Skip to content

Gerrymandering arms race

Political Discussion
64 15 1.1k 1
  • @ballpeen said:

    LOl...the dems have gerrymandered for decades and have run out of ways to do it.  Plus, you people are done.  You aren't winning anything for the next 20 years. You have moved from the party for the lower income people to the party representing the folks with nose rings.

    Who exactly are my people?

    @mld-woody said:

    Who exactly are my people?

    Illegals - you've made that clear - "they are just here to have a better life". Gays and trans. socialists - like mamdani. any leftwing radical...Everyone else, it seems you ridicule to cover up for your extreme lack of ability to intelligently converse on any subject. Your pecking is just destructive to every discussion.

    image.jpeg.bfdf6fa7eb69ce7dbe849642a5132f80.jpeg

  • and....the truth is, it is typical corruption of leftwinger's existence - everything that politically benefits them is great, but it it isn't advantageous to them, it's terrible, illegal, a "threat to democracy" etc.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-wanted-draw-every-republican-out-maryland-now-lambast-texas-redistricting

    Dems wanted to draw every Republican out of Maryland but now lambast Texas redistricting

    The 'Patapsco Pterodactyl' formed as part of a Democratic push to oust Republicans through redistricting

  • @ballpeen said:

    LOl...the dems have gerrymandered for decades and have run out of ways to do it.  Plus, you people are done.  You aren't winning anything for the next 20 years. You have moved from the party for the lower income people to the party representing the folks with nose rings.

    Who exactly are my people?

    @mld-woody said:

    Who exactly are my people?

    Quenby wearing a purple t-shirt, plaid shirt and black skirt while standing against a patterned wall

  • @mld-woody said:

    Who exactly are my people?

    Illegals - you've made that clear - "they are just here to have a better life". Gays and trans. socialists - like mamdani. any leftwing radical...Everyone else, it seems you ridicule to cover up for your extreme lack of ability to intelligently converse on any subject. Your pecking is just destructive to every discussion.

    image.jpeg.bfdf6fa7eb69ce7dbe849642a5132f80.jpeg

    @calfoxwc said:

    Illegals - you've made that clear - "they are just here to have a better life". Gays and trans. socialists - like mamdani. any leftwing radical...Everyone else, it seems you ridicule to cover up for your extreme lack of ability to intelligently converse on any subject. Your pecking is just destructive to every discussion.

    image.jpeg.bfdf6fa7eb69ce7dbe849642a5132f80.jpeg

    Ohh, gotcha

    And pedos are your people 

    I remember now

  • @mld-woody said:

    Who exactly are my people?

    Quenby wearing a purple t-shirt, plaid shirt and black skirt while standing against a patterned wall

    @diehardbrownsfan1 said:

    Quenby wearing a purple t-shirt, plaid shirt and black skirt while standing against a patterned wall

    LOL, OMG. Nailed it ! 

  • @calfoxwc said:

    Illegals - you've made that clear - "they are just here to have a better life". Gays and trans. socialists - like mamdani. any leftwing radical...Everyone else, it seems you ridicule to cover up for your extreme lack of ability to intelligently converse on any subject. Your pecking is just destructive to every discussion.

    image.jpeg.bfdf6fa7eb69ce7dbe849642a5132f80.jpeg

    Ohh, gotcha

    And pedos are your people 

    I remember now

    @mld-woody said:

    *FART*

    you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.

    You won't even say Laken Riley's name.

    The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country.  gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.

  • @mld-woody said:

    *FART*

    you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.

    You won't even say Laken Riley's name.

    The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country.  gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.

    @calfoxwc said:

    you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.

    You won't even say Laken Riley's name.

    The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country.  gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.

    Imagine that.. The one who supports Pedo's right calling everyone else a Pedo... He's a fucking mental nut job...

  • If it gets rid of that nasty @#nt Crockett, yer damn right I'm on board with it!!

    It's about time!

  • @mld-woody said:

    *FART*

    you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.

