It’s this year’s version of “Dems in Disarray.”
3 Likes
That’s a porifera excuse for a district.
1 Like
It really soaks up the votes.
3 Likes
You forgot to include that heavily gerrymandered states like WI, MI, PA and NC now have D governors. I believe maps in all these states have to be legislated and SIGNED in order to become fact. I believe some balance will be restored.
2 Likes
Current CA critter count: 42D, 11R. The state is not 80% democrat by population.
2 Likes
It doesn’t have to be. That’s what gerrymandering is all about. I assume you understand that. Right?
It would be great if every state had to apportion congressional seats based on how the vote falls in statewide races. But the goal of gerrymandering is to get more seats for “our party” than the population split.
I’d simply note that what’s “statutorily mandated” can also–esp. w/ a large Dem majority–be “statutorily UNmandated”!
While we’re vaguely on the subject, I’ll also take this opportunity to ask if (if not declare that) this “unilateral disarmament” issue is also at work in the national so-called “Popular Vote Compact”? I was a fan early-on, but as I studied it more, to my understanding, it ONLY obligates the States that approve it (nearly all “blue/Democratic”) and the others (nearly all “red/Republican’t”) are free to continue w/ BAU.
IF this understanding is correct, then it strikes me as the worst of possible worlds–if a Republican’t wins/steals (w/ “steals” absolutely including suppressing Dem/other voters) a national popular vote, then CA and the other blue states that’ve signed onto the initiative will be obligated to cast their (s)electoral votes FOR the Republican’t and thereby make even a close race appear even more wildly lopsided (which, to my understanding, is part of the intention of the Electoral College–to give at least some appearance of a mandate even if none exists)–but only in the Republican’t direction!
You are so right! was tempted to add that to my comment, but I decided to not load it up. I’m really happy you did!
1 Like
The Popular Vote Compact only requires the signed-on states to conform if and when the majority of electoral votes will be guaranteed to the popular vote winner.
1 Like
I guess what is most distressing about this is there is absolutely no recognition that the Republicans have no policies and have been actively killing people for 2 years now - but none of that plays into electoral politics. I guess if you can’t lose by overtly killing people, you just can’t lose.
2 Likes
The electoral popular vote compact does not go into effect until sufficient states have signed up for it that their EVs decide the election.
2 Likes
Justice Robert Jackson famously said, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Well, this Electoral Collage Pact is.
I’ve already pointed out the error in eddycollins interpretation of how it works. Perhaps you could describe a scenario where the EC compact backfires? Remember, the pact does nothing until sufficient states have joined it that their EVs represent a majority in the EC.
1 Like
Thanks for that clarification, @occamscoin–that’ll gimme something to reread more closely for… (and I STILL dig your I-gor avatar!)
1 Like
Yep…it’s a mishmash of various images pieced together…however in this case, the outcome is not at all artistic.
Am I the only one wondering why we see no analysis of where currently GOP-held seats might possibly be there to be picked up due to retirements, exceptionally foolish incumbent activity around COVID, a possibly good Dem opponent etc.?
538 is doing something like that, though they necessarily have looked at only a handful of seats, because the redistricting hasn’t happened yet. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/?cid=rrpromo
1 Like
That’s true, but it doesn’t diminish the point. Indeed, it is a scandal of Democratic fantasyland politics that Democratic states have said they will forfeit their electoral votes to a Republican candidate who has not only lost their states, but has lost the national popular vote. Republican states have not reciprocated and never will. So, the point about Democrats being the practitioners of unilateral political disarmament is supported by this proposal, not undercut by it. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of chaos that this proposal would unleash if it ever were employed.
What on earth are you on about? How could that happen?
Yep, you are right. We would be “donating” our electoral votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote, even if that candidate was totally reviled in our state. I stand corrected. Thanks.
But the point about unilateral disarmament remains, because it is only Democratic states that have decided to “donate” to Republican candidates. I don’t think any Republican State has agreed to “donate” to a Democratic presidential candidate.