Florida legislature allows Ron DeSantis to draw congressional districting maps

[goldmom]

No, that isn’t what he vetoed.
That’s a map drawn by algorithm to try and creat the most geographically compact (ergo, no partisan considerations).
The map DeSantis vetoed retains a 5th district that follows the Georgia border from Tallahassee to Jacksonville, snaking into each city to incorporate predominantly black neighborhoods and thereby create a minority-majority district.
In Leon county blacks compose roughly 1/3rd of the electorate. Previous map was gerrymandered to bridge the black populations in Leon and Duval counties together.

The current Rep. is Al Lawson who is a Dem and really a good person. the 5th is actually a fairly new district and encompasses the narrow strip of NoFla that runs along the Georgia border so it can fill in the former “safe” minority district previously represented by Corinne Brown who was convicted and removed/voted out of office in 2018 I believe. In between Jax and Tally is rural small town South. If it’s redrawn it may be into two new districts and there’s no guarantee it will be safe for R’s.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Both parties do it


Maryland is considered to be one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. Gerrymandering in Maryland has long been done as a way to disproportionately favor the Democratic Party in congressional elections.

The difference is that Democrats have consistently produced legislation that would prohibit partisan gerrymandering. Republicans actively encourage the practice. Would Democrats do the same thing if they had the chance? Perhaps, but that’s not the situation we have today.

 

[theiacowtipper]

You have to be careful laying national averages over individual states.
Trump actually won the popular vote among 49 states in total, and lost by an overwhelming margin in CA to lose the national total.
The national vote total doesn't really tell you much about a particular state.

WTF difference does that make? Are California voter less relevant than voters in Alabama? Exactly what dumb argument are you trying to make?

If you would like to hear an argument that shows the silliness of the Constitution of the United States, consider that the smallest 22 states have less people than California. 44 senators vs 2 Senators.

When the founding fathers drew up the constitution, it seems like they almost tried to make it as dumb As possible

 

[goldmom]

WTF difference does that make? Are California voter less relevant than voters in Alabama? Exactly what dumb argument are you trying to make?

If you would like to hear an argument that shows the silliness of the Constitution of the United States, consider that the smallest 22 states have less people than California. 44 senators vs 2 Senators.

When the founding fathers drew up the constitution, it seems like they almost tried to make it as dumb As possible

The Constitution is many things but silly is not one of them.
And Cali is slowly but surely losing population. So are other states while some are rapidly gaining.
If climate change continues we may be wintering in Iowa in 20 years and you all might get crowded.

 

[seminole97]

WTF difference does that make?

Person I was responding to made a reference to the national political tilt, and I was pointing out that can be misleading in examining a particular state.

Are California voter less relevant than voters in Alabama?

In a mathematical sense, unquestionably under our presidential election method.

Exactly what dumb argument are you trying to make?

I explained it above. Let me know if you still don’t understand what I was pointing out.

If you would like to hear an argument that shows the silliness of the Constitution of the United States, consider that the smallest 22 states have less people than California. 44 senators vs 2 Senators.

I’m ok with that, because I look upon the union as one for specific purposes of otherwise sovereign states.

When the founding fathers drew up the constitution, it seems like they almost tried to make it as dumb As possible

Ignorant take takes the cake for ignorance.

Do you think the UN should give China and India 1/3rd of the voting power in that body since they have 1/3rd of the world’s population between them?
Or are there considerations for members that go beyond population?

 

[sober_teacher]

Person I was responding to made a reference to the national political tilt, and I was pointing out that can be misleading in examining a particular state.

In a mathematical sense, unquestionably under our presidential election method.

I explained it above. Let me know if you still don’t understand what I was pointing out.

I’m ok with that, because I look upon the union as one for specific purposes of otherwise sovereign states.

Ignorant take takes the cake for ignorance.

Do you think the UN should give China and India 1/3rd of the voting power in that body since they have 1/3rd of the world’s population between them?
Or are there considerations for members that go beyond population?

Main objection I usually raise is I don’t think the founding fathers are would have designed the Senate the way they did had they anticipated the population imbalance that would evolve.

I like that the Senate isn’t tied to population so that the big states don’t just run roughshod over the smaller ones. Two biggest issues facing Congress are gerrymandering in the House and the filibuster in the Senate imo.