    You won't even say Laken Riley's name.

    The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country.  gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.

    @calfoxwc said:

    you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.

    You won't even say Laken Riley's name.

    The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country.  gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.

    I don't think you've said the name of any of Epstein's victims 

    Because pedo sex traffickers are your people 

    Sick

  • @calfoxwc said:

    you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.

    You won't even say Laken Riley's name.

    The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country.  gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.

    I don't think you've said the name of any of Epstein's victims 

    Because pedo sex traffickers are your people 

    Sick

    @mld-woody said:

    Puke Peck Fart

    I’m just filling in. Calf is obviously busy. 

    I’ll add nothing more in the spirit of filling in. 

  • @calfoxwc said:

    you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.

    You won't even say Laken Riley's name.

    The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country.  gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.

    I don't think you've said the name of any of Epstein's victims 

    Because pedo sex traffickers are your people 

    Sick

    @mld-woody said:

    ***FART***

    again, no one knows their  names, birdgirl. You really are a detriment to every discussion on this forum. I gave you Laken Riley's name a long time ago, and you still won't say her name.

  • Meanwhile - 

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2025/08/08/oh-thats-why-democrats-dont-want-a-new-census-n2661554

    Oh, That’s Why Democrats Don’t Want a New Census

    "

    I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024. People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Trump posted on Truth Social Thursday. 

    Advertisement

    The directive sent Democrats into a meltdown and thanks to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, we know why. 

    Without illegal aliens counted in the U.S. Census, which determines congressional representation in Washington D.C., Democrats would be in the minority. 

    "They stole 20 or 30 House seats by counting illegal aliens in the census, and now you have Democrats talking about, 'Oh, Republicans can't change their congressional maps!' You have literally brought invaders into this country by the tens of millions to RIG the results of the census, and the apportionment of congressional seats!" Miller says. "And then on top of that, of course, you have a situation where even though Republicans won a landslide in the House popular vote, Democrats have so thoroughly rigged and gerrymandered and manipulated their districts beyond all recognition that Republicans only gained a 4-seat majority, despite winning a much smaller majority in the popular vote in 2010 and getting 63 seats.""

  • AxeA Axe

    If it gets rid of that nasty @#nt Crockett, yer damn right I'm on board with it!!

    It's about time!

    @axe said:

    If it gets rid of that nasty @#nt Crockett, yer damn right I'm on board with it!!

    It's about time!

    530297007_1336573954491855_1599162258020091921_n.jpg

  • Messed around with AI to get some actual data. 

    The important data is the last column, which shows the difference in % of republican held seats from the % of popular vote for that state. This number essentially shows you how badly each state is gerrymandered. The further from zero, the worse your state is. Negative numbers indicate Democrat favor and positive numbers indicate Republican favor. I've sorted the whole chart by most populous state. As you go lower in the chart, the data in the last column becomes less useful because the total number of house reps per state drops. 

    Of the states that have 10 or more house reps

    • Virginia shows almost no difference between popular vote and house rep breakdown
    • Illinois has the biggest difference

    As a whole, the country sucks at minimizing the effect of gerrymandering.

    2024 U.S. House Election Results and Presidential Popular Vote by State (Sorted by Population)

    State

    Population (2023 Est.)

    Total House Seats

    Democratic House Reps

    Democratic % of State Seats

    Republican House Reps

    Republican % of State Seats

    Democratic Vote % (Harris)

    Republican Vote % (Trump)

