Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. Other measures discourage voters likely to vote against them, like people who cannot easily take time off to vote in person or who have changed their name. Blocking rank choice and maintaining first past the post also disenfranchise third parties, and reinforces the power of incumbents.
Trump himself admitted it's better for Republicans when fewer people vote.
> Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition.
This thread is talking about the Senate. The senate isn't gerrymandered. Both senators are state-wide races.
If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered". But the last time that was an option was in 1959, and both of those are just "the entire area the US owned, but wasn't a state yet. To get senate gerrymandering, you have to go back to 1912 and the admission of New Mexico/Arizona.
> If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered".
That is quite explicitly the history of the US Senate (and House), FWIW.
The Connecticut Compromise was reached to give low-populations states outsized legislative power in the senate. This is the main reason the senate exists.
Building on that, the 3/5th compromise was reached as part of this to give slave states outsized legislative power in the house.
The state of Maine used to be part of Massachusetts, but it was later set up as an independent state in order to increase the number of anti-slavery states in the senate (the Missouri compromise).
Gerrymandering can affect voter sentiment and trigger polling location changes during redistricting, both of which can affect voter turnout[1][2][3] (though the research doesn't seem conclusive on the effect).
And thinking about it more, though I haven't seen if there are studies on it: there are probably manpower/fundraising effects from gerrymandering.
If you're able to protect your political power in one area that probably better enables you to amass resources to use in the area you can't gerrymander.
But all that said, both parties practice gerrymandering and I don't think there's strong evidence of a significant advantage over a major party from current gerrymandering at the national level.
Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. Other measures discourage voters likely to vote against them, like people who cannot easily take time off to vote in person or who have changed their name. Blocking rank choice and maintaining first past the post also disenfranchise third parties, and reinforces the power of incumbents.
Trump himself admitted it's better for Republicans when fewer people vote.
> Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition.
This thread is talking about the Senate. The senate isn't gerrymandered. Both senators are state-wide races.
If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered". But the last time that was an option was in 1959, and both of those are just "the entire area the US owned, but wasn't a state yet. To get senate gerrymandering, you have to go back to 1912 and the admission of New Mexico/Arizona.
> If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered".
That is quite explicitly the history of the US Senate (and House), FWIW.
The Connecticut Compromise was reached to give low-populations states outsized legislative power in the senate. This is the main reason the senate exists.
Building on that, the 3/5th compromise was reached as part of this to give slave states outsized legislative power in the house.
The state of Maine used to be part of Massachusetts, but it was later set up as an independent state in order to increase the number of anti-slavery states in the senate (the Missouri compromise).
Gerrymandering can affect voter sentiment and trigger polling location changes during redistricting, both of which can affect voter turnout[1][2][3] (though the research doesn't seem conclusive on the effect).
And thinking about it more, though I haven't seen if there are studies on it: there are probably manpower/fundraising effects from gerrymandering.
If you're able to protect your political power in one area that probably better enables you to amass resources to use in the area you can't gerrymander.
But all that said, both parties practice gerrymandering and I don't think there's strong evidence of a significant advantage over a major party from current gerrymandering at the national level.
[1] https://da.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/90008864/90008864.pdf
[2] https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/gerrymandering-turnout-...
[3] https://stateline.org/2022/05/20/check-your-polling-place-re...
12 replies →
?? Both sides happily gerrymander. It’s been around since 1812 and both sides are equally guilty at this point.
I didn't say democrats were innocent. I said Republicans perfected the (ab)use of districting.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-...
Governors are elected by popular vote.