
Friibbles
503 posts














Don't let them gaslight you on this idea that "democrats proposed a bill to end partisan-gerrymandering, but all republicans voted 'no' on it." If there was a bill to end partisan gerrymandering, it would be one page long. But, it was 800 pages long and stuffed with things that have nothing to do with partisan gerrymandering. That's why the GOP voted no on it. Here's SOME of what else was in the bill: The Gerrymandering Provision (which would be a page long if this is all it was) Would have banned partisan gerrymandering for congressional districts nationwide. States (except those with only one congressional district) had to create independent redistricting commissions (15 members: 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 5 independents) to draw maps instead of state legislatures. Commissions had to approve maps by majority vote, including at least one vote from each group (D, R, and independent). Maps could not “unduly favor or disfavor any political party” on a statewide basis. This would have applied starting with maps after the 2030 census (later versions delayed it from the immediate 2020s cycle). Simple and fair enough right? A single page bill. What else was in the bill? - Auto voter registration - No limit absentee voting - No limit mail-in voting - No limit early voting - LIMITS on states cleaning up voter rolls - TAX PAYER FUNDED 6:1 Donor Matching You may agree with some or all of these things, but that has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Republicans unanimously opposed the entire bill, viewing the gerrymandering ban as just one piece of a much larger partisan package, that was forced as an all-or-nothing bill. Dems didn't want to end gerrymandering. That's why they stuffed the "end partisan-gerrymandering" bill with things they know the GOP are obviously against (limitless mail-in voting, etc.). It was only designed to get a 'no' vote so they can now say "republicans voted against ending partisan-gerrymandering!"

Democrats don't really want a national ban on gerrymandering in large part because both Democrat and Republican data experts agree it would hurt the Democrats. It's a talking point. In California, their nonpartisan gerrymandering board was packed with Democrats, some of whom just claimed to be Republicans to get on the board.





