    Republican House % - Trump Vote %

    California

    38,965,193

    52

    40

    76.92%

    12

    23.08%

    58.47%

    38.33%

    -15.25%

    Texas

    30,503,301

    38

    13

    34.21%

    25

    65.79%

    42.46%

    56.14%

    9.65%

    Florida

    22,610,726

    28

    8

    28.57%

    20

    71.43%

    42.99%

    56.09%

    15.34%

    New York

    19,571,216

    26

    16

    61.54%

    10

    38.46%

    55.91%

    43.31%

    -4.85%

    Pennsylvania

    12,961,683

    17

    9

    52.94%

    8

    47.06%

    48.66%

    50.37%

    -3.31%

    Illinois

    12,549,689

    17

    14

    82.35%

    3

    17.65%

    54.37%

    43.47%

    -25.82%

    Ohio

    11,785,935

    15

    5

    33.33%

    10

    66.67%

    43.93%

    55.14%

    11.53%

    Georgia

    11,029,227

    14

    5

    35.71%

    9

    64.29%

    48.53%

    50.73%

    13.56%

    North Carolina

    10,835,491

    14

    7

    50.00%

    7

    50.00%

    47.65%

    50.86%

    -0.86%

    Michigan

    10,030,722

    13

    6

    46.15%

    7

    53.85%

    48.31%

    49.73%

    4.12%

    New Jersey

    9,290,841

    12

    9

    75.00%

    3

    25.00%

    51.97%

    46.06%

    -21.06%

    Virginia

    8,715,698

    11

    6

    54.55%

    5

    45.45%

    51.83%

    46.05%

    -0.60%

    Washington

    7,812,880

    10

    8

    80.00%

    2

    20.00%

    57.23%

    39.01%

    -19.01%

    Arizona

    7,431,344

    9

    3

    33.33%

    6

    66.67%

    46.69%

    52.22%

    14.45%

    Tennessee

    7,126,489

    9

    1

    11.11%

    8

    88.89%

    34.47%

    64.19%

    24.70%

    Massachusetts

    7,001,399

    9

    9

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    61.22%

    36.02%

    -36.02%

    Indiana

    6,862,199

    9

    2

    22.22%

    7

    77.78%

    39.62%

    58.58%

    19.20%

    Missouri

    6,196,156

    8

    2

    25.00%

    6

    75.00%

    40.08%

    58.49%

    16.51%

    Maryland

    6,180,253

    8

    7

    87.50%

    1

    12.50%

    62.62%

    34.08%

    -21.58%

    Wisconsin

    5,910,955

    8

    2

    25.00%

    6

    75.00%

    48.84%

    49.70%

    25.30%

    Colorado

    5,877,610

    8

    5

    62.50%

    3

    37.50%

    54.13%

    43.14%

    -5.64%

    Minnesota

    5,737,915

    8

    4

    50.00%

    4

    50.00%

    50.92%

    46.68%

    3.32%

    South Carolina

    5,373,555

    7

    1

    14.29%

    6

    85.71%

    40.36%

    58.23%

    27.48%

    Alabama

    5,108,468

    7

    1

    14.29%

    6

    85.71%

    34.10%

    64.57%

    21.14%

    Louisiana

    4,573,749

    6

    1

    16.67%

    5

    83.33%

    38.21%

    60.22%

    23.11%

    Kentucky

    4,526,332

    6

    1

    16.67%

    5

    83.33%

    33.94%

    64.47%

    18.86%

    Oregon

    4,233,358

    6

    4

    66.67%

    2

    33.33%

    55.27%

    40.97%

    -7.64%

    Oklahoma

    4,053,824

    5

    0

    0.00%

    5

    100.00%

    31.90%

    66.16%

    33.84%

    Connecticut

    3,617,176

    5

    5

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    56.40%

    41.89%

    -41.89%

    Utah

    3,417,734

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    37.79%

    59.38%

    40.62%

    Iowa

    3,207,004

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    42.52%

