Voting Redistricting or Gerrymandering

Tim Simmons

I do question what the legs are for "third term" with Americans. No doubt some portion of his fanbase would be fine with it, but they are also idiots, so I don't really count them. I know its its only been enshrined for 70+ years, but I do think for most, even some Trumpers, its a step too far.

DE4173

My guess is trolling for the most part.

DE4173

Oh and of course, making money selling the merch 🤪 

Tim Simmons

Agreed

DE4173

https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1956380823894061375?t=3_-342xaTJeFw0bcbmKE6w&s=19

gimmesometruth27

DE4173 said:

But it does and has happened in the past, mid-decade even, even though it's less common?

when?

gimmesometruth27

josevolution said:

DE4173 said:

But it does and has happened in the past, mid-decade even, even though it's less common?

So what are you ok with GOP doing this? What else should democrats do nothing? It’s to late to go high when they go low way to late 

they go low, we should step on them.

the high road is useless when one side does not play by the rules and norms.

Lerxst1992

In five years the next census will move ten seats from dem states to R states…and the dems have no plan how to win the senate anyway

So what’s the big deal here, they ain’t getting any new laws with the house and another impeachment will make them look like a joke again.

DE4173

gimmesometruth27 said:

DE4173 said:

But it does and has happened in the past, mid-decade even, even though it's less common?

when?

FYI AI, because I'm lazy. Please feel free to accept or decline its output:

Recent Cases of Mid-Decade Redistricting (Post-2020 Census, Before 2030)Since the 2020 census, several states have redrawn congressional or legislative maps before the 2024 elections, primarily due to court orders or legal challenges related to VRA violations or unconstitutional gerrymandering. These cases are not necessarily "voluntary" mid-decade redistricting but were mandated or prompted by judicial rulings:

1. Alabama (2023):
   • Alabama enacted a new congressional map on October 5, 2023, after a federal court ruled that the state’s 2021 map violated Section 2 of the VRA by not creating a second majority-Black district. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. Milligan (2023) affirmed this, leading to a court-approved map with a 48.7% Black voting-age population in one district.
2. Georgia (2023):
   • On December 8, 2023, Georgia enacted new congressional and legislative maps after a federal court ruled on October 26, 2023, that the 2021 maps violated the VRA by diluting Black voting power. The new congressional map included a majority-Black district, as ordered by the court, and was upheld for use in 2024 elections.
3. Louisiana (2024):
   • Louisiana adopted a new congressional map in January 2024 after a special legislative session, prompted by a federal court ruling that the 2021 map violated the VRA. The new map created a second majority-Black district (approximately 56% Black population). The U.S. Supreme Court allowed its use for 2024 elections under the Purcell principle, despite ongoing litigation (Louisiana v. Callais, scheduled for reargument in October 2025).
4. New York (2024):
   • New York enacted a new congressional map on February 28, 2024, after the state’s Court of Appeals ruled in December 2023 that the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) failed to follow the state’s constitutional process. The new map was drawn to avoid further court battles and slightly favored Democrats. Note that New York’s state law generally prohibits mid-decade redistricting unless court-ordered, making this a judicially driven case.
5. North Carolina (2023):
   • North Carolina adopted new congressional district boundaries on October 25, 2023, after the state legislature redrew maps to adjust for partisan advantage. This followed legal challenges and a shift in state Supreme Court composition, which reversed earlier rulings against partisan gerrymandering.
6. States with New Legislative Maps (2022–2024):
   • Several states redrew state legislative maps due to court orders or legal requirements between the 2022 and 2024 elections:
     • Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin enacted new state legislative maps, often due to VRA violations or unconstitutional gerrymandering. These cases are distinct from congressional redistricting but reflect mid-decade adjustments.

DE4173

Historical Cases of Mid-Decade Redistricting

Mid-decade redistricting was more common in the 19th century but became rare in the 20th century until a resurgence in the 2000s. Below are documented cases:

