It does seem like common sense doesn’t it? There’s way too many conflicting interests in congress. Their own pay, term limits, pension, market trading, buisness regulations with the attached bribing (whoops I meant lobbyists), districts, etc. They have heavy influence or control over all of it
Well I mean, who should it be left to then? Cause this goes all the way down. Cause if you say “Oh, it should be an appointed board.” Well then who appoints the board. Or “The judiciary should.” Well, who appoint the justices and what are the political leanings of the judges. Could you probably find a better solution than our current system, yea, probably, but it will never be perfect, and it will never satisfy everyone.
@@jkdragonjk6895 no solution is perfect, but most of them are a lot better than letting the people who directly benefit from shitty districts draw the districts.
Exactly kinda like letting millions of illegals in when you kno you don't have the votes then encouraging them to illegally vote right... right...I mean it's kinda the same right...
There is no "neutral" group of people that can draw districts. The only people who don't have polical bias are drooling and brain damaged. The only unbiased way to assign districts would be to assign them RANDOMLY. And the net effect of that would be to HEAVILY favor rural voters. Would you be okay with that?
“Drawing maps of a districts is a job for politicians” - nah, it’s not. At least in Poland voting oblasts are created by the Main Voting Commision which is an apolitical body and supervised by elected judges. The idea of politicians drawing the map of the voting zones, in which they are elected is ridiculous.
@@hawluchag7305Only in a country with a actual party of judges and lawyers "Federalist society". Where they might have this version themselves. No country before or after has seen what we can do with parties.
Apparently It wasn’t about artificially suppressing the black vote, which would be illegal. It was about artificially suppressing the democrat vote, which is apparently a-ok! Sigh.
That’s the point of gerrymandering and both parties do it. The most gerrymandered state is Illinois where democrats gerrymandered it so bad like just look at the districts
@@michaelvossen7253 yeah I agree I don’t really like it but if one side is gonna do it egregiously, the other side might as well 🤷♂️ and just speaking as someone who’s drawn districts then it’s a complicated process and not very simple to ban
@@jesusmarley2607 Yeah, I mean it's just a coincidence that most of the black population just happens to live in that one singular congressional district... totally...
@@iamsiley2200 people determined to see racism always will. Even when it isn't there. The question you need to ask before you jump to an erroneous, if ideologically comfortable, conclusion is if there is any other reason why the thing you are calling racist, happened.
I don’t even know why drawing electoral maps should be left up to politicians - shouldn’t you have an independent body so the voting districts are fair?
There’s a very simple answer to that question. Who do you think would be writing and implementing such a law? That’s right, the very politicians abusing their ability to gerrymander.
@@archapmangcmg afaik we, like many others, copied the poms on that, and I think it was decided on during federation. The yanks have gotten used to their way, and their government relies on it for many of their seats, our government didn’t have the chance to do the same.
@@MauriceOfInfiniteAtrocities It turns out to be complicated. While it's been administered by the Aus Electoral Commission for a while, we've had various acts since 1902 calling for mostly even vote value and we've pretty much always had geographic contiguity as a general priority - no separate areas bundled together. In general, we've never had the kind of problem Americans have with it. But then, the UK is an example of a country that got rid of gerrymandering despite it being in place for centuries. So, yeah, it can be done and has been done in a number of places. Yanks just enshrined their corruption.
That's the problem. It's not legal. The problem is the Supreme Court is currently a kangaroo court run by Republicans who are letting other Republicans get away with it.
@@kaitlink2004It is legal. It's only illegal if it's based on race per the constitution. That's why they openly argued in court they were doing it for political gain, not racial reasons.
@@han090the funny thing is it just so happens that every single gerrymandered map is made because of race so it's basically left up to who gets prosecuted
Its total bunk that putting people in charge of what the government does (which judges do) without a democratic oversight (which judges lack) somehow results in a better state of affairs. Working people should rule the land as directly as possible, instead of setting up a convoluted system that just serves the interests of the rich.
Yes, that's logical. "I want to get X political party elected" is not a racial statement. SCOTUS is essentially arguing that the fact black voters are mostly stuck in one district is a COINCIDENCE. Imagine that instead of 90%+ blacks voting Democrat they voted Republican. Do you really believe the NC Republicans would draw the districts the EXACT same way? I don't think you really believe that. That means the MOTIVATION of the NC Republicans was not racism against blacks, which is why the case was tossed out by SCOTUS.
Yes, that's logical. "I want to get X political party elected" is not a racial statement. SCOTUS is essentially arguing that the fact black voters are mostly stuck in one district is a COINCIDENCE. Imagine that instead of 90%+ blacks voting Democrat they voted Republican. Do you really believe the NC Republicans would draw the districts the EXACT same way? I don't think you really believe that. That means the MOTIVATION of the NC Republicans was not racism against blacks, which is why the case was tossed out by SCOTUS.
Yes, that's logical. "I want to get X political party elected" is not a racial statement. SCOTUS is essentially arguing that the fact black voters are mostly stuck in one district is a COINCIDENCE. Imagine that instead of 90%+ blacks voting Democrat they voted Republican. Do you really believe the NC Republicans would draw the districts the EXACT same way? I don't think you really believe that. That means the MOTIVATION of the NC Republicans was not racism against blacks, which is why the case was tossed out by SCOTUS.
@richardnoah2922 Yeah, it would be nice if racism stopped. Unfortunately, until that day comes, we're gonna have to have long conversations about things that some people find _real_ uncomfortable.
Wouldn't that be putting people into affinty groups? Read Woke Racism by John McWhorter Mao's America by Xi Van Fleet Controligarchs by Seamus Bruner Get Trump by Alan Dershowitz The Great Reset by Glen Beck Sanfransicko by Michael Schallenburger Red,White and Black by Robert Woodson Sr Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
@BlaireSnorlax Wouldn't that be putting people into affinty groups? Read Woke Racism by John McWhorter Mao's America by Xi Van Fleet Controligarchs by Seamus Bruner Get Trump by Alan Dershowitz The Great Reset by Glen Beck Sanfransicko by Michael Schallenburger Red,White and Black by Robert Woodson Sr Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
@rtechie Very philosophical. Sure, I agree, we are all deterministically bound by the causality of the universe, no independence possible. Oh, you meant with regards to government? Well, better to have a body that _attempts_ to be independant, than not.
@@joshelliott4451 At the end of the day, race is a political identity imposed by the ruling class. Whiteness was always broadened to serve a political agenda, first as a way to divide the poor majority against each other by othering African workers as Black and protestant English and Scots-Irish workers as white, then expanded whiteness along the centuries to include Germanic, and eventually Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as Jews and Middle Eastern/North African peoples
@@redjoker365yeah.... we also used to own people and beat women.... we've progressed as a society.... or do you want us to revert back a few hundred years?
You don't see this to nearly the same degree for other racial groups as their voting patterns are more variable. Near urban centers in a lot of states, however, the black population votes around 95% Democrat. So the gerrymandering along political lines looks the same as along racial lines. This is unique to the black demographic though, not others, so unless there is also a pattern among other racial groups of this severity it becomes harder for it to be argued as race based vs political based.
Nowhere near as big of as disgrace as Sotomayor. Look into her history, as a minor court judge she ruled against a SUPREME COURT RULING MADE YEARS PRIOR.
@@TeemoQuintoni assume it was overturned in appeals, then? That stuff happens all the time. The current supreme court has overturned long standing precident, and there's no appeals to fix that (unless politicians do their jobs, i guess).
@@robertmartin6800 - lol you're the type of guy to look at all those Nazis marching in Charlottesville waving Nazi flags and making Nazi salutes and chanting Nazi slogans and be like, "Well, they don't have an official notarized document declaring themselves Nazis, you silly leftists just call EVERYBODY a Nazi! :D"
This is the part that hurts me the most about all this. If the SCOTUS stopped people from protesting Gerrymandering then the grip of the elite will get even tighter.
@@rtechie I'm not arguing anything. But Crapface Thomas was arguing that there is no legal basis for any redistricting regulations of any kind. Wanna create one district containing everyone who voted Dem in the last election, and 5 million districts each containing exactly one GOP voter? According to Thomas, the states should be allowed to do that.
