House Passes Landmark Voting Rights Expansion Bill, H.R. 1

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What language does the bill use exactly in mandating commissions? Precisely what do they require?

[Diabolical Materialism]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

I've already stated my logic.

So you are against redistricting commissions?

There are two parts to my position. One, I'm against redistricting commissions being forced upon states that have not mandated them. If a state wants to adopt a redistricting commission, then it's their call, not something that ought to be forced upon them by the federal government.
Two, it is a legitimate use of political power to gerrymander; in regards to line-drawing, it is perfectly legal to draw district lines to disadvantage a political party or incumbent, and to force the abolition of that mindset under the law on all 50 states is an utterly vile thing.

Following this line of thinking, the House of Representatives and Senate are using their legitimate power to curb gerrymandering and establish independent commissions. It is well within the power of Congress to regulate how its members are elected. The people voted for this House and Senate and therefore, HR1 (if passed) is the expression of the national will.

They are using power they legitimately have to work to push through something utterly abhorrent, yes. This is legal yet also extremely wrong-headed, and I hope for this to be repealed in due time in the event it becomes law.

Why is curbing gerrymandering utterly abhorrent?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

I've already stated my logic.

So you are against redistricting commissions?

There are two parts to my position. One, I'm against redistricting commissions being forced upon states that have not mandated them. If a state wants to adopt a redistricting commission, then it's their call, not something that ought to be forced upon them by the federal government.
Two, it is a legitimate use of political power to gerrymander; in regards to line-drawing, it is perfectly legal to draw district lines to disadvantage a political party or incumbent, and to force the abolition of that mindset under the law on all 50 states is an utterly vile thing.

Following this line of thinking, the House of Representatives and Senate are using their legitimate power to curb gerrymandering and establish independent commissions. It is well within the power of Congress to regulate how its members are elected. The people voted for this House and Senate and therefore, HR1 (if passed) is the expression of the national will.

They are using power they legitimately have to work to push through something utterly abhorrent, yes. This is legal yet also extremely wrong-headed, and I hope for this to be repealed in due time in the event it becomes law.

Why is curbing gerrymandering utterly abhorrent?

Forcing every state to stop any and all gerrymandering on congressional level is utterly abhorrent. Unironically, gerrymandering is generally legal when the other party does it and generally good and legal when my party does it.

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1367562666529738760

Shot fired

[emailking]

Forcing every state to stop any and all gerrymandering on congressional level is utterly abhorrent. Unironically, gerrymandering is generally legal when the other party does it and generally good and legal when my party does it.

I think you have to explain that further if you want to convince anybody. You were asked why it's abhorrent and all you did was reiterate that it's abhorrent.

I think most of us want it gone so that redistricting is neutral, not good when you have the opportunity to control it and bad otherwise.

[AndyHogan14]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

I've already stated my logic.

So you are against redistricting commissions?

There are two parts to my position. One, I'm against redistricting commissions being forced upon states that have not mandated them. If a state wants to adopt a redistricting commission, then it's their call, not something that ought to be forced upon them by the federal government.
Two, it is a legitimate use of political power to gerrymander; in regards to line-drawing, it is perfectly legal to draw district lines to disadvantage a political party or incumbent, and to force the abolition of that mindset under the law on all 50 states is an utterly vile thing.

Following this line of thinking, the House of Representatives and Senate are using their legitimate power to curb gerrymandering and establish independent commissions. It is well within the power of Congress to regulate how its members are elected. The people voted for this House and Senate and therefore, HR1 (if passed) is the expression of the national will.

They are using power they legitimately have to work to push through something utterly abhorrent, yes. This is legal yet also extremely wrong-headed, and I hope for this to be repealed in due time in the event it becomes law.

Why is curbing gerrymandering utterly abhorrent?

Forcing every state to stop any and all gerrymandering on congressional level is utterly abhorrent. Unironically, gerrymandering is generally legal when the other party does it and generally good and legal when my party does it.

As far as I know, they aren't forcing the states to change how they draw state legislative lines, just lines for Congress. Congress should be in charge of setting standards for itself in the same way that state legislatures should set standards for themselves. What is wrong with a little uniformity for how lines are drawn for Congress? As it is right now, states are "forced" to have single-member districts. Why is it okay to force states to allocate representatives in only one way but not have a regulation concerning how the lines are drawn? Under your logic, states should be allowed to implement multi-member districts or even proportional representation (which they are not currently allowed to do).

Also, the only reason why I support Dem states gerrymandering (I was against the independent commission here in CA) is because I do not want to unilaterally disarm. Right now, Texas is free to gerrymander, but California cannot. Luckily California Democrats are spread out in a way that gerrymandering really is not all too necessary to create an overwhelming Dem map. I am, of course, very much in favor of limiting it at the national level so everyone is on an even playing field.

