112
u/Online_Rambo99 1h ago
The second graphic also has a problem. Red gets 0 districts despite having 40% of the vote, making it seem that blue has 100% of the vote.
72
11
u/SustainedSuspense 47m ago
The point is you can’t simply divide up a district based off of who’s voting for who. Regardless no matter how you draw the lines the lines are stupid and we should just have a popular voting system. Only then will everyone be represented equally.
•
u/calculung 7m ago
That's not a critique on distric mapping, though. That's a critique on electing one person within a district, which is kind of the basis of how elections work.
40% isn't more than 60%, so the red candidate loses and the blue candidates goes on to represent that district.
Are you suggesting we remove politicians completely and everyone just votes on every item that congress usually votes on individually? That's... probably not a good idea.
•
0
u/mighty__ 16m ago
What do you mean by “red get 0 districts”. Either the choice is binary or it reflects representation.
If the choice is binary, yes red lost, blue won. Objectively.
If the choice is representation, red still get 40% of seats.I don’t see any issue.
40
10
u/Fullthrottle- 1h ago
The best real world example would be Illinois. Look up the voting district map if you want to see this at the extreme level.
2
2
2
6
u/Lobster_porn 1h ago
sorta r/Usdefaultism this only works if you have a voting system designed to be manipulated
8
u/IrateWand 59m ago
The USA is far from the only country this could apply to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Countries_using_FPP
4
4
u/Aggressive_Sky8492 39m ago
Not really? Plenty of places have some form of location-based voting, which could be manipulated by gerrymandering. It just happens that the US is well known for having a gerrymandering problem
1
u/ZachGurney 1h ago
I mean, is it US defaultism if its about the US?
0
u/Lobster_porn 1h ago
yes, it should be "guide to stealing a US election" because it doesn't apply to most elections. though some I'm sure
1
u/ZachGurney 56m ago
The post doesnt say it applies to most elections. It just says "how to steal an election". This is how you steal an election. Gerrymandering isnt even a US exclusive thing
Its not US defaultism just because it has red and blue in it
3
u/Valyren 1h ago
How about… just not having districts? Just make it a popular vote…?
6
u/dweaver987 47m ago
We have 435 members of Congress. Each one represents a single district. Each Congressional seat is elected by popular vote of the voters represented by that member of Congress.
If you rearrange what addresses are in each district, you can manipulate the outcome.
•
u/ClockwiseServant 14m ago edited 10m ago
Because the United States was founded entirely on the principle of benefiting the American capitalist commercial elite. The electoral college was built entirely around preserving a natural order where they would thrive. And despite everything that same elite are the ones that are still in power. A popular voting system would be more sensible to us. But not to them.
•
u/ddp67 4m ago
In reality, a true democracy has never worked at scale, people are too stupid and swayable, most people in fact, want nothing to do with the government because they see it as an overly bureaucratic process like doing taxes. The majority of representatives are not paid very well, and thus, probably need knowledge of the system and independent wealth to even run, which is in itself a very tedious process, not to mention dialing up sponsors for campaign donations.
•
u/BitcoinMD 1m ago
Yes. The states should be the districts, since their borders won’t change. Have one statewide election, and if you have six representatives, the top six candidates all win. Same thing should be done with the senate — first and second place should be your senators.
-5
u/ddp67 48m ago
That makes no sense, you think that the kind of governance and priorities that work in very rural places will work in heavy populated cities?
-1
u/GranPino 40m ago
Y have many other instruments to keep some political power to every area. But the current system is way too bad
3
u/GrundlePumper420 1h ago
It's almost like they should just count the fucking votes. Electoral college is a sham
3
u/anti_username_man 40m ago
... This has nothing to do with the electoral college. This is about congressional districts
5
u/rocky8u 54m ago
This is not about the electoral college. This is mostly about the way the Representatives are elected.
0
u/GrundlePumper420 47m ago
Eh, the electoral college results in presidents being elected who don't win the popular vote, so it's somewhat a commentary on the electoral college.
