Election Results

[alai]

And the Russia thing, I guess I'll respond to that. Not one person of any substance suggested that Russia turned the election. Just that they attempted to influence it, which they most certainly did.

It's a very hard thing to measure.  The main effect was via online misinformation, and it's not like there was any shortage of that, home-grown.  (Whether of the industrial botfarm sort, or by enthusiast amateurs.)  You'd need to somehow measure the total effect of all that, then some-further-how, disentangle that by source.  Given the narrowness of the result in swing-state margin terms, it's also hard to say it's unlikely to have made a difference.

Of course, interference and collusion aren't at all the same thing.  The (I guess we should say "alleged" and "reported", given The Former Regime's success in somehow managing to keep or spring themselves out of prison concerning it) amount of the latter doesn't seem at all likely to have affected anything.

I will also say, after looking up some old articles, there was a certain subgroup that was hopeful that electors would be faithless and cast their ballot for Clinton even though their state tallied for Trump. That is in a similar ballpark, and it did include some Democrat members of Congress. They succeeded in flipping seven electors, so they even had more success than their violent right wing counterparts. Some of these electors did face threats of violence, including death threats. I would be comfortable labeling the people involved in that effort as attempting a coup.

The electoral college is just...  weird.  At best, it looks like another powdered-wig and knee-breeches relic.  Increasingly, it looks like another piece of the jigsaw deliberately being instrumentalised to nudge the US from Flawed Democracy towards Post-.  Or as the social-media memes like to put it, "THE US IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!", before scolding anyone disagreeing on their lack of knowledge of "Civics 101", and shrieking at the very idea of Californians thinking their vote might be equal to anyone else's.

But I essentially agree that the fix clearly isn't the faithless elector one.  It's a little different to quantify how "bad" such behaviour is, as clearly the role has evolved historically, and at present the legal situation varies hugely from state to state:  the faithless vote can be illegal, void, both, or neither.  The logical solution is that there should be federal law meaningfully governing federal elections, but that's clearly the last thing that'll happen.

[msquared]

Ok so Trump supporters in certain states sent in forged info about the results of the elections in their states.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/swing-state-trumpers-forged-letters-145502210.html

A guess fraud is OK as long as it helps your guy.

[TheDrake]

But you know, it's not like anybody wanted an insurrection or a coup.

They must be secret Antifa trying to make Trump supporters look bad.

[alai]

Totally fine thing to do, or in the alternative, somebody else did the same thing in the past, might do the same thing in the future, or else actually did this, so blame them.

[wmLambert]

Ok so Trump supporters in certain states sent in forged info about the results of the elections in their states.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/swing-state-trumpers-forged-letters-145502210.html

A guess fraud is OK as long as it helps your guy.

Are the posters here so vote-scam oriented that they can't understand the law? Of course Maddow made this an issue, but in general - electors are who are voted for in elections. The electors who believed they were elected were not scamming, but presenting their documents the same way opposing elector groups have done for decades. Of course electoral groups who side with the vote-scamming will claim the documents are forgeries. However; if the courts had accepted the standing of the hundreds of legal affidavits from eyewitnesses alleging vote-scamming, then the courts might have some relevance. As it is, not ruling is not the same as validating a free election.

[msquared]

From what I understand, the electors do not send these documents to the the Federal Gov. The State does. And they are not the State. And the ones in AZ used the State Seal, which is against the law.

I love how the Law and Order WmLambert thinks the law does not apply when his guy looses.  Trump lost AZ. Every audit and recount shows this, even the Cyber Ninja one.

Why won't CyberNinjas turn over the documents? They have spent more money fighting the legal order than they would have spent if they just turned over the documents. What are they trying to hide?

[TheDrake]

Ok so Trump supporters in certain states sent in forged info about the results of the elections in their states.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/swing-state-trumpers-forged-letters-145502210.html

A guess fraud is OK as long as it helps your guy.