[Virginiá]

Forcing every state to stop any and all gerrymandering on congressional level is utterly abhorrent. Unironically, gerrymandering is generally legal when the other party does it and generally good and legal when my party does it.

Huh? Why? Are you actually supporting modern day election rigging? What exactly is wrong with Congress telling states they can't steal Congressional seats for their dominant party?

A big reason this country has a flawed democracy is because states run by corrupt politicians have carte blanche to pass laws making it difficult for their political opponents to vote in both state and federal elections, and from outright drawing maps that pack and crack opposition voters into as few/many districts as possible so they can cling to power even when a majority of the electorate rejects their party at the ballot box.

But you'd rather just continue to watch American democracy crumble because....why?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Forcing every state to stop any and all gerrymandering on congressional level is utterly abhorrent. Unironically, gerrymandering is generally legal when the other party does it and generally good and legal when my party does it.

I think you have to explain that further if you want to convince anybody. You were asked why it's abhorrent and all you did was reiterate that it's abhorrent.

I think most of us want it gone so that redistricting is neutral, not good when you have the opportunity to control it and bad otherwise.

I mean, I did explain my views enough for them to be understood. I said DC trampling on the ability for partisan gerrymandering to occur in congressional districts is an unjust intrusion into the power of actors on state-level to utilize their line-drawing power, and is thus abhorrent. Anyone who doesn't understand my views at this point needs to re-read what I've already posted.

I don't have strong hopes of convincing anyone given how non-standard my views on this issue are - I've long felt gerrymandering is a scapegoat for a number of problems that are more caused by hostility driven by inevitable changes from the 1960s-1970s norm (such as particularly strong generational clash) that would cause severe tensions regardless of how House of Reps lines were to be drawn. I'm more than anything expressing my dismay at this bill, which is the metaphorical pig, with the lipstick added in forms of talk of "strengthening democracy" (something the core of the bill is unrelated to).

I do wonder the exact language that the bill uses in these areas so I can know what the legal reality is after it likely passes and is signed into law, and how actors will behave in response to it, because it is in a space in which I have had intense interest for many years.

The only thing that could save the bill's image in my eyes is if in the Senate they passed language that required states to reduce county splits and explicitly recognized proportionality in congressional district maps as something to strive for, and put in place some kind of good formula (i.e. redistricting principles I agree with), and this language was carried through into the bill as a whole. I doubt that'll happen though.

[Damocles]

But you'd rather just continue to watch American democracy crumble because....why?

“We’Re A rEpUbLiC, nOt A dEmOcRaCy!!!1!!1!1!1!1!”

God I wish these people would just shut the f#%k up.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Forcing every state to stop any and all gerrymandering on congressional level is utterly abhorrent. Unironically, gerrymandering is generally legal when the other party does it and generally good and legal when my party does it.

Huh? Why? Are you actually supporting modern day election rigging? What exactly is wrong with Congress telling states they can't steal Congressional seats for their dominant party?

A big reason this country has a flawed democracy is because states run by corrupt politicians have carte blanche to pass laws making it difficult for their political opponents to vote in both state and federal elections, and from outright drawing maps that pack and crack opposition voters into as few/many districts as possible so they can cling to power even when a majority of the electorate rejects their party at the ballot box.

But you'd rather just continue to watch American democracy crumble because....why?

Gerrymandering is not why American democracy could be seen as crumbling. Gerrymandering has been the norm in the whole of American history.
Gerrymandering being responsible for all these ills is a convenient myth that has gained popularity because people don't want to face up to the fact that generation-driven polarization has eaten away at the basis of the "consensus politics" of past decades. Since people don't want to admit the truth, they invent myths and tell lies to themselves for sake of comfort.

[Damocles]

Gerrymandering being responsible for all these ills is a convenient myth that has gained popularity because people don't want to face up to the fact that generation-driven polarization has eaten away at the basis of the "consensus politics" of past decades. Since people don't want to admit the truth, they invent myths and tell lies to themselves for sake of comfort.

/r/SelfawareWolves

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Lance Gooden also voted contrary to expectations (expected no, but voted yes), which would really be quite the shocker if he hadn't come out & said that it was indeed a flub:

https://twitter.com/Lancegooden/status/1367311137285541894

Misspelled Madam Speaker.

[Virginiá]

Gerrymandering is not why American democracy could be seen as crumbling. Gerrymandering has been the norm in the whole of American history.
Gerrymandering being responsible for all these ills is a convenient myth that has gained popularity because people don't want to face up to the fact that generation-driven polarization has eaten away at the basis of the "consensus politics" of past decades. Since people don't want to admit the truth, they invent myths and tell lies to themselves for sake of comfort.

