Agree. We should have a federal bill that haults all forms if Gerrymandering. Glad we agree in this one! Let's get that bill passed! Odd it's just one party advocating for such provisions in a federal bill. It's almost as if one party disproportionately benefits from it. Are you so naive to actually believe we think the Democrat establishment isn't doing this because it's more convenient for them? Of course it is. They want to hault gerrymandering because it benefits them more politically as a net total for the whole country. That should make it very obvious which party does it more. But at the end of the day, no gerrymandering is the more principled position than letting biased arbiters draw the lines. This is one of those instances for the Democrat establishment where the politically convenient thing is also the morally right thing.
Latest proposed maps for congressional re-districting of Montana. Republican version. Democrat version
You could have placed some context of the two maps shown. From what I understand, the republicans submitted a number of maps that more or less were the same, splitting the state vertically into two parts, both of which would favor republicans. The Democrats also submitted a number of maps, attempting to split the state into two competitive parts. Since the republicans control the state they chose one of theirs which will continue republican control. Did I miss anything?
Oh yes, you missed quite a bit. #1 This is what the map looked like when Montana last had 2 congressional seats (ended 1992) Which one of the proposals do you think looks more similar to this historical version? #2. You stated this: According to FiveThirtyEight, the Democrat proposed district above would create a map with 2 districts...one competitive (R +3) the other (R +37). You consider +37 to be competitive? https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/montana/proposal_08/ #3. Nobody "chose" anything. Montana's Districting and Apportionament Commission is split half Democrat, half Republican and chaired by a non-partisan Chairman who in turn was selected by the Montana Supreme Court. This commission has only narrowed down the choices to 9 from the hundreds submitted by the public and others. #4. This entire thread (started by you) is labeled "Republican gerrymandering". Not simply "gerrymandering". I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your headline.
You refer to one Democrat drawn map. How many maps were submitted by Democrats? Did you arbitrarily choose the one Democrat map submission? What about the others? And... what was the result of the republican maps? Here's the article I read: https://missoulacurrent.com/government/2021/10/montana-redistricting-maps/
Since you're too lazy to simply click on the link I provided, I'll post them. Here's the other Democrat created maps in the mix. Take your pick. Here you go. They appear more consistent, don't they? So, your upset that the many maps submitted by the public (not political hacks, but the public) created districts favorable to Republicans? Let me give you a hint. Montana is a conservative state. This isn't surprising. So the goal is to create districts that are competitive? Huh. Isn't that kind of what gerrymandering is...creating "competitive" districts using mental gymnastics to create strange looking districts? But that can't be...according to your statements in this thread only Republicans do that...right? Meanwhile, since I was willing to answer your questions here, are you willing to answer mine which you ignored? #1. Which one of the proposals do you think looks more similar to this historical version? #2. You consider R+37 to be "competitive"?
Most of what you posted didn't show up. But besides that... why is it important for the new state districts look like the old, especially if the old favored one party? Wouldn't it be better to create a map that meets "the state goal of not unduly favoring one party over another, and trying to create competitive maps"? Wouldn't that be better than continuing "the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another"?
The historical map from 1992 had 1 Dem, 1 Rep congressmen in the 80's up till they lost a seat to apportionment in 92. So what happened was the Democrat party in Montana lost popularity to the point they are now both considered safe republican seats. The facts remain in the most recent election 11 months ago, Montana OVERWHELMING voted Republican. So much in fact the Senator, Congressman, Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Senate, State House, State Superintendent of Public Schools, State Auditor, and all 3 Public Service Commission positions went Republican. Not a single democrat won a statewide election here. Not. One. See, the problem with your comment is someone will always complain about it "unduly favoring one party over another". But in fact, the reason it's hard to make a competitive map for Democrats in Montana is because their ideas today are so unpopular here. And it really wasn't that long ago when that wasn't the case.
What does having every statewide office matter to republican efforts to gerrymander? Here in Texas, republicans hold every statewide office but they still have forwarded a blatantly gerrymandered map... (1) redrawn to force two popular black congressmen (Jackson Le and Green) from Houston to run against each other (note the only instance in the new map that takes two sitting congressmen and forces them to run against each other... natch, two black congressmen), (2) removes military bases from Democrat districts to reinforce a first term republican, (3) despite Hispanic population growth in Texas (the fastest growing population), avoids creating any new districts where Hispanics are the majority, so there are twice as many majority Anglo districts as there are majority Hispanic districts.
I haven't studied it like some of y'all, but I'm always uncomfortable with claims that you can "outlaw" gerrymandering. We kind of know it when we see it, and you can see extreme versions, but... humans have to divide up these maps, and somewhat arbitrary decisions must be made, so... I don't see a perfect system that can eliminate bias. Naively, I guess you could do something geometrical? Like the shape of a voting district can only be so complicated and that's something you can measure mathematically. (Can't imagine having any kind of mathematics conversation with modern politicians though, LOL.)
Every party does that. Why single out one party? What is your solution to this? Set it up permanently... let me guess. In a way that votes Blue?
I notice in this response you failed to address any of your false assertions made previously in this thread about Montana and the Democrats attempts at gerrymandering. Why did you suddenly change the subject to Texas? It's an indication of just how far the Democrat party has fallen in Montana. So far in fact, that any attempt to create congressional districts that give Democrats a "FAIR" opportunity to win REQUIRES gerrymandering. I acknowledge Republicans use every possible tactic they can to gain an edge politically including gerrymandering. You're debating a point we agree upon. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge Democrats gerrymander as well when it's to their advantage? This is like talking to MLB fans who bash the Astros for cheating but never acknowledge the hypocrisy of the cheating of their own team. After a while, you can't take them seriously.
What about redistricting committees comprised of appointees equal in number. With some form of review period where districts can be tested and if needed reviewed by the courts to address any legal challenges.
Good grief. I previously posted the link and told you about it. Here, let me post it for you again. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/montana/
When have I ever said only republicans gerrymander? I am sure Democrats rig maps in states like California and New York. But we are discussing Montana. You pointed out a single map proposed by Democrats. I asked why you didn't look at the other maps proposed by Democrats. Or why you didn't report the partisan makeups of any of the republican maps. You sidestepped those questions and brought up "republicans hold every statewide office". As if every statewide office is held by republicans excuses republicans from any accusation of gerrymandering... I pointed out here in Texas, republicans hold every office and clearly gerrymander the districts to further protect their majority. Or are you also arguing that isn't happening in Texas as well?
If you look at the posts I responded to you can clearly see the images you are trying to get me to look at don't show up.
About time. Thank you for finally showing some honesty on this topic. I literally posted 8 of the 9 maps up for consideration when you asked... 4 Democrat and 4 Republican each of which were similar in nature to the first two I posted. Apparently, the site won't allow me to post all of them without deleting them. I can't help that. I also posted the link to the maps twice. Here...let me do it a 3rd time. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/montana/ Meanwhile, since you are insinuating what I posted was misleading, why haven't you posted the maps that prove that? Uh....no I didn't? The posts where I addressed "those questions" is #26 above. Yes. To explain recent political trends in the state to someone obviously uneducated about them...namely you. wut. Dude, I posted THIS in post # 32 above. The LAST thing I've done in this thread is excuse republican efforts at gerrymandering. Again... You suck at reading comprehension.
So basically, in a discussion thread about republican gerrymandering, you agree that republicans gerrymander. We are in agreement, and I apologize for being wrong that you didn't think republicans gerrymander.
