After every election, political leaders, pundits, and squawking heads try to figure out why the two major parties performed the way they did. Leftists, in their infinite (lack of) wisdom, came down hard against one factor they feel helped Republicans retake the House of Representatives: redistricting.
Oh, they still talk about gerrymandering (and still get it wrong when they do), but this time they’re really drilling down on the fact Republican Governors like Ron DeSantis got favorable results from redistricting, i.e. Democrats going down like the New York Yankees in this year’s Major League Baseball postseason. But unlike Leftists, the Bronx Bombers can’t blame DeSantis for a poor performance. Then again, it might just work…
In either case, the Left is trying to get us to believe redistricting has negative connotations, so naturally it’s up to us to uncover real reason Leftists hate redistricting all of the sudden.
redistricting
What the Left thinks it means – a tactic used by Republicans to draw favorable Congressional Districts so more of their candidates win
What it means – a process that is not only legal, but done by both major parties so more of their respective candidates win
Every 10 years, the US government conducts a census, which helps give it a better idea of demographic trends in certain areas. This information gets parlayed into a number of other decisions, including how to draw Congressional Districts. As population surges and ebbs, the shape of each District can change depending on who gets to determine how each District gets to be drawn. Although it varies from state-to-state, the majority of states allow the party in power at the state level to draw the Districts, and it’s supposed to be done in a non-partisan manner.
Yeah, and I have some cryptocurrency in FTX that’s worth billions.
Instead of drawing logical and appropriate Districts, politicians tend to draw them like a drunk Lindsay Lohan with an Etch-A-Sketch. (For you Leftists out there reading this, the link I just posted provides examples of actual gerrymandering, so you can finally figure out what it means. You’re welcome.) And when the party in power controls how the sausage gets made, the Congressional Districts are going to look like a fever-dream combination of Salvador Dali, M.C. Escher, and Pablo Picasso after an LSD bender with Jim Morrison.
Or in simpler terms, like the hosts on “The View” but more logical.
Because of the way most states handle redistricting, control of state legislatures and gubernatorial positions becomes essential. Although the 2022 elections brought the gubernatorial numbers close to even, Republicans still control the majority of state legislatures. In other words, Republicans still have the power to draw districts or Democrats flip more states, whichever comes first before the next census in 2030.
If trends continue, that means 8 more years of Leftist seething over Republicans having any control over elections whatsoever. Provided our good friend Uncle George Soros doesn’t decide to pull more shenanigans to rig who counts the votes, of course…
Thus, we’ve arrived at the real reason why Leftists hate redistricting all of the sudden. Even in the states where they have the ability to affect change, they lack the control in the entire country to enact their ideological goals. And it means they have to deal with…REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS! The horror!
Why, it’s almost as if…Leftists don’t want people to be in control of who they elect…unless it’s one of their approved candidates! But I’m sure that’s not true. Only a bunch of emotionally stunted insecure adult-babies would think that way, right?
So, how do we address the problem of drawing Congressional Districts the shape of Olive Oyl with a bad case of scoliosis? Some states have non-partisan committees that meet to agree upon redistricting, and some states even allow the committee’s recommendations to be vetoed. Simple, easy, and fair, right? In theory, yes, but when politics gets involved, the practice may not always follow the theory.
Let’s take one of the hot spots from the midterms, Arizona. Under the state guidelines, there are 25 seats available, with 10 going to Democrats, 10 to Republicans, and 5 to unaffiliated citizens. If the 20 politically-affiliated members are deadlocked, logic would suggest all decisions would come down to which side persuaded the 5 unaffiliated members.
That would work…except the GOP tends not to be so monolithic in approach. Yes, the state that gave us conservative stalwart J. D. Hayworth also gave us John McCain, which means the Arizona GOP can have more identities than Sybil. That tends to work in favor of Democrats, whose hivemind approach makes ganging up…I mean carefully considering the drawing of district boundaries a lot easier on them.
Even if you’re not sold on the partisanship angle, here is the most recent finalized redistricting map the commission put together. If this is the best a crack team of officials can come up with, maybe we should assume they’re all on crack and move on from there.
Having said that, I’m not completely down on the idea of the non-partisan committee drawing up Congressional Districts. I just think the idea needs to be tweaked a bit. For example, do we really need 25 people to make a decision like this? Fuck no! Pick one person at random from the active and eligible voting base in each District, or in the cases of states that only have one District, 3 to 5. Since it’s random, the political fuckery will be lessened.