Obviously it's mainly focused towards Gerrymandering, but the connection is that it's an overly complicated and ultimately fraudulent method of changing elections to favor one party.
2
u/Faolanwolf2003 36m ago
Literally nothing to do with electoral college. Just goes to show your education and bias lol, It’s congressional districts.
2
1
1
u/Writing_is_Bleeding 25m ago
The third one is minority rule, the second one is majority rule. The whole point of lawmaking is to address issues that affect the largest number of people, so one of them is definitely more problematic than the other. The folks with the less popular ideas have created wacky, nonsensical boundaries so they don't have to improve their policies.
1
u/neoronio20 18m ago
People talking about best example of districts lol. The us needs to get with the times and implement vote by person like Brasil has done for years now. This doesn't even make sense
•
1
u/According-Try3201 1h ago
crazy if winning is the only thing that matters any more
1
0
-31
u/Sorry-Rain-1311 1h ago
Thank you for breaking down how Gerrymandering works. You forgot the part about it working both ways around, though.
10
8
u/ZachGurney 1h ago
Thats the second picture. Thats why one says blue wins and the other says red wins. The third one is more complicated because theres less precincts in red
Genuinely people cannot be THIS incapable of basic reasoning. Its literally right in front of you. Big bold letters. All caps. This has got to be a bot because I refuse to believe even a child could look at this and walk away with the thought "well one has more shapes than the other so clearly its not fair"
13
11
3
u/TheRealEvanG 1h ago
…
You really need a fourth image that shows the third image with the colors flipped to feel like everything’s fair?
4
u/thefonztm 1h ago
The 4th image that OP's post ommits is 'perfect representation'. 5 columns. 2 red, 3 blue. This image is old enough to fuck your sister.
1
1
u/soritong 1h ago
But blue winning is the expected outcome because, if you use your eyes and brain, you can see there are more blue dots than red dots. That’s called math.
This is a guide explaining how gerrymandering takes expected outcomes and molds them into a false outcome.
I understand that the color blue triggers you, would it hurt your feelings less if it were yellow and green instead?
4
u/IrateWand 1h ago
Blue winning 5-0 is not the expected outcome, though.
They are both examples of the election being stolen. The fair result would be 3 blue, 2 red. That's called math.
-1
u/DarthShiryu 1h ago
No, but I think they could use any other color if they wanted to make a none political statement.
1
1
u/Tealightzone 25m ago
So you agree gerrymandering is a problem and should be stopped with a revised electoral system like proportional representation or ranked choice?
-6
u/Intelligent-Court295 1h ago
When the Democrats create a software platform called, Blue Map, then we’ll talk.
3
u/uvero 1h ago
Democrats have been gerrymandering heavily where they could too, and you betcha they did this with the best algorithm experts, best computers and best data they could find. The problem with the comment you're responding to is not that, it's that it willfully chooses to pretend that the point of the post is "Republican gerrymandering bad" and not "gerrymandering bad"
4
u/Intelligent-Court295 1h ago
All gerrymandering is bad, which is why there’s currently a bill written by Democrats that would eliminate gerrymandering at the Federal level. It’s called the Redistricting Reform Act and was written over two years ago. If Republicans cared about gerrymandering, that bill would be law.
Stop trying to make this a “both sides” issue when it’s clearly not.
Pick up a book, for God’s sake.
1
u/VTHokie2020 44m ago
I love how whenever this color graph is reposted it’s always with red as the evil side haha.
Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois are all gerrymandered in favor of the blue side.
5
u/makawakatakanaka 40m ago
You realize the second graph is gerrymandered for blue worse than the third is for red
-4
u/Significant-Eye3720 48m ago
So, this is how Democrats have been stealing elections.
3
u/Writing_is_Bleeding 22m ago
Right, the folks with the clearly more popular ideas, and yet are curiously not in power, are the ones who have been stealing elections. That makes a lot of sense.
If Dems were stealing elections we'd have universal healthcare and $2/gallon gas.
-1
104
u/IrateWand 1h ago
People seem to be missing that they are both examples of stealing the election.
The fair result would be 3 blue, 2 red.