You're right, American democracy was even more flawed prior to the Voting Rights Act, with the South's white supremacist apartheid state.

Just because America's elections have long been corrupted by power-hungry politicians doesn't mean we should keep doing it. You're basically saying that politicians should continue stealing districts for their party just because they've been doing it for so long already.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Gerrymandering is not why American democracy could be seen as crumbling. Gerrymandering has been the norm in the whole of American history.
Gerrymandering being responsible for all these ills is a convenient myth that has gained popularity because people don't want to face up to the fact that generation-driven polarization has eaten away at the basis of the "consensus politics" of past decades. Since people don't want to admit the truth, they invent myths and tell lies to themselves for sake of comfort.

You're right, American democracy was even more flawed prior to the Voting Rights Act, with the South's white supremacist apartheid state.

Just because America's elections have long been corrupted by power-hungry politicians doesn't mean you should keep doing it. You're basically saying that politicians should continue stealing districts for their party just because they've been doing it for so long already.

Actually, I'm saying that the fact America has always had gerrymandering disproves the claim it is responsible for the ills to which it has been blamed for, because clearly there was a time when gerrymandering was a reality and these ills weren't so severe.
The problem is not at all gerrymandering, it is wider society. The causes of ills we see in modern America are much more systemic than whether or not political parties are allowed to draw boundaries in electoral districts to their favor. You can outlaw gerrymandering all you like but you won't fix politics, not when voters on both sides of the political divide despise each other more than ever over the past 50-60 years.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

America has only been a democracy for about 55 years now. I think we should treat pre-1960s voting and election laws the way former British colonies treat colonial legislation.

[lfromnj]

Doesn't this HR1 require usage of the efficiency  gap to determine fair districts?

This means fair maps in Wisconsin are a gerrymander while the IL map is fair.

[emailking]

I mean, I did explain my views enough for them to be understood. I said DC trampling on the ability for partisan gerrymandering to occur in congressional districts is an unjust intrusion into the power of actors on state-level to utilize their line-drawing power, and is thus abhorrent. Anyone who doesn't understand my views at this point needs to re-read what I've already posted.

Just seems like a leap of logic there. So you think taking away any power from the states, regardless of the issue, is abhorrent?

[brucejoel99]

Lance Gooden also voted contrary to expectations (expected no, but voted yes), which would really be quite the shocker if he hadn't come out & said that it was indeed a flub:

https://twitter.com/Lancegooden/status/1367311137285541894

Misspelled Madam Speaker.

To be fair, it might've been a guy presiding at the time of the vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I mean, I did explain my views enough for them to be understood. I said DC trampling on the ability for partisan gerrymandering to occur in congressional districts is an unjust intrusion into the power of actors on state-level to utilize their line-drawing power, and is thus abhorrent. Anyone who doesn't understand my views at this point needs to re-read what I've already posted.

Just seems like a leap of logic there. So you think taking away any power from the states, regardless of the issue, is abhorrent?

No?
I, like you and almost everyone else, think it ought to vary what should take precedence depending on the issue.
That isn't hard to grasp isn't it?
To assume someone with a position radically different from your own, citing a principle to support a viewpoint of theirs, has to extend that to other different areas or even possibly different facets of a policy area, is a tendency one ought to resist.
I won't expect that of you and I would appreciate it if you didn't expect that of me.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Gerrymandering is not why American democracy could be seen as crumbling. Gerrymandering has been the norm in the whole of American history.
Gerrymandering being responsible for all these ills is a convenient myth that has gained popularity because people don't want to face up to the fact that generation-driven polarization has eaten away at the basis of the "consensus politics" of past decades. Since people don't want to admit the truth, they invent myths and tell lies to themselves for sake of comfort.

You're right, American democracy was even more flawed prior to the Voting Rights Act, with the South's white supremacist apartheid state.

Just because America's elections have long been corrupted by power-hungry politicians doesn't mean you should keep doing it. You're basically saying that politicians should continue stealing districts for their party just because they've been doing it for so long already.

Actually, I'm saying that the fact America has always had gerrymandering disproves the claim it is responsible for the ills to which it has been blamed for, because clearly there was a time when gerrymandering was a reality and these ills weren't so severe.
The problem is not at all gerrymandering, it is wider society. The causes of ills we see in modern America are much more systemic than whether or not political parties are allowed to draw boundaries in electoral districts to their favor. You can outlaw gerrymandering all you like but you won't fix politics, not when voters on both sides of the political divide despise each other more than ever over the past 50-60 years.

