Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Gerrymandering

Yes, Democrats do it. Considering that Republicans do it a LOT more, they would be stupid not to in the few states where they can. It would be far better if all states went to non-partisan commissions to draw minimally-convoluted districts. There are some very good computer programs that do this, while still respecting communities, etc. Ideally, every state would have a party split of representatives that reflected the voter split.

This is old, but still pretty nice: Busting the both sides do it myth

More democrats than not probably think gerrymandering should be abolished.
It's easy enough to divide a region into fair and equitable districts.

Those Democrats who feel it's an appropriate tactic probably feel that it's only fair to fight back against Republican cheating.

Both parties are corrupt. To me, one appears to be (much)more corrupt than the other.

One appears to be trying to fix some broken things.

One appears to be trying to break more things.

Maybe a switch hitter like Pero could explain to me why this isn't true...? I try to view both parties through the same lens, but it's difficult with the Donald Trumps, Loie Gohmerts and Marjorie Greenes in the mix. Does "the squad" balance out these crazies somehow...or do they only appear crazy because of my ideological lean, even though I don't share that same lean with most Democrats...

A conundrum.

More Republicans do gerrymanders mainly because they had more trifectas after 2010 and 2020. Although the first one to try it is Oregon. As I said, I don't blame them. It will be done to them in other states and the Democrats will do gerrymandering in a few more. But this tit for tat doesn't make it right.

Historically, 1960, 70, 80 and 90 were good years for Democratic Party gerrymandering. Mainly because they controlled more states and could. the GOP began to control more states, having the trifectas in 2000, 10 and this year. So I expect no change in those who can, will. That's being realistic or is it being cynical?

I distrust and dislike both major parties. I'll not defend or support either one. Not as a party, on certain issues yes, on others I'll oppose, but I won't walk lockstep with either one like some mindless robot.

But when one party or the other jumps all over the other party for doing something, when I can point out they do the same, I get a kick out of that. For 10 years all I heard was about the GOP gerrymandering Texas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. But not a peep about the Democrats doing the same for Illinois and New York. Yeah, realist or cynic, either one will do.

At least you don't try to defend the indefensible.

I wouldn't be so kind if asked to defend democrats. Gerrymandering is stupid. An outdated old partisan trick which proves that partisanship has always been rampant.

There's an old truism in management (and certainly held true in the military) that 20% of the personnel create 80% of the problems, and vice versa. That's about where I think the GOP/Dem divide is - although it may be low - that about 20% of the problems are created by Dems, but the GOP is responsible for 80% of the nation's woes.

I've always said gerrymandering is nothing more than congressmen choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing their congressmen. There's no defending it.

Perhaps I had the misfortune of growing up in an era that included Eisenhower and JFK. Where basically there wasn't the partisan divide of today. Where both parties had their conservative and liberal wings. Remember the solid conservative democratic south and the old Rockefeller liberal Republican Northeast? Perhaps all are too young which I'm showing my age here. Or I continue to live in the past.

IKE would have LBJ, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader over to the White House once a week to discuss how to get IKE's agenda through congress. Both JFK and LBJ worked closely with then Republican Senate minority leader Everett Dirksen. Times change, but maybe my politics haven't.

Maybe the 80-20 equation is correct and maybe it isn't. Perhaps today's political leaders could use a lesson from Reagan and Tip O'Neal.

https://www.ajc.com/news/opinion/re...-worth-recalling/sjbyaGCQcropVcAwYk0GBI/

I suppose things are what they are, today's political era is what it is. But I don't have to like it.

Yes, yes, If we could just Make America Great Again! Good lard, man...there have been fisticuffs and even duels to the death, Americans have always been hyper partisans. My grandfather was named after a four-time Democratic presidential candidate(who never won)
That's partisanship. The civil war, prohibition, civil rights...
What issue has this nation ever faced that had no partisan divide? That's normal politics.

Whatever it is that Republicans have become is not politics as usual. And they've been going this direction for several decades. Trump is just the culmination of it.

The two parties have to agree to exist in the same realities before negotiations can begin.

...that's gonna be hard to do for the alternative facts and conspiratorial crowd who believe child abuse happens in pizza parlor basements.

This one is not currently a partisan divide, but maybe it could be made into one - the proper pronunciation of gerrymander is “gary”mander.

The portmanteau was created in a political cartoon showing Vice President Elbridge Gerry’s redrawn Massachusetts district as a medieval salamander. The Gerry family, to this day, says its name with a hard ‘g’.

Gerry, curiously enough, was a nonpartisan politico (by today’s party descriptions), being a Democratic-Republican.

Democratic-Republicans had their opposition Party: The Federalists. And the opposition was pretty heated. Just because their Party name contains the names of the current major Parties, doesn't mean their positions were a combination of current Democratic Party and Republican Party positions.

Gerry was a member of the Party of Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison.