(12-09-2022 01:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 08:53 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 06:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2022 10:40 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  So you didn’t really have a point at all? Question still stands, what DID you mean by extreme gerrymandering leading to votes not counting? You’ve explained what you didn’t mean.

And that is what you got from this? Classic quad.

So no answer to the question and a deflection? Classic RiceLad.

YOUR words, what did you mean by them? Extreme gerrymandering that leads to votes not counting - what does that mean? If you post something on a discussion board, someone might ask for explanation and clarification, which is what I'm NOT getting from this.

Action like an *******. Classic Frizzy Owl.

Seriously, if you want to engage in an honest conversation, don't accuse someone of not really having a point at all. Kinda silly to expect someone to engage with them when you insult them off the bat :)

(12-09-2022 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 11:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, serious question: does voting for a candidate who loses mean one's vote doesn't count?

In the end, yes, since we have a first past the post system.

But, from my perspective, it does count if there is an honest system in place that doesn’t intentionally place a person into a specific box because of who they are likely to vote for. Once you start packing and cracking based on the likelihood of voting for a specific candidate or party, the impact of one’s vote inherently diminishes (in my opinion).

In your summary, that means that ANY vote that doesn't win the race doesn't count.

In actuality, yeah, it doesn't. I don't hold that view, but in a first past the post system, the losing candidate gets nada, so it's rather easy to argue that none of those votes actually count. I don't think that's the case if there hasn't been a specific reason to pack or crack votes.

Quote:In your perspective, you seem to ignore that many districts are specifically drawn to get a certain type of person elected... I don't mean a party, though in this case it often works out that way... but to get a minority (usually racial) elected and in a simple example, making the votes of people of what might be a DIFFERENT minority 'not count'?

So it seems that any gerrymandering at all, no matter how 'extreme' almost by design is going to disenfranchise someone.

Tell me... what is the difference in terms of 'honesty' between creating a district that is perhaps assured to be 51% black vs creating a district that is perhaps assured to be 51% Republican or Democrat? Why would one be 'honest' and the other be 'extreme'?? ESPECIALLY if you're doing this for a larger, more broad population that is perhaps 30% black and 45% Republican?

So now 'honesty' and 'extreme' become subjective.

How do I ignore anything in my perspective? I did not limit my response to a specific party - I said CANDIDATE or party. I'm not really a fan of gerrymandering across the board - be it for political or racial purposes.

I think there is a spectrum of gerrymandering, but I don't really like it across the board.

What have I written that makes me you ask that question at the end? It appears to be coming from a place where you assume I support one type of gerrymandering but not another type of gerrymandering.