Quote:You can't because racism.
Districts are created to insure that African-Americans the opportunity to elect adequate representation. Then they turn around and elect Corrine Brown and her ilk. Just like the Democrats want them to.
In theory, they're created to allow a more accurate representation of the population, but that's not the case in reality. In reality districts are drawn and redrawn as a method of creating voting blocs and altering the actual split of votes and elections. You group as many people that belong to Party A into one district - they get that one district while you, Party B, can win many, many more seats even if you are the minority. Districts are great if they are used as they were intended to be used. They are terrible when used as they are because they then
create the imbalance in representation.
Quote:In theory, they're created to allow a more accurate representation of the population, but that's not the case in reality. In reality districts are drawn and redrawn as a method of creating voting blocs and altering the actual split of votes and elections. You group as many people that belong to Party A into one district - they get that one district while you, Party B, can win many, many more seats even if you are the minority. Districts are great if they are used as they were intended to be used. They are terrible when used as they are because they then create the imbalance in representation.
All the talk over "massive voter fraud" by conspiracy theorists and the same people don't complain about this. This is the real voter/election fraud. It's shameful.
Quote:All the talk over "massive voter fraud" by conspiracy theorists and the same people don't complain about this. This is the real voter/election fraud. It's shameful.
I've seen people from both sides in this thread acknowledging and calling the gerrymandering districts shameful and needing to be changed. This is a pretty bipartisan issue.
Quote:I've seen people from both sides in this thread acknowledging and calling the gerrymandering districts shameful and needing to be changed. This is a pretty bipartisan issue.
True, I more meant outside the board. Should have made that more clear.
Quote: True, I more meant outside the board. Should have made that more clear.
Well Don't you know THIS board is a DIRECT reflection of the world outside!?!?!?! Come on man THIS IS REAL HERE! :woot:
Quote:Well Don't you know THIS board is a DIRECT reflection of the world outside!?!?!?! Come on man THIS IS REAL HERE! :woot:
nothing has ever felt so real :thumbsup:
Quote:As someone who lives in a thread of Corrine Brown's district that is literally 2 blocks wide, I was eager to be rid of her, but it's not looking like that's going to happen, so I will have to suffer with arguably one of the most embarrassing, corrupt human beings to ever be elected to congress.
...
I feel your pain. She is also my "representative" because her district happens to be a part of my neighborhood.
Quote:I've seen people from both sides in this thread acknowledging and calling the gerrymandering districts shameful and needing to be changed. This is a pretty bipartisan issue.
I think it's a bipartisan issue because there isn't really any gray area here. With many, if not most, political topics there is a level of "we don't know
for sure what the better option is." With this, it's just people blatantly being used as game pieces by politicians as if they're playing a game of Risk. It's people - regardless of party - being directly screwed over for the sake of numbers.
Quote:I feel your pain. She is also my "representative" because here district happens to be a part of my neighborhood.
Interesting, and I mean that.
Most of us don't have the experience of knowing how "they' have felt for ... well, forever.
Quote:Interesting, and I mean that.
Most of us don't have the experience of knowing how "they' have felt for ... well, forever.
Not sure what you mean by this.
I was simply identifying with FBT when it comes to living in a district that repeatedly elects Corrine Brown. For the most part, she in no way really represents me or any of the people that live around me.
Quote:I feel your pain. She is also my "representative" because her district happens to be a part of my neighborhood.
It's not an enviable position to be in, especially knowing that the congressional district I should be in is a block to either side of my house. I'm surrounded by another district, but we are a strand that they need in order to cobble together pockets of her supporters. I've actually considered moving just so I don't have to cringe every time I see the ever expanding wig on TV. If it gets much bigger, she'll look like Cousin It.
![[Image: cousin+it.png]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UFK9O6YbMQU/U6DymzDPfJI/AAAAAAAAKtQ/mxiZusKXlj0/s1600/cousin+it.png)
Quote:Not sure what you mean by this.