Sure it won't fix American politics and growing division alone, no one is expecting to. And that's an impossibly high standard to hold any legislation to. Curbing gerrymandering is a step in the right direction towards making America a legitimately democratic society. Just because it won't solve ALL of the problems, doesn't mean that it won't solve any.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I'm just curious how one gets so attached to gerrymandering that they actually find it an abhorrent infringement of states rights

A legitimate use of power as you are using it, as in currently legal thing? That's just an arguement that no law should be changed ever.

A legitimate use as in morally legitimate? For legislatures to draw their own constituencies? I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm just curious how one gets so attached to gerrymandering that they actually find it an abhorrent infringement of states rights

A legitimate use of power as you are using it, as in currently legal thing? That's just an arguement that no law should be changed ever.

A legitimate use as in morally legitimate? For legislatures to draw their own constituencies? I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion.

I do think it as morally legitimate, yes. I quite enjoy the thought of an all-Democratic Maryland House delegation.

[emailking]

I mean, I did explain my views enough for them to be understood. I said DC trampling on the ability for partisan gerrymandering to occur in congressional districts is an unjust intrusion into the power of actors on state-level to utilize their line-drawing power, and is thus abhorrent. Anyone who doesn't understand my views at this point needs to re-read what I've already posted.

Just seems like a leap of logic there. So you think taking away any power from the states, regardless of the issue, is abhorrent?

No?
I, like you and almost everyone else, think it ought to vary what should take precedence depending on the issue.
That isn't hard to grasp isn't it?
To assume someone with a position radically different from your own, citing a principle to support a viewpoint of theirs, has to extend that to other different areas or even possibly different facets of a policy area, is a tendency one ought to resist.
I won't expect that of you and I would appreciate it if you didn't expect that of me.

Why do you get so aggressive all the time. I'm just trying to understand.

You said: "DC trampling on the ability for partisan gerrymandering to occur in congressional districts is an unjust intrusion into the power of actors on state-level to utilize their line-drawing power, and is thus abhorrent."

The "and is thus" is the part I don't follow.

If it's case by case, why is this particular intrusion so abhorrent?

If it's just you opinion that it is, and there's nothing more to it than that, ok. I think we're all surprised by it because we think gerrymandering is itself unjust and wrong and should be corrected.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I mean, I did explain my views enough for them to be understood. I said DC trampling on the ability for partisan gerrymandering to occur in congressional districts is an unjust intrusion into the power of actors on state-level to utilize their line-drawing power, and is thus abhorrent. Anyone who doesn't understand my views at this point needs to re-read what I've already posted.

Just seems like a leap of logic there. So you think taking away any power from the states, regardless of the issue, is abhorrent?

No?
I, like you and almost everyone else, think it ought to vary what should take precedence depending on the issue.
That isn't hard to grasp isn't it?
To assume someone with a position radically different from your own, citing a principle to support a viewpoint of theirs, has to extend that to other different areas or even possibly different facets of a policy area, is a tendency one ought to resist.
I won't expect that of you and I would appreciate it if you didn't expect that of me.

Why do you get so aggressive all the time. I'm just trying to understand.

You said: "DC trampling on the ability for partisan gerrymandering to occur in congressional districts is an unjust intrusion into the power of actors on state-level to utilize their line-drawing power, and is thus abhorrent."

The "and is thus" is the part I don't follow.

If it's case by case, why is this particular intrusion so abhorrent?

If it's just you opinion that it is, and there's nothing more to it than that, ok. I think we're all surprised by it because we think gerrymandering is itself unjust and wrong and should be corrected.

Grave apologies if I came across as aggressive, I was aiming for precise clarity above all else.
My thoughts on this are that while the authority of Congress has always allowed for them to this, for them to preempt states' desires on this, then it is only morally right if they come in with a better general standard. I view the standard used in HR 1 (presently) to be more or less garbage overall and so I oppose this bill's changes to redistricting law for congressional districts.
If it gets amended to something sufficiently more in line with my philosophy while in the Senate, then my opposition will pretty much melt away and turn into mild apathy probably.
I would not blame you for being aware of my opinions on gerrymanders, but they would not be a huge surprise to many who post on the PG&D board.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I'm just curious how one gets so attached to gerrymandering that they actually find it an abhorrent infringement of states rights

A legitimate use of power as you are using it, as in currently legal thing? That's just an arguement that no law should be changed ever.

A legitimate use as in morally legitimate? For legislatures to draw their own constituencies? I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion.

I do think it as morally legitimate, yes. I quite enjoy the thought of an all-Democratic Maryland House delegation.

That wouldn't be necessary if they weren't making up for phantom districts in red states. They should do this if HR-1 doesn't pass because unilateral disarmament is stupid, not because it's a desirable state. Nice gotcha attempt though
Why you think states should retain this power other is, still left unanswered.