**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Gerrymandering: as American as apple pie.


Hate to [break it to you](https://www.backthenhistory.com/articles/the-history-of-apple-pie), but apple pie isn't American. Greetings from Holland.


As American as pecan pie?


It can't get more [American](https://www.eater.com/2016/11/23/13575790/pecan-pie-history-about) than that! I love pecan pie btw!


Whew! If that one wasn’t I would’ve resorted to sweet potato pie. Glad you like pecan, one of my favorites as well! Edit: turns out sweet potato may not be American, I’m shattered.


It is widely believed from carbon dating fossils that sweet potatoes originated in South America, therefore it is American.


I hate to break it to you but the Netherlands isn't real. You're all water Germans.


I was about to object because Im incapable of understanding them, but then I realized half the local German dialects are just as incomprehensible to me.


You sound like a Belgian, living in Germany with American roots.


sheesh, belgium is the capital of europe, not a country... Americans and geography...




Don't bully swamp Germans; they will spit and start claiming it's raining. Or they will just steal all the clouds


Dude don't mention the clouds !


Swamp Germans technically ;)


Well America isn't real either, it's obviously made just to sell films. Think about it - everyone speaks English (way too convenient to be realistic), there are guns everywhere (to make more movie action moments), lots of car and car-centric infrastructure (more car chase scenes), etc. The verdict is that apple pie must also be not real, since nobody invented it.


Gerry Mander had Dutch ancestry so I guess it's still sort of correct.


It was named after Massachusetts representative Gerry something or other I’m too tired to remember , said his district looked like a salamander “Gerrymandered “


I prefer Bjelkemandering. Just has that je ne sais quoi


This is a great representation.


Why people continue to trust governments that repeatedly show they can not be trusted to make decisions that affect their lives, I'll never know.


Who else would you trust to draw the district? Anybody can be bribed or biased.


Or the whole stupid and aged voting system could be updated so that the districts do not play such a role. First-past-the-post is absolutely terrible system that causes massive problems in the society. It made some sense 150 years ago when the vote counting was more difficult, but there is absolutely no reason to have it today. Except, of course, both big parties would lose votes if it was updated so it will never be updated.


Some states have jungle primaries and ranked-choice voting actually. And good news- a ranked choice voting bill is making its way through the Minnesota legislature right now! There is hope, my friend :)


What’s up with MN lately? I feel like it’s every day I’m seeing something progressive passing


Maybe they woke up? Edit to add: my definition of Woke is realizing that things happen in our country that I haven't personally experienced, so I decided that its equally important to me to fix it to develop equity for all.


First, you must count the votes, though.


Yes, everyone knows first-past-the-post is a shit system.


To start, You could have them be programmatically generated, the code can be open source and cross checked by multiple third parties. Hell will freeze over before anything remotely close to this happens because many people will lose power.


Nah what’ll happen is people notice the obvious bias in the code and the politicians say “we don’t give a shit” and keep using it


It might be technically possible to algorithmically generate districts without creating exploitable biases, but if you mess that up anyone who gets voted in due to the biases will obviously fight to keep them.


Everyone is biased, to one degree or another. Not everyone will accept a bribe, particularly if the law is enforced. Citizen commissions with a mix of people from different parties seem to be the best compromise.


Or just disempower the concept of districts.


Ironically, that’s actually one of the best proposed solutions to gerrymandering. If you intentionally pay off a neutral third-party/private company or a data company, etc. you may actually get the best drawn districts without bias. And multiple private companies or outside parties could compete for the right to do that based on reputability and amount they are willing to be paid.


Sounds like yet another way of letting private companies dictate their own policies


Yes, MORE FREE MARKET! That definitely won't backfire in any way whatsoever lmao


By definition even if we didn't do these stupid gerrymandering divisions the counties and states are in their own way the same bullshit at a larger level. If a state goes red/blue and it's against the popular vote it's the same. This is why a popular vote is the only way to truly say 'each vote counts' but there's no perfect system. I think ranked choice is a good alternative but even it can be gamed.