@rtechie no it really doesn't early 19th century: from the name of Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts + salamander, from the supposed similarity between a salamander and the shape of a new voting district on a map drawn when he was in office (1812), the creation of which was felt to favour his party;
And replace the two party system with what? If "we're all in it together" you're talking about a one party nation aka dictatorship. Do you really think dictatorships like China and Ukraine are better than the USA?
@@chavvy9074 first past the post electoral systems create 2 party systems. Most countries do not use this system. Do away with districts and have Reps elected proportionally within each state. That ends all gerrymandering and means people can vote for other parties and they have a chance to get a representative or 2.
The problem isn't racial discrimination, it's the fact that politicians are allowed to gerrymander districts and manufacture election results at all. Just define a system for splitting districts mathematically, and end this issue forever.
@@rtechie There are many algorithms that could be used, but I would point to the shortest splitline method, which is explained in CGP Grey's video on Gerrymandering.
Yeah obviously we can make a computer algorithm to assign the districts randomly yet still based on population. Specially with all the technology we have.
Drawing maps for political purposes should not be anyones job, least of all politicians. If you were going to pick anyone you should pick a diverse group of people at random from vastly different professions and personal backgrounds within the general regions you're mapping, although at that point why not just have a direct democracy where 1 vote anywhere is actually worth 1 vote.
@@D00ML0RD1I think they mean directly voting for president or other offices and representatives instead of distibuting the votes to states not people. I dont believe they were thinking of a direct democracy like Athens, because you are absolutly right there. That would never work
Direct democracy is inevitably oppressive. The whole point of a republic is to subdivide representation across many representatives who have equal political power even if the group they represent is in the minority, to ensure the majority doesn't override the minority all the time. District borders should try to be representative of neighborhoods: areas that share resources, supply lines, common areas, and public spaces, because those are nexuses of a given community, who will most likely share some form of community Identity that can be appropriately represented. It shouldn't be forced into a certain space to ensure it holds certain ratios of this or that kind of voter for a given political party's sake, but the reality is that most communities do tend to have a certain commonality that typically biases them to one party or another just as a necessary part of existing harmoniously in a given collective. So it's tricky. Both a correctly drawn and gerrymandered district will have bias, so it's hard to prove any intent when trying to draw the boundaries of imaginary communities that have no formalized borders.
@@QuesoCookiesBasically all movements against direct democracy predate the Internet. Being able to easily hold individual referendums on important policy without interrupting anyone's day may actually bring about change. Instead of congress meandering day in and out just to shut down bills, or pass one that is pork-barreled so badly it's basically a completely different document.
I don't really understand why gerrymandering is allowed in the first place. We have counties for a reason. If some counties are too small, just combine them with nearby counties. Obviously big cities may need to be split into districts, but theres gotta be a better way than drawing weird lines like that.
@@pedrothevenard I agree. Also, single-transferable-voting, which isnt adopted in the US cause it “takes too long to account for” (with modern electronics and even existing vote collection methods it wouldnt have any massive effect), but STVs provide the best opportunity to influence voting beyond their first candidate, by ranking the available candidates so that pluralities dont win. Watch CGP Gray’s video on it, very educational and easy to comprehend! (Imo best elective structure)
@@pedrothevenard Popular votes bias outcomes in favor of larger groups, smaller groups lose all their clout and influence. There need to be mechanisms in place to allow small groups to influence politics.
@@robertmartin6800 It's called the constitution, smaller groups have rights, but the majority has the right to decide the political path of the country, that's what actual democracy is, if you are a smaller group you need to work to convince the majority, but the majority rule, only in America people think that creating mechanisms to make a minority to overcome the will of the majority is anything other than a anti democratic.
@@pedrothevenard I do not agree. The Constitution is a fine document, but insufficient. Our system allows smaller groups to exert influence over politics comparable to that of the larger groups, the antidemocratic safeguards built into it were incredibly wise, and we would do well to preserve them. Democracy is gay and tyrannical, simple majority rule would mean that the politics of the nation were determined _solely_ by a handful of our largest cities, everyone elsewhere in the country, whose beliefs and interests are wildly incongruous with those of the urban population, would be completely disenfranchised under such a system. I don't want the terms of my political life dictated to me by some moron in a hellhole city a thousand miles away, I very much appreciate that, though I'm nowhere near a majority, I may still enjoy at least a modicum of influence over the politics that affect me.
That works for electoral votes, but it wouldn't work for the election of House members, who are supposed to represent a distinct geographical area of their state.
Proportional representation means no black voters get to vote. Even in places like Mississippi where the black population is higher than the national average, if you were to change the districts to be area based, or percentage based, what you would end up with is no area where African Americans can elect a representative. Theres a middle line where you build districts based off of the perceived voting power of the people within your state, but if that was the case NONE of the districts would be primarily, or even close to majority black in North Carolina. That would also mean that African Americans would Nationally account for 15-20% of the vote, if everyone voted, which means that the roughly 60% white population of the US could theoretically just ignore the black voter. By creating districts that guarantee the black voice is heard, they do have an elected representative, which they wouldn't have if it were percentile based, and not gerrymandered.
I don't know our executive branch has swarmed us with us executive orders. And our legislative is doing everything in their power to give money to foreign nations. I'd say we're f'd
ehhhh a fair district is better than a nation where the formation of some entire states are predicated on maintaining the status quo power structure and the power of those whom it has always benefited i.e. wyoming
Districts are necessary for us to have our own localized representatives. I vote within a county board district & the 3 board members in my district are MY representatives. Similarly, i have state reps specific to my district. I want to have people who represent my area and advocate for the people in my area. State-wide or even county-wide electorate would make every politician responsible for a lot more voters, and make every voter have a huge pool of representatives, rather than the few in their district. Conversely, my city council is city-wide and i guess I'm fine with that, but it also brings some unique problems - all the elected representatives are wealthy people from good neighborhoods.
As a lifelong resident of the congressional district in question, SC District 6, the idea that anyone would think it's not an insanely gerrymandered district is ridiculous. Fun fact for everyone in comments: the 6th congressional district contains the majority of black residents in ALL THREE of SC's largest metropolitan areas, covering somehow in one district both the state's historic capital of Charleston AND the black and minority population centers of the current capital Columbia over 100 miles away! Jim Clyburne, for all his faults, is a goddamn hero of SC politics for fighting for his insanely gerrymandered district as long as he has and making the country better many times more than every single GOP rep from the same times
@@Elendrian It covers literally all of the Charleston peninsula and almost all of North Charleston up to Hanahan. Mount Pleasant, Daniel Island, John and James Islands, and Sullivan Island, etc. are not Charleston, they're Charleston County. Importantly, Black and brown residents of Charleston County live overwhelmingly in the northern part of the Charleston metro area, which District 6 covers. They created a majority Black district by packing in all of the Black and brown residents of multiple, disparate metro areas and thus cracking up the minority population centers enough that there wasn't a sizeable enough portion in any of the other districts. Realistically, you could draw District 1's map in such a way that it actually covers the Charleston area fairly, without arbitrary packing and cracking, but that would make it more competitive between Democrats and Republicans, which Republicans (who have held power over all 3 branches of SC government since the Dixiecrats made the party switch) don't like.
Well each district needs to have the same population. You also might end up in a situation where the district is split down the middle by like a mountain range, making the district disconnected
@@Pyxleanit’s already extremely bad. Court justices are literal political appointees. Changing them to having term limits would bring more good than bad.
@sandman4663 The way justices appointed can be simply changed. Electing them is a terrible idea because that would lead to justices caring more about what's popular rather than caring about what the law says. It's a recipe for disaster. For example, a Federal Judicial Council of sorts made up of legal experts can nominate and confirm the appointment of justices without politics getting involved. It will lead to much better results than elected justices.
That's literally impossible. Districts need to have the same number of people, and people don't live evenly distributed. And the difficulty is that the flip side of this -- where you have multiple districts taking a piece of a black community to dilute a democratic vote -- is also bad. We do have math for calculating gerrymandering based on confidence in a victory. That software gets used to draw gerrymandered districts. But the supreme Court doesn't believe in using math.