Are the posters here so vote-scam oriented that they can't understand the law? Of course Maddow made this an issue, but in general - electors are who are voted for in elections. The electors who believed they were elected were not scamming, but presenting their documents the same way opposing elector groups have done for decades. Of course electoral groups who side with the vote-scamming will claim the documents are forgeries. However; if the courts had accepted the standing of the hundreds of legal affidavits from eyewitnesses alleging vote-scamming, then the courts might have some relevance. As it is, not ruling is not the same as validating a free election.

You can't put out a document with the state seal on it when you aren't part of the state government, but I'm sure you have some weird sovereign state argument justifying that or really any action taken to ignore duly elected victors.

[alai]

Are the posters here so vote-scam oriented that they can't understand the law?

Some, to be sure.  Just not the ones you evidently have in mind.

[msquared]

Another audit in a county that Trump won in MI shows no fraud.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-evidence-fraud-found-gop-132352318.html

How many more audits do there need to be to show that Trump is lying about fraud?

[alai]

It's mathematically impossible for Trump to lie.  If he says something that roughly corresponds with the facts, or with the facts as his supporters would like them to be, he's a genius.  If they don't, he was speaking metaphorically.

[rightleft22]

Trump always says what he says, says it like it is... unless he didn't say it.
Don't worry your pretty little head "I am you voice"....

[TheDrake]

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? There is not now, and was never any evidence supporting this fantasy about massive secret undetectable voter fraud. The fact that 40% of the country is chanting "Let's go Brandon" and thinks that there were millions of illegal votes spells the end of the Republic. I never thought I'd ever feel nostalgic about the era of George Bush or wish that Romney won.

[alai]

The fact that 40% of the country is chanting "Let's go Brandon" and thinks that there were millions of illegal votes spells the end of the Republic.

Oh, it'll still be a Republic. I mean, Iran and China are undeniably factually republics, as well as saying so right in the name.  But like the zookbook meme likes to say, "America is not a democracy."  The "democratic" part is looking more and more tarnished, and might be in the ICU before too long.

[cherrypoptart]

I found this article interesting. It's talking about corporate fraud and whether or not auditors should be expected to find it. How much overlap is there to voter fraud? No idea.

https://www.allbusiness.com/why-didnt-the-auditors-find-the-fraud-4967920-1.html

"There’s just one problem: Audits are not designed to detect fraud. The procedures aren’t likely to find fraud. The rules don’t require the auditors to detect fraud. So why on earth are companies and shareholders trying to hold auditors responsible for the bad behavior of employees?

... The company must set up policies and procedures to prevent fraud. The company must properly monitor employees to make sure that transactions are properly authorized and recorded. The company must make sure that fraud isn’t occurring. Management is responsible for oversight of its own employees and processes.

There are times during traditional audits when the auditors have the opportunity to detect fraud. But there are two questions that must be asked:

Could the auditors have detected the fraud?

Should the auditors have detected the fraud?

The first question is fairly straightforward. If you examine the audit procedures objectively, do you see that fraud could have been detected during the audit? Many times, the answer is “no.” That is, the people within the company engaging in fraud did such a good job of covering their misdeeds that the audit procedures had almost no chance of finding the fraud.

Employees become familiar with the audit process and the type and magnitude of transactions that the auditors will typically examine. They go out of their way to cover a fraud by ensuring that the books are doctored in such a way that the auditors won’t ever look at the transactions related to the fraud."

-------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to get all up in arms about the possibility of massive voter fraud, but I'm also not going to berate the people who remain unconvinced. Even more so than in corporations, our voting system isn't well designed for voter fraud prevention or detection after the fact. Just like in corporations if not more so, if there are people engaging in massive voter fraud they have access to the systems, perfect knowledge of them, and know how to cover their tracks, and it doesn't help that the Democrats don't even want voter I.D. and the other reasonable precautions to limit the opportunity for fraud.

