Voting discussion thread

[crimsonaudio]

The problem is any drawing can be alleged racist. Even if you draw the lines with considering race a racial profile will emerge and the politicians will render it so

Possibly, probable even.

But that doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater and literally create districts based on skin color. Work towards a solution that ignores race, socioeconomics, etc and move towards the ideal.

I feel certain algorithms could be created that looked only at population numbers and created fair districts. There just has to be the will to create districts without bias, and sadly neither the right nor the left seem interested in solving this. Unless / until gerrymandering is outlawed these manipulations will continue.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The map Alabama is now switching to is literally racist. You can couch it however you wish, but it is literally racist. It just so happens to be the racism this SCOTUS supports, so it's a-okay.

I've not once voiced any support for said map. I'm largely unfamiliar with it - in fact, I've only read about it here.

But I've said over and over that all gerrymandering needs to be done away with. I don't want any maps based on the amount of melanin in the voters' skin.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I work with 2 people that have the same zip code as I do. All 3 of us are in 3 different voting districts.

 

[Bazza]

6 days ago, California.....the biggest BLUE state in the country.......held it's statewide primary elections.

As of today, only 72% of the votes have been counted.

6 days.......and no idea yet when the votes will all be counted.

And people wonder why Democrats are so often criticized when it comes to managing ANYTHING!

Let alone elections.....

 

[TIDE-HSV]

6 days ago, California.....the biggest BLUE state in the country.......held it's statewide primary elections.

As of today, only 72% of the votes have been counted.

6 days.......and no idea yet when the votes will all be counted.

And people wonder why Democrats are so often criticized when it comes to managing ANYTHING!

Let alone elections.....

Why would you think Democrats alone manage CA primaries? They have a "jungle" primary, where the top two leaders duke it out. They are managed by a mixture of parties, not by Democrats...

 

[Bazza]

Why would you think Democrats alone manage CA primaries? They have a "jungle" primary, where the top two leaders duke it out. They are managed by a mixture of parties, not by Democrats...

I don't know exactly what influence Democrats have in running the elections in California. But I think people do look at it as a Democratically run state.

The point I was trying to make is it's a bad look when the biggest BLUE state in the country takes this long for the elections results.

No different than it's a good look for Texas and Florida - the 2 largest RED states in the country, get their elections results in so fast.

 

[92tide]

i was wondering when the “dumocrats are stealing california!1!!1!1!1!” would find its way here

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I don't know exactly what influence Democrats have in running the elections in California. But I think people do look at it as a Democratically run state.

The point I was trying to make is it's a bad look when the biggest BLUE state in the country takes this long for the elections results.

No different than it's a good look for Texas and Florida - the 2 largest RED states in the country, get their elections results in so fast.

I'd say what a "bad look" was is assuming that a primary must be run by one party or another without checking the facts...

 

[92tide]

the trump party sure knows its audience, I’ll give them that much

RAJU: But what evidence is there to prove the California election is rigged?

MIKE JOHNSON: Look, some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream it’s impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively that something is wrong here.

 

[arthurdawg]

I don't know exactly what influence Democrats have in running the elections in California. But I think people do look at it as a Democratically run state.

The point I was trying to make is it's a bad look when the biggest BLUE state in the country takes this long for the elections results.

No different than it's a good look for Texas and Florida - the 2 largest RED states in the country, get their elections results in so fast.

That is because they plan the results of the elections starting several months in advance of election day.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

That is because they plan the results of the elections starting several months in advance of election day.

No argument here. I was suspicious of Dem primaries all the way back in 2008 when some nobody from Chicago managed to beat out one of the most well-known people in the entire world (likable or not.) Fast forward eight years and I'll never forget the howls of outrage from the Bernie Bros (only to hear them do it again four years later.)

I'm mildly amused by it all. I suppose if I were a Democrat, I would care a hell of a lot more, but I'm not, so I don't. I mainly vote Libertarian, but that party is a dumpster fire so I don't pay much attention there, either.

 

[JDCrimson]

the trump party sure knows its audience, I’ll give them that much

RAJU: But what evidence is there to prove the California election is rigged?

MIKE JOHNSON: Look, some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream it’s impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively that something is wrong here.

And you need a diabolical mind to see it and then trust me to adjudicate it...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

No argument here. I was suspicious of Dem primaries all the way back in 2008 when some nobody from Chicago managed to beat out one of the most well-known people in the entire world (likable or not.) Fast forward eight years and I'll never forget the howls of outrage from the Bernie Bros (only to hear them do it again four years later.)

I'm mildly amused by it all. I suppose if I were a Democrat, I would care a hell of a lot more, but I'm not, so I don't. I mainly vote Libertarian, but that party is a dumpster fire so I don't pay much attention there, either.

