Because individual rights do not survive a political climate where 2 collectives dominate every vote. It's just an eternal battle who can fuck over the other using any method possible.

problem?
it's working as intended.

>>17985992
The last 6 House elections have been won by the winner of the popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections
Just one click to see the next one back, go check yourself.

>Muh Senate
>Muh POTUS elections
Not affected by gerrymandering. Gerrymandering does not change state borders, or how many electoral college votes a state gets

At the end of the day, when Party A has control, they gerrymander to help themselves. But sooner or later they'll be out. And guess what Party B does once they're in? And yet, the system works.

Some states have bipartisan redistricting commissions that curb gerrymandering.

The main problem is that the Democrat party abandoned everyone that doesn't live outside of a major city in 1968. So it's not even a factor of bipartisanship, it's a factor of survival for their ridiculous party. Notice they only start crying about it when the reptubs, the most ineffectual milquetoast civnat doofuses start doing it

>>17987213
That does live*

>>17985992
Easiest way to reduce the effects of Gerrymandering would be to increase the number of representatives.

1000 people, with only 4 districts means you can build 4 districts of 250 people each. You can run up the margins in 3 out of 4 Districts while sacrificing 1 District to quarantine the opposition party.

Try gerrymandering the same 1000 people with 10 districts and you get 100 people each. Margins are thinner, people's vote matters way more, and strategies can be implemented to net gain 10-20 votes instead of trying to win by 50-100.

But this hurts the party in power, so it won't happened. And the American public hates their government, want change, but also hates actually participating in it.

>>17988187
Yes, what the US Federal Government needs more than anything is more politicians

>>17987213
pretty sure it's been a problem since before 1968

>>17988191
if there were more members of congress you could have more specialization and have actual select committees to do state research instead of needing executive agencies to do everything

Just get rid of first past the post and gerrymandering will cease to be an issue.

>>17985992
The system is working exactly as intended for the political elite. You really think the Dems and GOP are going to pass a law that kills their own power to hand-pick voters? Cope.

>>17988191
Doesn't the typical US congressperson represent like 500-700k people? Meanwhile when the Founding Fathers first started the American Experiment each congressman represented like 30k people. In this case, where the question of "how do we solve gerrymandering?" then increasing size of the representative house is valid to dilute the power of individual politicians and thus the party's ability to dominant local elections.

And honestly, 435 reps is fucking miniscule compared to the 330+ million they're supposed to represent.

>>17988228
Nah. Before 1968 the Democrat party represented people outside of major cities. It was the main party of rural white people. Since then agriculture has essentially been killed in the US and the cities turned away from white men in order to appeal to low class illegal immigrants and blacks. The Democrat party needs gerrymandering because 99% of their voters, the ones that aren't dead, are located in ghettos in the major cities. This means if they ever hope to stay relevant and not disappear as a party they need to use gerrymandering to mix outside city limits white people with useless ghetto trash

This in of itself is highly illegal because a large proportion of Democrat demographics wouldn't have even been considered citizens or have the right to vote by the founders

File: 90.jpg (218 KB, 1461x834)

218 KB JPG

>>17985992
a. it isn't as big of an issue as people pretend it is
b. the 2 biggest factors causing gerrymandering are reconstruction era federal laws that neither party wants to get rid of.
Prior to reconstruction, there wasn't really that much in terms of instruction for how you had to make your districts, but after reconstruction northern republicans were afraid like alabama would make the state 1 single district with multiple congressmen so they made it so you had to do 1 congress man per district and then either the reconstruction era law or a civil rights era law made it so states had to have majority minority districts so most of the really fucked up shapes, like pic related, exist so the district will be majority mexican or black

>>17987165
that doesn't even work. NJ has a bipartian district and it's one of the most gerrymandered states and when they were sued over it the dem judge just said the previous map favored republicans so it was fine that this one was gerrymandered for dems
>>17988827
>>17988339
>>17988187
adding more congressmen would be terrible because it would give california more control over the federal government

>>17988342
first past the post is based. some study said if you get rid of it you get "more moderate candidates" which means open borders, anti gun, pro tranny, pro tax and spend scumbags who hate the US

>>17988863
Yup. The US is essentially still under martial law from the civil war

>>17988851
>The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander; a portmanteau of the name Gerry and the animal salamander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette[b] on 26 March 1812 in Boston, Massachusetts, United States. This word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts Senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry, later Vice President of the United States.
It's been a problem since before 1968, retard. The scale of the problem is a different discussion.

>>17988878
Any why is Massachusetts relevant? It's the seat of early US corruption

>>17988863
>>17988876
wait, I was wrong, it's from 1967, but still the same fucking thing. civil rights era based on the same issues from reconstruction

>>17988899
Yup. Civil rights is illegal

>>17988905
>Gerrymandering disenfranchises voters by manipulating electoral district boundaries to diminish the voting power of specific racial or ethnic groups, violating core civil rights principles
Not only is civil rights illegal, gerrymandering, which disproportionately keeps minorities in the US relevant, is in violation of civil rights

>>17987213
The Democrat Party was essentially always an urban-based party outside the South since the Civil War.

>>17988934
There were two democrat parties, there was the southern democrat party and then there were the major city democrats in the north which were far more corrupt and eventually entirely composed of illegals and foreigners culminating in the part's takeover by irish political bosses which used unions and political appointments to embezzle money from the public.

>>17988942
for reference, Abraham Lincoln was an illiterate democrat turned inner city champion using hired goons to beat up hecklers and generally give people fake legal counsel for money. Just to give you an idea of how wild west american politics were back then

>>17988863
>>17988899
the voting rights act era districts (which I think SCOTUS is getting rid of) aren't the only weird ones in the US, there's also a disturbing trend of political parties drawing maps to lock in their own power.
multi-member districts might solve it though, so I'm in favor of legalizing them. Given the sheer disaster drawing maps has been, maybe getting rid of the maps entirely is the answer

>>17988979
There's no solution, the democrat party has allowed itself to be sieged