(08-05-2025 09:40 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 07:42 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Democratic states like NY & California have independent commissions that manage redistricting. Republican states like TX do it through the partisan legislature

And it just so happens that R's outweigh D's. If the numbers were reversed the loons would do the same thing with the difference being that you wouldn't be here crying in your milk over it and grasping at ridiculous straws.

If you were asking me I think all redistricting should be completely non-partisan, but the Supreme Court has said I'm wrong. Texas will eventually get this through, it sounds like California is going to follow suit, and whether I like it or not every state is going to end up to where the minority party in every state has no voice or representation at all. It's quite frankly awful, but unless the Supreme Court wants to change it's mind there's no reason for any state to not immediately politically gerrymander the second they can. It's just giving away seats to the other side for no reason under the "rules" that currently exist. Whether that race to the bottom would help the D's or the R's more would require digging into which states have more meat left on the bone left to gobble up, but it honestly doesn't really matter it's now happening without any pretending it's being done for any other reason.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/04...g-00493314

Its impossible to make redistricting non partisan.

There will always be close decisions that have to be made that will favor one party over the other.

Just like a "non partisan" judiciary, I am incredibly skeptical of anything that portrays itself as a non partisan commmission.

Very rarely do they work like they promise, and if they do, it doesn't last

NC tried non partisan judicial elections, the judges elected tended to be activists. I'd much rather have honest elections and know where the people I am voting for stand without this song and dance of non partisanship.

(08-05-2025 07:41 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  They all talk big. They don't want to go to war with us. If they do they're even stupider than most of us thought.

Nope, they want to provoke you into a fight in the streets of a blue city, where a leftist judge will hear the case, and a left led police department will not come to your aid so that no matter what you do to them they punish you. This is the way all gutless commie bastards operate. It's older than Mao who hid in the hills and let the Nationalists fight the Japanese so that they could emerge at the end of the war and attack those who actually defended China. It worked the same way with Lenin. They used WWI and defeat at the German front to encourage mass desertions and then organize those troops into the street gangs that led to the overthrow of the Tsar.

And that my friend is why you don't see that kind of crap in a red city before a conservative judge and in a city where the police force still works for the citizens.

Blue regions are condemned to suffer their own stupidity and that is how it should be.

Texas is diverse but they govern with reason. When things get unreasonable the response to fight that with a conclusive show of force. Their obstructionists will be brought back and the gerrymandering completed, one which actually creates the first two truly African American districts in Texas, it's just that Red Hispanic areas get redder. Another hissy-fit for nada!

(08-05-2025 10:55 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:38 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:18 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:13 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  dems have already done this. Now you are crapping your pants when republicans are doing it.

cry more, b*tch.

And all my state is doing is complying with a SCOTUS ruling. If leftists don't like it, they can take it up with the highest court in the land. Sorry, not sorry.

So when California follows suit I won't read you complain about it at all?

We're complying with a SCOTUS ruling; they aren't. What part of that don't you understand? Any of it? Seriously, they ruled that districts created through majority-minority gerrymandering were considered unconstitutional, and we have a few in our state like that that must be changed so that's what we're doing.

So in other words, *points to SCOTUS ruling* scoreboard.

Mhmm, I knew you'd save room to cry at political gerrymandering on the other side, like a little b*tch would do. So in other words, *points to SCOTUS saying political gerrymandering is perfectly fine* scoreboard.

Nope. California can't do it until after the next Census. The last time it redrew its congressional districts was 2021, and that a regular redrawing, not a special case like ours, which, again, is due to a SCOTUS ruling saying that racial (that is, majority-minority) gerrymandering is unconstitutional, which we are complying with. Take it up with SCOTUS, not us.

And if you don't like it, well, that's just too damn bad.

(08-05-2025 10:52 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:34 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:32 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:24 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:09 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  There will soon be states with zero representation for large segments of their population…
We’re going back to post-Reconstruction America

Cry harder prog filth swine. I have no sympathy for you and your ilk. I hate you more than words can describe.

LOL, sounds like you are the one with derangement syndrome.

Nope, not at all. Hating leftist swine like you and Mensa is not deranged at all. You leftist swine ruin everything. I hate you too, BTW.

Awwww, I don't know how I'll live that supposedly Christian retard on the internet hates me.

