Gerrymandering in Virginia

[Jxn Vol]

lol....stretch? To me, the converse seems to be a much greater stretch.

Have any of the paid informants publicly stated they were actually not an informant?

It’s about the same stretch as believing Obama’s social security number is legit.

 

[appvol]

 

[Rickyvol77]

To the degree that they were paid informants.....not at all.

"paid informants" lol they gave to two actual leaders of groups and helped them fund the actual protests and logistics....

Thankfully they have been exposed for their fraud

 

[appvol]

"paid informants" lol they gave to two actual leaders of groups and helped them fund the actual protests and logistics....

Thankfully they have been exposed for their fraud

You didnt know a grand wizard for the KKK was a paid informant for SPLC.

 

[Wireless1]

You didnt know a grand wizard for the KKK was a paid informant for SPLC.

Did the grand wizard know the money was coming from the SPLC?

 

[Rickyvol77]

Did the grand wizard know the money was coming from the SPLC?

How do you think the SPLC knew the exact amount needed for hotels/buses/food for that group protest

 

[Wireless1]

How do you think the SPLC knew the exact amount needed for hotels/buses/food for that group protest

I guess my question is did the grand wizard know it was from the SPLC or just a benefactor?

 

[LouderVol]

yall really don't understand how statistics actually work.

stastistically speaking if you only have 2 random selections, and the odds for one of the choices are more than 50%, you "should" pull that one twice based on the percentages.

Massachusetts is the only that you could potentially question, as it is the only one with more than 2 seats.

if it was exactly 50/50 with two chances, you would expect 1 & 1.
if its 51/49 with two chances you should expect to get the 51 twice. because at that points its still 50/49 assuming that winning 1% disappeared for some reason.

the results from one state have nothing to do with the expected results from another state, if you are making a statistical argument.

 

[Wireless1]

yall really don't understand how statistics actually work.

stastistically speaking if you only have 2 random selections, and the odds for one of the choices are more than 50%, you "should" pull that one twice based on the percentages.

Massachusetts is the only that you could potentially question, as it is the only one with more than 2 seats.

if it was exactly 50/50 with two chances, you would expect 1 & 1.
if its 51/49 with two chances you should expect to get the 51 twice. because at that points its still 50/49 assuming that winning 1% disappeared for some reason.

the results from one state have nothing to do with the expected results from another state, if you are making a statistical argument.

CT has 5 representatives.

 

[MontyPython]

We got all the industry and guns now. The majority of the military comes from the south and midwest and that is where the military bases are. Are those boys going to take up arms against their kin? No they are going to take their guns and go home, just like last time.
The civilians own more of the legal firearms and probably most of the illegal ones. Bring it on.

Only a truly mentally ill person would *hope* for another civil war.

God help you.

 

[MontyPython]

Uniparty. Small minds still think it’s R vs D. Enlighten yourself if you have that ability

I'm sorry, I don't speak Insane.

Either the Democrats or the Republicans will control the House. Those are your two options.

 

[BeardedVol]

Shocking that New England hasn't elected any Republican congressional representatives, shocking I say.

 

[LouderVol]

CT has 5 representatives.

fair enough 2 of the 9, from a pure statistical perspective "should" have at least 2 Rs.

do you realize there are multiple states with only republican representatives? I posted it earlier, and IIRC there were 2 states there as well with more than 2 representatives who didn't have any Dems.

 

[appvol]

Shocking that New England hasn't elected any Republican congressional representatives, shocking I say.

View attachment 828159

Shocking that states vote at 40% Republican up North and have no representation in Congress. Wonder way. Could it be the way the maps are drawn

 

[lawgator1]

It should not be that way, but in 30 seconds I learned that:

Louisiana 36 % of registered voters are Dems. 0 seats
Arkansas, over 20 % of their voters are registered Dems. 0 seats


This is why we need completely non-partisan drawing of district lines. And no, it should not be proportionate to distribution of party membership, i.e. Dems get 36 % of Louisiana seats. It should be entirely based on some sort of lines drawn to carve up the state into SQUARE districts by dividing the number of voters by the number of districts.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Shocking that states vote at 40% Republican up North and have no representation in Congress. Wonder way. Could it be the way the maps are drawn

Massachusetts has 0 counties that voted R. Rhode Island has 0 as well. Vermont 1 small rural one. CT only has 2 ( 2 of the 4 smallest population counties; less than 10% of total statewide population conbined). NH only 2, one which is very small population.