 

[DavidGraeberBullSheetJobs]

Just to be clear, they did win the popular vote in 2004. I honestly do believe there’s a solid core of conservative republicans who get that sense that they’re sliding into the minority as the country changes and they fear becoming a permanent minority so that’s why Mitch rigged the SC, which will have a conservative majority for decades now.

whats ironic is that this doesn’t have to be the case. The country has moved left, but it’s hardly a liberal hotbed of communists either. There are honestly a lot of economic topics that they could win me over on potentially but have focused instead on social/cultural issues that on many the Majority of Americans no longer agree with them on.

it is a well-funded corporate strategy to divide and conquer, to get everybody at each other’s throats over conspiracy theories or identity politics, Or just Trump like hatred and verbal or physical violence,when the reality is unless the middle and lower classes see they have common economic interest in progressive fair economic and social policies like affordable healthcare and better paying jobs and better and more equitable schools and free or very affordable public college education etc. etc., we are going to slip into a more or less violent and corporate/fascist state.

The corporations and the corporate libertarian gods actually don’t like democracy. They only want freedom for the elite. Ayn Rand capitalist princelings running it all. But corporate fascism is quite a hellscape.

what a great achievement that they recently unionized an Amazon distribution center. Or some Starbucks stores. People deserve safe, fair, respected and respectable and living wage-based jobs.

we need good nurses and teachers and they are leaving the profession because they are so poorly treated and incredibly underpaid for what they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis

 

[Aardvark86]

The florida situation is rather amusing, given that a number of gpo legislatures (eg, NC) are currently arguing in litigation that the constitution mandates the state legislatures -- and only the legislatures, which is to say not the state courts -- are constitutionally authorized to have a role in redistricting.

 

[seminole97]

Main objection I usually raise is I don’t think the founding fathers are would have designed the Senate the way they did had they anticipated the population imbalance that would evolve.

I don’t disagree that breaking up larger states would be a good idea.

I like that the Senate isn’t tied to population so that the big states don’t just run roughshod over the smaller ones. Two biggest issues facing Congress are gerrymandering in the House and the filibuster in the Senate imo.

I think the biggest issue is ignoring the 10th amendment. Respect that and let the states ‘do their thing’. A whole lotta conflict avoided by not trying to shoehorn the whole country under the next big policy idea.

 

[Tiny Hands Trump]

You have to be careful laying national averages over individual states.
Trump actually won the popular vote among 49 states in total, and lost by an overwhelming margin in CA to lose the national total.
The national vote total doesn't really tell you much about a particular state.

I mean, you could make the reverse argument that Biden won it by an even bigger amount if you remove heavy GOP states that add up to the same weight as California population wise. The electoral vote turns into a laugher too.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Person I was responding to made a reference to the national political tilt, and I was pointing out that can be misleading in examining a particular state.

In a mathematical sense, unquestionably under our presidential election method.

I explained it above. Let me know if you still don’t understand what I was pointing out.


I’m ok with that, because I look upon the union as one for specific purposes of otherwise sovereign states.

Ignorant take takes the cake for ignorance.

Do you think the UN should give China and India 1/3rd of the voting power in that body since they have 1/3rd of the world’s population between them?
Or are there considerations for members that go beyond population?

Addressing purely your last, voting at the UN is based primarily on the power of a nation. The Security Council is really the only relevant part.

 

[seminole97]

Addressing purely your last, voting at the UN is based primarily on the power of a nation. The Security Council is really the only relevant part.

So India should have the same voting power in the UN as Cuba?

 

[sober_teacher]

I don’t disagree that breaking up larger states would be a good idea.


I think the biggest issue is ignoring the 10th amendment. Respect that and let the states ‘do their thing’. A whole lotta conflict avoided by not trying to shoehorn the whole country under the next big policy idea.

Unfortunately the last time we left things mostly up to states we ended up with segregationist laws and Jim Crow Laws.

and no, I never advocated for breaking up big states.

 

[Fijimn]

Unfortunately the last time we left things mostly up to states we ended up with segregationist laws and Jim Crow Laws.

and no, I never advocated for breaking up big states.

Technically, the last time we left it up to the states an just had a disjointed union, the country lasted 8 years before the contract had to be thrown out.

 

[seminole97]

Technically, the last time we left it up to the states an just had a disjointed union, the country lasted 8 years before the contract had to be thrown out.

Need a central taxing power if you’re gonna pay off the speculators that scooped up that war debt for pennies on the dollar.