I'm not a Christian, retard.

(08-05-2025 10:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 09:40 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 07:42 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Democratic states like NY & California have independent commissions that manage redistricting. Republican states like TX do it through the partisan legislature

And it just so happens that R's outweigh D's. If the numbers were reversed the loons would do the same thing with the difference being that you wouldn't be here crying in your milk over it and grasping at ridiculous straws.

If you were asking me I think all redistricting should be completely non-partisan, but the Supreme Court has said I'm wrong. Texas will eventually get this through, it sounds like California is going to follow suit, and whether I like it or not every state is going to end up to where the minority party in every state has no voice or representation at all. It's quite frankly awful, but unless the Supreme Court wants to change it's mind there's no reason for any state to not immediately politically gerrymander the second they can. It's just giving away seats to the other side for no reason under the "rules" that currently exist. Whether that race to the bottom would help the D's or the R's more would require digging into which states have more meat left on the bone left to gobble up, but it honestly doesn't really matter it's now happening without any pretending it's being done for any other reason.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/04...g-00493314

Its impossible to make redistricting non partisan.

There will always be close decisions that have to be made that will favor one party over the other.

Just like a "non partisan" judiciary, I am incredibly skeptical of anything that portrays itself as a non partisan commmission.

Very rarely do they work like they promise, and if they do, it doesn't last

NC tried non partisan judicial elections, the judges elected tended to be activists. I'd much rather have honest elections and know where the people I am voting for stand without this song and dance of non partisanship.

In general I do agree it's hard to do anything truly "non-partisan." However, you actually could come pretty close to doing it now if anyone actually cared to do it. The GOP (and I'm sure the Dems probably have or will be in the future) use mapping software programs to help them precisely draw districts that maximize seats for them. There's no reason these software programs couldn't be used in a way to draw districts in a non-partisan way, but there's no point in pretending that's coming anytime soon. There's now going to just be an open race to who can most precisely gerrymander and get the most seats, and we'll find out soon enough which sides have more meat left on the bone to gerrymander.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

(08-05-2025 11:03 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:52 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:34 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:32 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:24 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Cry harder prog filth swine. I have no sympathy for you and your ilk. I hate you more than words can describe.

LOL, sounds like you are the one with derangement syndrome.

Nope, not at all. Hating leftist swine like you and Mensa is not deranged at all. You leftist swine ruin everything. I hate you too, BTW.

Awwww, I don't know how I'll live that supposedly Christian retard on the internet hates me.

I'm not a Christian, retard.

Good Lord mate, its a message board.

(08-05-2025 11:02 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:55 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:38 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:18 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  And all my state is doing is complying with a SCOTUS ruling. If leftists don't like it, they can take it up with the highest court in the land. Sorry, not sorry.

So when California follows suit I won't read you complain about it at all?

We're complying with a SCOTUS ruling; they aren't. What part of that don't you understand? Any of it? Seriously, they ruled that districts created through majority-minority gerrymandering were considered unconstitutional, and we have a few in our state like that that must be changed so that's what we're doing.

So in other words, *points to SCOTUS ruling* scoreboard.

Mhmm, I knew you'd save room to cry at political gerrymandering on the other side, like a little b*tch would do. So in other words, *points to SCOTUS saying political gerrymandering is perfectly fine* scoreboard.

Nope. California can't do it until after the next Census. The last time it redrew its congressional districts was 2021, and that a regular redrawing, not a special case like ours, which, again, is due to a SCOTUS ruling saying that racial (that is, majority-minority) gerrymandering is unconstitutional, which we are complying with. Take it up with SCOTUS, not us.

And if you don't like it, well, that's just too damn bad.

When did they rule that exactly? Show your work. Because I see them sending out an order of August 1st asking for briefings on the topic, but last time I checked that ain't an order ruling anything unconstitutional.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cour...r_i4dk.pdf

This board can be so hilarious.

(08-05-2025 10:09 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  There will soon be states with zero representation for large segments of their population…
We’re going back to post-Reconstruction America

Like Massachusetts?