You don't need districts at all


Yeah you do. Illinois is a perfect example. Without districts as such you would necessarily have the city of Chicago essentially voting on everything for the entire state even though they would have little to no idea of the needs of residents in the southern tip of the state. I don't know where you live but would it be fair to you if the people who were deciding the needs of your community, city, county lived 300, 400, 500 miles away? Them deciding that your taxes should be going to their programs? Or them deciding that the reservoir that runs through and supplies your area is going to be diverted for their needs? Stuff like this is exactly WHY there are districts. And I'm sure someone else out there could explain it even better than I have, but this is the best you're getting out of me at 5 in the morning with no coffee running on about 3 hours of sleep.


I live in the Netherlands, we don't have districts and we also don't have a 2 party system, no party will ever have more than 50% of the seats and parlement is pretty proportional to the population opinion wise. If you want to stick to a garbage 2 party system you can also say that 50% isn't enough, let's say 60% of people live in the city and 40% live outside the city, you could introduce districts, open yourself up to gerrymandering and have those 40% (the minority) rule over everyone or you could say you need 61% of the votes to win making sure no one group can fully rule over everyone *and* making sure there's always (super) majority rule.


The Netherlands is a lot smaller than the US is. Your idea works fine on a smaller scale (City/County), but when you scale it up it leaves the opportunity for your "40%" minority to be abused by the system. And I never said it has to be a 2 party system, that's your inference. Hell I intentionally left the word party out of it. No system is perfect but the districting system and electoral system as is, is designed to prevent mob rule.


I think you left out the important part. "is designed to prevent mob rule" AT THE STATE LEVEL. Founders didn't want massive populations in 9 or so states to rule the country and have the other 41 states get no say. (This is pretty much what we have now.) By making Iowa's electorates "equivalent" to Texas electorates . . . poor little Iowa isn't completely swamped by Texas' much larger population. (Same is true for the Senate. House of Representatives gives PEOPLE the power, and the Senate gives STATES the power. (Forces "distribution" of power across the length and breadth of the country. Though they kinda screwed that when they took Senate appointments away from the State Legislatures and made them by popular vote.)


Agree completely, thank you for expounding on what I was getting at. I had a kid to get off to school and was pressed for time in my response.


This is true but I also think the founders did not anticipate the difference in state populations being so dramatic or in making a territory that could have been one state into two states ( example the Dakotas) for the purpose of getting twice the number of Senators that would be aligned with the party that held power at the time


> but would it be fair to you if the people who were deciding the needs of your community, city, county lived 300, 400, 500 miles away? Would it be fair to massively reduce the value of a persons vote just because they live in Chicago? No. All Districts do is pork barreling (which you think of as a good thing but is actually inefficient government spending), NYMBYism and a less functional overall government. You have districts right now and Congress's approval rating has been abysmal for ages pretty much because of this.


I can draw lines!


Why people continually say "tHe GoVeRnMeNt" as if it's some sort of esoteric monolith, and not individual people (where you should probably elect better people), I'll never know.


While any government is made up of individual people, the problems almost invariably stem from the traits which political positions attract or which allow one to have a successful political career (rather than being unique to the individuals)


Makes it easier to build distrust and discontent when it's viewed as some detached entity. It also makes it easier to obscure the source and responsibility for the problem. [“We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us”](https://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/the-morphology-of-a-humorous-phrase/)


”Safe and effective”


The only thing I would add is it isn’t just the GOP who does this. Gerrymandering is alive and well in whichever party is in control at the time.


The funny thing about this is that third picture makes the vote unrepresentative of the population by disenfranchising some of the blue voters, while the second makes the vote representative while disenfranchizing all the red voters. Not all gerrymandering is squiggly, this is a great image


[Here's some real gerrymandered districts in the U.S.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/crimes-against-geography.png) [And here's one comparing Texas gerrymandering to constellations.](https://res.cloudinary.com/sagacity/image/upload/c_crop,h_1580,w_2368,x_0,y_0/c_limit,dpr_auto,f_auto,fl_lossy,q_80,w_1200/1018-drawl_udrmxh.jpg)


It’s just so obvious what they’ve done. Thanks for sharing. Edit: I find it funny when someone says “they” and everyone automatically knows or assumes who “they” are. Whoever dealt it definitely smelled it.


Now let’s see Illinois


Or ny




That's fair. An even playing field would be best for america, regardless of who's doing the gerrymandering. But I've read up on it, and the republicans really do do it a lot more, and a lot harder, and more formally, on purpose, out in the open, using custom-made gerrymandering software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP


The district in the upper right hand corner was drawn by republicans in Pennsylvania . It had a nickname “Donald Duck kicking Goofy in the ass . The two shapes were joined by a 50 foot wide strip that was a parking lot. Honestly we are one step away from having districts that aren’t even contiguous — I wouldn’t be surprised if Republicans actually tried it for their next manic trick and would be less surprised if our Supreme Court just ignored it.


I mean that one in Florida that just goes straight up a river is de facto disconnected lol


Haha I can see it, that's great.


My god. I feel lucky to live in Canada. Sure we use distric with more then 2 party so the % of vote =/= number of elected official. But atleast all district are square when looking at a map. No bullshit.


No one even wants to mention Illinois when gerrymandering is brought up. You’re a fool if you think that only republicans do it!


These images could be used in psychology classes to provide a visual aid when explaining how narcissists reframe events to fit their narrative.


the idea that 1. only republicans gerrymander 2. that republicans only win because of gerrymandering 3. that gerrymandering serves no fair purpose is absolutely peak ignorance and narcissism. for example this vox article https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms It attempts to paint the picture that never before have democrats gerrymandered, completely disregarding the CR Era, where democrats gerrymandered every single district they could, to keep black people from having any real say in their voting. or disregarding the fact that gerymandering is the entire reason we literally abolished slavery. Yes, thats right. without gerrymandering, the radical republicans would not have taken power, which ultimately led to the emancipation. but evil gerrymandering amirite? the second issue is that people completely disregard the reason WHY republicans want to gerry mander in the first place. they disregard all legitimate reasons, but embrace all sinister ones. this issue paints it as if democrats wildly outnumber republicans, when the issue is in fact, republicans are in equal numbers to them, most simply just dont live in densely packed urban centers. this leads to map drawing HEAVILY Favoring democrats, to the point where, they'll negate 20-30% of a states republican vote. simply because they live too close to a city.


> only republicans gerrymander Yeah, anyone who says that is wrong and should be called out. > that republicans only win because of gerrymandering In lots of places this is true. But in general, yeah, the ones who do the gerrymandering tend to win because of it. **That's literally the point**. That statement is basically equivalent to "gerrymandering works." > that gerrymandering serves no fair purpose Ah, now we're going to have to disagree on that one. Fuck anyone who thinks gerrymandering is fair. It's literally a tool designed to misrepresent the will of the people. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. People are the ones who vote, and it's the will of the people *as a whole* that should decide who wins. Now if this was a government of the districts, by the square mile, for the land, then you might have a point. But it isn't, so you don't, so quit trying to argue that it's important you be allowed to cheat because otherwise it would be too hard to win.


1. Literally no one is making those first two statements. 2. Saying that Republicans in this moment benefit more from gerrymandering than Democrats would be an accurate statement. 3. If nothing had been gerrymandered before the 2022 election and districts had been drawn neutrally it’s highly likely that it would be the Democrats holding a slim majority in the House. 4. I’m sure many historians would dispute your take on slavery and gerrymandering as it was the election of Lincoln that led to the South seceding and which way the House swung would have made little difference especially since Slavery anti slavery factions were not strictly drawn on party lines. Yes Republicans were the anti slavery party but there were many northern Democrats that were not in favor of slavery 5 gerrymandering today cannot not be compared to gerrymandering in the 19th century as with the advent of computers and precise data collecting gerrymandering has moved into the “moneyball” era and it can be done with surgical precision


Listen here buddy. Your point was way too logical and factual. This community is only interested in charged misrepresentations that suit their own need (your daily dose of confirmation bias.) I have been scolded many times for reminding people that both sides do shitty things and to think one side is wholly “better” or “morally sound” than the other is not only self serving it’s foolish. So I’m going to need to you to no longer think objectively and be a partisan hack like the majority of people on Reddit. Thank you for your time.


Great breakdown, and thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy.


>Yes, thats right. without gerrymandering, the radical republicans would not have taken power, which ultimately led to the emancipation. but evil gerrymandering amirite? What? Republicans won the popular vote in 1860 >republicans are in equal numbers to them, most simply just dont live in densely packed urban centers Republicans have won TWO presidential elections in my lifetime despite losing the popular vote by MILLIONS of people, why would it matter how densely people are packed if more people want the democrats?


When I learned about this in school it really started to dawn on me how little my vote actually ment


While I get your point, it’s not that simple. Gerrymandering assumes certain margins of voters to work. If turnout swells, it has a break-the-dam type of effect that causes the gerrymandered party to lose a ton. They’re counting on you not showing up.


Even if true, it’s still a right you have that was fought for, and it’s a minuscule action that contributes your voice to society. Unfortunately younger generations historically have a lower voter turn out and thus people who vote traditionally red or blue and won’t be swayed have a stronger pull and voter turnout. However based on the last election more people are turning out because it does effect your life. 60 years of Abortion rights got Thanos snapped in less than 3 years


> contributes your voice to society Aren’t we looking at a picture that shows that it doesn’t? Depending on where you live, I suppose.


Vote. Always vote. No matter how insignificant your vote feels. Vote for city council, vote for governors and reps, vote for senators and board leaders. Those are the elections that matter the most. The presidential election is important, yes. But no elections are as important as the ones you vote in for direct representation. Those are the people that have the power to gerrymander, to appoint judges and ordinances and change state laws. Please do not get discouraged. Vote! Vote to save this fucking country. Do not choose complacency, it’s just as damning as complicity.


See, I was with you until the complacency/complicity. It’s the line that’s been drummed up to try and guilt trip people into voting. If you ask someone who makes this argument “complicit with what?” they will list the sins of the party they don’t support. It necessarily assumes the person you are talking to will vote the way you want. Otherwise, the accusation of being complicit is irrelevant. Because if they vote with the side you are against, it’s beyond complicit. It’s support. You’ve implied that even tacitly supporting the other side by not voting against them is the evil specter to avoid. If you are genuinely open to the individual voting either way, how does “but your apathy makes you complicit with what the bad guys are doing” carry any weight? They may go add a vote to the folks you’re threatening they are being complicit with by being complacent. I get ye. Most times in local elections gerrymandering doesn’t apply and my first comment doesn’t apply. But y’all gotta drop this complacency/complicit line because it says more than you intend. Edit: to make it less saucy


You summed up my own thoughts pretty well with this actually.


That’s an example of gerrymandering, but if it was omnipresent we’d always have a president from the same party, unfortunately it’s a bigger issue in local elections in certain states


It’s technically not even a full and free right anymore because of this


Congrats, you’ve played straight into their hand. They don’t want you to vote. They want you deflated and compliant.


Who's they in this scenario?


rich people and authoritarians.


The problem is that when everyone thinks their vote doesn’t matter, then we get our current situation where our country is being held hostage by morally corrupt psychopaths who pander to the dumbest of the country. Vote so that we can return to sensibility


At the federal level, this only affects the House of Representatives. Your vote for Senate and President are not affected by this particular phenomenon.


Why not just count each person's vote a vote instead of these layers?


Are you suggesting we abolish congress and have all Americans personally vote for bills?


