My two main sources are

https://ippsr.msu.edu/partisan-advantage-tracker

And

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-gerrymandering-tilts-2024-race-house

Posted by HighPriestofShiloh

38 comments

  1. The supreme court taking no stand on this issue fucked us as a country. And makes no sense either.

  3. Colorado and 8 other states joined Canada or what?

  4. I imagine the states with a half seat swing in either direction are pretty fair, probably pretty hard to split up half a vote

  5. so basically Dems would have had the House since the beginning of the decade of it wasn’t for Republican fuckery.

  6. I’ve wondered how this works out. Democrats get cities, which means dense votes, which means a natural disadvantage. Republicans had a 3% advantage in 2024, but only 1% more seats. How does this align?

    Also these numbers just don’t seem to look like reality. What about Wisconsin? And looking at Maryland and Illinois those cannot be only 2-3 seats.

  8. And for those who say “yOU cAN’T gERRYMANDER tHE sENATE” look at this chart. Gerrymandering suppresses overall turnout by state and party.

  9. This is a BS graph. There are literally 0 red counties in MA. There isnt gerrymandering there.

  10. I just want to know what would happen if nothing was gerrymandered. So the blue gets a handicap?

  11. End it. Let’s find a way to introduce a bipartisan and reasonable system for congressional map drawing

  12. I think it’s a little disingenuous to label this as entirely gerrymandering, partisan or otherwise. Your second source even goes on to state that Arizona is a false positive, and they’re controlled by an independent redistricting commission. The slight GOP tilt there is something that appears in many different versions of maps considered “fair” and is probably just a quirk of the current demographics of the state. Can’t speak for others but I don’t think it’s fair to say these advantages are all due to partisan gerrymandering.

  13. Time for blue states to secede. Yes it will be messy, but It’s time to stop supporting the Republican welfare queens. Let them have their woke free paradise and see how it works out for them.

  15. It’s almost as if the Republican Party is the party of spread out minority rural populations that have to put artificial weight on the scales of democracy because they don’t have the real majority

  16. One party rule, when implemented at a structural level, is the definition of a dictatorship.

  17. This chart is really misleading as it doesn’t take into account relative population size.

  19. I think something interesting would be to look at voting % vs voting representation for each state (rather than the delta on a specific year).

  20. I never liked these charts because they are misleading

    For example, Massachusetts is practically impossible to create a GOP seat with current voting patterns.

    Unlike other states such as California with pockets of deep red voters, Mass has no such thing.

  21. Wouldn’t it just be hilarious if Texas draws their new district map specifically along party registration lines to intentionally maximally minimize proper representation of Democratic voters, and it ends up breaking their current gerrymandered lead. 

    Like imagine if they go through all this shit and somehow they manage to *lose* a sit. 

    God it’d be the only thing that could ever make believe in Karma. 

  22. In this day and age and we can’t have individual votes count.

  23. Fucking two-bit, clown car, broken down, piece of shit country we live in now. I’d laugh but I’m very sad about it.

  24. Brother, you have made a critical mistake with your analysis. You are considering partisan advantage and gerrymandering to be the same thing, but they are not.

    Gerrymandering is the intent of the redistricting process and whether the drawing of the district is done in intentionally unfair way for partisan advantage. Gerrymandering can lead to partisan advantage, but some states see partisan advantages even with a fair drawing process.

    California is in the news today because after 15+ years of drawing fair maps by an independent commission, they are putting an intentional gerrymander in front of California voters for approval as a way to counter mid-decade redistricting in Texas and other red states. But in 2024 where you are comparing data, California districts were fair maps, not a gerrymander. By comparison, Democrats in Illinois drew their maps to intentionally advantage Democrats and disadvantage Republicans, thus is a gerrymander. For the examples I have given you, your 2024 should include Illinois but it should not include California. I hope that makes sense?

    Here is an [effort by researchers at Princeton](https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/) to come up with a scorecard on which states rank on gerrymandering and map fairness. I would advocate that you only compare states with a D/F rating and then you can calculate the partisan advantage difference from there.

  25. yeah, cause they’re a bunch of whiny bitches, who would much rather sell us all out, than actually work for us.

  26. This data is BS, how is Minnesota going to swing +1 red when it’s democratically controlled. If the state was going to redistrict it would either redistrict to gain democratic seats or not redistrict at all. How are they coming up with these numbers?

  27. I really expected more from a country founded by slave owners.

  28. Characterizing this as gerrymandering is incorrect. Gerrymandering is the political manipulation of districts. Districts can have disproportional representation without somebody manipulating them, and unless you’re crafting districts this way, it’s practically guaranteed it will deviate at least a little bit as shown in your graph.

    Your own data source is the Partisan Advantage Tracker which makes no mention of gerrymandering.

  29. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fear of them losing their jobs for the Epstein Stuff

  30. I think it’s unfair that Massachusetts is on there. Because the Republican voters are so evenly dispersed, you have to draw absurd districts to make a map that evenly represents the popular vote.

  31. Proportional representation could solve this. It would bring its own set of issues.

    People would now vote for parties, not actual people. Independents would have no shot at winning an election. Primaries (or post-election decisions) would define who represents a locale / state. I can see it increasing polarization if that was even possible

  32. It’s easy to prove how distorted it is, but the solution isn’t obvious. How do you make a geographical riding fair? Do you keep them along historical cohesiveness? Go from the urban core and grow around it? Look at voting and make it balanced?

  33. So you’re saying Blue states will have to gerrymander TF out of their maps in order to sustain a 14 seat loss

    We’re effed 🤣

  35. Are you a Dem who stoped voting in your red district because they were winning by 20%?

    Well they moved a good chunk of those votes to a different district to try and steal more seats.

    Time to get back to the polls and let everyone know their counts more now.

  36. North Carolina is so terribly illegally gerrymandered that it may take generations to wrestle their stranglehold from the throats of our state: and I begrudgingly admit that it may be possible that only violent conflict can ever succeed.

  37. The graph might tell one story, but it is really another story.

    One might think ‘Republicans are better at gerrymandering” when the reality is that Democrats are just *less* willing to engage in it. And as can be seen, it isn’t that Republican ideology is more popular. It is that the game is rigged to favor them.

    Fun fact: 9 states have independent commissions to draw the districts.

    Alaska: Is just silly since there is only an at-large district (1 representative)

    Idaho/Montana: Nearly as silly – just two districts total with an overwhelming conservative populace – they could draw that line any which way possible, while still meeting population requirements, and get two red seats reliably.

    Arizona: a purple state with a (up until recently) Republican trifecta state government.

    Michigan: another purple state, Interestingly, a referendum was held in 2018 where the people declared their preference of an independent commission.

    California/Colorado/New York/Washington: All have a Democratic trifecta and all allow for independent commissions to draw the lines. If they applied the same rigorous partisan gerrymandering that red states do, they’d probably hold the House even in years where Republicans win the Presidency. But, maybe I’m being naive, but it seems like they’d rather be win by being fair than win by a rigged system.

    As for the Senate (which is adjacent in scope), it isn’t that the game is rigged, since each state gets two Senators. It is that Republicans found a way to convince sub-rural and rural America that their policies somehow benefit them.

Comments are closed.