Do Democrats even need to gerrymander Virginia to maintain power there? It's been trending their way for some time now and it seems like it's going to become a state where Democrats will enjoy unified govt more often than not, regardless if they gerrymander. Given enough time, the House map will probably be good to them even if it's not some brutal gerrymander. Without national reform, I question whether it's truly worth it to rig elections in every state possible. Democrats ought to just stay true to their rhetoric and end it if they can. Someone has to fix this system or we're going to be haunted by it forever in this country.
Would you consider this a gerrymander?
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/profile_pictures/15134_1533466602.PNG
I mean, it really comes down to intent (among other things), doesn't it? That is Mizzouian's Virginia gerrymander (his words) - an 8D-3R map. A map doesn't have to look ugly to be a gerrymander.
I've said numerous times that I am very antsy about the idea of unilateral disarmament, where Democratic states stop gerrymandering but Republicans just sit back and laugh as they rig the hell out of their maps. I think if Democrats decide to push for full reform at the state-level, there ought to be a concrete plan to get most of America under fair maps within a decade or so, otherwise you could be looking at literally generations where Republicans maximize seats from their states while Democrats just roll over in theirs. This is why it is best to do it at the Congressional level, so all states are covered at the same time.
On the other hand, I'm also nervous at the thought that if Democrats punt reform in favor of gerrymandering with the vague excuse of ends justify the means, etc, where does it end? When do we get reform? Democrats are never going to control every US state at the same time, and maybe not even enough for a constitutional amendment - at least for a long time, so WHEN does reform finally get embraced by the party? The way I see it, this reasoning gives Democrats an excuse to never embrace reform, because Republicans will always be an electoral threat.
If you want to temporarily embrace gerrymandering"for the greater good, then you ought to flesh out exactly what scenario will lead to reform, otherwise it seems like we'll just allow this brazen political corruption to go on forever, and that is unacceptable to me.
This sums up my thoughts pretty well. If Republicans are willing to sit down and commit to redistricting reform, then absolutely, we should institute nonpartisan commissions in each and every state. If they're not, then we should continue gerrymandering every state we can so as to not be put at a natural disadvantage. It's important to note that the former is preferable to the latter.
However, as usual, Dems take the pansy-ass third option. They take the moral high road and put themselves at a disadvantage. They allow Republicans to gerrymander the hell out of every state they control while refusing to gerrymander any of their own. Remember REDMAP? The Republicans will stop at nothing to control the districts in each and every state they can. Either both sides stop and institute a fair solution or both sides continue to fight dirty. Enough of this rolling over and moral pearl clutching. All it does is hurt us Democrats.