    55.73%

    44.27%

    Nevada

    3,194,176

    4

    3

    75.00%

    1

    25.00%

    47.49%

    50.59%

    -25.59%

    Arkansas

    3,067,732

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    33.56%

    64.20%

    35.80%

    Mississippi

    2,939,690

    4

    1

    25.00%

    3

    75.00%

    38.00%

    60.89%

    14.11%

    Kansas

    2,944,376

    4

    1

    25.00%

    3

    75.00%

    41.04%

    57.16%

    17.84%

    New Mexico

    2,114,371

    3

    3

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    51.85%

    45.85%

    -45.85%

    Nebraska

    1,978,379

    3

    0

    0.00%

    3

    100.00%

    39.06%

    59.63%

    40.37%

    Idaho

    1,964,374

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    30.39%

    66.89%

    33.11%

    West Virginia

    1,770,071

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    28.11%

    69.98%

    30.02%

    Hawaii

    1,435,138

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    60.59%

    37.48%

    -37.48%

    New Hampshire

    1,402,054

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    50.65%

    47.87%

    -47.87%

    Maine

    1,395,722

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    52.44%

    45.50%

    -45.50%

    Montana

    1,132,366

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    38.46%

    58.39%

    41.61%

    Rhode Island

    1,095,962

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    55.54%

    41.76%

    -41.76%

    Delaware

    1,030,132

    1

    1

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    56.63%

    41.89%

    -41.89%

    South Dakota

    919,318

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    34.24%

    63.43%

    36.57%

    North Dakota

    783,926

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    30.51%

    66.96%

    33.04%

    Vermont

    647,464

    1

    1

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    63.83%

    32.32%

    -32.32%

    Wyoming

    586,485

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    25.84%

    71.60%

    28.40%

    Total

    331,589,273

    435

    215

    49.43%

    220

    50.57%

    48.3%

    49.8%

    0.77%

  • Messed around with AI to get some actual data. 

    The important data is the last column, which shows the difference in % of republican held seats from the % of popular vote for that state. This number essentially shows you how badly each state is gerrymandered. The further from zero, the worse your state is. Negative numbers indicate Democrat favor and positive numbers indicate Republican favor. I've sorted the whole chart by most populous state. As you go lower in the chart, the data in the last column becomes less useful because the total number of house reps per state drops. 

    Of the states that have 10 or more house reps

    • Virginia shows almost no difference between popular vote and house rep breakdown
    • Illinois has the biggest difference

    As a whole, the country sucks at minimizing the effect of gerrymandering.

    2024 U.S. House Election Results and Presidential Popular Vote by State (Sorted by Population)

    State

    Population (2023 Est.)

    Total House Seats

    Democratic House Reps

    Democratic % of State Seats

    Republican House Reps

    Republican % of State Seats

    Democratic Vote % (Harris)

    Republican Vote % (Trump)