That's called "direct democracy" and it wasn't really feasible in a country this size until recently. Even still we don't have the logistics/technological systems in place to actually implement it. But no, I think he was just saying get rid of the electoral college.


No, but abolishing electoral collage would help quite a lot.


Literally nothing to do with gerrymandering


It might, but that really has nothing to do with gerrymandering.


I suggest all representatives are selected by lottery, the applicant pool being anyone who went to college for free on the government's dime. Any child can go to college in America for free, if you maintain your grades and academic standing. But after graduation, you may be selected to be a local or national politician. Results: - The average college educated American will be less corrupt than the nepotism induced politicians we have now - Term limits, finally - Those serving in office are paying back by performing a civic duty, not doing it to get rich trading stocks


Sortition is an excellent election system, although limiting public office to those who went to college would leave a significant portion of the population unrepresented.


This is actually an intriguing idea. I’m not sure how it would play out but at least the randomness of it would mean that Congress would be an accurate reflection of society.


Proportional apportionment, each bloc is the constituency of a representative/ state Senator/ district judge in some states


(My simple mind . . .) Wouldn't this be solved by using the "districts" simply to count the votes? So, you don't win by "district" . . . blue would still win by number of votes? It still allows you to have people elected WITHIN the district. (Like for a local assemblyman / representative) but for "whole area" leaders (like a Governor or President) . . . the "districts" become nothing more than collection points of majority vote. It would even work for "electoral college" (at least at the state level). Gerrymander the heck out of whatever districts you want . . . then pool all the votes and give one red # and one blue # (by vote) at the state level.


Do you think that president and governor races are impacted by gerrymandering? To anyone reading this, only the House of Representatives has anything to do with gerrymandering. If someone ever says a senator only won a race due to gerrymandering, they are a complete moron.


I explained poorly . . . Divide smaller "districts". To account for local assemblymen, constables, magistrates, . . . allow only the votes in that district to select the "service person" for that district. But on the larger scale (for the county - judge executive, for the city - mayor, for the state - governor/senator) ignore the "districts" and count only by population. At the national level (for president) maintain the electoral college to ensure the States have power. (This keeps the 9 most populus states from 'ruling the nation' over the other 41 who get no vote.) With the electoral college, it not only matters "how many" votes you got . . . it matters WHERE you got them, to insure a wholistic representation of the width and breadth of the country. The borders of the states are . . . pretty well fixed . . . at this point. "The people" as a whole, have had 70\~ years to "move to where people of like minds are". We're not "gerrymandering" state borders to "throw" the electoral votes.


> It would even work for "electoral college" (at least at the state level). Gerrymander the heck out of whatever districts you want . . . then pool all the votes and give one red # and one blue # (by vote) at the state level. They're working on it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact




As long as one remembers that *both* examples are gerrymandering.


Yeah, the middle one flat out freezes red from having any input whatsoever. Even the right one doesn’t fully cut out Blue


Can anyone explain to me why they never abolished gerrymandering? Have the democrats never had the power to do this, or did it somehow suit them not to?




The electoral college is around for the same reason: preventing tyranny of the majority. There are many reasons why it makes sense to seek to avoid pure majority rule.


Lmao, "preventing tyranny of the majority" is a hell of a way to say "it prevents people from democratically picking their preferred leader"


Lol... dude I almost fell out my chair. You could ask why democrats voted for a pay raise, or allow lobbying too... it suits everyone, this is the name of the game.


It has to be done at the state level sand every state is a different story as to history and who it benefits. In California we got rid of gerrymandering with a state wide ballot initiative. Our legislatures would never have passed it. Gerrymandering in California was a bipartisan affair . 20 years ago Dems and Rep politicians had a much more amicable relationship (like everywhere else) incumbents would collude in drawing the lines to help each other out and make there next election an easy one. Ridding the state of gerrymandering has probably helped the Dems as the state has gotten bluer the makeup of the legislature has kept pace .