I was simply identifying with FBT when it comes to living in a district that repeatedly elects Corrine Brown. For the most part, she in no way really represents me or any of the people that live around me.
I found your use of "..." around representative interesting. She either is or isn't.
You say she in no way represents your interests. I was simply pointing out that you're on the other side - that African Americans have forever been in districts that in no way really represented them.
They all repeatedly get reelected. "They" get Corine Brown, "we" get Ander Crenshaw (or someone just like him).
Quote:You can't because racism.
Districts are created to insure that African-Americans the opportunity to elect adequate representation. Then they turn around and elect Corrine Brown and her ilk. Just like the Democrats want them to.
Gerrymandering is a tactic largely used by the GOP. The Dems cited Corrine Brown's district as the prime example of how deliberately these lines are drawn. I think she ran unopposed and is an awful representative, but without gerrymandering, the GOP would lose their rears each election season. Don't believe me? Look at who is pushing this and how often it occurs.
Quote:I found your use of "..." around representative interesting. She either is or isn't.
You say she in now way represents your interests. I was simply pointing out that you're on the other side - that African Americans have forever been in districts that in no way really represented them.
They all repeatedly get reelected. "They" get Corine Brown, "we" get Ander Crenshaw (or someone just like him).
I wish the people who support drawing majority black districts would understand that instead of having one safe liberal democrat and 4 safe conservative republicans, they could have 5 more moderate representatives, and this would be a lot better for their interests.
Because basically the republicans are saying "We will give you Corrine Brown if you will give us everything else." That is a great deal for Corrine Brown, but a bad deal for Corrine Browns constituents.
Quote:Gerrymandering is a tactic largely used by the GOP. The Dems cited Corrine Brown's district as the prime example of how deliberately these lines are drawn. I think she ran unopposed and is an awful representative, but without gerrymandering, the GOP would lose their rears each election season. Don't believe me? Look at who is pushing this and how often it occurs.
Gerrymandering is also used by Democrats when they have a controlling majority. Give some proof that they would lose without it.
Why is Brown a "awful representative" for the people she represents? How is she different than Ander Crenshaw?
Quote:Gerrymandering is also used by Democrats when they have a controlling majority. Give some proof that they would lose without it.
Why is Brown a "awful representative" for the people she represents? How is she different than Ander Crenshaw?
She and Crenshaw are the same in that they are both safe. They don't ever have to compromise, or reach across the aisle, to get re-elected. All these congresspeople are safe. They don't have to accomplish anything. So nothing ever gets accomplished.
Quote:She and Crenshaw are the same in that they are both safe. They don't ever have to compromise, or reach across the aisle, to get re-elected. All these congresspeople are safe. They don't have to accomplish anything. So nothing ever gets accomplished.
Quote:I wish the people who support drawing majority black districts would understand that instead of having one safe liberal democrat and 4 safe conservative republicans, they could have 5 more moderate representatives, and this would be a lot better for their interests.
Because basically the republicans are saying "We will give you Corrine Brown if you will give us everything else." That is a great deal for Corrine Brown, but a bad deal for Corrine Browns constituents.
Correct. The heavily weighted districts are a significant part of the current problems the nation faces.
A hilarious side note to the problem is that the very powers that sought to make their efforts unassailable by moderates and democrats have found themselves being outflanked by even more batcrap crazy candidates running to their right in primaries. This continued right-shift of the parties (democrats included) is also what is making it so difficult for republicans to win the presidency. All of their efforts should be in moving to the center but instead they structured their fiefdoms such that all they can do is keep bringing more and more people into the fold who are always crazier than the last batch.
Quote:Gerrymandering is also used by Democrats when they have a controlling majority. Give some proof that they would lose without it.
Why is Brown a "awful representative" for the people she represents? How is she different than Ander Crenshaw?
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/'>http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/</a>
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/'>http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/</a>
In the interest of fairness, those numbers don't mean that Democrats don't do it (as is the apparent premise of the article), just that Republicans do it more successfully.