    Republican House % - Trump Vote %

    California

    38,965,193

    52

    40

    76.92%

    12

    23.08%

    58.47%

    38.33%

    -15.25%

    Texas

    30,503,301

    38

    13

    34.21%

    25

    65.79%

    42.46%

    56.14%

    9.65%

    Florida

    22,610,726

    28

    8

    28.57%

    20

    71.43%

    42.99%

    56.09%

    15.34%

    New York

    19,571,216

    26

    16

    61.54%

    10

    38.46%

    55.91%

    43.31%

    -4.85%

    Pennsylvania

    12,961,683

    17

    9

    52.94%

    8

    47.06%

    48.66%

    50.37%

    -3.31%

    Illinois

    12,549,689

    17

    14

    82.35%

    3

    17.65%

    54.37%

    43.47%

    -25.82%

    Ohio

    11,785,935

    15

    5

    33.33%

    10

    66.67%

    43.93%

    55.14%

    11.53%

    Georgia

    11,029,227

    14

    5

    35.71%

    9

    64.29%

    48.53%

    50.73%

    13.56%

    North Carolina

    10,835,491

    14

    7

    50.00%

    7

    50.00%

    47.65%

    50.86%

    -0.86%

    Michigan

    10,030,722

    13

    6

    46.15%

    7

    53.85%

    48.31%

    49.73%

    4.12%

    New Jersey

    9,290,841

    12

    9

    75.00%

    3

    25.00%

    51.97%

    46.06%

    -21.06%

    Virginia

    8,715,698

    11

    6

    54.55%

    5

    45.45%

    51.83%

    46.05%

    -0.60%

    Washington

    7,812,880

    10

    8

    80.00%

    2

    20.00%

    57.23%

    39.01%

    -19.01%

    Arizona

    7,431,344

    9

    3

    33.33%

    6

    66.67%

    46.69%

    52.22%

    14.45%

    Tennessee

    7,126,489

    9

    1

    11.11%

    8

    88.89%

    34.47%

    64.19%

    24.70%

    Massachusetts

    7,001,399

    9

    9

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    61.22%

    36.02%

    -36.02%

    Indiana

    6,862,199

    9

    2

    22.22%

    7

    77.78%

    39.62%

    58.58%

    19.20%

    Missouri

    6,196,156

    8

    2

    25.00%

    6

    75.00%

    40.08%

    58.49%

    16.51%

    Maryland

    6,180,253

    8

    7

    87.50%

    1

    12.50%

    62.62%

    34.08%

    -21.58%

    Wisconsin

    5,910,955

    8

    2

    25.00%

    6

    75.00%

    48.84%

    49.70%

    25.30%

    Colorado

    5,877,610

    8

    5

    62.50%

    3

    37.50%

    54.13%

    43.14%

    -5.64%

    Minnesota

    5,737,915

    8

    4

    50.00%

    4

    50.00%

    50.92%

    46.68%

    3.32%

    South Carolina

    5,373,555

    7

    1

    14.29%

    6

    85.71%

    40.36%

    58.23%

    27.48%

    Alabama

    5,108,468

    7

    1

    14.29%

    6

    85.71%

    34.10%

    64.57%

    21.14%

    Louisiana

    4,573,749

    6

    1

    16.67%

    5

    83.33%

    38.21%

    60.22%

    23.11%

    Kentucky

    4,526,332

    6

    1

    16.67%

    5

    83.33%

    33.94%

    64.47%

    18.86%

    Oregon

    4,233,358

    6

    4

    66.67%

    2

    33.33%

    55.27%

    40.97%

    -7.64%

    Oklahoma

    4,053,824

    5

    0

    0.00%

    5

    100.00%

    31.90%

    66.16%

    33.84%

    Connecticut

    3,617,176

    5

    5

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    56.40%

    41.89%

    -41.89%

    Utah

    3,417,734

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    37.79%

    59.38%

    40.62%

    Iowa

    3,207,004

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    42.52%

    55.73%

    44.27%

    Nevada

    3,194,176

    4

    3

    75.00%

    1

    25.00%

    47.49%

    50.59%

    -25.59%

    Arkansas

    3,067,732

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    33.56%

    64.20%

    35.80%

    Mississippi

    2,939,690

    4

    1

    25.00%

    3

    75.00%

    38.00%

    60.89%

    14.11%

    Kansas

    2,944,376

    4

    1

    25.00%

    3

    75.00%

    41.04%

    57.16%

    17.84%

    New Mexico

    2,114,371

    3

    3

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    51.85%

    45.85%

    -45.85%

    Nebraska

    1,978,379

    3

    0

    0.00%

    3

    100.00%

    39.06%

    59.63%

    40.37%

    Idaho

    1,964,374

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    30.39%

    66.89%

    33.11%

    West Virginia

    1,770,071

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    28.11%

    69.98%

    30.02%

    Hawaii

    1,435,138

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    60.59%

    37.48%

    -37.48%

    New Hampshire

    1,402,054

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    50.65%

    47.87%

    -47.87%

    Maine

    1,395,722

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    52.44%

    45.50%

    -45.50%

    Montana

    1,132,366

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    38.46%

    58.39%

    41.61%

    Rhode Island

    1,095,962

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    55.54%

    41.76%

    -41.76%

    Delaware

    1,030,132

    1

    1

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    56.63%

    41.89%

    -41.89%

    South Dakota

    919,318

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    34.24%

    63.43%

    36.57%

    North Dakota

    783,926

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    30.51%

    66.96%

    33.04%

    Vermont

    647,464

    1

    1

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    63.83%

    32.32%

    -32.32%

    Wyoming

    586,485

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    25.84%

    71.60%

    28.40%

    Total

    331,589,273

    435

    215

    49.43%

    220

    50.57%

    48.3%

    49.8%

    0.77%

    @vaportrail said:

    Messed around with AI to get some actual data. 

