and if they had fairly drawn every district with 56% gop support (reflecting state totals) they would have gotten 100% of the seats. gerrymandering guarantees at least some minority party representation. Drawing districts to “avoid gerrymandering” is gerrymandering, just to a different purpose. we do not live in a democracy with proportional representation. we have no parliament. we live in a democratic republic where you vote for individual representatives, not the party they are members of. People vote for James Clyburn, not for “democrat”. They vote for Jim Jordan, not “republican”. They are represented by a person, not a party.
What are you talking about? That percentage is total statewide voters. That varies by region. Every square mile of Ohio is not a homogeneous voter base. Regions have different proportions of voters that when aggregated approximate overall votes. Is that your assumption? If a state is 56% Republican and 44% Democrat, Republicans would win every election in a non-gerrymandered map because there is equal distribution? Completely false.
Ohio. 2008 districts vs 2018 districts after 2010 census and loss of two seats by population. In 2008, the GOP had 51% of the overall vote and 8/18 districts. In 2018 that was 57% with 12/16 districts. A 6% increase in overall vote with a 30% increase in seats. The democrats had a 6% decrease in overall votes with a 30% decrease in seats. The overall voting population didn’t change much, but lead to a 60% net change in seats.
see, there you go again. We don’t have “regions” we have “states”. You don’t want to use state averages because you don’t like the result, but state averages are state averages, You want proportional representation, well, using a states average to draw districts is proportional. Just not the proportional you want. You want proportional representation, a virtually guaranteed proportional outcome to every election. We don’t have a parliament. We don’t have proportional representation. We have representatives who we elect by name. A person to represent us, not a party. You are willing to use your own type of gerrymandering to achieve it which you mistakenly say is not gerrymandering. But it is.
Fauci is just a tool (and a fool) for leftists, so I support Jim’s questioning… 
We have “states” and we have “regions” in those “states.” They’re called “congressional districts.”
Using a states average to draw districts? Proportional distribution of representatives based on overall votes? What are you talking about? Is this what you’re advocating? It’s not what I’ve said at all. Quote me. Overall voting trends help determine if gerrymandering exists, they are not used to draw districts.
If you have a point, make it without straw man arguments.
There is of course no consensus among conservatives to that effect.
No, congressional districts are called “congressional districts”, they are not “regions” nor does anyone describe them as same.
We have district representation and state representation, we do not and never have had “regional representation”.
Districts drawn without any consideration other than geography would put all power in the cities where population density is highest.
Saying that the riots helped spread the virus(which anyone with common sense already knows) damages their rhetoric/propaganda and hence they are going to ignore it of course! 
There are no strawmen, except the ones in your denial. You wouldn’t give a rats butt about gerrymandering if the result of it were proportional in R states and elected 100% D’s in Dem states. You care about it because the side you oppose benefits in some states. Guess what? One side benefits in every state. Delaware is likely the most gerrymandered state in the union, but all you can complain about is Ohio? Why would that be? D or R is about it. Thats what it is that you don’t like, when R’s get the advantage. Where are all your posts decrying gerrymandering in DE? Oh yeah, there ain’t none. Don’t blame me that the partisan nature of the whining is so apparent, it just is.
It matters not a whit how a district is “gerrymandered” every district in the nation is gerrymandered to achieve some result. You want the result you want, and would gerrymander districts to achieve that result (and call it not gerrymandering). It is gerrymandering. eEither you add R’s and take away D’s, or you add D’s and take away R’s. Either way, you’re gerrymandering.
Finally, this is the “UNITED STATES” not the united congressional districts. So long as a states average voting history is taken into account when dividing districts, it is as close to “fair” as one can get. If we did that however, there would be very little, if any, minority party representation in Congress. Gerrymandering is good!
LOL. Which is exactly what Jordan did with Fauci. When’s snack time.
Not true.
States that have the pols draw up the lines certainly are, on both sides of the aisle.
States that have independent committees, are drawn more fairly.
fairly in what respect? Fair because you think so? No, they are not. They achieve the result the “committee” desires. Instead of the people controlling the outcome via their elected representatives, some anonymous appointed committee does. CA uses a committe, how many minority party reps are in congress from CA? Does it equal their representation of the vote? Not even close.
A blue state should have more democrats representing the state, as a red state should have more republicans representing the state, at the national level This also applies to the state wide legislators as well.
In many of the red gerrymandered states, the democrats received more votes overall, but have less state seats…due to the drawing of the district lines.
Democrats have been guilty of this as well. It needs to stop.
1 Like
why would it need to stop? Surely the electorate will punish the abusers and the next time it will be different. Oddly, that’s about exactly how it works, and has worked since it was designed to work that way.
The complaint here was about Ohio, which got 56% GOP support in the vote. If you believe what you just said, why are you arguing with me?
It seems fairly obvious. Fauci’s advice to the public is nipped and tucked to fit the political agenda of removing Trump. He is vocally for states not allowing businesses to open to rescue the economy and people’s livelihoods, claiming that will worsen the pandemic. But is unwilling to encourage states to restrict protest gatherings because they would also presumably worsen the pandemic.
No, that is not what happens.
Gerrymandering is a problem, both “sides” should agree with this.
Why are you against independent committees drawing the district lines?
21 states do it that way now in some form or another.
1 Like
I vote for people and elect them to make these decisions, not to slough it off on an anonymous appointed committee that I can’t even vote out of office if I don’t like the result. I want my representatives to be responsible for their actions, not provide them with cover. No, absolutely not, I do not want an unaccountable to the voters committee to be choosing which district I vote in and by extension who I can vote for. Not just no, but hell ■■■■■■■ no.
It is not anonymous committees.
I stopped there.
Have a good day.
of course you did.
they are anonymous in that their names do not appear anywhere on a ballot that would make them answerable to the people who’s votes they have so much influence over.