@@einargs It's not "literally impossible". Congressional districts are only mandated to have roughly equal population due to a flawed SCOTUS Warren court decision. Congress or SCOTUS can override it at any time and Congress has tried several times. Congressional Democrats have blocked these efforts because the decision heavily favors urban voters, who tend to vote Democrat.
Why not do a popular vote and the ratio of red/blue votes is the ratio of red/blue reps. The reps available are voted beforehand, like a mini dem/republicans primary
There are no such thing as popular votes in America on purpose. We are not a pure democracy we are a republic. And that eliminates any area representation
What your talking about is proportional voting. That could work but "popular voting" isn't a thing. Your thinking in the right direction. Read up on a election systems.
@@chavvy9074Dude we popularly elect the house, and the senate. Besides the reason the founding fathers said we should be a republic is because 1) slow communication, 2) lack of education, 3) they thought everyone who wasn't a rich person was dumb. 1 and 2 aren't problems anymore and 3 is is a self-defeating argument.
Because if we left everything to a raw count, rural voters will always get shafted by those in the cities just from the fact that there’s infinitely more people that live in the cities than outside it.
@@alack3879 Prove that the Republicans "do it more". Blue States like California and Massachusetts are extremely heavily gerrymandered by Democrats. And they do it on racial lines too, Democrats create exclusively black districts because they know blacks are a reliable Democrat voting bloc. They used to do the same with Hispanics, but they are drifting towards the Republican Party. Asians have always favored Republicans. Fun fact: In some of the "battleground" States so-called "people of color", especially Hispanics, are leaning towards Republicans to the point the Democrats are relying on white voters to win.
We should just do grids. No more weird, wonky, meandering, scrolling lines. Just a straightforward grid and then you apply a representative to the grid… that’s it. Also, federal judges need to be appointed first, of course. But after that, they’re only allowed to keep the bench as long as they are voted on by the constituents to stay on. If they reject the judge and their work, then the president appoints a different person. We also need term limits on Congress, terms for Supreme Court justices, term limits on justices, and across all of government there needs to be not only an age minimum, but an age maximum. The minimum has already been settled. But if you’re old enough to have participated in the Korean War, then perhaps you belong at home, or in a home.
@@EdwardJHyde you may as well. And the grid is the most egalitarian way I can think of to divide things so that no one feels jilted. Everyone gets what they get.
@@ScheelesGreen As Syndrome once said: "When everyone is special, no one is" inequality will always exist, all we can do is to just focus on making it so people who actually care on improving can do so.
Age caps are inherently inefficient imo, it’s implying that all people over or under a certain age are the same which just isn’t true. There are 70 year olds in better mental condition than some 50 year olds, it’s unfair.
How the actual hell do you figure? Your voting system doesn't take into account your population, it hinges completly on who claims more land. Trump lost the public vote and STILL became president. Your politicians, especially your conservatives, are so deep in the pockets of corporations they could be mistaken for a vibrator @jonathanraffaele
they shouldnt be a thing period. they have long out-lived their purpose. it's not 1850, it doesnt take a month for a man on horseback to bring bags of pieces of paper across the state in order to calculate votes anymore.
Well a republic just means we have a constitution, which when not ignored is pretty solid. Democracy is just mob rule when the masses are ignorant and just vote by color.
district drawing and gerrymandering is legitimately the stupidest problem to have. both sides hate when they other one does it-why not get fucking rid of it?
republicans mainly benefit from it compared to democrats, as democrats have enacted independent commissions in multiple states. national democrats introduced independent commissions for every state map but republicans voted it down.
But you cant legally do political gerrymandering. So if their point is race and politics are closely intertwined, then it actually reproves political gerrymandering
Maybe if federal judges are so impacted by politics, they should be forced to maintain a balance of bias by at least maintaining equal numbers from each side.
We should just use groups of counties as their own political districts so nobody can draw a star on a map that conveniently contains all of the [insert group of people here] and say is the best way to represent the area.
Real question is why do the voting regions need to be redrawn so frequently? Have one vote then award judges based on the total vote split, it'd be way less work
Or, hear me out, we shrink that district to zip code, or better yet, street block, or better yet, houses, or better yet, individuals! Give each individual their own district and then it'll be fair! Oh wait..... That's just democracy
@kickpushlongboards we aren't a democracy we are a republic. Even as someone who tends to vote left thats a terrible idea. Not only will republicans lose all national elections the far left will be in control.
New district maps are typically made every 10 years because that's how often the census is done. Based on population changes, some states gain or lose House seats so new maps are required. There are also population shifts within states that requires new maps to ensure each representative has approximately the same number of constituents.
@zachb.6179 that still doesn't explain why they need to be changed even that often. Just because the race or political affiliations of the people has changed doesn't mean the lines needs to be.
In a 34-page opinion, Alito stressed the high bar that plaintiffs bringing a racial gerrymandering case must meet, observing that the court had “repeatedly emphasized that federal courts must ‘exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of race.” “Such caution,” he explained, “is necessary because “[f]ederal-court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions.”
It’s about congress districts as well. If I group 1 party into 1 district, even if they have more people, the other party will have control of congress
Bcs reps would loose like half of thier power. The dem-rep split goes 70-30. Not hard to imagine why those corrupt gremlins wouldn't want to give thier power away
Oh... Really... Then maybe these judges should be shown the way out because if they can't even tell something so blatantly racist, they don't deserve to be on the supreme court.
This is unique to the black vote as in many areas they vote 95% Democrat. No other demographic has this issue to remotely they same degree so it is very easily political vs racial. If the black vote was 70/30 you wouldn't see this kind of gerrymandering.
Where is this so called freedom when voting and taxes are so damn complicated...I got a registration form to change my party because I live in a Closed Primary State so I can't vote for who I want unless I switch parties.... how does that make any sense...
That shit pisses me off. I was just bitching about that. I used to live in AZ where, at least when I was there, they would give you the whole damn ballot that included everyone for everything every election even if it was Donald Duck was running his own campaign. Btw, they have this closed ballot shit in GA and TN.
@@user-ug5xr2gb6j It's these damn Caucuses!! The absolutely number one reason why people don't vote is because they feel like their vote doesn't matter and preventing all states from being open is the main cause. The Constitution gave US the power. WE THE PEOPLE. Yet all these extra laws and regulations siphon our ability to have a say in things via filtration of status and bureaucracy. That's why our education system is poor and the entertainment and technology industry is so damn high. They dumb everyone down and turned them all into livestock via consumerism. This is why barely anyone can think for themselves. We could all be leaders if we put in the work and effort to call out accountability AS A NATION.
a guy made a ai that can make gerrymander shapes to be massively in one sides favor and the distracts looked better. how are actual people making distracts that look worse and are worse for their own cause?
These aren't worse for their own cause. They were made by republicans to restrict black voters for the benefit of republicans. (And if anyone thinks they don't do that, remember they literally argued in court that political gain was why they made the districts this way, saying it wasn't intended to be about race)
No because then they would cry that minorities are under represented because they’re proportionally represented and not equally represented, therefore they have less (albeit more equitable) overall representation.
@@joshuajohnson1167 a system of voting where all the votes are tallied up and seats in a parliament are given according to % of votes (i.e if Party A gets 4 out of 10 votes, they get 40% of seats)
Maybe the first thing a president could do of illegally gerrymandering. You can't leave the power of deciding votes to the people wanting to be voted for.
It's so funny cause Alabama had the same issue. I'm just curious when American citizens are going to stand up to the government. Or we can just not have rights and be blinded by what everyone else is doing. "Oh we have more rights then other countries", doesn't make it right.
To gain a political edge, they can't stop themselves when given the opportunity. Also we have to redraw them aver ten years because the population changes. We need to make sure all districts have the same population for equal representation in the House, and when they change the districts also have to change
Districts occasionally need to be redrawn to better reflect population spread, and in an ideal system this isn't a problem. However politicians take advantage of this necessary process in order to gain an unfair advantage.
- they took my vote away entirely by dividing the urban/suburban neighborhoods with large tracks of rural areas to take away most of the blue vote in central Missouri. Columbia is a university town. But divided and diluted with other districts it's not given a voice. MO voted for fair drawings of districts in this state and the Republicans didn't like it so they took it away.
