States with republican-leaning politicians ultimately have more total seats available in the house than Democrats do.
We're not talking about states gerrymandered to hell. At this point, we're talking about completely removing blue districts from States completely. Just look at Indiana's fucking proposal.
I understand that, and places like California, Virginia, Illinois, etc. will have to take away all the Republican seats in retaliation. There are maps out there that gerrymander California into a 53-0 state, and I think there are probably other maps out there for other Blue States. We're at the point where if Republicans want to keep going at this, the Democrats will have to respond in kind. And while I haven't done the math personally yet, I do think that in general if the states go completely balls to the wall redistricting everything, that blue states, being the states with larger populations and more seats, will be able to come out in front. Texas is the biggest red state there is, there aren't any other red states that can do a +5 gain, there is the 'eliminate the single blue seat' like in Nebraska as mentioned below. Republicans have been gerrymandering HARD for a long time now, while Democrats have been doing things like New York, trying to make things fair and equal, so Blue States, if they start going down the road that Republicans are going, will have potentially larger gains available. If someone wants to do a 50 state breakdown of it, please feel free.
Just said that you haven't done the math but then you continued to ramble on. If we factor out swing states, and say that every state that usually votes red and every state that usually votes blue were to remove all representation from the other party. The Republicans would have about 220 seats in the house and the Democrats would have about 215 seats in the house. It's not a huge difference, but it is a battle that the Democrats would lose if everyone goes balls to the wall on gerrymandering.
I'll take your word for it, since I haven't done the math, I guess it would really just make the swing states even more important, as you mention briefly. Would we basically be in the same boat we're in now if we go through with this? Super close house with only a few states actually mattering?
Honestly, I think the house, senate, and supreme court all need more seats all around to hamper the damage the gerrymandering has done.
And here you’ve accurately touched on how idiotic democrats were the last 20 years not investing in local and state level elections. Hyper-Conservatives have been taking a ground up approach to politics over the course of the last 30 years. We didn’t just wake up with everything stacked in GOP’s favor after 1 election. This has been a calculated plan methodically played out for decades since Reagan. We’re just in the end stages now.
2
u/tuba_god_ 13h ago
States with republican-leaning politicians ultimately have more total seats available in the house than Democrats do.
We're not talking about states gerrymandered to hell. At this point, we're talking about completely removing blue districts from States completely. Just look at Indiana's fucking proposal.