Prickly City by Scott Stantis for September 23, 2017

So strange to see Scott complaining about this. But I’m glad he did. (Even if his party has been the greater beneficiary of gerrymandering)

Maybe he realizes the process is bad for the country as a whole, no matter who does it.

This makes total sense and it’s coming from Carmen? Gawd, my world is trembling.

After the 2000 census, Republicans gerrymandered not only to create safe seats, but to create more Republican majority districts.

Which is part of the reason that the GOP won’t consider removing Trump until 2019. When gerrymandered districts do flip, well… think avalanche or tsunami.

I am so grateful that I live in a state with a bipartisan redistricting commission, instead of just letting the majority party in the legislature do whatever they want.

even more reasons for the US to break up, with both the entire west coast and the new england states leaving to make their own countries, both coasts being a large part of the countries economy. Because most red states, to continue, must get far more federal $$ than they send in. Without the east and west coasts(and Illinois because Chicago) the red states would quickly become 3rd world countries with debt slaves aka idiots who fall into massive debt providing their labor

Dems contribute their share to gerrymandering. They’ve felt that if birds of a feather minorities are not flocked together, their votes will be too diluted to receive fair representation.

I’m sorry, Winslow, but if you’re liberal and she’s conservative, someday you might be in different districts if you’re on the same street.

It takes a 54% majority to take away a gerrymandered candidate’s job.