What is districting supposed to do and does it do it or should we just have general elections with a proportional representation system like single transferable vote for multiseat elections?
it allows a large portion of one voter base to only count as one district and benefits districts with an opposing voter base but spread out, equation to more districts.
They have a point, the gerrymandered for politics not race. But the fact that political gerrymandering is allowed is not a good thing. (Also it’s not accurate to say “all” black voters are in one district)
Like it or not, the Republican Party is so hostile to black voters that a black district is going to be much more likely to vote democrat. There also is a history of the republican party restricting voting access for black communities
The reality is that all politics are really just demographics. If one policy benefits your in-group and another harms it, you vote for the beneficial one, even if it harms some other group. This is exactly the reason young people tend to be liberal and old people tend to be conservative. Old people have wealth they don't want to lose. Young people don't have wealth to lose and want to gain it. So young people always vote for riskier, more collectivized policies right up until they have wealth to protect and immediately change their tune. So yeah, there are some fairly well-off black people who vote conservative, but most are still underserved and underprivileged, so they still overwhelmingly vote liberal. Nothing to do with stereotypes, that's just reality. So it's impossible to segregate all the black citizens out to prevent them from having proper representation without it being about race because there's no difference between gerrymandering for a demographic and gerrymandering for that demographic's politics.
But if you gerrymander for political reasons, and the result is clearly racially biased, that doesn't make it not racist. They just want to make claims to avoid violating the constitution.
You uh do know what happened in Greece back in the day right? While our current system has it's own problems, at the scale of hundreds of millions direct democracy does not work.
Drawing congressional districts should not be left to the people who depend on those districts re-electing them for their job
YES. It is a conflict of interest
@@hou950and in almost any other job they would never let that happen but the politicians get a pass
It does seem like common sense doesn’t it? There’s way too many conflicting interests in congress. Their own pay, term limits, pension, market trading, buisness regulations with the attached bribing (whoops I meant lobbyists), districts, etc. They have heavy influence or control over all of it
Well I mean, who should it be left to then? Cause this goes all the way down. Cause if you say “Oh, it should be an appointed board.” Well then who appoints the board. Or “The judiciary should.” Well, who appoint the justices and what are the political leanings of the judges. Could you probably find a better solution than our current system, yea, probably, but it will never be perfect, and it will never satisfy everyone.
@@jkdragonjk6895 no solution is perfect, but most of them are a lot better than letting the people who directly benefit from shitty districts draw the districts.
Politicians choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives it’s so fucking idiotic
That's the GOP difference. Soon we won't be able to choose at all!
@@darkhobo bozo
Way 2 own da libz, @@anthonyhawk1118
It's literally reverse-democracy. Only America could pull off something like that.
Exactly kinda like letting millions of illegals in when you kno you don't have the votes then encouraging them to illegally vote right... right...I mean it's kinda the same right...
Honestly, the only group who shouldn’t draw the lines are the politicians who are drawing the lines.
There is no "neutral" group of people that can draw districts. The only people who don't have polical bias are drooling and brain damaged.
The only unbiased way to assign districts would be to assign them RANDOMLY. And the net effect of that would be to HEAVILY favor rural voters. Would you be okay with that?
@@rtechie it could be like jury duty. But honestly, the main problem is that politicians are the ones doing it right now
@@rtechieNeed you to explain what part isnt already heavily favored by rural voters?
@@TheNinthGenerarion lololol if you wanna talk about a conflict of interest let’s talk about how they decide their own salary
@@ttfresh democrats are also politicians
“Drawing maps of a districts is a job for politicians” - nah, it’s not. At least in Poland voting oblasts are created by the Main Voting Commision which is an apolitical body and supervised by elected judges.
The idea of politicians drawing the map of the voting zones, in which they are elected is ridiculous.
How do you get apolitical people into that commision while keeping the partisans out?
"An apolitical body supervised by judges"
Dude. Government functions are political lol what
@@hawluchag7305Only in a country with a actual party of judges and lawyers "Federalist society". Where they might have this version themselves. No country before or after has seen what we can do with parties.
@@hawluchag7305I don’t think their is a country other than the US where judges are associated with a political party.
Exactly. This is only an American thing, and these corrupt judges are trying to gaslight us into thinking this is normal.
Apparently It wasn’t about artificially suppressing the black vote, which would be illegal. It was about artificially suppressing the democrat vote, which is apparently a-ok!
Sigh.
That’s the point of gerrymandering and both parties do it. The most gerrymandered state is Illinois where democrats gerrymandered it so bad like just look at the districts
Well that changes everything!
Just because both sides do it, doesn't make it ok.
@@Waffleflef1it used to be nc which was just atrocious
@@michaelvossen7253 yeah I agree I don’t really like it but if one side is gonna do it egregiously, the other side might as well 🤷♂️ and just speaking as someone who’s drawn districts then it’s a complicated process and not very simple to ban
1954 Separate is inherently unequal.
2024 You must prove that the action was racist.
It's almost as if just making a claim isn't enough.
@@jesusmarley2607 Yeah, I mean it's just a coincidence that most of the black population just happens to live in that one singular congressional district... totally...
@@iamsiley2200 people determined to see racism always will. Even when it isn't there.
The question you need to ask before you jump to an erroneous, if ideologically comfortable, conclusion is if there is any other reason why the thing you are calling racist, happened.
Yo word
@@iamsiley2200 but they also deliberately made it that way in Louisiana and in fact sued for the right to do so
I don’t even know why drawing electoral maps should be left up to politicians - shouldn’t you have an independent body so the voting districts are fair?
There’s a very simple answer to that question. Who do you think would be writing and implementing such a law? That’s right, the very politicians abusing their ability to gerrymander.
@@MauriceOfInfiniteAtrocities And yet other countries manage it, like mine of Australia.
@@archapmangcmg afaik we, like many others, copied the poms on that, and I think it was decided on during federation. The yanks have gotten used to their way, and their government relies on it for many of their seats, our government didn’t have the chance to do the same.
@@MauriceOfInfiniteAtrocities It turns out to be complicated. While it's been administered by the Aus Electoral Commission for a while, we've had various acts since 1902 calling for mostly even vote value and we've pretty much always had geographic contiguity as a general priority - no separate areas bundled together. In general, we've never had the kind of problem Americans have with it.
But then, the UK is an example of a country that got rid of gerrymandering despite it being in place for centuries. So, yeah, it can be done and has been done in a number of places. Yanks just enshrined their corruption.
We should, but ain't no way those in charge are gonna 'hurt their chances' -_-
Its hilarious gerrymandering is still legal when its clearly bias asf
It isn’t legal. However, that doesn’t mean the rule is enforced
That's the problem. It's not legal. The problem is the Supreme Court is currently a kangaroo court run by Republicans who are letting other Republicans get away with it.
@@kaitlink2004It is legal. It's only illegal if it's based on race per the constitution.
That's why they openly argued in court they were doing it for political gain, not racial reasons.
@@han090 which is even more ludicrous, "political gain" should be the #1 reason it should be illegal in the first place.
@@han090the funny thing is it just so happens that every single gerrymandered map is made because of race so it's basically left up to who gets prosecuted
"Left to politicians not judges" What's the difference at this point? Seems like one and the same with the Supreme Court.
How so?
Supreme court justices can be bought, just like politicians @@melissacoupal585
Well fucking said.. it’s embarrassing..
@@melissacoupal585 Judges are very clearly political figures. Look at them. They're politicians.
Its total bunk that putting people in charge of what the government does (which judges do) without a democratic oversight (which judges lack) somehow results in a better state of affairs. Working people should rule the land as directly as possible, instead of setting up a convoluted system that just serves the interests of the rich.
If juries need to be impartial, so do judges
See: literally the entire history of the Supreme Court.
Good luck with that.
You need to separate politics from race to decide if a political map was racially motivated?
Yup.
Yes, that's logical. "I want to get X political party elected" is not a racial statement. SCOTUS is essentially arguing that the fact black voters are mostly stuck in one district is a COINCIDENCE.
Imagine that instead of 90%+ blacks voting Democrat they voted Republican. Do you really believe the NC Republicans would draw the districts the EXACT same way? I don't think you really believe that. That means the MOTIVATION of the NC Republicans was not racism against blacks, which is why the case was tossed out by SCOTUS.
