Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

The Dakota territory literally was split in two because Republicans at the time wanted more Senators. Really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory

---

And this is why fools who use wikipedia for research are as stupid as the ones who use AI to do their thinking for them.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dakota-split-states-senators/

Quote:

---

Amid discussions of statehood for Washington, D.C., in late April 2021, a meme spread on social media positing that the Dakota territory was split into the states now known as North and South Dakota in the late 1800s for the purpose of giving the Republican Party more political power, namely more senators and electors.

One example is a meme from U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.:

---

Quote:

---

Another important point of context the population counts in North and South Dakota justified statehood and that Democrats, who were at that time were in control of national government and aware of the territory's Republican leanings, had slowed the statehood process, in hopes of gaining a political toehold in the region.

But they couldn't stall forever. According to historian Elwyn B. Robinson in the book "History of North Dakota," there were 190,983 inhabitants in North Dakota in 1890, while there were 348,600 in South Dakota.

And in the end, it was Democrats in Congress and Democratic U.S. President Grover Cleveland who relented, signing legislation granting statehood to North and South Dakota, along with Montana and Washington.

---

---

I notice you left this part of the article out:

Quote:

---

Business interests, local efforts, and national political wrangling all played a role, but without a doubt, adding North and South Dakota to the growing union of states had the effect of benefiting the national Republican party politically, and they didn't hide that motivation.

---

But sure, as with most things there is more than one reason it happened.

I should also be clear that I'm not trying to claim that the Republican Party of the 19th century is the same as the one that operates now. But historically, yes, when new states are admitted there is usually partisan wrangling around who would benefit most in Congress.

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

As usual, I haven't thought this through, but I think part of the problem is that it's easier to gerrymander today because the ratio of people to representatives has increased so much since the number was set at 435 in 1913. In 1913 it 223,000 per rep and now it's 781,000. And I bet the increase is even larger than those numbers, which are based on the total population. Women didn't vote until 1920. If you compare today to 1920 and only count those over voting age, the numbers are 139,000 in 1920 and 610,000 today. Not to mention the existence of computerized registration information.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see some sort of objective limit on how convex a district can be. I bet there's some way to establish a limit mathematically,

---

There should either be smaller districts or multiple members per district, allocated based on percentage of vote. Then we'd have a more representative Congress.

---

You want 1500 congressmen?

---

I don't know if we need that many but we could have more than we have now, yes. The country is simply much more populous than it was the last time the count was expanded, and the idea was for representatives in the House to be more in touch with their local constituencies. The larger the districts get, the harder it is.

concordtom said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

As usual, I haven't thought this through, but I think part of the problem is that it's easier to gerrymander today because the ratio of people to representatives has increased so much since the number was set at 435 in 1913. In 1913 it 223,000 per rep and now it's 781,000. And I bet the increase is even larger than those numbers, which are based on the total population. Women didn't vote until 1920. If you compare today to 1920 and only count those over voting age, the numbers are 139,000 in 1920 and 610,000 today. Not to mention the existence of computerized registration information.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see some sort of objective limit on how convex a district can be. I bet there's some way to establish a limit mathematically,

---

Make districts be round or squares. That's it. Divide lines by mountains or valleys or some such.

---

Probably wouldn't work, because you need roughly equal population and there are too many squares with hardly any people living in them.

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

California, this November 4th, the whole country is counting on you.

Prop 50 puts our elections back on a level playing field, preserves independent redistricting over the long term, and lets the people decide.

So return your ballot today. Vote yes on 50. pic.twitter.com/qZJwMHKbDO

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 14, 2025

Do the opposite.

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

---

So do we also consolidate or remove senators from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii? They all have populations less than Alameda County

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

---

So do we also consolidate or remove senators from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii? They all have populations less than Alameda County

---

I say the Senate remains a smaller body, but we have representation in some way proportional to population, as happens in the upper chamber of pretty much every other legislative body (including state governments). There is way too much imbalance in the populations of states now, and it results in the voice of the people being distorted.