(08-05-2025 11:05 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 09:40 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 07:42 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Democratic states like NY & California have independent commissions that manage redistricting. Republican states like TX do it through the partisan legislature

And it just so happens that R's outweigh D's. If the numbers were reversed the loons would do the same thing with the difference being that you wouldn't be here crying in your milk over it and grasping at ridiculous straws.

If you were asking me I think all redistricting should be completely non-partisan, but the Supreme Court has said I'm wrong. Texas will eventually get this through, it sounds like California is going to follow suit, and whether I like it or not every state is going to end up to where the minority party in every state has no voice or representation at all. It's quite frankly awful, but unless the Supreme Court wants to change it's mind there's no reason for any state to not immediately politically gerrymander the second they can. It's just giving away seats to the other side for no reason under the "rules" that currently exist. Whether that race to the bottom would help the D's or the R's more would require digging into which states have more meat left on the bone left to gobble up, but it honestly doesn't really matter it's now happening without any pretending it's being done for any other reason.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/04...g-00493314

Its impossible to make redistricting non partisan.

There will always be close decisions that have to be made that will favor one party over the other.

Just like a "non partisan" judiciary, I am incredibly skeptical of anything that portrays itself as a non partisan commmission.

Very rarely do they work like they promise, and if they do, it doesn't last

NC tried non partisan judicial elections, the judges elected tended to be activists. I'd much rather have honest elections and know where the people I am voting for stand without this song and dance of non partisanship.

In general I do agree it's hard to do anything truly "non-partisan." However, you actually could come pretty close to doing it now if anyone actually cared to do it. The GOP (and I'm sure the Dems probably have or will be in the future) use mapping software programs to help them precisely draw districts that maximize seats for them. There's no reason these software programs couldn't be used in a way to draw districts in a non-partisan way, but there's no point in pretending that's coming anytime soon. There's now going to just be an open race to who can most precisely gerrymander and get the most seats, and we'll find out soon enough which sides have more meat left on the bone to gerrymander.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

But what is non partisan?

Is non partisan drawing as many toss up districts as you can no matter how illogical or "ugly" they may be?

Is non partisan the Dem talking point of X% of the vote so X number of seats?

My definition of non partisan is to draw geographically sensible districts alligning people who do life in the same overall market and "do life together"

Like my district, District 7. The Gerrymandering Project doesnt like it, but if you look at the map, its encompasses the 5 county Wilmington media market and then creeps west and north towards Lumberton and Fayettville to balance the population.

Could you draw the map other ways to make it more 50-50, probably, but there is nothing aggregious about how this district was drawn other than this area just more Red than Blue. And if you try to deny that fact, you end up with salmandor districts in the name of "fairness"

Draw geographically logical seats and let the chips fall where they may

(08-05-2025 11:21 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:09 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  There will soon be states with zero representation for large segments of their population…
We’re going back to post-Reconstruction America

Like Massachusetts?

Yup Just like Massachusetts.... I hate every single one our our federal Representatives - none represent me.

I don't really trust the League of Women Voters, but this is the best thing I could find that supports what I'm saying, bonds.

https://www.lwv.org/blog/racial-gerryman...explainer.

From the page:

Quote:If map drawers use race as a predominant factor while redistricting but can’t show a compelling reason for doing so, the resulting districts are considered racially gerrymandered. Racial gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that states must treat people the same under their laws. It also violates the Fifteenth Amendment, which outlawed racial discrimination in voting.

In previous racial gerrymandering cases, the Supreme Court has rejected districts, often irregularly shaped, that were drawn with race as a predominant factor and did not consider traditional redistricting criteria like compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions.

And there are several states, which have been pointed out, that have irregularly shaped districts that were drawn with race as a predominant but not compelling enough factor. They also have districts that didn't consider traditional redistricting criteria like compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions. (See Illinois, for example.)

My biggest problem with Dem gerrymandering talking points is that they are disingenuous. Then factor in VRA seats which guarantee ugly lines and Dem representation and you have a system that the Dems have been gaming for decades and are bad they are still losing in spite of that fact

(08-05-2025 11:18 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  This board can be so hilarious.

some of sum have to help changing diapers, eh?! ...

(08-05-2025 11:24 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 11:05 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 10:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 09:40 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 07:42 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  And it just so happens that R's outweigh D's. If the numbers were reversed the loons would do the same thing with the difference being that you wouldn't be here crying in your milk over it and grasping at ridiculous straws.