You're aware CA has neither a Democratic nor Republican primary. It's "jungle," open to anyone. Nearly 10% vote by mail and, so long as it comes in by a week, it can be counted. They also have the most extensive cross-checking of signatures in the nation, all of which takes time, even disregarding the size of the electorate...

 

[92tide]

You're aware CA has neither a Democratic nor Republican primary. It's "jungle," open to anyone. Nearly 10% vote by mail and, so long as it comes in by a week, it can be counted. They also have the most extensive cross-checking of signatures in the nation, all of which takes time, even disregarding the size of the electorate...

sadly, no matter how many times that gets explained …

 

[PaulD]

Why would you think Democrats alone manage CA primaries? They have a "jungle" primary, where the top two leaders duke it out. They are managed by a mixture of parties, not by Democrats...

California also does a lot of mail in voting with a deadline of postmarking on election day.

 

[PaulD]

I dropped off our runoff ballots today at the Board of Elections.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

You're aware CA has neither a Democratic nor Republican primary. It's "jungle," open to anyone. Nearly 10% vote by mail and, so long as it comes in by a week, it can be counted. They also have the most extensive cross-checking of signatures in the nation, all of which takes time, even disregarding the size of the electorate...

Yes, I did know that and I love the fact that it’s called “jungle.” Seems appropriate to me. In any case, it’s still primary season and that’s really what drove my post. Even Democrats don’t trust their own primaries and that’s just funny to me.

But yeah, I read about a 24,000 ballot drop that didn’t have a single Pratt vote. Someone engaged ChatGPT to figure out those odds and I gotta tell ya, that was a fun read.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

Yes, I did know that and I love the fact that it’s called “jungle.” Seems appropriate to me. In any case, it’s still primary season and that’s really what drove my post. Even Democrats don’t trust their own primaries and that’s just funny to me.

But yeah, I read about a 24,000 ballot drop that didn’t have a single Pratt vote. Someone engaged ChatGPT to figure out those odds and I gotta tell ya, that was a fun read.

Fact Check: Ballot Drop Did NOT Give Spencer Pratt ZERO Out Of 24,000 Votes In Los Angeles Mayor Race

Did a late-night ballot drop of 24,000 votes give Spencer Pratt no votes in the Los Angeles mayor race and is that evidence of fraud in the vote counting? No, that's not true: The Los Angeles Times ex...

www.yahoo.com

Sounds like that never happened.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

What the press is missing is that the gerrymandering on both sides is politically motivated, not racially motivated.

IOW, if black people were heavily Republican, legislatures controlled by the Republican party would be falling all over themselves to distribute their votes to their biggest advantage.

In a hypocrisy that would be laughable if it weren't so serious, they ignore Virginia's example. To recap, Virginia is just slightly more Democratic than Republican -- 52-48, 51-49 or thereabouts. But the Virginia legislature gerrymandered 10 of their 11 USHOR districts to be majority Democratic.

So they shut out a bunch of Republican representation in Congress, the majority of whom are white. While I heard a lot of outrage (and contributed some of my own), I never heard a whisper about racial bias. Because there wasn't any. Virginia's Democratic legislature wasn't discriminating against white people. It was discriminating against Republicans.

And except for the fact that they didn't follow their own laws around putting new Congressional districts to the voters, they would have gotten away with it.

Gerrymandering has taken place at all levels of government long as there have been districts. But the degree to which Virginia Democrats took the idea was a huge overreach. Then, when called out on the massive overreach, they thumbed their noses and crowed like playground brats. I said that that behavior would come back to bite the Democrats. And it has.

Neither the Virginia nor Alabama legislatures are discriminating against any race. They're discriminating against the opposing party.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

What the press is missing is that the gerrymandering on both sides is politically motivated, not racially motivated.

IOW, if black people were heavily Republican, legislatures controlled by the Republican party would be falling all over themselves to distribute their votes to their biggest advantage.

In a hypocrisy that would be laughable if it weren't so serious, they ignore Virginia's example. To recap, Virginia is just slightly more Democratic than Republican -- 52-48, 51-49 or thereabouts. But the Virginia legislature gerrymandered 10 of their 11 USHOR districts to be majority Democratic.

So they shut out a bunch of Republican representation in Congress, the majority of whom are white. While I heard a lot of outrage (and contributed some of my own), I never heard a whisper about racial bias. Because there wasn't any. Virginia's Democratic legislature wasn't discriminating against white people. It was discriminating against Republicans.

And except for the fact that they didn't follow their own laws around putting new Congressional districts to the voters, they would have gotten away with it.

Gerrymandering has taken place at all levels of government long as there have been districts. But the degree to which Virginia Democrats took the idea was a huge overreach. Then they thumbed their noses like playground brats when called out on that massive overreach. I said that that behavior would come back to bite the Democrats. And it has.

Neither the Virginia nor Alabama legislatures are discriminating against any race. They're discriminating against the opposing party.

It's not a "one suit fits all" situation. In Alabama, it's much more mixed motives situation than in Virginia...