Yes, I realize this would require a constitutional amendment that would be impossible to pass. Just dreaming about a more perfected system here.

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

As usual, I haven't thought this through, but I think part of the problem is that it's easier to gerrymander today because the ratio of people to representatives has increased so much since the number was set at 435 in 1913. In 1913 it 223,000 per rep and now it's 781,000. And I bet the increase is even larger than those numbers, which are based on the total population. Women didn't vote until 1920. If you compare today to 1920 and only count those over voting age, the numbers are 139,000 in 1920 and 610,000 today. Not to mention the existence of computerized registration information.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see some sort of objective limit on how convex a district can be. I bet there's some way to establish a limit mathematically,

---

Make districts be round or squares. That's it. Divide lines by mountains or valleys or some such.

---

Probably wouldn't work, because you need roughly equal population and there are too many squares with hardly any people living in them.

---

I was being simplistic. I did not mean each block would be same size. I meant quit with the exotic gerrymandered shapes.

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

---

So do we also consolidate or remove senators from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii? They all have populations less than Alameda County

---

I say the Senate remains a smaller body, but we have representation in some way proportional to population, as happens in the upper chamber of pretty much every other legislative body (including state governments). There is way too much imbalance in the populations of states now, and it results in the voice of the people being distorted.

Yes, I realize this would require a constitutional amendment that would be impossible to pass. Just dreaming about a more perfected system here.

---

That's why we have the House.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

---

So do we also consolidate or remove senators from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii? They all have populations less than Alameda County

---

I say the Senate remains a smaller body, but we have representation in some way proportional to population, as happens in the upper chamber of pretty much every other legislative body (including state governments). There is way too much imbalance in the populations of states now, and it results in the voice of the people being distorted.

Yes, I realize this would require a constitutional amendment that would be impossible to pass. Just dreaming about a more perfected system here.

---

That's why we have the House.

---

Both bodies should be in some way proportional. State borders are arbitrary lines. A lot more people live in some states.

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

---

So do we also consolidate or remove senators from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii? They all have populations less than Alameda County

---

No, just the Dakotas. If they really wanted to be separate states, they shouldn't both be "Dakota". If there were a North Vermont and South Vermont, each with two Senators, I might go for consolidating them, too.

Pure coincidence that consolidating the effing Dakotas would take two Senate seats from the GOP!

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

---

So do we also consolidate or remove senators from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii? They all have populations less than Alameda County

---

Don't forget Wyoming, Mississippi, and New Mexico.

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

There's no such thing as a temporary suspension of what's right. Once they get their partisan gerrymandering power back, they'll never relinquish unless forced.

This is what happens when you chuck democracy out the window.

---

And yet you think that somehow the red state governments will give that power back on their own.

Or is it only bad when Democrats do it?

---

No, I don't think red state governments will give that power back. The citizens will have to have a state referendum, as I posted earlier in the discussion if you weren't hard of reading.

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

There's no such thing as a temporary suspension of what's right. Once they get their partisan gerrymandering power back, they'll never relinquish unless forced.

This is what happens when you chuck democracy out the window.

---

And yet you think that somehow the red state governments will give that power back on their own.

Or is it only bad when Democrats do it?

---

No, I don't think red state governments will give that power back. The citizens will have to have a state referendum, as I posted earlier in the discussion if you weren't hard of reading.

---

In some states this is not possible, or the legislature can simply override the referendum. What then?

movielover said:

---

Already rigged; Pelosi / Newsom placed a hole in the envelop for mail-in Ballots revealing a "No" vote, removing privacy.

Officials are now describing how to hide your vote submission.

---

Thanks for once again proving that you don't live in CALIFORNIA and have no clue what you're talking about.