Yes, that's logical. "I want to get X political party elected" is not a racial statement. SCOTUS is essentially arguing that the fact black voters are mostly stuck in one district is a COINCIDENCE.
Imagine that instead of 90%+ blacks voting Democrat they voted Republican. Do you really believe the NC Republicans would draw the districts the EXACT same way? I don't think you really believe that. That means the MOTIVATION of the NC Republicans was not racism against blacks, which is why the case was tossed out by SCOTUS.
Yes, that's logical. "I want to get X political party elected" is not a racial statement. SCOTUS is essentially arguing that the fact black voters are mostly stuck in one district is a COINCIDENCE.
Imagine that instead of 90%+ blacks voting Democrat they voted Republican. Do you really believe the NC Republicans would draw the districts the EXACT same way? I don't think you really believe that. That means the MOTIVATION of the NC Republicans was not racism against blacks, which is why the case was tossed out by SCOTUS.
Truly an oxymoron.
Disentangle race and politics?! Do they hear what they're saying?!
I think they would reinstate slavery so they don't care and they know exactly what they're saying
Sadly, race has become inherent to modern points for a lot of things, things would be better if it wasn’t- but that’s another pipe dream of hope.
@richardnoah2922 Yeah, it would be nice if racism stopped. Unfortunately, until that day comes, we're gonna have to have long conversations about things that some people find _real_ uncomfortable.
Wouldn't that be putting people into affinty groups?
Read
Woke Racism by John McWhorter
Mao's America by Xi Van Fleet
Controligarchs by Seamus Bruner
Get Trump by Alan Dershowitz
The Great Reset by Glen Beck
Sanfransicko by Michael Schallenburger
Red,White and Black by Robert Woodson Sr
Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
@BlaireSnorlax Wouldn't that be putting people into affinty groups?
Read
Woke Racism by John McWhorter
Mao's America by Xi Van Fleet
Controligarchs by Seamus Bruner
Get Trump by Alan Dershowitz
The Great Reset by Glen Beck
Sanfransicko by Michael Schallenburger
Red,White and Black by Robert Woodson Sr
Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
Someone tell jerry to stop all this mandering
Um....
It's insane that you let politicians draw their own districts. In most countries an independent body does it.
There is no such thing as an "independent body".
@rtechie Very philosophical. Sure, I agree, we are all deterministically bound by the causality of the universe, no independence possible.
Oh, you meant with regards to government? Well, better to have a body that _attempts_ to be independant, than not.
Anyone who says “disentangle politics from race” should not be allowed to hold public office
Anyone who entangles race with politics should not hold office.
Right? democrats fought a war to keep their slaves.
@@joshelliott4451 At the end of the day, race is a political identity imposed by the ruling class. Whiteness was always broadened to serve a political agenda, first as a way to divide the poor majority against each other by othering African workers as Black and protestant English and Scots-Irish workers as white, then expanded whiteness along the centuries to include Germanic, and eventually Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as Jews and Middle Eastern/North African peoples
@@redjoker365yeah.... we also used to own people and beat women.... we've progressed as a society.... or do you want us to revert back a few hundred years?
@@joshelliott4451 Wut? How did you interprety that as a call to revert.
“Disentangle politics from race”….. I’m sorry? What???
You don't see this to nearly the same degree for other racial groups as their voting patterns are more variable. Near urban centers in a lot of states, however, the black population votes around 95% Democrat. So the gerrymandering along political lines looks the same as along racial lines. This is unique to the black demographic though, not others, so unless there is also a pattern among other racial groups of this severity it becomes harder for it to be argued as race based vs political based.
it should be the MATHEMATICIANS drawing the districts if we valued fairness.
Mathematics also have a baisd and they know how to gerymander
Give litle timmy
EXEPT HE ALSO HAS A BAISD
Based on what criteria?
Or people who work in a geography field or better yet, people who specialise in maps
Uh, here’s an idea, most people can count.
@@chavvy9074divide a pizza with 2 million pepperoni slices placed unevenly in a grid so everyone gets an even amount of
We live in a plutocracy and are given the illusion of political choice.
Biden just expanded healthcare for a million veterans but I guess you only care about propaganda
If that were true, why redraw District lines?
Redrawing district lines is one mechanism that can reduce voter will.
To make sure that people moving around doesn't impact your chances of getting re-elected.
They act like this is just happening for the first time ever. Wake up! This has been happening for decades.
At least they're moving on it now, right?
No one acts like this is new, just that no one ever does anything about it so we have to keep bringing it up
But in decades past, gerrymandering with such clear racial bias would have been struck down by the supreme court
@@han090 do you have proof of that?
Alito and Thomas are just a disgrace to the Court at this point.
Nowhere near as big of as disgrace as Sotomayor. Look into her history, as a minor court judge she ruled against a SUPREME COURT RULING MADE YEARS PRIOR.
@@TeemoQuinton oh honey
@@TeemoQuintonI’ll take sotomayor over alito and Thomas ANY day.
@@TeemoQuintoni assume it was overturned in appeals, then? That stuff happens all the time. The current supreme court has overturned long standing precident, and there's no appeals to fix that (unless politicians do their jobs, i guess).
spoken like an ignorant liberal.. im not conservative btw
Why is it always South Carolina?😭Why is this everything my state is known for?! Please! Let us be mentioned in something other than race or murder😭🫠
Could be worse, my home state banned water breaks for workers cause screw construction workers.
@@robertn.4329 who would that be helping 😭
@@robertn.4329
Do I see another Floridian?
@@Unseen-sd2co this is Texas
@robertn.4329
oh ok, because I saw news that Governor Desantis is doing something similar
When fascists get in lifetime positions...
Who is the fascist in this video?
Define fascist.
@@robertmartin6800 - lol you're the type of guy to look at all those Nazis marching in Charlottesville waving Nazi flags and making Nazi salutes and chanting Nazi slogans and be like, "Well, they don't have an official notarized document declaring themselves Nazis, you silly leftists just call EVERYBODY a Nazi! :D"
My brother in Christ every politician has been in office for life
bait
Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that's even worse. He argued that there shouldn't be any laws about gerrymandering at all.
This is the part that hurts me the most about all this. If the SCOTUS stopped people from protesting Gerrymandering then the grip of the elite will get even tighter.
Gerrymandering = drawing districts
Are you arguing that districts should somehow be random? How would that work?
@@rtechie I'm not arguing anything. But Crapface Thomas was arguing that there is no legal basis for any redistricting regulations of any kind. Wanna create one district containing everyone who voted Dem in the last election, and 5 million districts each containing exactly one GOP voter? According to Thomas, the states should be allowed to do that.
@rtechie no it really doesn't
early 19th century: from the name of Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts + salamander, from the supposed similarity between a salamander and the shape of a new voting district on a map drawn when he was in office (1812), the creation of which was felt to favour his party;
@rtechie it means drawing the map in your favour
how about we uh STOP GERRYMANDERING
and remove the two party system because we are all in this together
How do you remove the two party system? There is no two party system.
And districting IS gerrymandering just by nature of what it is.
And replace the two party system with what? If "we're all in it together" you're talking about a one party nation aka dictatorship.
Do you really think dictatorships like China and Ukraine are better than the USA?
@@chavvy9074by voting for RFK
@@CadaverCo yea, no. Anyone can vote for anyone they want at any given time. I don’t want him to be president so I’m not voting for him.
@@chavvy9074 first past the post electoral systems create 2 party systems. Most countries do not use this system. Do away with districts and have Reps elected proportionally within each state. That ends all gerrymandering and means people can vote for other parties and they have a chance to get a representative or 2.
I see a mob of guys wearing white hoods.
The problem isn't racial discrimination, it's the fact that politicians are allowed to gerrymander districts and manufacture election results at all. Just define a system for splitting districts mathematically, and end this issue forever.
"Mathematically" means nothing. On what criteria should the districts be assigned?
@@rtechie There are many algorithms that could be used, but I would point to the shortest splitline method, which is explained in CGP Grey's video on Gerrymandering.
Yeah obviously we can make a computer algorithm to assign the districts randomly yet still based on population. Specially with all the technology we have.
