Democrats walk out of redistricting commission to deny a quorum.

VA Mercury Redistricting collapse

GOP members refused to use a Democrat Senate map alone as a starting point. The Dem map combined the districts of multiple serving GOP Senators to virtually guarantee a 22-18 Senate. Rather than continue using two maps, the Democrat citizen members walked out to deny a quorum so the commission could not continue to seek a compromise.

So, all that Democrat crying about Gerrymandering was just hypocrisy, they like Gerrymandering just fine if they can do it.

36 thoughts on “Democrats walk out of redistricting commission to deny a quorum.

  1. Not sure how this will end. But since no Republican states are even trying for less partisan redistricting, in fact bumping up Gerrymandering to a new level, I guess we will stay the course.

    Kind of a shame.

    The article says that the Republicans refused to compromise and the Democrats saw little point in proceeding.

    What else is new.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. We all knew that Democrats gerrymander, so what else is new? At least all non-Democrats knew while the D-rats claimed otherwise…er, still do.


    1. Your complete denial of facts that BOTH parties are guilty is quite telling.

      As an example, the GOP got 53% of the vote in Wisconsin yet they hold 64% of the legislature. Maryland Dems got called out for their gerrymandering as well.

      But to hypocritical people such as yourself and the ENTIRE GOP, it is only bad when the other side does it. When Republicans do it, it is in the name of MINORITY power grabs.


      1. Wow, you certainly are very good at reading or hearing things that nobody wrote or said. WTF are you talking about? I was just pointing out Dems gerrymandering that you guys claim doesn’t exist.


          1. Get off of the crack. You are hearing and seeing things that don’t exist. I said nothing of the sort that you claim I did. Get off of the crack dude!!


          2. Kiss my crack. You are pointing your crap-covered finger at Democrats ONLY when it comes to gerrymandering. You need to look at exactly what you said. I read and comprehend quite well. You write like a coked out teenager.


  3. The GOP idea of compromise is to do what they say. It isn’t compromise; it is the entrenched thinking of a dying party doing everything in can do attempt to maintain power. The CITIZEN who walked out saw it for what it was and called them out for it.

    Liked by 1 person

          1. From the cited article “Republicans voted against that offer and suggested keeping both a GOP and Democratic Senate map alive — a proposal all eight Democrats voted down.”


  4. The thing is, gerrymandering is a minor, trivial issue in the larger scheme of things. There are two reasons why:

    Technically, it is impossible to design district representation that is equally “fair” to every party seeking election.
    In practice, it is generally OK for one political party to have a gerrymandered advantage over another. The condition is only temporary.

    The Declaration of Independence refers to these realities where it states: “Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.”

    In other words, Don’t get your panties in a wad over things that don’t matter. But that is what the Democrats did by walking out on the negotiation over districting maps as the story describes.


      1. You do realize that “an amazingly fair map” will piss you off, as well as many, many other Democrats and Republicans, right?

        The “big lie” when they sold this to the voters was the lie of omission that the “citizen members” wouldn’t be political hacks, which every last one was.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I guess it depends on how you define fair.

          To me, “fair” districts would be geographically contiguous and contain people of similar circumstance.

          Consider my former neighbors from before we moved to the compound. They were married, mid 30s, two beautiful, well behaved and respectful children. Both were teachers, and devoted to their families. The husband coached athletics for children older than his as a volunteer. And, they were Black.

          A district(like the 4th Congressional) drawn on the presumption that their interests align more closely with single mothers and absentee, unemployed fathers in public housing in Petersburg than with mine because of race is irrational, and fairness cannot be insane.


          1. Hey, you can offer a reason. Asymptomatic cases. I have a problem with how they define them.
            1st, can’t really declare an asymptomatic case in a vaccinated person because the antibodies will be there, so you need an unvaccinated person, who
            1) has never been symptomatic and tests positive for antibodies, or
            2) tests positive for the virus, shows no symptoms, and then tests positive for antibodies.

            The problem with a vaccinated person is that last step. He always has antibodies. Testing positive for the virus then has at least two problems; 1) false positives, or 2) these tests are really really sensitive and they test snot, which is a first level body defense, which may have done its job.


          2. Whatever. It was more a question to you about snot. Mucus is a biological defense against infection. How good is it?


          3. Finding virus in a nasal swab is a valid test for exposure, but is it really a test for infection?
            Thus, unless a serum test for virus or antibodies is conducted after a symptomless exposure, is it really an “asymptomatic” infection? Or, did the virus harmlessly bind to mucus?


