Don’t ever listen to a person bitch about gerrymandered districts. You see, they are regurgitating arguments they don’t understand. They think that competitive elections are good for democracy. They won’t say why though.
Thing is, when a House seat is gerrymandered so it is a solid +10 or so Dem or GOP, it takes a wave election to displace the otherwise safe incumbent. A “competitive” House seat, where the voting is about 50/50 between the two major parties, means that it just gives one side a bigger incentive to cheat. All it takes in a swing district is a 1% advantage in (phony) or harvested mail-in ballots to give victory to the cheater. One side tends to cheat more than the other, and we all know which party that is.
The only truly competitive elections are in suburban areas where the County Clerks are Republican. There are only about 30 of these in the whole country. If any portion of the district is in an inner city Democrat controlled area, well, then it's not a competitive district as the inner city precincts make it non-competitive.
Lastly, the Senate, which is not gerrymandered, is just as partisan and divided as the House. Entire states cannot be gerrymandered! So if somebody is complaining that gerrymandered House seats contribute to partisan rancor because "moderates" don't get elected due there being so few competitive House seats, point him to that institution called the Senate, and tell him to fuck off.
There are only about 30 suburban districts that are split between Dem and GOP in terms of voter make-up.
If a suburban district is, via voter inclination 70% GOP, it isn't a swing district. A "swing district" is by definition one that is "purple" or about half GOP or Dem. I shouldn't have to spell this about for you.
This is what happens when you don't define your terms with people who think they are smart.
[edit, I did spell it out btw, which makes it more stupid on your part. Just delete your comment as the best approach]
Wrong on what?
Gerrymandered seats do indeed create House districts that are noncompetitive. That's the point. Both parties like it. But after a Census redistricting, they try to screw the other party to make them lose their safe seats but keep their own. This happens due to population increases or decreases leading to new lines being drawn.
Gerrymandering is not the problem people like you think it is, and mostly because competitive seats incentivize election fraud. But it's also not much of a problem in that the Senate is just as hyper-partisan with "safe" seats (except for wave elections).
In short, as the Senate shows us, people moving to geographical areas to be with like minded people is doing more gerrymandering than any lines drawn via redistricting. If you keep redrawing the lines, you're screwing those people over.
Touchy, touchy.
So step up then. Since you think gerrymandering is a problem, and by "people like you" I meant people who think that gerrymandering is a problem, say why it's a problem. Sheesh, you flew off the handle reading to much into what I wrote. Kinda funny really.
I have said gerrymandering isn't a problem to many people, to their face. Fact is whole books have been written about it by noted political scientists and I've debated it with some of them. Strangely, violence wasn't a problem before.
(p.s. I've sent men to the hospital for trying to lay a hand on me, I doubt you got the skills necessary bub).
"The ethics of this are debatable. You're claiming it's a non-issue because everyone knows only demonrats cheat."
Wild assumption of out left field, eh? You say the ethics of this are debatable and then go into attack mode? Don't be silly.
Learn something? Oh ho! There is an old saying that would apply here. Something about glass houses and stones. Maybe you've heard of it.