It’s very clearly racial discrimination. But you know what. Make that math equation pal. Should be simple
How else would Republicans win without having to cheat 😂
Which party is trying to throw their political opponents in jail and get them struck from the ballot again?
@@rtechielock her up?
Did it go any further than that
statement?
@@rtechie there are literally dozens of republicans who have been arrested for trying to cheat in the last election, including the main cult leader.
@@DavidJohnson83 For the things Jullian Assange exposed, for which he's still on the run for?
This country is an absolute joke
Yet we are the only superpower.
@@hiqhihihihi *Brits looking over*
@@adamdaniel8909 🤣
@@hiqhihihihi There's 17 other super powers. Please go back to school.
@hiqhihihihi us dutch people (with the anger of 10 thoused chihuahuas): WDYM BY THAT???
Undermining democracy
Drawing maps for political purposes should not be anyones job, least of all politicians. If you were going to pick anyone you should pick a diverse group of people at random from vastly different professions and personal backgrounds within the general regions you're mapping, although at that point why not just have a direct democracy where 1 vote anywhere is actually worth 1 vote.
Direct democracy with a population as big as the USA would never get anything done
@@D00ML0RD1I think they mean directly voting for president or other offices and representatives instead of distibuting the votes to states not people.
I dont believe they were thinking of a direct democracy like Athens, because you are absolutly right there. That would never work
@@D00ML0RD1 That's not a direct democracy
Direct democracy is inevitably oppressive. The whole point of a republic is to subdivide representation across many representatives who have equal political power even if the group they represent is in the minority, to ensure the majority doesn't override the minority all the time. District borders should try to be representative of neighborhoods: areas that share resources, supply lines, common areas, and public spaces, because those are nexuses of a given community, who will most likely share some form of community Identity that can be appropriately represented. It shouldn't be forced into a certain space to ensure it holds certain ratios of this or that kind of voter for a given political party's sake, but the reality is that most communities do tend to have a certain commonality that typically biases them to one party or another just as a necessary part of existing harmoniously in a given collective. So it's tricky. Both a correctly drawn and gerrymandered district will have bias, so it's hard to prove any intent when trying to draw the boundaries of imaginary communities that have no formalized borders.
@@QuesoCookiesBasically all movements against direct democracy predate the Internet.
Being able to easily hold individual referendums on important policy without interrupting anyone's day may actually bring about change. Instead of congress meandering day in and out just to shut down bills, or pass one that is pork-barreled so badly it's basically a completely different document.
I don't really understand why gerrymandering is allowed in the first place. We have counties for a reason. If some counties are too small, just combine them with nearby counties. Obviously big cities may need to be split into districts, but theres gotta be a better way than drawing weird lines like that.
There is, it's called direct popular vote, no separation needed, majority elects who they want, majority should just be majority.
@@pedrothevenard I agree. Also, single-transferable-voting, which isnt adopted in the US cause it “takes too long to account for” (with modern electronics and even existing vote collection methods it wouldnt have any massive effect), but STVs provide the best opportunity to influence voting beyond their first candidate, by ranking the available candidates so that pluralities dont win. Watch CGP Gray’s video on it, very educational and easy to comprehend!
(Imo best elective structure)
@@pedrothevenard Popular votes bias outcomes in favor of larger groups, smaller groups lose all their clout and influence. There need to be mechanisms in place to allow small groups to influence politics.
@@robertmartin6800 It's called the constitution, smaller groups have rights, but the majority has the right to decide the political path of the country, that's what actual democracy is, if you are a smaller group you need to work to convince the majority, but the majority rule, only in America people think that creating mechanisms to make a minority to overcome the will of the majority is anything other than a anti democratic.
@@pedrothevenard I do not agree. The Constitution is a fine document, but insufficient. Our system allows smaller groups to exert influence over politics comparable to that of the larger groups, the antidemocratic safeguards built into it were incredibly wise, and we would do well to preserve them. Democracy is gay and tyrannical, simple majority rule would mean that the politics of the nation were determined _solely_ by a handful of our largest cities, everyone elsewhere in the country, whose beliefs and interests are wildly incongruous with those of the urban population, would be completely disenfranchised under such a system. I don't want the terms of my political life dictated to me by some moron in a hellhole city a thousand miles away, I very much appreciate that, though I'm nowhere near a majority, I may still enjoy at least a modicum of influence over the politics that affect me.
Just use proportional representation.
Unless… politicians… don’t want that?
democrats introduced legislation for all congressional districts to be drawn by independent commissions but republicans voted it down.
That works for electoral votes, but it wouldn't work for the election of House members, who are supposed to represent a distinct geographical area of their state.
Proportional representation means no black voters get to vote. Even in places like Mississippi where the black population is higher than the national average, if you were to change the districts to be area based, or percentage based, what you would end up with is no area where African Americans can elect a representative. Theres a middle line where you build districts based off of the perceived voting power of the people within your state, but if that was the case NONE of the districts would be primarily, or even close to majority black in North Carolina. That would also mean that African Americans would Nationally account for 15-20% of the vote, if everyone voted, which means that the roughly 60% white population of the US could theoretically just ignore the black voter. By creating districts that guarantee the black voice is heard, they do have an elected representative, which they wouldn't have if it were percentile based, and not gerrymandered.
How's that corruption/power checking 3 branch system we have doing these days?
I don't know our executive branch has swarmed us with us executive orders. And our legislative is doing everything in their power to give money to foreign nations. I'd say we're f'd
The fact the districts even exist is a problem
ehhhh a fair district is better than a nation where the formation of some entire states are predicated on maintaining the status quo power structure and the power of those whom it has always benefited i.e. wyoming
True, there are lots of better ways.
Just make the states delegation proportionally representative or something.
@@trerio6815 why is it a problem if all votes have the same weight as each other?
(As long as it isn't a "winner wins all, loser gets none" system)
Districts are necessary for us to have our own localized representatives. I vote within a county board district & the 3 board members in my district are MY representatives. Similarly, i have state reps specific to my district. I want to have people who represent my area and advocate for the people in my area. State-wide or even county-wide electorate would make every politician responsible for a lot more voters, and make every voter have a huge pool of representatives, rather than the few in their district.
Conversely, my city council is city-wide and i guess I'm fine with that, but it also brings some unique problems - all the elected representatives are wealthy people from good neighborhoods.
@@reed6514 your city doesn’t have districts too? Mine does
Gerrymandering period is stupid
As a lifelong resident of the congressional district in question, SC District 6, the idea that anyone would think it's not an insanely gerrymandered district is ridiculous. Fun fact for everyone in comments: the 6th congressional district contains the majority of black residents in ALL THREE of SC's largest metropolitan areas, covering somehow in one district both the state's historic capital of Charleston AND the black and minority population centers of the current capital Columbia over 100 miles away!
Jim Clyburne, for all his faults, is a goddamn hero of SC politics for fighting for his insanely gerrymandered district as long as he has and making the country better many times more than every single GOP rep from the same times
It doesn't cover Charleston. We're district 1...
@@Elendrian It covers literally all of the Charleston peninsula and almost all of North Charleston up to Hanahan. Mount Pleasant, Daniel Island, John and James Islands, and Sullivan Island, etc. are not Charleston, they're Charleston County.
Importantly, Black and brown residents of Charleston County live overwhelmingly in the northern part of the Charleston metro area, which District 6 covers. They created a majority Black district by packing in all of the Black and brown residents of multiple, disparate metro areas and thus cracking up the minority population centers enough that there wasn't a sizeable enough portion in any of the other districts. Realistically, you could draw District 1's map in such a way that it actually covers the Charleston area fairly, without arbitrary packing and cracking, but that would make it more competitive between Democrats and Republicans, which Republicans (who have held power over all 3 branches of SC government since the Dixiecrats made the party switch) don't like.
So they basically said: show me it's racist without showing me it's racist.
Why is a straight up grid so hard to do?
Well each district needs to have the same population. You also might end up in a situation where the district is split down the middle by like a mountain range, making the district disconnected
THIS!!
because equal populations dont live in grids. all states have gerrymandered districs, democrats only talk about it when it benefits republicans
because population isn't uniform
I can’t possibly fathom how someone could write this comment, and 57 (or more) people liked it. Jesus Christ.