Because the concept that leads to gerrymandering is a needed process. We redistrict every 10 years (after a national census) because populations don't grow equally, but you want want each House representative to represent a similar amount of people. Or at least, you don't want reps to suddenly gain or lose a lot of people at once. now ofc, the process of redistricting is done by people and people aren't objective actors. So that's where the trouble begins. You can't really enforce how to divide districts on party lines because that's just another form of gerrymandering (e.g. if a county went from 30-70 blue-red in 2010 to 60-40 in 2020, you can't just force the redistricting to go back to 30-70. the distinct turned blue naturally). it's a problem with a necessarily solution but no perfect solution.


> Have the democrats never had the power to do this, or did it somehow suit them not to? Hint: Democrats do it to


Democrats are as bad as republicans at it when they have power . Look at the new Illinois maps


> the democrats That American party? Why would they get rid of this? Aren’t you assuming that gerrymandering is only done by one side? Look up how the Democrats messed up New York redistricting last year. Both US parties are trying to game the system somehow. If you believe that Dems = great and GOP = evil then you’ve read too much Reddit propaganda


Both parties are being paid by the same people. If one party stops getting votes, the population will start to realize they don't actually have a choice.


There are large donor entities that give to both parties. However most large donor entities give exclusively or predominantly to one party over another.


The Supreme Court said Congress has to put an end to gerrymandering. The majority party in Congress (given that you’d need the House and 60 senators) would have to deliberately weaken its own chances of continued power by barring gerrymandering. And then what happens - does Congress use the 2020 census to redraw everything? Doing another census is not realistic, so there would be new districts representing a population inaccurately. The population has moved around and changed for 3 years. Then there is the question of money, like all other things related to Congress. Do the states pay for the extra work and resources that will be needed to adapt to new districts? Should we make states apply for federal grants with strings attached? Congress would have to set dates: the date that all states must submit their final maps (passed by the legislatures and signed by the governor), and the date the new districts become seats in office (aka which election will they start with). This wouldn’t take a long time. Ten years is the Constitutional minimum for conducting censuses, but drawing and passing maps doesn’t take ten years. So they would presumably set a ~2 year time limit - starting on the first day of a new Congress - for the states to get their maps done and state/local election authorities to be prepared. But I could have just stopped when I said the majority party to pass this theoretical bill would have to cede their own future power. They will never stop doing it voluntarily. Gerrymandering is something both parties exploit. The fact that we only redraw maps every decade is sad enough. It should be every 2 years.


Because the dems gerrymander too. Don’t act like it’s just the big bad republicans lol.


But that's not what Reddit said. Even look at the picture in the post. It's showing red do it. Red bad.


Both parties gerrymander out the ass, it's against both parties interest to stop it.


Just like actually legislating wedge issues doesn't serve the interest of either party because then they can't use those issues as a platform to drive votes.


Democrats invented Gerrymandering and still use it to this day, quite effectively as of late. It is named for Elbridge Gerry of the Democratic-Republican party. He redrew the districts in Massachusetts just prior to an election in the early 1800’s which resulted in the Democratic-Republican party taking control of the state senate from the Federalists. The republicans went pretty extreme with it in the 2000’s and early 2010’s, but the democrats have used it very effectively over the last few years. Both parties have had opportunities to end the practice, and both have declined to do so.


>Have the democrats never had the power to do this, or did it somehow suit them not to? Why would it suit them to challenge gerrymandering when they're *actively profiting from gerrymandering?* If you think it's only Republicans doing it, well I've got a bridge I can sell you.


While admittedly a lot of Gerry meandering is Republicans (just look at Texas and the Carolinas) it’s also used by Democrats (Maryland is or at least was a pretty good example) and also if Democrats get a chance to why wouldn’t they jump on it It’s all a big prisoner dilemma where if they both stop they lose an advantage if one stops but the other doesn’t one gets horribly punished but unlike the prisoner’s dilemma there’s not really a downside to both doing it


Your comment about Dems wanting to abolish it is naive and kind of cute. What are you, 18?