I'm not seeing any evidence of massive voter fraud so I'm almost willing to let it go. Now all we need to seal the deal is Democrats going along with some normal voting integrity procedures and I'd be willing to have a little more faith, but instead Pelosi insists that every attempt to make elections more secure actually does the opposite and undermines our entire democratic foundation. That's just suspect.

[alai]

I'm not seeing any evidence of massive voter fraud so I'm almost willing to let it go. Now all we need to seal the deal is Democrats going along with some normal voting integrity procedures and I'd be willing to have a little more faith, but instead Pelosi insists that every attempt to make elections more secure actually does the opposite and undermines our entire democratic foundation. That's just suspect.

So, there's no actual fraud, but Democrats should meet you half way on "normal" levels of voter suppression, otherwise it's "suspect".  Depends on the Overton Window of your suspicions, evidently.

[Wayward Son]

Now all we need to seal the deal is Democrats going along with some normal voting integrity procedures and I'd be willing to have a little more faith, but instead Pelosi insists that every attempt to make elections more secure actually does the opposite and undermines our entire democratic foundation. That's just suspect.

OK, cherry, which of these points do you consider "normal voting integrity procedures," and which "undermines our entire democratic foundation?"

(I)n case the bill actually becomes law, here's what's in it:

o A ban on partisan gerrymanders
o Limits on states' ability to remove voting officials
o Limits on what poll watchers can and cannot do
o Voting systems must leave a paper trail
o Mandatory online and same-day voter registration
o Automatic registration of people upon interactions with state governments (e.g., the DMV)
o Minimum of 15 days of early voting
o Universal absentee balloting
o Widely available drop boxes
o Ballots postmarked by Election Day, and received within 7 days, would be valid
o Debit cards, utility bills, bank statements, and sworn/witnessed statements would count as voter ID
o Felons regain voting rights upon release from prison
o No prohibitions on giving food/water to people waiting to vote
o Greater (though somewhat unspecific) rights to sue for voter discrimination
o Greater disclosure of "dark money" sources
o Special protections for Native American voters
o Election Day made into a federal holiday in presidential and midterm years
o Fixing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, per Chief Justice John Roberts' instructions, to once again require that states and localities with a history of discrimination get pre-clearance for changes to voting rules

[alai]

o No prohibitions on giving food/water to people waiting to vote

I mean, that one's just outrageous.  Obviously when James Madison talked about protecting the opulent minority, that constitutes a binding precedent, wherein the Founding Fathers[sic] precluded the possibility of people in urban districts with completely coincidentally longer queues to vote having their basic bodily needs in any way subvented, over and above their personal private means to take care of themselves.  Poor people?  At the polls?  There's your steal right there!

[msquared]

Remember Trump even said that if everyone could vote, then the Republicans would never win again. I think Rand Paul said the same thing.  It is not about winning the war of ideas, it is about only letting your people vote.

[NobleHunter]

The problem is that the conservatives don't have any ideas besides cutting taxes and spending money on the military. It's hard to get elected on the platform of driving up the national debt with nothing productive to show for it.

[alai]

Conservatives have lots of ideas!  Admittedly they're all terrible, and for each of them you can even find other flavours of self-described conservative that think so, too.

[TheDeamon]

o No prohibitions on giving food/water to people waiting to vote

I mean, that one's just outrageous.  Obviously when James Madison talked about protecting the opulent minority, that constitutes a binding precedent, wherein the Founding Fathers[sic] precluded the possibility of people in urban districts with completely coincidentally longer queues to vote having their basic bodily needs in any way subvented, over and above their personal private means to take care of themselves.  Poor people?  At the polls?  There's your steal right there!

You do realize, most of the states that have restrictions on such things don't outright ban the giving of food and water to people waiting in line.

What they ban are partisan groups giving out food and water while waiting in line. Something about no campaigning when within XX distance of a voting location?

And I also love the observation about the voting lines. You do realize that is largely under the control of the local(county level) election officials in determining how they're going to staff their voting precincts?

So cry me a river when a Democrat controlled county, in a democrat controlled state, has people complaining about voting lines in a democrat-leaning precinct. (New York City anyone?)