 

[ft254]

They have to be gerrymandered to make 'minority-majority' districts.
If you go by something like geographic compactness an algorithm will give you an even worse outcome for Democrats:

link

JFC. Can you get anything correct?

 

[seminole97]

JFC. Can you get anything correct?

I guess the interactive redistricting map that 538 made flummoxed you?
What is it you think is incorrect?
The Florida 5th district was carved to specifically reach into black neighborhoods in Tallahassee and Jacksonville and tie them together in order to a create a district in which blacks compose a majority. If they're not combined those communities are only about 30% of their respective local populations, and thereby are considered less likely to see a black candidate win.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-maps-spark-debate-over-majority-minority-districts
For decades, the widely accepted strategy was to group together Black voters so they comprised a majority in a statehouse or congressional district. That principle was enshrined in the federal Voting Rights Act, which requires the creation of districts with a majority or plurality of Black — or other minority racial or ethnic group — voters in places where the white population has a history of preventing them from electing their chosen representatives.
That strategy was reinforced by partisan politics. Republicans have been happy to draw districts with large numbers of Black voters because Black voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats. The effect was to pack Democrats into just a few districts and leave other parts of the state more safely Republican.

 

[MikeyHawk]

The difference is that Democrats have consistently produced legislation that would prohibit partisan gerrymandering. Republicans actively encourage the practice. Would Democrats do the same thing if they had the chance? Perhaps, but that’s not the situation we have today.

NY’s highest court rejects new congressional district maps, ruling them unconstitutional

Court rules maps for new House districts are a partisan gerrymander.

www.syracuse.com

 

[ft254]

I guess the interactive redistricting map that 538 made flummoxed you?
What is it you think is incorrect?
The Florida 5th district was carved to specifically reach into black neighborhoods in Tallahassee and Jacksonville and tie them together in order to a create a district in which blacks compose a majority. If they're not combined those communities are only about 30% of their respective local populations, and thereby are considered less likely to see a black candidate win.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-maps-spark-debate-over-majority-minority-districts
For decades, the widely accepted strategy was to group together Black voters so they comprised a majority in a statehouse or congressional district. That principle was enshrined in the federal Voting Rights Act, which requires the creation of districts with a majority or plurality of Black — or other minority racial or ethnic group — voters in places where the white population has a history of preventing them from electing their chosen representatives.
That strategy was reinforced by partisan politics. Republicans have been happy to draw districts with large numbers of Black voters because Black voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats. The effect was to pack Democrats into just a few districts and leave other parts of the state more safely Republican.

So, what happened?

 

[seminole97]

So, what happened?

I’m still unsure what you think was incorrect.

 

[abby97]

WTF difference does that make? Are California voter less relevant than voters in Alabama? Exactly what dumb argument are you trying to make?

If you would like to hear an argument that shows the silliness of the Constitution of the United States, consider that the smallest 22 states have less people than California. 44 senators vs 2 Senators.

When the founding fathers drew up the constitution, it seems like they almost tried to make it as dumb As possible

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you are a moron. Have you ever done any research on the founding of this country? The only way the original Constitution could have passed was to assure that every state was given fair representation. The house was set up as direct representatives of the people thus the number of house members were determined by the population of each individual state. The Senate on the other hand, were the representatives of the states so every state got the same number of senators because every state was equal to one another. Senators were not even supposed to voted on by the people they were originally appointed by the state legislators until that was changed by the 17th amendment.

That's why every state has the same number of senators and it is a pretty fair and good system.

 

[sober_teacher]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you are a moron. Have you ever done any research on the founding of this country? The only way the original Constitution could have passed was to assure that every state was given fair representation. The house was set up as direct representatives of the people thus the number of house members were determined by the population of each individual state. The Senate on the other hand, were the representatives of the states so every state got the same number of senators because every state was equal to one another. Senators were not even supposed to voted on by the people they were originally appointed by the state legislators until that was changed by the 17th amendment.

That's why every state has the same number of senators and it is a pretty fair and good system.

Is there a right way to take being called a moron? Asking for a friend. 🥺

One thing you didn’t mention tho, was the House was initially meant to have I think 1 rep per 30k people. They capped that in the late 20s because they feared the House would get too large and unwieldy, but arguably its already off course from what was originally intended. My main gripe with how the Senate was setup is that while I like how it was designed to be setup, I also don’t know if they’d have set it up like that if they’d have foreseen the population imbalance that we see today from state to state.