Texas National Guard deployment and questions arising from it

[Symphony]

Let's remember that gerrymandering can work both directions. It's done as often to confine the opposition to one area and thus only one win (allowing your more spread-out voters to have a greater impact) as it's done to give anybody a safe seat.

Note: the above is not stated as a rebuttal to anybody's particular point...just thrown into the discussion for consideration. The fact that a district is heavily gerrymandered does not mean that the party that won it is the "guilty" party.

[Gaidin]

Oh, I know. I'm pretty sure when districts get gerrymandered it's for the most part both parties going wink wink nod nod as much as they can, for all the party with the most seats will still have the most seats if not slightly more. But when he says Austin is the most gerrymandered I get to call BS when we have states like Illinois doing that to Chicago.

[B. W.]

That doesn't hold a candle to possible the most pathetic case of gerrymandering in the country. Say hello to Austin Texas:

Sure there's some gerrymandering going on there, but since states only get so many representatives based on population it might be useful to look at the population densities of those areas:

[Gaidin]

Also, here is actual Austin, instead of that zoomed out piece of crap.



I'll let you explore Chicago if you really think Austin has them beat for corruption:
http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/about...trictMaps.aspx

[B. W.]

Also, here is actual Austin, instead of that zoomed out piece of crap.



I'll let you explore Chicago if you really think Austin has them beat for corruption:
http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/about...trictMaps.aspx

Yes, and Austin also happens to be the state capital and along with that comes government administrative blocks that the planers have to consider when creating the boundaries of legislative districts. That's something Chicago can't claim.

In fact, if you look at the population dispersal of the state it would be impossible to draw up boundaries without some sort of Gerrymandering.

I remember when the MSM and the DNC were making such a big fuss over it, but they never mentioned places like Chicago or SJL's district. No bias there. No sir. None at all.

[Gaidin]

Yes, and Austin also happens to be the state capital and along with that comes government administrative blocks that the planers have to consider when creating the boundaries of legislative districts. That's something Chicago can't claim.

In fact, if you look at the population dispersal of the state it would be impossible to draw up boundaries without some sort of Gerrymandering.

I remember when the MSM and the DNC were making such a big fuss over it, but they never mentioned places like Chicago or SJL's district. No bias there. No sir. None at all.

Take note sir, I'm saying they don't have Chicago beat for corruption. Let's not focus on a party here. Illinois is interesting in that not much happens there without nod from Chicago. You're really going the wrong way with your ranting. Gerrymandering isn't a party thing. More a location thing. You just don't beat Chicago at their game.

[B. W.]

Take note sir, I'm saying they don't have Chicago beat for corruption. Let's not focus on a party here. Illinois is interesting in that not much happens there without nod from Chicago. You're really going the wrong way with your ranting. Gerrymandering isn't a party thing. More a location thing. You just don't beat Chicago at their game.

Well, I have to disagree. Gerrymandering is very much a party thing. My point is both parties do it. When I recalled my memories of the flap by MSM and the DNC over the Texas gerrymandering flap it was to point out that thy implied that only the GOP does it.

As far as corruption goes, I think the blueprint was established by the Fergusuns who ran Texas for a couple of decades. Either that or next door in Louisiana by Huey Long. Before those two, you would have to go all the way back to Tammany Hall to match the level of corruption.

The thing about Illinois is that most of the state is pretty well ran once you're outside of Chicago. Unfortunately, what goes on in Chicago affects the whole state dispaportionally.

[Slydessertfox]

Sure there's some gerrymandering going on there, but since states only get so many representatives based on population it might be useful to look at the population densities of those areas:

I forgot that gerrymandering is only excusable when your side does it. Districts have to be at least sort of proportional no matter what state you're in, so I dont see why bringing it up for Austin is relevant, like we should applaud them go following rules.


For the record gaidin I think Chicago is just as bad.

[Gaidin]

For the record gaidin I think Chicago is just as bad.

I'm uhh...saying they're worse. I'm not sure what you think I'm saying. But I'm saying Chicago's worse and there's no way these guys are convincing me Austin can teach Chicago a lesson in how to district a city for voting convenience.

[Slydessertfox]

I'm uhh...saying they're worse. I'm not sure what you think I'm saying. But I'm saying Chicago's worse and there's no way these guys are convincing me Austin can teach Chicago a lesson in how to district a city for voting convenience.

I know what you're saying. I'm saying Chicago is equally bad. This is basically a battle over nothing since we both agree chicago's is terrible.

[B. W.]

I forgot that gerrymandering is only excusable when your side does it. Districts have to be at least sort of proportional no matter what state you're in, so I dont see why bringing it up for Austin is relevant, like we should applaud them go following rules.


For the record gaidin I think Chicago is just as bad.

All I was saying is that with Texas' topography and population densities there is going to be gerrymandering. It only makes sense that the party out of power is going to complain how it's done and it only makes sense that the party in control will try to draw the lines to give itself as much advantage as possible. i.e.; Chicago.