They have a little more room to complain in states like Georgia and Texas because the Republicans control things at the state level, but the country level where a lot of those problem precincts exist? Oh hey, still democrat controlled.

[TheDrake]

Actually Georgia banned everyone. Only designated poll workers can give out "self-service water from an unattended receptacle". Which, they don't do. You can be wearing a plain white t-shirt and wordlessly hand someone a bottle of water and you'll be breaking the law.

Why don't those lousy democrats running Houston just add more polling places? Because state law prohibits them from doing so. Okay fine, why can't Chicago just add more polling places? In a way, they are. Via early voting (hated by Republicans - too convenient). Mail in voting (don't get started on this one). Expanded hours. Curbside ballot submission. Making election day a state and school holiday.

[alai]

Mail in voting (don't get started on this one.

As opposed to "a legitimate absentee ballot to which I'm fully entitled".  Whose definition seems to be, "mail-in voting while Republican".

[Lloyd Perna]

Why don't those lousy democrats running Houston just add more polling places? Because state law prohibits them from doing so

Google isn't being helpful.  I hope you're able to cite the law in question if you make a statement like that.

[TheDrake]

Emphasis mine.

The number of Election Day polling places in largely Democratic parts of major Texas counties would fall dramatically under a Republican proposal to change how Texas polling sites are distributed, a Texas Tribune analysis shows. Voting options would be curtailed most in areas with higher shares of voters of color.

Relocating polling sites is part of the GOP’s priority voting bill — Senate Bill 7 — as it was passed in the Texas Senate. It would create a new formula for setting polling places in the handful of mostly Democratic counties with a population of 1 million or more. Although the provision was removed from the bill when passed in the House, it remains on the table as a conference committee of lawmakers begins hammering out a final version of the bill behind closed doors.

Under that provision, counties would be required to distribute polling places based on the share of registered voters in each state House district within the county. The formula would apply only to the state’s five largest counties — Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar and Travis — and possibly Collin County once new census figures are released later this year.

Comprehensive article

I'm not 100% certain on the final form of this particular bill, but you can see that the state level legislation directs counties on how to conduct their polling locations.

[TheDeamon]

Emphasis mine.

Under that provision, counties would be required to distribute polling places based on the share of registered voters in each state House district within the county. The formula would apply only to the state’s five largest counties — Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar and Travis — and possibly Collin County once new census figures are released later this year.

Comprehensive article

I'm not 100% certain on the final form of this particular bill, but you can see that the state level legislation directs counties on how to conduct their polling locations.

Depending on the specifics of the formula, I'm not sure how you're wanting to proclaim that to be particularly nefarious. Seems to be stipulating that they create voting precincts with roughly equivalent numbers of voters in each precinct. That's extremely reasonable.

Now unless you're stipulating that the formula also sets requirements which means the resulting precinct sizes themselves would be "unreasonably large" as a result, I don't see the problem.

[TheDrake]

I'm not declaring anything nefarious, I'm contesting the statement that a county has the power to decide to open more polling stations. I haven't studied the formulae to understand fully all the options open to a county. But it stands to reason that counties containing less than the total number of a congressional district would still get to have one polling station and therefore fewer people going there than to the ones in a populated district - thus why the proposal in this case would only affect the largest counties - which are urban areas. The linked article describes the number of "lost" polling stations but doesn't show their math and so I can't walk through all the calculations without digging through the legislation itself.

[alai]

Not merely contesting, but conclusively proving -- you'd have thought TD2 might have acknowledged that, having so boldly asserted the contrary.

