When it comes to gerrymandering, do you think logically or ideologically?

[Anonymous]

Logical thinking involves using clear and consistently supported principles. For example, "I always oppose gerrymandering" is clear and consistent policy. Thinking ideologically means always interpreting gerrymandering in a way that allows your ideology to prevail. For example, "I generally don't like gerrymandering, but I am okay with it when it benefits my ideology." That demonstrates ideological thinking because right and wrong conforms to whatever benefits ideology.

I think logically.

I think ideologically.

[goaded]

I always oppose gerrymandering, except when it's used to counter openly expressed partisan gerrymandering, and then only when the voters agree.

Not politically retaliating when attacked is stupid.

Also, states that regularly elect Democrats to statewide office should not have a legislative branch dominated by Republicans.

https://www.lawforward.org/wi-gerrymander-broken-1-year-later/

[strateguy632]

I say we need to use objective straight lines. Small squares around each city and big rectangles for the rest of the area in states (based on the population of average city in that state.) Looking at Chicago map of districts, like pizza cuts! just showed how democrats have been cheating. See for yourself!

[QuietRunner]

So this question has a strange premise. Gerrymandering is by definition thinking about ideologically. Logic would put squares or equal numbers of shapes possible for the districts. Logically thinking would also take some accepted number either through polling or voter registration numbers by party to create a representative number of districts.

Nothing would be perfect, but gerrymandering is ideological thinking

[RavVid]

It is not just gerrymandering. You have to think in terms of voting systems.

First Past the Post can easily return a candidate that the majority of electors oppose.

[molonski2]

In USA , it's time to start again..

Imagine every state as a swing state , changes all , changes the parties too , the system is broken.

[NathanDavis]

doesn't matter how or why they do it... nor the sides who are doing it

neutralizing votes is always wrong... and it should not exist

[exitseven]

I think ideologically. I recognize that democrats will do anything to win so it is okay to beat them at their own game.

[goaded]

That's the kind of thinking that led all those Republicans to commit voter fraud; they'd been told that's what the Democrats were doing.

Trump and Texas started it. Democratic states reacted.

[exitseven]

@goaded democrats have been cheating at elections for a long time. It was never successful until 2020

[goaded]

Explain Wisconsin, then.

"A decade ago, only half of legislative races on the ballot were contested; in 2024, in more than 80% of the races on the ballot, both major parties ran candidates. This helped drive record voter participation (bucking the national trend where turnout dipped in 2024 compared to 2020).
Ten seats swung in the Assembly, changing from the gerrymandered 64-35 majority to a closer 54-45.
While only half the State Senate seats were up for election in 2024, the gerrymander had previously manufactured a 22-11 supermajority. Under only one election with fair maps, already the Senate has a more representative 18-15 split."
www.lawforward.org/.../

[exitseven]

@goaded
yes, look at what a screwed up mess Wisconsin has become. It used to be the the only problems you had in Wisconsin was when a few cheeseheads got rowdy at a tailgate party. Now there are riots where you have to carry an assault rifle if you come out after dark.

[goaded]

There are still Republican majorities in both houses of their legislature, just not a gerrymandered supermajority. I guess all that horror is their fault!

[exitseven]

@goaded it never got bad until the democrsats started getting elected. Same with minnesota.

[goaded]

Oh, please.

[Anonymous]

AI will end gerrymandering