sometimes in response to Republican gerrymandering. However, in some states, like California, where Democrats have strong majorities, independent commissions handle redistricting, limiting partisan gerrymandering.
It's important to note that state courts are increasingly active in striking down gerrymandered maps, regardless of the party responsible, according to The New York Times. Despite both parties participating in the practice, the overall effect of gerrymandering at the national level might be somewhat balanced or even cancel out, according to a 2023 study.

I'm assuming that the 2023 study was the Yale study. Don't know for sure. For the sake of conversation, I will acknowledge that pubs engage in more overt gerrymandering but don't know why that is. I know california supposedly has an "independent" element to their redistricting but again, don't know why that is given their supermajority. Maybe that was enacted after they acquired their supermajority to appear more "balanced". Maybe not, I don't know that much about it. My point is would this issue find common ground between most mainstream people, regardless of political affiliation?
Click to expand...
"For the sake of conversation, I will acknowledge that pubs engage in more overt gerrymandering but don't know why that is." It's because their policies are bad for most Americans and the only way they can stay in power is through gerrymandering. For example:

  • Faster GDP growth: Annual real GDP growth has been 1.2 percentage points faster on average under Democratic administrations compared to Republican administrations (3.79% vs. 2.60%).
  • Greater job creation: Total job growth has averaged 2.5% annually under Democratic administrations, compared to just over 1% annually under Republican administrations.
  • Stronger private sector job growth: The Democratic advantage in private job growth is even larger than in total job growth.
  • Higher business investment: Business investment growth is more than double the pace under Democratic administrations compared to Republican ones.
  • Lower average inflation: Average rates of inflation, including core measures that exclude volatile food and energy prices, are slightly lower during Democratic administrations.
  • Faster income growth for lower-income families: Families in the bottom 20% of the income distribution experience 188% faster income growth during Democratic administrations.
  • Better post-pandemic economic recovery: Real GDP growth has returned to pre-pandemic levels much quicker in the United States than in other G7 countries under the Biden-Harris administration, even exceeding pre-pandemic forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office.
To borrow and adapt a quote from the movie, "The American President", ... "The GOP is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections." Faux news has perfected this and the entire MAGA cult has drank the Kook-Aid.
 
Yea, I can agree with you on that.

I don't want to see any of it, and it'll suck if a whole bunch of states start redoing their districts to max seats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top