|
Phydeaux -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/29/2013 10:51:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
I don't disagree but only ONE of the two party's squeals like a stuck pig and fights tooth and nail to stop anything that would reform and stop gerrymandering.
And that would be the democrat party. Remember all the squeeeealing about voter id?
wrong as usual.
What state utterly dominated by Democrats has done away with gerrymandering and party primaries? As a matter of fact you won't find any Democratic party controlled states as heavily gerrymandered as even the average Republican controlled ones.
What - there wasn't squeeling about Voter Id? Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was. Still is. How many times has PA dems gone to the courts to slow down the implimentation of that voter bill?
I'm not inclined to do the research, as you gave the answer in your statement. States utterly dominated by democrats. There are no states utterly dominated by republicans - although texas comes close.
Democrats, through corruption, have a lock on the offices of california, hawaii, (parts of) ny, california. If an office is a *lock* you hardly need to gerrymander,, now do you.
Second. Districts get redrawn as a result of gaining or losing population. The gains, by and large, have been in republican states. Therefore, republicans have the chance to draw districts.
The losses are in democrat states. And the democrats have certainly taken the occassion to district out a few republicans. However, by and large the districts are already so skewed its hard to district out more, so you have the pleasant sight of democrats killing democrat seats.
The lack of gerrymandering therefore comes as no special virtue of the democrats, but rather the dearth of opportunity.
Nice try tho.
|
|
|
|