1. New York (1804 and 1808):
   • New York redrew congressional district boundaries in 1804 and 1808, unrelated to population shifts from a census. These are considered among the earliest examples of mid-decade congressional redistricting in the U.S.
2. Ohio (1878–1892):
   • Ohio redrew its congressional district boundaries seven times between 1878 and 1892, conducting five consecutive House elections under different maps. This frequent redistricting was driven by political motivations rather than census data.
3. Multiple States (1872–1896):
   • At least one state redrew congressional boundaries in every year between 1872 and 1896, reflecting a period of frequent mid-decade redistricting. Specific states beyond Ohio are not fully detailed in the sources, but this indicates a broader historical practice.
4. Texas (2003):
   • Texas redrew its congressional district boundaries in 2003, following the 2000 census, which had initially resulted in a court-ordered map in 2001. The Republican-controlled legislature enacted a new map to increase partisan advantage, leading to significant controversy and a legal challenge in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006). The Supreme Court upheld the mid-decade redistricting, finding no constitutional prohibition against it, though it struck down one district for violating the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
5. Colorado (2000s):
   • After the 2000 census, Colorado attempted mid-decade redistricting. The state legislature and courts adjusted maps due to legal disputes, though specific years and details are less clear. This was part of a broader wave of post-2000 census adjustments.
6. Georgia (2000s):
   • Georgia also engaged in mid-decade redistricting following the 2000 census, driven by political motivations to adjust congressional boundaries before the next census. Details are limited, but it involved legislative action to replace earlier maps

Lerxst1992

DE4173 said:

Historical Cases of Mid-Decade Redistricting

Mid-decade redistricting was more common in the 19th century but became rare in the 20th century until a resurgence in the 2000s. Below are documented cases:

1. New York (1804 and 1808):
   • New York redrew congressional district boundaries in 1804 and 1808, unrelated to population shifts from a census. These are considered among the earliest examples of mid-decade congressional redistricting in the U.S.
2. Ohio (1878–1892):
   • Ohio redrew its congressional district boundaries seven times between 1878 and 1892, conducting five consecutive House elections under different maps. This frequent redistricting was driven by political motivations rather than census data.
3. Multiple States (1872–1896):
   • At least one state redrew congressional boundaries in every year between 1872 and 1896, reflecting a period of frequent mid-decade redistricting. Specific states beyond Ohio are not fully detailed in the sources, but this indicates a broader historical practice.
4. Texas (2003):
   • Texas redrew its congressional district boundaries in 2003, following the 2000 census, which had initially resulted in a court-ordered map in 2001. The Republican-controlled legislature enacted a new map to increase partisan advantage, leading to significant controversy and a legal challenge in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006). The Supreme Court upheld the mid-decade redistricting, finding no constitutional prohibition against it, though it struck down one district for violating the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
5. Colorado (2000s):
   • After the 2000 census, Colorado attempted mid-decade redistricting. The state legislature and courts adjusted maps due to legal disputes, though specific years and details are less clear. This was part of a broader wave of post-2000 census adjustments.
6. Georgia (2000s):
   • Georgia also engaged in mid-decade redistricting following the 2000 census, driven by political motivations to adjust congressional boundaries before the next census. Details are limited, but it involved legislative action to replace earlier maps

I don’t think they like AI. 

DE4173

I get it. If it's misinformation that I'm spreading, than I apologize. That is not my intent. 

I guess I could do a Google search and post links that show only one side in the most favorable light. 🤷‍♂️

Lerxst1992

DE4173 said:

I get it. If it's misinformation that I'm spreading, than I apologize. That is not my intent. 

I guess I could do a Google search and post links that show only one side in the most favorable light. 🤷‍♂️

As long as it’s the liberal side it’s fine.


if it’s not, be ready for insults and personal attacks. Good thing you apologized. Always gotta feed the beast.

Tim Simmons

so dramatic 

Lerxst1992

gimmesometruth27 said:

josevolution said:

DE4173 said:

But it does and has happened in the past, mid-decade even, even though it's less common?

So what are you ok with GOP doing this? What else should democrats do nothing? It’s to late to go high when they go low way to late 

they go low, we should step on them.

   Tim Simmons said:

so dramatic 

Yep.

gimmesometruth27

Lerxst1992 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

josevolution said:

DE4173 said:

But it does and has happened in the past, mid-decade even, even though it's less common?

So what are you ok with GOP doing this? What else should democrats do nothing? It’s to late to go high when they go low way to late 

they go low, we should step on them.

   Tim Simmons said:

so dramatic 

Yep.

how am i being dramatic?

you rip the dems on here every single day for being spineless and doing nothing. i thought you would have liked that one.

maybe try to be consistent every once in a great while.

Lerxst1992

gimmesometruth27 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

josevolution said:

DE4173 said:

But it does and has happened in the past, mid-decade even, even though it's less common?