    The important data is the last column, which shows the difference in % of republican held seats from the % of popular vote for that state. This number essentially shows you how badly each state is gerrymandered. I've sorted the whole chart by most populous state. As you go lower in the chart, the data in the last column becomes less useful because the total number of house reps per state drops. 

    Of the states that have 10 or more house reps

    • Virginia shows almost no difference between popular vote and house rep breakdown
    • Illinois has the biggest difference

    As a whole, the country sucks at minimizing the effect of gerrymandering.

    2024 U.S. House Election Results and Presidential Popular Vote by State (Sorted by Population)

    State

    Population (2023 Est.)

    Total House Seats

    Democratic House Reps

    Democratic % of State Seats

    Republican House Reps

    Republican % of State Seats

    Democratic Vote % (Harris)

    Republican Vote % (Trump)

    Republican House % - Trump Vote %

    California

    38,965,193

    52

    40

    76.92%

    12

    23.08%

    58.47%

    38.33%

    -15.25%

    Texas

    30,503,301

    38

    13

    34.21%

    25

    65.79%

    42.46%

    56.14%

    9.65%

    Florida

    22,610,726

    28

    8

    28.57%

    20

    71.43%

    42.99%

    56.09%

    15.34%

    New York

    19,571,216

    26

    16

    61.54%

    10

    38.46%

    55.91%

    43.31%

    -4.85%

    Pennsylvania

    12,961,683

    17

    9

    52.94%

    8

    47.06%

    48.66%

    50.37%

    -3.31%

    Illinois

    12,549,689

    17

    14

    82.35%

    3

    17.65%

    54.37%

    43.47%

    -25.82%

    Ohio

    11,785,935

    15

    5

    33.33%

    10

    66.67%

    43.93%

    55.14%

    11.53%

    Georgia

    11,029,227

    14

    5

    35.71%

    9

    64.29%

    48.53%

    50.73%

    13.56%

    North Carolina

    10,835,491

    14

    7

    50.00%

    7

    50.00%

    47.65%

    50.86%

    -0.86%

    Michigan

    10,030,722

    13

    6

    46.15%

    7

    53.85%

    48.31%

    49.73%

    4.12%

    New Jersey

    9,290,841

    12

    9

    75.00%

    3

    25.00%

    51.97%

    46.06%

    -21.06%

    Virginia

    8,715,698

    11

    6

    54.55%

    5

    45.45%

    51.83%

    46.05%

    -0.60%

    Washington

    7,812,880

    10

    8

    80.00%

    2

    20.00%

    57.23%

    39.01%

    -19.01%

    Arizona

    7,431,344

    9

    3

    33.33%

    6

    66.67%

    46.69%

    52.22%

    14.45%

    Tennessee

    7,126,489

    9

    1

    11.11%

    8

    88.89%

    34.47%

    64.19%

    24.70%

    Massachusetts

    7,001,399

    9

    9

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    61.22%

    36.02%

    -36.02%

    Indiana

    6,862,199

    9

    2

    22.22%

    7

    77.78%

    39.62%

    58.58%

    19.20%

    Missouri

    6,196,156

    8

    2

    25.00%

    6

    75.00%

    40.08%

    58.49%

    16.51%

    Maryland

    6,180,253

    8

    7

    87.50%

    1

    12.50%

    62.62%

    34.08%

    -21.58%

    Wisconsin

    5,910,955

    8

    2

    25.00%

    6

    75.00%

    48.84%

    49.70%

    25.30%

    Colorado

    5,877,610

    8

    5

    62.50%

    3

    37.50%

    54.13%

    43.14%

    -5.64%

    Minnesota

    5,737,915

    8

    4

    50.00%

    4

    50.00%

    50.92%

    46.68%

    3.32%

    South Carolina

    5,373,555

    7

    1

    14.29%

    6

    85.71%

    40.36%

    58.23%

    27.48%

    Alabama

    5,108,468

    7

    1

    14.29%

    6

    85.71%

    34.10%

    64.57%

    21.14%

    Louisiana

    4,573,749

    6

    1

    16.67%

    5

    83.33%

    38.21%

    60.22%

    23.11%

    Kentucky

    4,526,332

    6

    1

    16.67%

    5

    83.33%

    33.94%

    64.47%

    18.86%

    Oregon

    4,233,358

    6

