Should Democrats also gerrymander blue states to counterbalance any advantage that republicans have due to the gerrymandering in red states?
Should Democrats also gerrymander blue states to counterbalance any advantage that republicans have due to the gerrymandering in red states?
Inportant fact to consider is that: Political gerrymandering is a "non-justicable political question" according to the supreme court, meaning the courts claim they have no constitutional power to decide this, and its up to congress (via passing a bill with the president's approval) to decide if it should be legal, and in the mean time, it's currently legal.
Republicans have been gerrymandering in red states.
Democrats in blue states on the otherhand, are either currently using non-partisan or bi-partisan commitees/commissions to draw the districting maps, or are in the process of switching to said methods of drawing the districting maps.
This mean that the house would become tipped in favor of republicans.
California and New York surely has a lot of red districts that we can gerrymander out of. The question is: Should Democrats do that? Should Democrats play dirty like republicans have? (Again, supreme court have said that political gerrymandering is legal)
Because I fear that we would have republicans perpetually in control of the house even if Democrats have the most votes nationwide.
You're viewing a single thread.
Maryland is a good example of gerrymandering in a blue state.
That state has like 8 seats.
Meanwhile, California, New York, Washington, Colorado, New Jersey, uses Non-Partisan Independent Commissions to draw the maps. These commissions aren't gonna gerrymander.
red states, on the otherhand, almost all are using the republican-dominated legislature to draw the maps. They gerrymander the shit out of them.
Democrats are so bad at this gerrymandering game.
Ny tried to do it but courts stopped it
California uses a jungle primary though, which disenfranchises minority parties.
Cool, this thread is about gerrymandering though.