Eric Stratton

@CindyCoops @robbystarbuck It specifically was written for the protection of voting rights for African-Americans. This is in every Civil Rights Movement lesson in US History courses since the 60s. And, it doesn't get them special treatment, rather protects them from discrimination.

@estratton422 @robbystarbuck Again, it's to protect everyone's voting rights. It is not for dividing people by race and awarding special treatment.

Emmanuel, I know the Washington Post is out of touch with the south, so as a Tennessean let me educate you. District 9 is rep’d by a White Democrat man. A Black Republican woman has run against him 5x. Your race card has been denied. Take it back to DC where it belongs. We will redraw the illegal district and make it representative of Tennessee again.

@CindyCoops @robbystarbuck No, the VRA is designed to protect those groups who were disenfranchised or discriminated against due to race. It is designed to be protective of those rights and had specific components for minority voters. The coming gerrymandering efforts will be opposite those agendas.

@estratton422 @robbystarbuck It is to ensure and preserve voting rights for all. It is not for dividing people by race.

@Tennesshero @3onyourside No, it's not illegal, just now left unprotected from gerrymandering. It could be left as is (especially since it has been pretty much the same district since well before the VRA) with no problem. In fact, it's one of only a handful reasonably drawn districts in the state.

What many are failing to understand is that the Memphis district as currently laid out has been found to be “unconstitutional,” which—for those in the back—means “illegal.” Tennessee lawmakers have no choice but to revisit the map, or risk having lawsuits brought against the constitutionality of anyone voted into office for the district as currently written. You can count on the fact that states that fail to revise their own districts—to be in compliance with the new ruling—are going to face legal challenges of their own, and those are challenges they most certainly will lose if they don’t comply NOW with the law.

"This is not about fairness. This is about power." Lawmakers and community leaders are raising concerns after Tennessee Governor Bill Lee called a special legislative session to revisit the state’s congressional map. Details: wreg.com/news/fight-ove…

@CindyCoops @robbystarbuck What are you talking about? The VRA was designed to ensure and preserve black voting rights. It protected the viable and legitimate 9th district from gerrymandering which occurred in 2022 and is about to occur now. This is the opposite of what you're saying.

@estratton422 @robbystarbuck No. The racial gerrymandering was a perversion of the Voting Rights Act.

@CindyCoops @robbystarbuck Solid reasoning. The current district was protected from gerrymandering because of the Voting Rights Act, fair. The TN GOP will now use black voting rolls to chop up the district in order to get a 9-0 advantage in TN. If this is "representative", why the need to manipulate maps?

@estratton422 @robbystarbuck No. He's correct.

@CindyCoops @robbystarbuck No, I'm 100% right. He's fine on who represents the district, but wrong on it being illegal and remaking it being a "fair representation of Tennessee". The TN GOP will use race to gerrymander themselves all of the seats in the state. That's not representative, just a power grab.

@estratton422 @robbystarbuck And yet, he's right about the district and you are not.

@JustinWStapley How is Wyoming relevant in the current Electoral College setup?

Under the Electoral College, the President is elected by the states and it is the states who choose to run popular elections to select electors. This is actually an integral part of the longevity of the union, because the great compromise ensures that small states are not subsumed by a national policy driven be the population advantage of large states. Remove this framework and why would a state like Wyoming stick around and be dictated to by a government that only represents the coastal enclaves?

@CindyCoops @robbystarbuck I’ve lived in the South longer than his Los Angeles self has been alive. I also didn’t allege anything, but simply turned his snarky arrogance back upon him.

@estratton422 @robbystarbuck But he didn't allege - without reason - that you don't understand the south.

@CindyCoops @robbystarbuck So do I.

@estratton422 @robbystarbuck He lives in Tennessee.

@MBCompanyMan Before getting too high & mighty, a republic would mean, essentially, a representative democracy, meaning representation in Congress, the body which is designed to be the most powerful branch, not the EC. There's nothing wrong w/ Pete's desire to end the EC for something better.

Wanker. This is what happens when you stop teaching civics in schools… a failure to understand why and how the US was established. But Pete’s not a moron… he understands why it’s a Republic… he just doesn’t care, and thinks the voters are stupid enough to buy his shtick.

@pmags30 @bonchieredstate You can end whenever you want, but the concept of racism includes the deliberate act of discrimination against a group of people based upon race, especially with force of authority. Your characterization of "voting practices" is irrelevant when this threshold is met. Good luck.

Sorry dude, you already admitted it's based on their "voting practices" and you have ZERO evidence of "racism". Not all racial disparities are the result of "racism". Seventy percent of the NBA is Black. Is this racial disparity based on discrimination against Whites? Of course not. As long as Blacks are being treated equally as the other groups in a geographic area based on their "voting practices", there is no "racist" discrimination to address through the VRA. Period. Hic finis est.