I'm tired of this Supreme Court. I think citizens should get to vote for them every 4 or 8 years.
That just forces them to think about twrms in the same way politicians do
That will make bias worse in the Supreme Court
@@Pyxleanit’s already extremely bad. Court justices are literal political appointees. Changing them to having term limits would bring more good than bad.
True!
@sandman4663 The way justices appointed can be simply changed. Electing them is a terrible idea because that would lead to justices caring more about what's popular rather than caring about what the law says. It's a recipe for disaster. For example, a Federal Judicial Council of sorts made up of legal experts can nominate and confirm the appointment of justices without politics getting involved. It will lead to much better results than elected justices.
I hate my state
I would too
All voting districts should literally be evenly sized squares!
That's literally impossible. Districts need to have the same number of people, and people don't live evenly distributed.
And the difficulty is that the flip side of this -- where you have multiple districts taking a piece of a black community to dilute a democratic vote -- is also bad.
We do have math for calculating gerrymandering based on confidence in a victory. That software gets used to draw gerrymandered districts. But the supreme Court doesn't believe in using math.
I agree! Cali about to take the biggest L ever
That only works if people live in a grid.
So should a congressional district covering New York City be the same size as a congressional district covering Wyoming?
@@einargs It's not "literally impossible". Congressional districts are only mandated to have roughly equal population due to a flawed SCOTUS Warren court decision. Congress or SCOTUS can override it at any time and Congress has tried several times. Congressional Democrats have blocked these efforts because the decision heavily favors urban voters, who tend to vote Democrat.
RUclips has got to fix the comment sorting
We should just do away with districts and distribute representatives by vote share
That's gonna create major problems like pandering and elections based on racial lines
Much of mainland Europe do that, with a system called "party list". Can't see it happening in the US though
Why not do a popular vote and the ratio of red/blue votes is the ratio of red/blue reps. The reps available are voted beforehand, like a mini dem/republicans primary
There are no such thing as popular votes in America on purpose. We are not a pure democracy we are a republic. And that eliminates any area representation
What your talking about is proportional voting. That could work but "popular voting" isn't a thing. Your thinking in the right direction. Read up on a election systems.
@@chavvy9074Dude we popularly elect the house, and the senate. Besides the reason the founding fathers said we should be a republic is because 1) slow communication, 2) lack of education, 3) they thought everyone who wasn't a rich person was dumb.
1 and 2 aren't problems anymore and 3 is is a self-defeating argument.
Isn't that kinda like parliament?
Because if we left everything to a raw count, rural voters will always get shafted by those in the cities just from the fact that there’s infinitely more people that live in the cities than outside it.
Wait is political gerrymandering legal?
Unfortunately!
Yes and everyone does it. Either side gets mad when it goes against their interests.
@@atomm3331
The conservatives do it far more and almost exclusively along racial lines.
@@alack3879 Prove that the Republicans "do it more". Blue States like California and Massachusetts are extremely heavily gerrymandered by Democrats. And they do it on racial lines too, Democrats create exclusively black districts because they know blacks are a reliable Democrat voting bloc. They used to do the same with Hispanics, but they are drifting towards the Republican Party. Asians have always favored Republicans.
Fun fact: In some of the "battleground" States so-called "people of color", especially Hispanics, are leaning towards Republicans to the point the Democrats are relying on white voters to win.
All districting is gerrymandering.
We should just do grids. No more weird, wonky, meandering, scrolling lines. Just a straightforward grid and then you apply a representative to the grid… that’s it. Also, federal judges need to be appointed first, of course. But after that, they’re only allowed to keep the bench as long as they are voted on by the constituents to stay on. If they reject the judge and their work, then the president appoints a different person. We also need term limits on Congress, terms for Supreme Court justices, term limits on justices, and across all of government there needs to be not only an age minimum, but an age maximum. The minimum has already been settled. But if you’re old enough to have participated in the Korean War, then perhaps you belong at home, or in a home.
That suggestion sounds pretty distopian ngl.
The grid part, the rest is fine I think (I'm not reading all that)
@@EdwardJHyde you may as well. And the grid is the most egalitarian way I can think of to divide things so that no one feels jilted. Everyone gets what they get.
@@EdwardJHyde what is really dystopian is what is happening right now. Our world is currently dystopic.
@@ScheelesGreen As Syndrome once said: "When everyone is special, no one is"
inequality will always exist, all we can do is to just focus on making it so people who actually care on improving can do so.
Age caps are inherently inefficient imo, it’s implying that all people over or under a certain age are the same which just isn’t true. There are 70 year olds in better mental condition than some 50 year olds, it’s unfair.
They should have said that it looks like a salamander to reference why it’s named gerrymandering
I love how anarchic is the american voting system
It is quite literally the opposite.
How the actual hell do you figure? Your voting system doesn't take into account your population, it hinges completly on who claims more land. Trump lost the public vote and STILL became president. Your politicians, especially your conservatives, are so deep in the pockets of corporations they could be mistaken for a vibrator @jonathanraffaele
An anarchic voting system would be a direct democracy with none of this bullshit.
We really need mathematicians to calculate the voting regions for us.
they shouldnt be a thing period. they have long out-lived their purpose. it's not 1850, it doesnt take a month for a man on horseback to bring bags of pieces of paper across the state in order to calculate votes anymore.
Abolish all political maps and the electoral college!
Political maps are required to have a house of Representatives. Gerrymandering is definitely a problem, but we can't just get rid of political maps.
Yeah, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Gerrymandering is bad. But representative districts are CRITICAL for a republic
And I give you your average democrat voter, ladies and gentlemen.
YES!
@StewartFletcher go by county lines. No need for political maps that are redrawn for political interest on a whim. It's not that difficult.
It's crazy that people still consider the US to be a Republic/Democracy
It is a republic though? 💀
Well a republic just means we have a constitution, which when not ignored is pretty solid. Democracy is just mob rule when the masses are ignorant and just vote by color.
@@robertwallen3A democratic republic.
It's actually a constitutional republic
@@tigger6186 It's a Plutocracy.
Gerrymander? I barely know her.
I'm so sorry
Politicians are the last people that should have any input in what an elective district should look like.
district drawing and gerrymandering is legitimately the stupidest problem to have. both sides hate when they other one does it-why not get fucking rid of it?
republicans mainly benefit from it compared to democrats, as democrats have enacted independent commissions in multiple states. national democrats introduced independent commissions for every state map but republicans voted it down.
But you cant legally do political gerrymandering. So if their point is race and politics are closely intertwined, then it actually reproves political gerrymandering
Unfortunately political gerrymandering is currently legal in the US via case law
Maybe if federal judges are so impacted by politics, they should be forced to maintain a balance of bias by at least maintaining equal numbers from each side.
We should just use groups of counties as their own political districts so nobody can draw a star on a map that conveniently contains all of the [insert group of people here] and say is the best way to represent the area.
Real question is why do the voting regions need to be redrawn so frequently? Have one vote then award judges based on the total vote split, it'd be way less work
Or, hear me out, we shrink that district to zip code, or better yet, street block, or better yet, houses, or better yet, individuals! Give each individual their own district and then it'll be fair! Oh wait..... That's just democracy
@kickpushlongboards we aren't a democracy we are a republic. Even as someone who tends to vote left thats a terrible idea. Not only will republicans lose all national elections the far left will be in control.
New district maps are typically made every 10 years because that's how often the census is done. Based on population changes, some states gain or lose House seats so new maps are required. There are also population shifts within states that requires new maps to ensure each representative has approximately the same number of constituents.
@zachb.6179 that still doesn't explain why they need to be changed even that often. Just because the race or political affiliations of the people has changed doesn't mean the lines needs to be.
@@zachb.6179 I refer back to my original comment specifically after the "?"
I’m starting to channel my inner Robes Pierre
No. That's a bad idea. Robes Pierre lost his head as a consequence of his decisions. Don't be like him.
His own party turned against him and chopped his head off, Soo...
Wait how would political gerrymandering be okay either lol both are really bad
Current case law explicitly allows for political gerrymandering but racial gerrymandering is illegal.
The constitution only specifically says you can't do the racial one.
when you have a court that makes its rulings based on politics, and that is ALL of them not just one side, you have a banana republic
Fishy.. no board in this video.. just wait until they find out you expensed it and didn’t use it!
