520

North Carolina Republicans Enact Highly Gerrymandered New Maps (www.democracydocket.com)

submitted 11 months ago by BeautifulMind@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 134 points 11 months ago

In Monday’s House Redistricting Committee meeting, Rep. Destin Hall (R), who chairs the committee, admitted what is abundantly and objectively clear: “Our overarching goal in the creation of this House plan was to create Republican-leaning districts where possible while… following traditional redistricting principles.”

Bruh you aren’t supposed to admit to gerrymandering out loud. Enjoy being cited in the lawsuits, dipshit

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 76 points 11 months ago

Actually gerrymandering is legal if it’s exclusively partisan. They get into trouble when they racially gerrymander

[-] EnchiladaHole@kbin.social 38 points 11 months ago

legal but still wrong

[+] takeda@lemmy.world -102 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Unfortunately both parties are doing it and this is against democracy. Instead of having voters pick up politicians, the politicians are picking up their voters.

Edit: lol about the downvotes, but every single time gerrymandering is done it is for the benefit the party against the voter.

You might be OK with it, because you are supporting the party, but that still takes the voice away from you.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 86 points 11 months ago

GOP: Does something terrible 1000 times

Dems: do that thing a handful of times

People online: see???? Both parties are at fault!!!!1

[-] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

That guy that pulled the fire alarm will be on Fox news for months, but you wont hear about Trump's lawyers

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There are people who say both parties are the same. This is not it. All I'm pointing out is that every time this is done it is in favor of the political party and always against us, the voters and us inexcusable every time.

Make an independent commission, or use an algorithm that doesn't rely on inputs that would allow gerrymandering.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Which party has been calling for independent redistricting?

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Democrats. I support that and clearly one party cares more about democracy than the other, but when I see black I call it black. Any kind of gerrymandering is bad for us, the voters.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 63 points 11 months ago

Ah yes, the venerated “both sides” argument.

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

It’s like when someone gets bullied in a high school and they get suspended as long as the person attacking them, since they threw a punch to defend themselves.

Obviously both are equally guilty of the same exact offense. /s

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago

Fuck your ”both parties" bullshit.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

While true, and it doesn't make it right, the GOP started it and have applied it 10x harder. There's no point taking the democratic high horse when that further enables your opponents attacks on democracy, especially when your opponents goal is a Christian fascist dictatorship.

The thing that should concern you is whether they're legitimately fighting to criminalize the practice.

[-] bquintb@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago

This is interesting. Is this a "bothsidzer" or do Democrats really do this as much as Republicans? Anyone got facts on this issue?

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

Gerrymandering wasn't a talking point until the unprecedented Republican wins in the 2010 election that let them control the redistricting process for the majority of states. This led to nearly a decade of republican control in many states that were traditionally purple/mixed.

In previous census years control of state legislations was more balanced, so maybe the Democrats lost a seat in Florida, but they gained one in Ohio, so nationally things stayed about the same. Gerrymandering occasionally got brought up in egregious case, but nothing like today where it gets used as a reason when it's not even applicable.

[-] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

Gerrymandering wasn’t a talking point until the unprecedented Republican wins in the 2010 election

Uh, it's been a talking point for over 200 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander; a portmanteau of the name Gerry and the animal salamander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette[b] on 26 March 1812 in

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works -2 points 10 months ago

It's been little more than a high school civics question for most of the 200 years. Maybe it got brought out on a slow news day, but it's been a non stop topic since 2010. People were just mad about hanging chads in 2000.

[-] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

It's been an issue for my entire adult life. I've know about it since I could vote and I'm middle aged.

[-] thallamabond@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Forget the chads, I'm still pissed about violent Republicans interrupting the voting process.

First, but not last time I heard about Roger Stone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

[-] bassomitron@lemmy.world 109 points 11 months ago

To the surprise of no one. As soon as they passed those laws over the summer--including the one that explicitly gives each state politician full control to destroy any governmental records that are inconvenient for them--this was inevitable. North Carolina is yet another state that lost its democracy over the last few years. And what will that state's voters do? Most likely nothing.

[-] FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee 78 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I’m in NC and one of my (voting age) coworkers heard me ranting about how republicans keep fucking everything up with evil, unamerican legislation at all levels of government and she was so surprised to hear something bad about republicans instead of democrats that she said:

“Wait, which one is which? I think democrats were.. the ones I don’t like..

What’s the difference?”

As fucking made up as this sounds I swear to god this is as close to verbatim as I can recall. The conversation started with the plastic bag ban in the outer banks that fucking supermajority cuntpublicans overturned— and how everyday republicans consistently vote to destroy the planet, only to benefit some rich cunts and the profit margins of big companies that they have zero vested interest in. It’s unreal how fucking stupid these people are.

[-] Krudler@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

I worked with a woman that unironically declared "I'm voting red because red is the color of Canada".

[-] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

And what will that state’s voters do? Most likely nothing.

What can they do? This process does not involve the average voter.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago

It's weird how the cons do nothing to try to actually appeal to (normal) voters for their platform, but instead just engage in trying to rig things in their favor.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

I can't be the only one confused looking at NC vs LA and GA. SCOTUS told Louisiana to comply with their order and just slapped down Georgia. The specific context and history behind the maps for North Carolina mean it hasn't had the exact same scrutiny.

But by the exact same principle -- partisan gerrymandering is diluting the black population in each district. This seems just a lawsuit away from going the same way as Louisiana and Georgia, but that doesn't seem to be the narrative here. I'm clearly missing something, what is it?

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 10 months ago

The Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is legal (which is a fucking disgrace), so it's only illegal if they can show the gerrymandering is specifically racial in nature. I imagine that makes proving illegal gerrymandering a hell of a lot harder.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

At the same time, you can show the changes in population in a district, and do a mathematic comparison of how much say they previously had vs now.

But that is still harder, yeah.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Gerrymandering starts with a legitimate action but takes it way too apparently. At what point is it illegal? Those other cases focus on racism: youre not giving people a voice because of the color of their skin. However this case focuses on politics. There is no innate protection based on people’s partisan affiliation

[-] Geobloke@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

In democracy, voters pick the politicians. In the USA, politicians pick the voters

[-] graycube@kbin.social 17 points 10 months ago

Partisan gerrymandering only works if people consistently vote for the same party regardless of the candidates. It also helps gerrymandering work easily is that we only have two parties.

[-] SecretSauces@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

Honestly, as Republicans continue to do shadier and shadier shit, the easier it becomes for me to justify my vote for the other side.

They are alienating themselves, as it becomes "the hardcore (crazy) Right vs everyone else".

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

People do. Only a small minority of people actually use research and critical thinking in each election. And frankly, they're probably not voting Republican now anyway.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

At this point someone claiming "Republican" as their party affiliation is, in itself, way more than enough reason for me to vote for their most credible opponent.

[-] ULTIMATE_FUCKTRUMPET@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

cooolllll....

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023

520 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18883 readers

5089 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News