From there, each member has to review the existing map and be able to speak to why it is the way it is. The more these members learn about the districts, the more likely they’re going to find out where the bullshit is. After a certain amount of time (say, a week), they convene to discuss what they’ve found and how to redraw the Districts if needed. When there are disputes arising from practical concerns, the committee as a whole votes on it with majority rule. In case of a tie (because this is going to happen), the Districts in question stay the way they are.
In the case of ideological concerns causing redistricting trouble, though, those will automatically be non-starters. We’re trying to draw Congressional Districts, not play a live action game of Risk here.
I will admit there are bound to be flaws in my idea (and I’m sure people will let me know how much of a dumbass I am for even thinking up the idea), but compared to what we have now, it’s bound to be better.
Tag: gerrymandering
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Even though the Presidential election has been over for 4 months, we’re still talking about it. I know elections have consequences, but I didn’t think one of them would be being bored out of my mind while watching people with zero clue about how government works argue over simple concepts. And the normal people trying to educate them can be frustrating, too.
Lately, the conversation has revolved around election security, and, no, I’m not talking about the possibility of having armed guards at polling places. Leftists are doing everything they can to not only say anyone who rejects the notion the 2020 election had issues with voter fraud, but also to say future elections are subject to voter fraud.
Yes, they are that contradictory.
But what to Leftists mean when they speak about election security? It’s not what you think…
election security
What the Left thinks it means – methods to expand the voting base
What it really means – methods to ensure Leftists win more often
When you look at the various proposals Leftists have come up with to promote election security (and I have because I have no life), it’s astounding what they’ve managed to lump together. Here are some of the high/low/no lights
– Abolishing the filibuster in the Senate
– Preventing gerrymandering
– Promoting mail-in voting
– Working against any new laws requiring a photo ID to vote
– Electing more Democrats/Leftists
– Making it easier to register potential voters
Maybe it’s me, but there seems to be a lack of security in the Left’s election security proposals. Between the ridiculous (preventing gerrymandering) to the sublime (blocking Voter ID bills), I have yet to see how any of these would lead to the kind of widespread election security the Left say they want.
Unless…this isn’t actually about election security at all!
And it’s not. The Left has any number of ways to create electoral chaos, from voter registration fraud (hi, former ACORN nuts!) to ballot harvesting to “helping” seniors fill out ballots for Democrat candidates to accepting and counting votes from the posthumous. The Left has a vested interest in keeping the chaotic status quo because these aforementioned election shenanigans would go the way of Andrew Cuomo’s popularity with the elderly in New York.
Keep this in mind the next time Leftists claim Republicans can’t win elections without cheating.
The scary thing to acknowledge is that some of the Left’s election security ideas have merit. I’m okay with eliminating gerrymandering because it turns Congressional districts into an Etch-A-Sketch. Just when you have the lines drawn the way you want, someone else can come along, shake it all up, and force you start over. As current state-level politics lie, Republicans have the Etch-A-Sketch in a majority of the states, so it’s no wonder the Left wants to get rid of it. In doing so, however, they remove the power they would have if/when they win back the states. Not to mention, the Left have used gerrymandering for the express purpose of getting more minorities elected to Congress. As we’ve seen with Congressional geniuses like Hank “Guam Is Tipping Over” Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Maxine Waters, this is a brilliant idea that can in no way make the Left look bad.
To any Leftists reading this piece, that last sentence was sarcasm.
Although I agree with the elimination of gerrymandering, it shouldn’t be involved in any discussion about election security (nor should it be involved in any discussion of Senate elections, yet it happens). On the other hand, there are potential solutions, like voter ID, that should be involved in any discussion about election security, but get dismissed by Leftists because…they might work.
Take voter ID, for example. Having potential voters show some form of identification before they vote is (or at least should be) the cornerstone of election security. The fact the Left pushes back so hard on this should be a red flag as to their commitment to secure elections. More to the point, though, voter ID laws speak to actual election security because they address a major problem with voting as it stands now: in many cases, we don’t know who is voting and whether they’re eligible to vote. Granted, it’s not foolproof given the number of fools out there willing to test the boundaries, but it’s a step in the right direction. The underlying issues of availability and cost to get the necessary identification are related, but not to the point that they negate the positive impacts.
Since it doesn’t perpetuate the problem and the stereotypes connected to it (namely, that Leftists believe minorities are too poor and/or stupid to get ID cards), the Left will never go for it. Which is why we have to. As with personal security, election security starts and ends with us. That’s going to require a bit of effort on our part, but it’s going to be worth it if for no other reason than to watch Leftists’ heads explode as their strategies face the failure that comes with honest men and women doing the right thing.
In the meantime, be careful of Leftists bearing promises of election security. Unless, of course, you think the election equivalent of Barney Fife might do a good job.