    4

    66.67%

    2

    33.33%

    55.27%

    40.97%

    -7.64%

    Oklahoma

    4,053,824

    5

    0

    0.00%

    5

    100.00%

    31.90%

    66.16%

    33.84%

    Connecticut

    3,617,176

    5

    5

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    56.40%

    41.89%

    -41.89%

    Utah

    3,417,734

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    37.79%

    59.38%

    40.62%

    Iowa

    3,207,004

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    42.52%

    55.73%

    44.27%

    Nevada

    3,194,176

    4

    3

    75.00%

    1

    25.00%

    47.49%

    50.59%

    -25.59%

    Arkansas

    3,067,732

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    33.56%

    64.20%

    35.80%

    Mississippi

    2,939,690

    4

    1

    25.00%

    3

    75.00%

    38.00%

    60.89%

    14.11%

    Kansas

    2,944,376

    4

    1

    25.00%

    3

    75.00%

    41.04%

    57.16%

    17.84%

    New Mexico

    2,114,371

    3

    3

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    51.85%

    45.85%

    -45.85%

    Nebraska

    1,978,379

    3

    0

    0.00%

    3

    100.00%

    39.06%

    59.63%

    40.37%

    Idaho

    1,964,374

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    30.39%

    66.89%

    33.11%

    West Virginia

    1,770,071

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    28.11%

    69.98%

    30.02%

    Hawaii

    1,435,138

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    60.59%

    37.48%

    -37.48%

    New Hampshire

    1,402,054

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    50.65%

    47.87%

    -47.87%

    Maine

    1,395,722

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    52.44%

    45.50%

    -45.50%

    Montana

    1,132,366

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    38.46%

    58.39%

    41.61%

    Rhode Island

    1,095,962

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    55.54%

    41.76%

    -41.76%

    Delaware

    1,030,132

    1

    1

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    56.63%

    41.89%

    -41.89%

    South Dakota

    919,318

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    34.24%

    63.43%

    36.57%

    North Dakota

    783,926

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    30.51%

    66.96%

    33.04%

    Vermont

    647,464

    1

    1

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    63.83%

    32.32%

    -32.32%

    Wyoming

    586,485

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    25.84%

    71.60%

    28.40%

    Total

    331,589,273

    435

    215

    49.43%

    220

    50.57%

    48.3%

    49.8%

    0.77%

    I'd think you'd have to take into account the likelihood of a registered Dem vs a registered Rep to vote. 

    It's also only based on actual party registration, not political leanings. Obviously the data can't be perfect though. --- read it wrong, that's not how the data is set up

    You could try comparing it to how the state voted in the presidential election. --- nevermind, I see that's how it was setup now. Unfortunately that would add the voter turnout element. 

    Or how they voted for senators. But that's not perfect either. 

    Interesting though. But I am still hesitant to just use AI gathered data 

  • Kind of makes you understand why it was so important for democrats to flood certain areas with illegals.

  • @vaportrail said:

    Messed around with AI to get some actual data. 

    The important data is the last column, which shows the difference in % of republican held seats from the % of popular vote for that state. This number essentially shows you how badly each state is gerrymandered. I've sorted the whole chart by most populous state. As you go lower in the chart, the data in the last column becomes less useful because the total number of house reps per state drops. 