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

As usual, I haven't thought this through, but I think part of the problem is that it's easier to gerrymander today because the ratio of people to representatives has increased so much since the number was set at 435 in 1913. In 1913 it 223,000 per rep and now it's 781,000. And I bet the increase is even larger than those numbers, which are based on the total population. Women didn't vote until 1920. If you compare today to 1920 and only count those over voting age, the numbers are 139,000 in 1920 and 610,000 today. Not to mention the existence of computerized registration information.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see some sort of objective limit on how convex a district can be. I bet there's some way to establish a limit mathematically,

---

There should either be smaller districts or multiple members per district, allocated based on percentage of vote. Then we'd have a more representative Congress.

---

You want 1500 congressmen?

---

Yes

juarezbear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

---

So do we also consolidate or remove senators from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii? They all have populations less than Alameda County

---

Don't forget Wyoming, Mississippi, and New Mexico.

---

To be a stickler, Mississippi and New Mexico have populations greater than Alameda County which is why I left them off. Wyoming tho, yes.

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

---

So do we also consolidate or remove senators from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii? They all have populations less than Alameda County

---

No, just the Dakotas. If they really wanted to be separate states, they shouldn't both be "Dakota". If there were a North Vermont and South Vermont, each with two Senators, I might go for consolidating them, too.

Pure coincidence that consolidating the effing Dakotas would take two Senate seats from the GOP!

---

Forget the dakotas jokes - never gonna happen.
Let's talk about the unrepresented citizens!!!!!
DC
PR
and elsewhere.

juarezbear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

What do you have against the Dakotas?

---

I have nothing against the Dakotas, per se, except for the fact that the population of BOTH the Dakotas combined is approximately the same as that of Alameda COUNTY, so it pisses me off that they get four Senators and the entire state of California only gets two.

Consolidate the Dakotas!

---

So do we also consolidate or remove senators from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Hawaii? They all have populations less than Alameda County

---

Don't forget Wyoming, Mississippi, and New Mexico.

---

Yo.
I'm good with canceling Texas!

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

Big C said:

---

I am voting a reluctant "yes", only as a temporary response to what Texas is doing.

Longer-term, I'd love to see the campaign and election bs cleaned up. We could start by consolidating the Dakotas. Next time I fly over that state, I want to see there's only ONE Dakota!

---

There's no such thing as a temporary suspension of what's right. Once they get their partisan gerrymandering power back, they'll never relinquish unless forced.

This is what happens when you chuck democracy out the window.

---

And yet you think that somehow the red state governments will give that power back on their own.

Or is it only bad when Democrats do it?

---

No, I don't think red state governments will give that power back. The citizens will have to have a state referendum, as I posted earlier in the discussion if you weren't hard of reading.

---

No.
When we get control of the WH and 50+1 of both chambers we will add a bunch of Dem justices and/or reassign your crappy ones.

Then we will grab whatever we want - they let you do it when you're a star.

DiabloWags said:

---

movielover said:

---

Already rigged; Pelosi / Newsom placed a hole in the envelop for mail-in Ballots revealing a "No" vote, removing privacy.

Officials are now describing how to hide your vote submission.

---

Thanks for once again proving that you don't live in CALIFORNIA and have no clue what you're talking about.

---

You already made the following reply to that very same comment:

"COMPLETE BS

You obviously don't live in California.
Otherwise, you'd know how f-ing absurd your claim is.

I dropped off my ballot last week at our local library.
Placing my ballot in the envelope did not reveal any VOTE let alone a "No" vote no matter which side of the folded ballot you placed into the envelope.

Like most of your posts, this one is also RUBBISH."

How much does your sympathy for Biden's dementia contribute to your hatred of all things Trump?

oski003 said:

---

How much does your sympathy for Biden's dementia contribute to your hatred of all things Trump?

---

How many gallons of Kool-Aid do you drink per day to even begin to think that Donald Trump is sane?

Trump says US looking at land attacks in Venezuela after lethal strikes on boats live

https://share.google/q0nqd2r5QRaMEHX8o

DiabloWags said:

---

movielover said:

---

Already rigged; Pelosi / Newsom placed a hole in the envelop for mail-in Ballots revealing a "No" vote, removing privacy.

Officials are now describing how to hide your vote submission.