It does indeed have the whiff of nefariousness.  Even Texan Republicans aren't so brazen -- or dumb -- as to pass the "Fewer Polling Places for Uppity Black Folks Act, 2022".  So you crank the handle and find a formula that produces that result, without having to spell it out.  Texas has 254 counties.  This legislation applies to just five.  All but two D-represented districts lose polling places.  Every single R-represented one stays the same or gains.  But that's only fair, pesky privileged Black Dems had too many polling places to start with!  But did they?  That's impossible to know without knowing the voting patterns.  Number of mail-ins vs in-persons, uptake of early voting, voting at peak vs slack times, etc.  Long lines to vote?  Tough, have even longer hah!  Even my local Lidl has a more considerate system:  if the checkout queue reaches [THIS LINE], they'll open another.  Not tell you you should have lived near another one with shorter ones.

The maths of that may not even be in the legislation, you'd have to find it from existing practice (or back-calculate using their stated conclusions).

[Lloyd Perna]

I'm not declaring anything nefarious, I'm contesting the statement that a county has the power to decide to open more polling stations. I haven't studied the formulae to understand fully all the options open to a county. But it stands to reason that counties containing less than the total number of a congressional district would still get to have one polling station and therefore fewer people going there than to the ones in a populated district - thus why the proposal in this case would only affect the largest counties - which are urban areas. The linked article describes the number of "lost" polling stations but doesn't show their math and so I can't walk through all the calculations without digging through the legislation itself.

Your own article states the provision was removed from the version that passed in the House.  I cant find any reference on what was actually adopted.

[alai]

But that's only relevant to the taxonomy of successful vs unsuccessful Republicantics, not as to the nature of what state law may do, and is actively under consideration as being done, as opposed the the "obviously a county matter!" contention.

[TheDrake]

I'm not declaring anything nefarious, I'm contesting the statement that a county has the power to decide to open more polling stations. I haven't studied the formulae to understand fully all the options open to a county. But it stands to reason that counties containing less than the total number of a congressional district would still get to have one polling station and therefore fewer people going there than to the ones in a populated district - thus why the proposal in this case would only affect the largest counties - which are urban areas. The linked article describes the number of "lost" polling stations but doesn't show their math and so I can't walk through all the calculations without digging through the legislation itself.

Your own article states the provision was removed from the version that passed in the House.  I cant find any reference on what was actually adopted.

Yeah, I couldn't find out what passed in the final bill either, which I stipulated in the first place. This whole thing isn't whether "unfair thing got done" it was "can unfair thing happen". Whatever the old formula was still exists also.

If you'd like, you can plow through the list

You can even argue that they are all fantastic rules. It doesn't change the fact that the state statute prevents counties from doing certain things to relieve long lines.

powerpoint can help

[Lloyd Perna]

Now all we need to seal the deal is Democrats going along with some normal voting integrity procedures and I'd be willing to have a little more faith, but instead Pelosi insists that every attempt to make elections more secure actually does the opposite and undermines our entire democratic foundation. That's just suspect.

OK, cherry, which of these points do you consider "normal voting integrity procedures," and which "undermines our entire democratic foundation?"

(I)n case the bill actually becomes law, here's what's in it:

o A ban on partisan gerrymanders
o Limits on states' ability to remove voting officials
o Limits on what poll watchers can and cannot do
o Voting systems must leave a paper trail
o Mandatory online and same-day voter registration
o Automatic registration of people upon interactions with state governments (e.g., the DMV)
o Minimum of 15 days of early voting
o Universal absentee balloting
o Widely available drop boxes
o Ballots postmarked by Election Day, and received within 7 days, would be valid
o Debit cards, utility bills, bank statements, and sworn/witnessed statements would count as voter ID
o Felons regain voting rights upon release from prison
o No prohibitions on giving food/water to people waiting to vote
o Greater (though somewhat unspecific) rights to sue for voter discrimination
o Greater disclosure of "dark money" sources
o Special protections for Native American voters
o Election Day made into a federal holiday in presidential and midterm years
o Fixing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, per Chief Justice John Roberts' instructions, to once again require that states and localities with a history of discrimination get pre-clearance for changes to voting rules

https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1487926980636987397

But the Dems are against gerrymandering, right?

[Mynnion]

I am not a DEM but a DEM leaning Independent and I have an issue with ALL Gerrymandering.  I think that as long as we are stuck with a two party system that districts should be determined by a panel with equal representation from both sides.

