(12-06-2022 07:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 05:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I still want to have the concept of "gerrymandering is, unquestionably, keeping peoples’ votes from counting in House and local races" explained more fully.

Tanq, I explained to you already how you has misread and misunderstood my statement there.

I was putting forth a hypothetical where the gerrymandering was so severe that it "unquestionably kept peoples votes from counting."

That would be akin to my example that I provided to #s.

Why continue to harp on this? Especially after I explained how you have repeatedly misunderstood my statement?

And I told to you I completely understood your stuff. And it still doesnt explain how even in the worst gerrymandering there is no possible way that 'people's votes [don't] count'.

The reason I bring it up is because I dont think you understand the issue --- that is the act of whether people's vote's dont count. I told you it is a fundamental bull**** mode of denoting the issue.

Please keep from harping on how your misleading comment is the result of my misunderstanding. *You* seemingly think there is an individual right to elect someone that you support, or alternatively, there is some ****** up notion of some weird ass collective right for representation as a proportion of the vote.

None of those notions exist in our system.

And, even in the most extreme gerrymander, everyone has a right to vote, and has their count. They may not win, which is the branch you whine about, nor may the party win in proportion, which is what you whine about.

But, around people that are actually a little gd educated in that realm, the cracker jack pithy crap about a situation in a gerrymander (any gerrymander, mind you) in no possible way "unquestionably kept peoples votes from counting."

But I see you are locked into the emotive explanation of your 'oh it has to be fair that a party that gets 35% of the vote gets 35% of the representation'. And are still blithely unaware of how inaccurate your trope is on it.

Instead, you choose to denote how I misunderstand your comments (I didnt) and how I misread them (I didnt). That is as opposed to actually saying how inaccurate your tight trope is. Got it. Nice double down on the subject even after Frizz offered you a path out.

Not that I would not have expected anything different from that *I* misunderstood and that *I* misread. Lolz.

I like how every bit of your inaccurate statement is somehow someone else's fault. Double lolz.