Because they use it themselves in states they control too. And have for years. https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms But the media will claim only republicans do it and these infographics use red vs blue to always show red doing gerrymandering.


You should have used different colors. Because using the colors you did makes it seem like you are biased in favor of democrats. Everyone knows that both parties do geremandering. Is maybe try changing it to yellow and green or something.


Every other example I've seen has used blue and yellow. Even the image on Wikipedia is a blue and yellow version of this image. Ofcourse the version posted to Reddit would be blue and red..


OG had different colors, and two additional representations. **Both** district examples shown above are gerrymandered. You want proper representation of your population, not blanket one party or the other. You can find variants of these that *aren't* [gerrymandered in the Wikipedia article.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File:DifferingApportionment.svg)


Both red and blue do this.


And don't forget they both do this. ​ There are several critical problems that BOTH parties are guilty of and until we can fix those things we are just voting for whichever master we think is best.


This is probably an obtuse question but why have voting districts at all? Why aren’t the districts just the area they will serve? I.e.- mayor = county, governor = state, etc


Cause some cities are bigger than entire U.S. states, and what your describing with the mayor thing is basically the House of Representatives. We just need to really reform how districting is validated so that everyone is on a level playing field.


The districts are most importantly created to distribute a states representatives for the house.


fuckin jerry


Honestly, the problem is counting districts and not votes.


If only there were a way to make each persons vote count equally.


"Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Republic: A democracy where two hundred wolves and one hundred lambs elect two wolves and one lamb as their representatives to vote on what to have for lunch. Constitutional Republic: A republic with a Constitution guaranteeing that lamb is not on the lunch menu. Eventually, the Supreme Court rules—five wolves to four lambs--that mutton is not the same as lamb. The monopoly power to make the laws, enforce the laws, decide what the law means, and how it applies to specific cases, can and will be used to make Constitutions and democratic elections irrelevant." \~ Alan Lovejoy


Here’s a wild idea. No districts. No precincts. People just vote for what they want and we count all the votes in the end.


I wish. Then I could vote away farm subsidies from hicks in Nebraska and give that money to me friends and I add ubi in New York City. /s


just another one of the thousand ONLY-in-US things that TOTALLY make sense


Money buys elections


Money buys everything


Yes...we get it.. the system sucks... Here's the part you don't see: Both sides are the enemy


Google Chicago district map. It's real.


Get rid of the the winner takes it all principle and use a proportional voting system and this problem would be far lower.


[Gerrymandering](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/where-did-term-gerrymander-come-180964118/) 🦅....Created by a Massachusetts Representative... and still exists today. 🤦‍♀️


There is only one reason a country wouldn’t go based on popular vote, and that is so they can elect candidates who are not popular. It bewilders me how many people don’t immediately understand this when learning about systems in countries with gerrymandering, electoral colleges, and district-based voting.


Don’t worry. Once the democrats are in power this will all end. Right? Right?


This is why proportional representation is the fairest electoral system.


Can somebody explain why this system is even used?


Both sides have been doing it for 200 and some years because once in power they never want to give it up


This is a poor representation because the implication is blue gerrymandering is honest while red is dishonest. They're *both* dishonest.


I mean If we did do the second one then the 40% of the population who voted Red get no representation


Yes, they are both gerrymandered maps. The ideal map would be one that draws the districts vertically


but ma fridum


Same with political unions: lets say from 4 political parties each one got 25% - so from 4 people 3 didn't want any of them. three loser build a union (75%) and get to governmant as "chosen one"


Don’t forget to add in cash like the Presidents do.


This is what happens in California. Democrats are 48% of the population, and they win 80% of US House seats.


California is one of the few states that has an independent redistricting committee. So not based on whoever has control over the legislature and or governor.


In California, 46% of registered voters joined the cult of Democrat, while only 24% joined the cult of Republican. Independents make up the rest and hopefully vote based on policy rather than rhetoric. Republicans are not the most popular cult, so gerrymandering helps level the field for them. Without it, I suppose the D cult would be closer to 90% in California.