The current Democrat Rep is a white dude, Emmanuel. This white dude.

@pmags30 @bonchieredstate Their race is the determining factor. There’s no way around this point. You are trying to navigate a pathway where their racism is acceptable since it merely results in the mapmakers desired political landscape. But, the intent, action, and result are the same as VRA addresses.

@estratton422 @bonchieredstate Except they're NOT being "targeted" by race to deny their influence but, like ALL other groups, by their "voting practices" (as you admit). As a result, there is NO "disenfranchisement" taking place , which was the purpose of the VRA.

@pmags30 @bonchieredstate No, you are trying to parse a difference without significance. Targeting voters by race to deny their influence is still racism, even if, supposedly, not intentionally racist. The VRA addresses disenfranchisement by race, not make it ok by stated motivations.

Except the only objective data you have and refer to concerns the "voting practices" of Blacks and not any racial animus or racial discrimination directed at them. As I said, the same political discrimination forms the basis and motivations for ALL gerrymandering. You don't recognize it and you'll never admit it but this argument ended when you typed "favorable outcome for the GOP" and "voting practices". This isn't "cherry picking" by me, it's your admission that the motivations here are purely political with none of the invidious racial discrimination the VRA was designed to prevent. Any disadvantage they may experience is based on how they vote (as YOU admit) and not the color of their skin. Enjoy your Sunday.

@pmags30 @bonchieredstate It's not incidental when this is the basis for making the maps, plus you are cherry picking words You are trying to argue it's acceptable to effectively target black people for their voting practices as long as they can claim it's not racism when, in effect, it's the same thing.

Hey, I'm just literally using your own words against you. I understand why you would find that objectionable. "They will use the data to create a FAVORABLE OUTCOME for the GOP. It will be based, largely, on racial lines since there's eminent data to confirm VOTING PRACTICES there." (Emphasis added) The only FACT you refer to is the data regarding the "voting practices" of Blacks and that lines will be drawn to dilute their vote based on political considerations. This is no different than if they were Whites who tend to vote for Democrats (or the GOP). What you do NOT have is any data to support the argument that lines will be drawn based on the racial discrimination that led to the VRA. As I said before this is just another example of the type of political gerrymandering that's been taking place for 200+ years. The fact that the voters happen to be Black is totally incidental and irrelevant.

@pmags30 @bonchieredstate That's an awful convenient mouthful of circular arguing to justify your desired result on your own end. They will target black voters, point blank, purposely. The argument motivations are not racism matter what if the action, method, and end result is the same?

So, you're admitting that the lines will be drawn based on political considerations, rather than RACISM as what's being "diluted" is the vote of Democrats and not Blacks. As a result, it's a traditional political gerrymander that has been practiced for 200+ years and that is permitted under the Constitution, rather than a gerrymander based on racial discrimination that violates the Constitution and was the purpose of the VRA.

@pmags30 @bonchieredstate It's not an opinion. They have already called for a session to remake the district. They will use the data to create a favorable outcome for the GOP. It will be based, largely, on racial lines, since there is eminent data to confirm voting practices there. These are not opinions.

@estratton422 @bonchieredstate You're really struggling differentiating between FACTS based on objective data/info that you do not and cannot provide and your own unsupported, subjective OPINIONS.

@pmags30 @bonchieredstate The fact this group will be specifically targeted for dilution of their vote is pretty obvious. It's done for the purpose of party allegiance, but the effect of racial discrimination is the same. Who is being discriminated against with the current, very viable, district?

@estratton422 @bonchieredstate You, understandably, dodged every one of my questions. Based on what objective evidence does this one “group of people” need the advantage of the “preserving of the electoral voice”? And when did segregation stop being an act of “racial discrimination”?

@PeteWillia40380 @KurtSchlichter You're arguing the postal service is manipulating elections? Any proof, at all, of this?

Then the states that agreed to join the Union because the Electoral College would protect them from being totally dominated by cities would leave it.

@bbs1derzy @PeteWillia40380 @KurtSchlichter If you're pushing ranked choice voting, then I'm all ears. I still think the EC is an outdated and poor method to implement for an election. Every other election in this country is decided by popular vote. I have yet to see a good reason why this one should be different.

@estratton422 @PeteWillia40380 @KurtSchlichter Under a proportional allocation EC system, or some system besides winner-take-all, all voters could also have a voice. We don't have to use a popular vote to fix the winner-take-all problem.

@pmags30 @bonchieredstate Because the people in the GOP supermajority will use the racial makeup data to create lines which will dilute the vote for the largely black voters of Memphis. Preserving the electoral voice for a group of people isn't racial discrimination.

Why are you stating it as a fact that "the black vote will be diluted"? What is your basis for believing that the primary motivating factor in drawing congressional district lines will be racial and not political? Why should "black voters" get their own segregated districts? Alito: "The Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.”