Other than noncoastal Maine, there are no contiguous pockets or large population cores of R voters in New England...

 

[BeardedVol]

It should not be that way, but in 30 seconds I learned that:

Louisiana 36 % of registered voters are Dems. 0 seats
Arkansas, over 20 % of their voters are registered Dems. 0 seats


This is why we need completely non-partisan drawing of district lines. And no, it should not be proportionate to distribution of party membership, i.e. Dems get 36 % of Louisiana seats. It should be entirely based on some sort of lines drawn to carve up the state into SQUARE districts by dividing the number of voters by the number of districts.

But then being an incumbent with enough corporate donors won't be enough to stave off a primary challenger or an opponent from the other party; can't have that.

 

[appvol]

 

[BeardedVol]

Shocking that states vote at 40% Republican up North and have no representation in Congress. Wonder way. Could it be the way the maps are drawn

Maine: 30% of registered voters are Republicans

New Hampshire: 30% of registered voters re Republicans

Vermont: 21% of registered voters are Republicans

Massachusetts: 8% of registered voters are Republicans

Connecticut: 20% of registered voters are Republicans

Rhode Island: 14% of registered voters are Republicans

You aren't hitting 40% voting Republican in any district in any New England state without a substantial portion of independents or Democrats crossing over.

 

[Tenacjim]

New York redrew its congressional maps in early 2024 for the 2024 elections, following a state court order that rejected previous maps. Thanks for playing

Exactly. Because the maps they submitted in 2022 were deemed unconstitutional gerrymanders. Like Appvol said.

Revisiting New York’s 2022 congressional gerrymander

Here are a few of the districts that raised eyebrows last time, which could presage a future mid-decade redistricting.

www.cityandstateny.com

 

[BeardedVol]

Exactly. Because the maps they submitted in 2022 were deemed unconstitutional gerrymanders. Like Appvol said.

Revisiting New York’s 2022 congressional gerrymander

Here are a few of the districts that raised eyebrows last time, which could presage a future mid-decade redistricting.

www.cityandstateny.com

Lol you guys trying to blame New York's 2022 congressional map, for why Texas decided to undertake a mid-decade redistricting is a trip.

 

[Tenacjim]

Lol you guys trying to blame New York's 2022 congressional map, for why Texas decided to undertake a mid-decade redistricting is a trip.

He only asked how you responded when your side did it without “provocation”. Dems try to take the high road of “we are only responding to what Texas started”. No, Dems have been masters at gerrymandering for decades. Is gerrymandering OK if it isn’t “mid-decade”?

Same with the “at least CA and VA let the people vote” BS. They HAD to in order to undo both states constitutions and reverse the “people’s voice” that has already weighed in and overwhelmingly supported the Redistricting committees.

I have WAY more respect for people who just say FAFO than act like Dems “aren’t as bad”. Virginia will be the most egregious gerrymander in the country if this isn’t struck down. But that’s Ok, Dems “aren’t as bad”….

 

[BeardedVol]

He only asked how you responded when your side did it without “provocation”. Dems try to take the high road of “we are only responding to what Texas started”. No, Dems have been masters at gerrymandering for decades. Is gerrymandering OK if it isn’t “mid-decade”?

Same with the “at least CA and VA let the people vote” BS. They HAD to in order to undo both states constitutions and reverse the “people’s voice” that has already weighed in and overwhelmingly supported the Redistricting committees.

I have WAY more respect for people who just say FAFO than act like Dems “aren’t as bad”. Virginia will be the most egregious gerrymander in the country if this isn’t struck down. But that’s Ok, Dems “aren’t as bad”….

Lol it's impressive to watch you pretend that CA and VA didn't undertake their redistricting in response to TX caving to Trump's demand.

 

[volfanhill]

Lol it's impressive to watch you pretend that CA and VA didn't undertake their redistricting in response to TX caving to Trump's demand.

What's more comical is them thinking Trump had a good plan and it wasn't half cocked bs like everything else he does. Burned the GOP again. What a damn disaster he is

 

[BeardedVol]

What's more comical is them thinking Trump had a good plan and it wasn't half cocked bs like everything else he does. Burned the GOP again. What a damn disaster he is

Dude is on death's doorstep and has no problem leaving the US a wreck on his way out, as long as his kids get to cash in.