Nicely said. From an outsider perspective it really feels more like a cult based voting system than anything looking remotely like a democratically elected government.


That is true but it looks like that 47% plus the overall leaning of independent voters leaves very little Republican support in the state. https://www.ppic.org/publication/california-voter-and-party-profiles/


Crazy idea- how about we just let the person/candidate with the most votes win


How should the district lines be drawn? The center completely disenfranchises Republicans. The right slightly over enfranchises them. What’s the perfect plan?


Abolish the two party system, so instead of just voting for an R or a D citizens vote based on policy? No need for gerrymandering then.


Split line redistricting or multi-member districts (proportional representation).


Huh? Could someone explain?


FPTPT leaves people disenfranchised. The only solution would be to have proportionately distributed seats.


As many times as I’ve looked up gerrymandering I’ve never understood how it works. My small brain needed this simplistic graph. Ty OP


The other thing Gerrymandering does that isn’t represented here is dramatically reduce the amount of competitive districts. In an area thats 60/40, you might end up with 3 80/20 districts and 2 30/70 (I’m sure that’s not the exact math, but it shows the point). So instead of having 5 districts that lean one way, but are always competitive, you have 0 competitive districts.


When you realize that people lie to you when they tell you everyone vote is equal


Someone explain in simple terms. So it’s basically grouping different districts so u can get an advantage. like how does this literally work in the real life ?


Take a look at voting district maps of states. They are *wildly* non-sensical for this purpose.


I'm here wondering why the red areas and the blue areas want the other side to follow their laws. Separation is ideal for proper representation.


the ridiculous thing is plenty of states, including my home state of pennsylvania, have been known to do this, even recently, despite a *majority* of *both parties* agreeing that its a bad thing


Technically the middle is gerrymandering too. An ideal split would end up with districts such that there are two red districts and three blue.


Help me out with a very simple question I’ve never understood: what is the problem with just using a popular vote?


Leave it to blue to steal as usual


Great visual explanation. I like.


This is how you change the balance in the House of Representatives. It has no effect on Senate or Presidential elections since they are state-wide.


By the way this has nothing to do with republicans, voting districts are divided on the basis of population or some other app metric not just political preference, imagine if that were the case why would be the other side be quite about it?




Don’t forget the part where Red also complains that the results from the blue districts are so overwhelmingly blue that it’s a sure sign of election fraud, compared to the red districts which are “competitive”.


So voting never actually matters after all?


If it would matter, those in charge would disallow it; paraphrased saying


Supreme court says it's legal. That's a huge hurdle right there.


My cousin was a state senator a decade ago in a very red state. I still remember him proudly showing off his idea of how he came up with an idea to do just this in that state to kick out the rare few democrats that were continually being elected into that state senate. 🤦🏻‍♂️ It worked. Nothing like honest and clean politics to show true patriotism by a politician.


Imagine thinking Republicans alone do this lol


Ok, but now explain this in a way that 1 human being could understand. ​ Edit: OH ELECTION!! I swear it said, Electron!


What's the problem with proportional representation?


Electoral college baby.


American systems are so outdated


We deserve everything that's coming to us. Not because of these gerrymandering fucks, but allowing it to continue for 200 years.


Would note that both parties do this when in power.


Pretty biased in the colors. Definitely implies whichever side is supposed to be blue, whoever they may be, doesn’t do the exact same thing.


Moldy old post. Yawn.


How to actually steal an election: 3 AM vote dump where the democrat gets 100% of the votes


Look at Houston TX’s districts. All the example you need.


It's all just so corrupt.


This happened in my suburban town growing up. I was so confused as a middle school kid why the younger kids were starting to go to a different elementary school that was all the way on the other side of town instead of any of the 3 schools closer to us.


Most countries need to take from the French and Scandinavians. Rise up and lock up the corrupt