Redpill me on Gerrymandering, Sup Forums

Redpill me on Gerrymandering, Sup Forums.

How is it legal?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Objective_rules_to_create_districts
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

What do you mean how is it legal? You have to draw the borders SOME way, and there's no way to do it while perfectly enabling everyone to have a voice.

Like your middle example for instance. If every district is divided up so that it's 60% white and 40% black, black people won't really have a voice, despite representing 40% of the population. No matter how you draw the borders, someone is going to bitch about how it was done in a way that's unfair to some other group.

>What do you mean how is it legal? You have to draw the borders SOME way, and there's no way to do it while perfectly enabling everyone to have a voice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Objective_rules_to_create_districts

You didn't read the post you were responding to.

>If every district is divided up so that it's 60% white and 40% black, black people won't really have a voice, despite representing 40% of the population. No matter how you draw the borders, someone is going to bitch about how it was done in a way that's unfair to some other group.

side-note: why all white American's got proxys from white countries?

It's how they destroy third parties and independants.

Look into what a person has to do to run as independant or third party, vs dem or republican.

You can drink any beer you want as long as it's bud or Corona.

no..
>what is an Allepo?
..is how you destroy third parties

>How is it legal?
Because the constitution doesn't prohibit it

If you're referring to me, I am not using a proxy.

You didn't read it either, sheep fucker.

>No matter how you draw the borders, someone is going to bitch about how it was done in a way that's unfair to some other group.

...

>You have to draw the borders SOME way
Or you could just do popular vote. The only time you absolutely have to do this in the US is for the house.

Not according to the constitution
If we are going to amend it just eliminate the house entirely

>NC, PA, and MD
Holy shit.

the real question is why are we being asked questions that 40% needs to fight 60% for

Holy shit youre retarded, the house is more democratic than the senate because its based on population

>the house is more democratic
Democracy is a bad thing
Now cum in mum

>he doesn't know about the Seventeenth Amendment

2 lower members of the opposing parties are beside each other
Hmm, it's both of us are at 50/50 now. It wouldn't be nice to see you go.
Some hand rubbing later...
Both of us will be 100% elected now. Yay. There's no rule against doing this written anywhere and both of us aren't going to change it.

>Democrats think most voters support them even after getting blown the fuck out in recent years
>Democrats think only Republicans support and benefit from gerrymandering

Well played, although I would wager most candidates in this election were paid for.

Most likely "open borders" Johnson as well as,"Don't steal hillary's votes or you'll go to jail," stein.

So use a Dhont style system where each district is also grouped into a larger thing, or there's another level below districts.

That way the largely white electorate will gain a lot of FPTP districts, but this will be balanced out at a later stage of voting because their votes will be divided by the number of seats they've already taken (lots), whereas the red vote will be divided by the number they've already taken (not many)

Or outright use a proportional list and tell districts to go fuck themselves.

The first one is just as arbitrary as the second. Unless you select the districts at random, you'll always have this problem.

That's right, you have a computer draw at random thousands of times and choose the configuration that is closest to reflecting the underlying partizan vote.

>japan
Unless a proxy, you don't understand the importance of state sovereignty. Or you're a filthy federalist

Or you could just have proportional representation or any other multiple-seat system.

if states are sovereign, they should be independent and in some form of EU-style confederation from which they can withdraw.

I can end gerrymandering forever. Just make it so the district borders need to follow geographic lines or major roads and have a maximum ratio of perimeter to area.

But corrupt politicians won't pass such a law.

>Gerrymandering is wrong but one city determining the electoral college decision of an entire state of people isn't

Today, OP was a fag

The answer obviously is a publicly broadcasted dice rolling event determining the redrawing of the districts.

You HAVE to do it in some way. No matter what, people are going to bitch up a storm because it's unfair to them. There's no better way to do it.

What if our legislative body is composed of representatives of non-geographical "districts?" This would be nearly impossible before the contemporary pervasiveness of the internet, but today it is feasible. A district would be at least 50,000 people who identify enough with one another to agree to associate. Any district that grows to 100,000 or more can split into multiple districts, to command more votes in the body. A citizen can freely leave or join a district in any non-election year. This allows the flexibility of a proportionately representative system and also permits single-issue voters to bind together so their concerns can be voiced.

wild idea
why not just count all the votes

ITT: idiots who don't know how Gerrymandering works
Look at a map of Chicago, it's fucking ridiculous how they make these maps only to exploit a certain party.

Just kill all the Marxists, make it so that only white men over the age of 30 who have a degree and have served in the military who own land and have at least one child and a wife can vote.
Basically upper class white families only.

9th amendment fucker

I see North Carolinas districts were drawn by Michael J. Fox