So what are you ok with GOP doing this? What else should democrats do nothing? It’s to late to go high when they go low way to late 

they go low, we should step on them.

   Tim Simmons said:

so dramatic 

Yep.

how am i being dramatic?

you rip the dems on here every single day for being spineless and doing nothing. i thought you would have liked that one.

maybe try to be consistent every once in a great while.

at this point, we know what’s coming….

its ctually much more severe than I would have anticipated……

Threatening to "step on somebody" in a political debate is highly inappropriate and can be interpreted in different ways depending on the specific context, but it generally goes far beyond mere drama.

Here's a breakdown of why:

 * Literal Violence: On its most literal level, the phrase is a threat of physical harm. "Stepping on somebody" can be seen as a violent act, and uttering such a threat, even if not meant literally, can create a hostile and intimidating environment.

 * Symbolic Violence/Intimidation: Even if not meant literally, the phrase is a power play intended to intimidate and silence the other person. It suggests that you see yourself as so superior and powerful that you could easily crush or destroy their ideas, reputation, or even their person. This is a form of verbal aggression, not a legitimate debate tactic.

 * Erosion of Civility: Civil discourse relies on mutual respect, even in disagreement. Threats, whether literal or symbolic, are a violation of that principle. They shut down conversation and prevent any genuine exchange of ideas.

 * Not a "Debate" Tactic: A debate is about presenting arguments, using evidence, and persuading through reason. A threat is the opposite of this. It's an attempt to win by force or intimidation, not by the strength of one's ideas.

While some might dismiss it as "dramatic" or "hyperbole," that's a dangerous oversimplification. At best, it's a sign of a person who has lost control of their emotions and is resorting to childish and aggressive language. At worst, it's a genuine threat that could be taken seriously, especially if the person has a history of aggressive behavior.

In a political context, it's particularly troubling because it mirrors the kind of rhetoric that can escalate into real-world violence. Political debates should be about ideas, not about who can be the most intimidating or aggressive.

gimmesometruth27

Lerxst1992 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

josevolution said:

DE4173 said:

But it does and has happened in the past, mid-decade even, even though it's less common?

So what are you ok with GOP doing this? What else should democrats do nothing? It’s to late to go high when they go low way to late 

they go low, we should step on them.

   Tim Simmons said:

so dramatic 

Yep.

how am i being dramatic?

you rip the dems on here every single day for being spineless and doing nothing. i thought you would have liked that one.

maybe try to be consistent every once in a great while.

at this point, we know what’s coming….

its ctually much more severe than I would have anticipated……

Threatening to "step on somebody" in a political debate is highly inappropriate and can be interpreted in different ways depending on the specific context, but it generally goes far beyond mere drama.

Here's a breakdown of why:

 * Literal Violence: On its most literal level, the phrase is a threat of physical harm. "Stepping on somebody" can be seen as a violent act, and uttering such a threat, even if not meant literally, can create a hostile and intimidating environment.

 * Symbolic Violence/Intimidation: Even if not meant literally, the phrase is a power play intended to intimidate and silence the other person. It suggests that you see yourself as so superior and powerful that you could easily crush or destroy their ideas, reputation, or even their person. This is a form of verbal aggression, not a legitimate debate tactic.

 * Erosion of Civility: Civil discourse relies on mutual respect, even in disagreement. Threats, whether literal or symbolic, are a violation of that principle. They shut down conversation and prevent any genuine exchange of ideas.

 * Not a "Debate" Tactic: A debate is about presenting arguments, using evidence, and persuading through reason. A threat is the opposite of this. It's an attempt to win by force or intimidation, not by the strength of one's ideas.

While some might dismiss it as "dramatic" or "hyperbole," that's a dangerous oversimplification. At best, it's a sign of a person who has lost control of their emotions and is resorting to childish and aggressive language. At worst, it's a genuine threat that could be taken seriously, especially if the person has a history of aggressive behavior.

In a political context, it's particularly troubling because it mirrors the kind of rhetoric that can escalate into real-world violence. Political debates should be about ideas, not about who can be the most intimidating or aggressive.

yawn.

let me know when ai equates an actual 1/6 insurrection with a phrase.

until then do not respond to me.

gimmesometruth27

back on topic, i guess the dems should just sit back and take it when texas wants to redraw their map mid decade. maybe write a few strongly worded letters to people that are just going to throw them into the fireplace.

this is where we are with the discourse on this forum.

Lerxst1992

I will only counter attack. That should tell you something about your ideology.