In a 34-page opinion, Alito stressed the high bar that plaintiffs bringing a racial gerrymandering case must meet, observing that the court had “repeatedly emphasized that federal courts must ‘exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of race.” “Such caution,” he explained, “is necessary because “[f]ederal-court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions.”
I don’t understand why we don’t just vote by county or just add up total votes for the whole state
It’s about congress districts as well. If I group 1 party into 1 district, even if they have more people, the other party will have control of congress
Bcs reps would loose like half of thier power. The dem-rep split goes 70-30. Not hard to imagine why those corrupt gremlins wouldn't want to give thier power away
That would make too much sense, and we cant have that in the government
Clarence Thomas STILL has a job?! Wth!
the personal (in this case racial) is political, did we learn nothing?
This, when explaining how racism is used systemically (and "legally") I'm 🤢🤮
Oh... Really... Then maybe these judges should be shown the way out because if they can't even tell something so blatantly racist, they don't deserve to be on the supreme court.
This is unique to the black vote as in many areas they vote 95% Democrat. No other demographic has this issue to remotely they same degree so it is very easily political vs racial. If the black vote was 70/30 you wouldn't see this kind of gerrymandering.
Shaw v Reno ain’t holding up then, huh?
Where is this so called freedom when voting and taxes are so damn complicated...I got a registration form to change my party because I live in a Closed Primary State so I can't vote for who I want unless I switch parties.... how does that make any sense...
Where do you live?
That shit pisses me off. I was just bitching about that. I used to live in AZ where, at least when I was there, they would give you the whole damn ballot that included everyone for everything every election even if it was Donald Duck was running his own campaign. Btw, they have this closed ballot shit in GA and TN.
@@user-ug5xr2gb6j It's these damn Caucuses!! The absolutely number one reason why people don't vote is because they feel like their vote doesn't matter and preventing all states from being open is the main cause. The Constitution gave US the power. WE THE PEOPLE. Yet all these extra laws and regulations siphon our ability to have a say in things via filtration of status and bureaucracy. That's why our education system is poor and the entertainment and technology industry is so damn high. They dumb everyone down and turned them all into livestock via consumerism. This is why barely anyone can think for themselves. We could all be leaders if we put in the work and effort to call out accountability AS A NATION.
The folks on this post siding with the decision are from a different time entirely.
that escalated quickly
a guy made a ai that can make gerrymander shapes to be massively in one sides favor and the distracts looked better. how are actual people making distracts that look worse and are worse for their own cause?
These aren't worse for their own cause. They were made by republicans to restrict black voters for the benefit of republicans.
(And if anyone thinks they don't do that, remember they literally argued in court that political gain was why they made the districts this way, saying it wasn't intended to be about race)
proportional representation fixes this
What's is that? Wouldn't that be democracy jw
No because then they would cry that minorities are under represented because they’re proportionally represented and not equally represented, therefore they have less (albeit more equitable) overall representation.
@@joshuajohnson1167 We can't have that here!
@@joshuajohnson1167 a system of voting where all the votes are tallied up and seats in a parliament are given according to % of votes
(i.e if Party A gets 4 out of 10 votes, they get 40% of seats)
Maybe the first thing a president could do of illegally gerrymandering. You can't leave the power of deciding votes to the people wanting to be voted for.
They also vote for their pay raises each year. I’d love that power. 😂
🤣 why did it sound like this was a video about politics during the early 1950s
i need uncle claruckus to resign immediately
Rascist
@@zachwear3217 how am i racist dawgg im black too
It's 2024, but its starting to look like 1924
Man what happened to Shaw v. Reno
Also I thought Baker v. Carr made redistricting justiciable 😭
Fr, what did we go through ap gov for
@@vtoldaccount1222 Ong bruh this the one time I’ll ever reference this 💀
Iirc, two major cases were overturned which allows districts to be drawn without approval from the judiciary and racial motivation is allowable.
It's so funny cause Alabama had the same issue. I'm just curious when American citizens are going to stand up to the government. Or we can just not have rights and be blinded by what everyone else is doing. "Oh we have more rights then other countries", doesn't make it right.
Has the bulletin board depreciated enough on the books so that it nolonger needs to be in every video?
Why gerrymander districts at all? Just draw them once and leave it at that.
To gain a political edge, they can't stop themselves when given the opportunity. Also we have to redraw them aver ten years because the population changes. We need to make sure all districts have the same population for equal representation in the House, and when they change the districts also have to change
Districts occasionally need to be redrawn to better reflect population spread, and in an ideal system this isn't a problem. However politicians take advantage of this necessary process in order to gain an unfair advantage.
Districts change with population every census.
@@jedidls they’re not taking advantage if it’s mutually beneficial
@@geckapus on the state level, at least. Congressional districts do not have to be the same size amongst the nation.
We need a shortest split line mandate on a federal level
If you look at Illinois map, you can see they connected St Louis to Springfield and bloomington to create a blue section in a mostly red south
- they took my vote away entirely by dividing the urban/suburban neighborhoods with large tracks of rural areas to take away most of the blue vote in central Missouri. Columbia is a university town. But divided and diluted with other districts it's not given a voice.
MO voted for fair drawings of districts in this state and the Republicans didn't like it so they took it away.
You mean these areas that predominantly vote blue are able to? Oh no what about the corn's vote!
@@ebybeehoney when you say “they took my vote away” what do you mean?
Should look at those Chicago districts..
Say this without hiding, go on, be the brave American you think you are.
Honestly, third parties with no access to voting data should draw voting districts
What is districting supposed to do and does it do it or should we just have general elections with a proportional representation system like single transferable vote for multiseat elections?
it allows a large portion of one voter base to only count as one district and benefits districts with an opposing voter base but spread out, equation to more districts.
It also allows the politicians to choose there voters basically securing there seat
Alito and thomas are so freaking corrupt
another phenomenal clip, cannot get over Kagan's top looking like the kind of top I always imagine Kagan wearing - get out of my head Charles😂
Can we declare them enemies of the state yet?
Alito and Thomas? Gladly
I don't think anyone who's elected in the districts should be drawing the districts
They have a point, the gerrymandered for politics not race. But the fact that political gerrymandering is allowed is not a good thing.
(Also it’s not accurate to say “all” black voters are in one district)
They didn't move all they just moved most so it's not racist.......just partisan...mixes with race
Like it or not, the Republican Party is so hostile to black voters that a black district is going to be much more likely to vote democrat. There also is a history of the republican party restricting voting access for black communities
The reality is that all politics are really just demographics. If one policy benefits your in-group and another harms it, you vote for the beneficial one, even if it harms some other group. This is exactly the reason young people tend to be liberal and old people tend to be conservative. Old people have wealth they don't want to lose. Young people don't have wealth to lose and want to gain it. So young people always vote for riskier, more collectivized policies right up until they have wealth to protect and immediately change their tune. So yeah, there are some fairly well-off black people who vote conservative, but most are still underserved and underprivileged, so they still overwhelmingly vote liberal. Nothing to do with stereotypes, that's just reality. So it's impossible to segregate all the black citizens out to prevent them from having proper representation without it being about race because there's no difference between gerrymandering for a demographic and gerrymandering for that demographic's politics.
But if you gerrymander for political reasons, and the result is clearly racially biased, that doesn't make it not racist.
They just want to make claims to avoid violating the constitution.
SHAW VS RENO RAHHHHH 💪💪💪 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Politicians are corrupt: this just in!!!
This is not democracy in a free country. What is wrong with these people ?
Impeach all Federalist Society jurists.
Why not do direct democracy?
Back in the day people felt like they lived in Virginia more than the United States, that’s why.
The republicans would literally never win again.
You uh do know what happened in Greece back in the day right? While our current system has it's own problems, at the scale of hundreds of millions direct democracy does not work.
But how will politicians stay in power for 53 years on end? /s
Mob rule. Direct democracy inevitably leads to the oppression of the minority.
Look at Illinois districts
I'm surprised Justice Clarence Thomas's rebuke of Brown v Board of education wasn't included here.
Basically the entire US congressional district map is a prime example of gerrymandering 😅