          4. The PCR test is run on repeated dilutions, so they can tell how high the viral load in the snot is. Simple exposure yields a low viral load, a high viral load means the virus is replicating in the nasal epithelium.


  5. I have brought this up before, but no takers.

    Let’s try again.

    In a free market capitalist society, the measures of success, status and economic interests lie in wealth accumulation. In a pure form, race, religion, ethnicity and culture are window dressing to the concept of a financial engine that truly determines our actions here and abroad.

    We already have the cultural dividing lines. Success is measured in dollars. Entrepreneurs are heroes, others are aspirants. Virtually every societal norm is based on economic value of some kind. Religion is marketed, ethics are mostly discussed in terms of business practices Music, art, even raising children are all market based or market influenced.

    I suggest that each income quintile gets to vote on a slate of representatives. Or it could be even each decile to allow representation to be spread among more legislators to keep with the Constitutionally original of 30,000 per representative.

    So the top earners have their reps and the poorest have theirs.

    A side effect is that the wealthiest would have great incentive to raise the incomes and subsequent wealth of the underlings so has to have more voters in their quintile. But power would still have to defer to the needs of the poorest rather than ignore them.

    Common issues within the quintile are probably more closely aligned based in income. A banker in Arkansas has more in common with a banker in Massachusetts. Whereas a meat packer in either place have similar interests with regards to making a living, raising a family, medical care, education, etc.

    No Gerrymandering necessary.

    Furthermore is there any reason that an illegal worker should be denied representation if he is doing necessary work that American citizens won’t touch? After all, they are critical to our economy.

    Plus, we are so mobile that a street address is meaningless as a political indicator. Which is why districts are so carefully cut to carve out similar interest in a contiguous district. Essentially, the borders align with income to a greater degree than we know.

    It might be time to think outside the egg crate of ideologically siloed voters and apply market economics to political representation.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think there is a simpler way to accomplish that.

      Leave the House of Representatives as it is, but for the Senate, only allow those who are net taxpayers vote. That is income tax paid minus Federal assistance received.

      The House could pass whatever it wanted but those who are expected to pay for it would be able to say ‘no.’

      That way, those supporting generous benefits would have to persuade the taxpayers the benefits were justified rather than simply plunder them.


      1. “ That is income tax paid minus Federal assistance received.”

        You might no like that principle. If we applied that to the states, few red ones would have any representation.

        Besides, are there any major businesses that don’t benefit from some tax break, subsidy or outright funding from the government. We have loads of wealth that pay little in taxes.

        Better to just use tax returns or annual reports to set voting brackets. Simple and already in place. The dodge could be that some of the ultra wealthy avoid taxes totally, so they have to vote with the poor. Or declare their wealth legally to get the right votes in.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Simple. Since the median household income is around $65k, more or less, and that is from all sources which could be 4 or 5 jobs, but mostly 2 disenfranchised would create a middle class problem. And if you think denying the vote to the bulk of Americans in favor of the top 30 or 40% will fly, have I got a deal for you.

            Also, you are dismissing retirees en masse. An average couple would have more SS income from their two sources plus Medicare than they ever pay in taxes.

            All Americans deserve a voice. If poverty is not worthy, then we might learn to mitigate that.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The point is that the taxpayers must have some defense against the tax consumers, otherwise there is support for government spending without limit and we collapse like the Weimar Republic.

            “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” – Tocqueville Alexis de Tocqueville

            Democrats have discovered that and absent some way to restrain them, they will destroy the country, leading to the violence you always try to hang on conservatives.


          3. “Also, you are dismissing retirees en masse.”

            SS and Medicare payments are not government benefits, they are partial repayment of the principle and interest taken from workers over their productive years.

            That’s why I specified income tax, to limit the discussion to benefits voted by Congress not paid for in advance by the recipients.


  6. You said that the only eligible voters for senator should have net positive tax payments. Retirees mostly don’t. They get benefits, deserved since they were “paid for”. But the fact is they get more money from the feds than they pay in.

    But you don’t want old folks to vote anyway if I recall. Your contempt for those in assisted living voting was quite vociferous.

    Which highlights your stance that voting should be outlawed and selection of “approved” representation is the only true route.

    Which is exactly what the Republican Party is striving towards to appease their de facto leader. Taking authority from election officials, packing states with laws allowing override of the people’s votes.

    Simply put, you want to destroy what we have nurtured for 240 years. In my opinion, of course.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s