[Lloyd Perna]

What if the panel can't agree?

[Mynnion]

Lock them in a room until they do.  It's not like redistricting is a frequent occurrence.  If not I'm sure a AI could be designed a map that takes into account only geography and population density and excludes voting patterns.

[Wayward Son]

But the Dems are against gerrymandering, right?

Many times, they are as bad as the Republicans, but for two facts.

1.  There are more Democratic-run states (e.g. California) that have tried to get the politics out of redistricting and end gerrymandering than Republican-run states.

2.  Democrats do advocate for the end of gerrymandering (e.g. ex-president Obama) and write bills (e.g. the aforementioned bill) to end gerrymandering.  Can you tell us what Republicans have done to end gerrymandering, other than whine about how Democrats are no better than they are?

It would be more principled if all Democrat-run states unilaterally ended gerrymandering.  But that would automatically give the Republicans an advantage.  Besides, Republicans can't complain about Democrats gerrymandering since they enthusiastically do so themselves.  They'd make themselves look like utter hypocrites, right?

[Lloyd Perna]

Yeah, California is a great example.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/golden-state-independent-gerrymander-california-redistricting-democrats-11640213983

California’s Citizen’s Redistricting Commission, established in 2008, says on its website that lines “shall not be drawn to favor” either party. Yet the map released this week miraculously locks in 44 safe Democratic seats compared to only five safe Republican seats, according to the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. Three competitive seats lean Republican.

Eight GOP-leaning seats out of 52, or 15.4%, is significantly less than the Republican vote share in state congressional elections (33.7% in 2020). The map’s partisan balance appears not too different from the most efficient partisan gerrymander possible.

No politics involved there.

[Wayward Son]

I would be interested to see how WSJ would suggest they create more Republican-leaning districts when only 24.1% of California voters are registered Republican.

Which means the 33.7% of Republican votes relied on 9.6% independent votes.  How do you divine which independent voters vote Republican?

Apparently WSJ knows, since they said it "appears not too different from the most efficient partisan gerrymander possible." 

It would be nice to have more Republican districts, but I suspect that would require far more competitive seats.  In fact, did the article mention how many competitive seats only lean Democrat? 

But compare that to states where over 50 percent of the voters voted Democrat in the state congressional elections, and yet have less that 33% of the seats.  Perhaps you should be more worried about that kind of blatant gerrymandering than in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by almost 2 to 1, instead of using it as an excuse to continue to try to silence the majority.

[Lloyd Perna]

I would be interested to see how WSJ would suggest they create more Republican-leaning districts when only 24.1% of California voters are registered Republican.

Which means the 33.7% of Republican votes relied on 9.6% independent votes.  How do you divine which independent voters vote Republican?

Apparently WSJ knows, since they said it "appears not too different from the most efficient partisan gerrymander possible." 

From the article:
"In 2018 the political data website FiveThirtyEight set up an automated redistricting tool. At the time California had 53 rather than 52 House seats, but under its model of a Democratic gerrymander, Republicans could be expected to win 7.8 of California’s House seats on average—comparable to the GOP’s likely representation under the new map. (If districts were drawn to be maximize competitiveness, the GOP would win 13.7 seats, according to the FiveThirtyEight model)."

It would be nice to have more Republican districts, but I suspect that would require far more competitive seats.  In fact, did the article mention how many competitive seats only lean Democrat? 

But compare that to states where over 50 percent of the voters voted Democrat in the state congressional elections, and yet have less that 33% of the seats.  Perhaps you should be more worried about that kind of blatant gerrymandering than in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by almost 2 to 1, instead of using it as an excuse to continue to try to silence the majority.

We aren't talking about what other states are doing.  Your claim is that California's re-districting is a shining example of Democratic run states trying to "get the politics out of redistricting and end gerrymandering" but unfortunately, just like in New York, having an 'Independent" commission does not guarantee a non partisan gerrymander.  In most cases it only provides a veil of political cover for those states trying to claim so.