---

Thanks for once again proving that you don't live in CALIFORNIA and have no clue what you're talking about.

---

Another FAIL.



Rick Grenell on the rigged envelops and special election


Not all counties envelops have the offending (rigged) hole. But a lot do, allowing Postal workers (often Liberal) and election workers to easily toss "No" ballots.

Another cool story.
You dont even live in California.

Triggered?

movielover said:

---

Triggered?

---

What are your three favorite (best) Monument Blvd taquerias and your dish of choice?

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

As usual, I haven't thought this through, but I think part of the problem is that it's easier to gerrymander today because the ratio of people to representatives has increased so much since the number was set at 435 in 1913. In 1913 it 223,000 per rep and now it's 781,000. And I bet the increase is even larger than those numbers, which are based on the total population. Women didn't vote until 1920. If you compare today to 1920 and only count those over voting age, the numbers are 139,000 in 1920 and 610,000 today. Not to mention the existence of computerized registration information.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see some sort of objective limit on how convex a district can be. I bet there's some way to establish a limit mathematically,

---

There should either be smaller districts or multiple members per district, allocated based on percentage of vote. Then we'd have a more representative Congress.

---

You want 1500 congressmen?

---

Yes

---

So do I. One benefit I hadn't thought about before, is this that might significantly reduce the power of the relatively small number of fringe whackos from both parties.

sycasey said:

---

Really no states should do partisan gerrymandering like this . . . BUT if Republican state governments are going to keep doing it (and at this point it's very clear that they are), I don't know how else to combat it other than for blue states to do it too and create some negative consequences.

---

100%

i voted yes, as did my wife and son. easiest decision ever.
fight fire with fire.

graguna said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Really no states should do partisan gerrymandering like this . . . BUT if Republican state governments are going to keep doing it (and at this point it's very clear that they are), I don't know how else to combat it other than for blue states to do it too and create some negative consequences.

---

100%

i voted yes, as did my wife and son. easiest decision ever.
fight fire with fire.

---

The easiest decision ever would be to get Thanos' glove and snap all Biden voters out of existence. We can work it out with who's left to make a decent society, but we'll never have it with you people. The mix of undeserved arrogance combined with astounding stupidity is too much to overcome.

In hindsight maybe it was unwise to blow all the resistance energy with the public on psychotic imaginary scandals like russiagate and legal cases no one thought were legitimate. https://t.co/JsSWNyAccu

— a newsman (@a_newsman) October 16, 2025

I don't hate Trump as much as most folks here but, in the interest of separation of powers, I voted yes on Prop 50. He needs checks on his power.

I abstained on Prop 50.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

I abstained on Prop 50.

---

As did I. I don't support the gerrymandering when we have an established independent committee but I understand why California and Newsom want it, with red states doing the same.

sycasey said:

---

Really no states should do partisan gerrymandering like this . . . BUT if Republican state governments are going to keep doing it (and at this point it's very clear that they are), I don't know how else to combat it other than for blue states to do it too and create some negative consequences.

---

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that only Republican state governments are doing this?

How many republican districts exist in Massachusetts, New Mexico, Connecticut? Is Illinois massively gerrymandered? These states have been gerrymandered for years. Massachusetts hasn't had a republican representative in 30 years. If anything, Texas and other republican states are simply responding to this reality.

Below is a picture of the Illinois congressional map. Does that seem reasonable to you?

The way to combat it is to have truly independent citizen bodies that draw districts based on reasonable geographic considerations, not political imperatives. California voters adopted this approach in 2008, though the politicians did things to question if it was truly independent. Now the dems want to revoke that for purely partisan reasons.

It's even worse in the New England states. Zero representation by the Republicans.

See all this red in New England?

You know how many Congressional seats are held by Democrats?

21

How many are held by Republicans?

Zero

Don’t talk to us about gerrymandering when this is what Democrats do pic.twitter.com/stZhpqN7PJ

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) October 17, 2025

Democrats can't win unless they cheat, even in California and the northeast.