If you were asking me I think all redistricting should be completely non-partisan, but the Supreme Court has said I'm wrong. Texas will eventually get this through, it sounds like California is going to follow suit, and whether I like it or not every state is going to end up to where the minority party in every state has no voice or representation at all. It's quite frankly awful, but unless the Supreme Court wants to change it's mind there's no reason for any state to not immediately politically gerrymander the second they can. It's just giving away seats to the other side for no reason under the "rules" that currently exist. Whether that race to the bottom would help the D's or the R's more would require digging into which states have more meat left on the bone left to gobble up, but it honestly doesn't really matter it's now happening without any pretending it's being done for any other reason.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/04...g-00493314

Its impossible to make redistricting non partisan.

There will always be close decisions that have to be made that will favor one party over the other.

Just like a "non partisan" judiciary, I am incredibly skeptical of anything that portrays itself as a non partisan commmission.

Very rarely do they work like they promise, and if they do, it doesn't last

NC tried non partisan judicial elections, the judges elected tended to be activists. I'd much rather have honest elections and know where the people I am voting for stand without this song and dance of non partisanship.

In general I do agree it's hard to do anything truly "non-partisan." However, you actually could come pretty close to doing it now if anyone actually cared to do it. The GOP (and I'm sure the Dems probably have or will be in the future) use mapping software programs to help them precisely draw districts that maximize seats for them. There's no reason these software programs couldn't be used in a way to draw districts in a non-partisan way, but there's no point in pretending that's coming anytime soon. There's now going to just be an open race to who can most precisely gerrymander and get the most seats, and we'll find out soon enough which sides have more meat left on the bone to gerrymander.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

But what is non partisan?

Is non partisan drawing as many toss up districts as you can no matter how illogical or "ugly" they may be?

Is non partisan the Dem talking point of X% of the vote so X number of seats?

My definition of non partisan is to draw geographically sensible districts alligning people who do life in the same overall market and "do life together"

Like my district, District 7. The Gerrymandering Project doesnt like it, but if you look at the map, its encompasses the 5 county Wilmington media market and then creeps west and north towards Lumberton and Fayettville to balance the population.

Could you draw the map other ways to make it more 50-50, probably, but there is nothing aggregious about how this district was drawn other than this area just more Red than Blue. And if you try to deny that fact, you end up with salmandor districts in the name of "fairness"

Draw geographically logical seats and let the chips fall where they may

Sure I agree, there's really only 1 rule that's about to be left regarding districts, that they all have to be as close to equal in population as possible, but after taking that into account just drawing them as geographically logical as possible would be the most non-partisan way to do it.

(08-05-2025 11:28 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  I don't really trust the League of Women Voters, but this is the best thing I could find that supports what I'm saying, bonds.

https://www.lwv.org/blog/racial-gerryman...explainer.

From the page:

Quote:If map drawers use race as a predominant factor while redistricting but can’t show a compelling reason for doing so, the resulting districts are considered racially gerrymandered. Racial gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that states must treat people the same under their laws. It also violates the Fifteenth Amendment, which outlawed racial discrimination in voting.

In previous racial gerrymandering cases, the Supreme Court has rejected districts, often irregularly shaped, that were drawn with race as a predominant factor and did not consider traditional redistricting criteria like compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions.

And there are several states, which have been pointed out, that have irregularly shaped districts that were drawn with race as a predominant but not compelling enough factor. They also have districts that didn't consider traditional redistricting criteria like compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions. (See Illinois, for example.)

So yeah, you aren't naming some new case that required calling a special session to redraw the maps. There is a current case at the SC that very well could rule that way, reading the tea leaves probably will rule that way, but it hasn't yet. So Texas is proactively doing this by choice, and there's nothing legally stopping California from proactively calling a special session to do the same. From what I read they'd have to call the session, pass it, and then have a special election in November where the population of the state would have to agree to the changes. So not a guarantee, but nothing legally stopping them from doing it.

There's also this.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-807

And I'm still not paying for your student loans.

(08-05-2025 11:47 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  There's also this.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-807

And I'm still not paying for your student loans.

Libs hate it when their proven hypocrisy is exposed. And now it’s happening every waking moment.