[TheDrake]

I think you have to define "political". Is California doing what they are doing in order to just win more seats, or because the believe the people are better served if they stitch black neighborhoods together in order to have a representative for their needs? A "most competitive" model might deliberately break up such districts in the name of one kind of fairness. What are the guidelines that the commission uses?

The Voting Rights Act actually requires this.

Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act to ensure that minorities have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

Texas redistricting, on the other hand, is suspected of being in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

In announcing the suit, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said that the redistricting plan that the state’s Republican-led legislature approved in October violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which says that voters cannot be denied equal access to the political process based on their race or ethnicity.

See the difference? Now, I can't with any degree of certainty know how much of districting is to follow this guideline. But I expect it would "lock in" some number of Democratic party reps, since they tend to win over non-whites in greater numbers than Republicans.

[Wayward Son]

Your claim is that California's re-districting is a shining example of Democratic run states trying to "get the politics out of redistricting and end gerrymandering" but unfortunately, just like in New York, having an 'Independent" commission does not guarantee a non partisan gerrymander.  In most cases it only provides a veil of political cover for those states trying to claim so.

I'm not going to argue over whether California is a "shining example" of ending gerrymandering, but it is still heads-and-shoulders over many of the Republican states that are using it to suppress the will of their own people.  Why don't you instead show examples of how Red states are trying to take the politics out of redistricting instead of criticizing the Democrat's attempts to do so?

As I said, you're just using it as a lame excuse to justify the blatant and undefendable gerrymandering of Republican states.  You think you can do better to get rid of gerrymandering?  Well, then do it.  Don't sit there saying, "Oh, Democrats can't do it, so we can gerrymander the **** out of any state we want." Take a stand, for or against democracy. 

[yossarian22c]

I would be interested to see how WSJ would suggest they create more Republican-leaning districts when only 24.1% of California voters are registered Republican.

Which means the 33.7% of Republican votes relied on 9.6% independent votes.  How do you divine which independent voters vote Republican?

Apparently WSJ knows, since they said it "appears not too different from the most efficient partisan gerrymander possible." 

...

So with 33% of the popular vote Republican's are getting 8 out of 52 seats, or about 15% of the seats. Compare that to North Carolina where Democrats and Republicans get roughly equal votes, under the maps drawn there are 10 safe Republican seats, 3 safe Democratic seats and 1 toss up. So with 50% of the vote Democrats are getting on average 3.5/14 are only getting 25% of the representation. I imagine that a truly partisan gerrymander in California could end up with far fewer Republican seats if you wanted to get crazy with the districts. In California if Democratic and Republican voters were split as a representative portion of the voters in the state, then Democrats would win all 52 seats. The boundaries to make that happen may be insane and barely contiguous but it there exists maps that would do it. The opposite is true in NC with the 50/50 voting split. The 10/11-3/4 split is the optimum set up for Republicans. There are plenty of other states with similar state wide voting patterns that are heavily represented by Republicans in congress. Since 2010 Republicans have been the champions of gerrymandering and the Republican appointed judges on the supreme court are the ones upholding those crazy districts.

[msquared]

Pence says Trump is wrong in thinking Pence could have over turned the election.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pence-says-trump-wrong-saying-204453145.html

So how long before Trump calls Pence weak, stupid and a RINO?

[Wayward Son]

Just to hammer down my point, I can easily make a more partisan California map all by my lonesome.

Look at Five-Thirty-Eight's Congressional Map, down at the bottom around San Diego way.

District 51 (in San Diego proper) is D+22. District 52 (south of the city) is D+36.  But District 48, just next to those two districts (Darrell Issa's new district), is R+19.  Shave 10 percent of Democrats off of District 51 and another 15 percent from District 52, you're left with three districts of D+12, D+21 and D+6.  Unless it's a Republican wave year (and continues to be for the next decade), I just got rid of Issa! 

That's after 5 minutes of "work."  So tell me again how it "appears not too different from the most efficient partisan gerrymander possible?" 

[TheDrake]

“Just saw Mike Pence’s statement on the fact that he had no right to do anything with respect to the Electoral Vote Count, other than being an automatic conveyor belt for the Old Crow Mitch McConnell to get Biden elected President as quickly as possible.”

So a pretty subdued response by Trump standards. Is he worried that Mike Pence might write a book?

[msquared]

How does Mark Meadows know that there was voter fraud? Well, sir, he knows because he and his wife committed it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-meadows-wife-appears-invalid-010500433.html

And if such upright, law abiding citizens like them can commit voter fraud, any one can. And probably does. So proof.

[wmLambert]

Remember Trump even said that if everyone could vote, then the Republicans would never win again. I think Rand Paul said the same thing.  It is not about winning the war of ideas, it is about only letting your people vote.

Remember when LBJ said that because of his Nanny-state agenda, the Democrats will have the N***** vote for the next 100 years? Of course, that was revealed by a Black airlines employee, so the Left said it cannot be assumed to be accurate.

What Trump and Paul were referring to was how allowing the Democrat vote-scamming, it would only mean the scammers could win. Antone argue that?

https://townhall.com/columnists/larryoconnor/2022/03/25/media-collusion-to-ignore-hunters-laptop-was-epitome-of-election-tampering-n2605050

This argues how the 51 intelligence officials knew they were lying and affected the 2020 election. Once again, the courts did not clear any vote-scamming. They, in large, declined to look at it. After all, how can voters have any standing in an election? And how can the hundreds of election officials who brought eyewitness documentation of illegal vote-scamming be allowed standing?

One thing we do know for sure now. The Hunter laptop was proved to be real - and the contents verified. (It was known to be so at the time.) Hunter's child pornography is all there. His eMails were verified - y'know, the ones that named Joe Biden as being in on the graft and corruption from Russia, China, and other foreign sources. The eyewitness testimony of associates at the meetings with Hunter, Joe, and Biden family members, were in evidence and not disputed. We know the Biden Crime Family would not have gotten off free and clear before the election, had the MSM followed their responsibility and reported what was real and known to be true. Had the laptop info been publicized, then Many people would have had their time at court to argue their innocence - however all that has been verified and admitted to, but they would have had a chance to argue it. More importantly, these criminals would be behind bars now, and the atrocities in Afghanistan and the Ukraine would not have happened. Even more importantly, current polls say Biden voters would not have voted for him, and Trump would have won by a landslide. There would be no inflation - and The Trump successes would not have been erased by those running Joe Biden's Oval Office.

[msquared]

Can we now lay to rest the idea that AZ had large voter fraud?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-ag-report-finds-no-025630020.html

The Republican AG says it did not happen.

[msquared]

Well Mark Meadows has been removed from NC voter rolls.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nc-investigates-election-fraud-allegation-130844933.html

[wmLambert]

...There is evidence of at least 242 people who acted illegally and made over 5,000 ballot drop-offs during the Georgia Senate runoff elections alone, which happened after the curious 2020 Presidential election.

“Credible evidence was given to us that people were harvesting ballots,” said Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to The National Desk’s Jan Jeffcoat. “This information was provided to us and they said there’s a witness, a ‘John Doe.’ And so we’re looking at subpoenaing that person to get the information.”

The first subpoenas into a Georgia ballot harvesting probe prove a roadmap to an investigation, with a heavy focus on an anonymous witness, who is considered a Whistleblower.

Focus will also be on the funding of the nonprofits that may have helped fund the massive scheme to defraud the American people of their solemn honor of voting for their own government.

“Georgia investigators have signaled their focus in a wide-ranging investigation into alleged illegal ballot trafficking during the 2020 election with subpoenas that target the possible source of funding for such an operation and any eyewitness participants,”

Will this scandal be swept under the rug like many others? It is illegal in Georgia for anyone to drop off someone else's ballots. It appears to be s standard operation in important swing states in 2020.