    Of the states that have 10 or more house reps

    • Virginia shows almost no difference between popular vote and house rep breakdown
    • Illinois has the biggest difference

    As a whole, the country sucks at minimizing the effect of gerrymandering.

    2024 U.S. House Election Results and Presidential Popular Vote by State (Sorted by Population)

    State

    Population (2023 Est.)

    Total House Seats

    Democratic House Reps

    Democratic % of State Seats

    Republican House Reps

    Republican % of State Seats

    Democratic Vote % (Harris)

    Republican Vote % (Trump)

    Republican House % - Trump Vote %

    California

    38,965,193

    52

    40

    76.92%

    12

    23.08%

    58.47%

    38.33%

    -15.25%

    Texas

    30,503,301

    38

    13

    34.21%

    25

    65.79%

    42.46%

    56.14%

    9.65%

    Florida

    22,610,726

    28

    8

    28.57%

    20

    71.43%

    42.99%

    56.09%

    15.34%

    New York

    19,571,216

    26

    16

    61.54%

    10

    38.46%

    55.91%

    43.31%

    -4.85%

    Pennsylvania

    12,961,683

    17

    9

    52.94%

    8

    47.06%

    48.66%

    50.37%

    -3.31%

    Illinois

    12,549,689

    17

    14

    82.35%

    3

    17.65%

    54.37%

    43.47%

    -25.82%

    Ohio

    11,785,935

    15

    5

    33.33%

    10

    66.67%

    43.93%

    55.14%

    11.53%

    Georgia

    11,029,227

    14

    5

    35.71%

    9

    64.29%

    48.53%

    50.73%

    13.56%

    North Carolina

    10,835,491

    14

    7

    50.00%

    7

    50.00%

    47.65%

    50.86%

    -0.86%

    Michigan

    10,030,722

    13

    6

    46.15%

    7

    53.85%

    48.31%

    49.73%

    4.12%

    New Jersey

    9,290,841

    12

    9

    75.00%

    3

    25.00%

    51.97%

    46.06%

    -21.06%

    Virginia

    8,715,698

    11

    6

    54.55%

    5

    45.45%

    51.83%

    46.05%

    -0.60%

    Washington

    7,812,880

    10

    8

    80.00%

    2

    20.00%

    57.23%

    39.01%

    -19.01%

    Arizona

    7,431,344

    9

    3

    33.33%

    6

    66.67%

    46.69%

    52.22%

    14.45%

    Tennessee

    7,126,489

    9

    1

    11.11%

    8

    88.89%

    34.47%

    64.19%

    24.70%

    Massachusetts

    7,001,399

    9

    9

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    61.22%

    36.02%

    -36.02%

    Indiana

    6,862,199

    9

    2

    22.22%

    7

    77.78%

    39.62%

    58.58%

    19.20%

    Missouri

    6,196,156

    8

    2

    25.00%

    6

    75.00%

    40.08%

    58.49%

    16.51%

    Maryland

    6,180,253

    8

    7

    87.50%

    1

    12.50%

    62.62%

    34.08%

    -21.58%

    Wisconsin

    5,910,955

    8

    2

    25.00%

    6

    75.00%

    48.84%

    49.70%

    25.30%

    Colorado

    5,877,610

    8

    5

    62.50%

    3

    37.50%

    54.13%

    43.14%

    -5.64%

    Minnesota

    5,737,915

    8

    4

    50.00%

    4

    50.00%

    50.92%

    46.68%

    3.32%

    South Carolina

    5,373,555

    7

    1

    14.29%

    6

    85.71%

    40.36%

    58.23%

    27.48%

    Alabama

    5,108,468

    7

    1

    14.29%

    6

    85.71%

    34.10%

    64.57%

    21.14%

    Louisiana

    4,573,749

    6

    1

    16.67%

    5

    83.33%

    38.21%

    60.22%

    23.11%

    Kentucky

    4,526,332

    6

    1

    16.67%

    5

    83.33%

    33.94%

    64.47%

    18.86%

    Oregon

    4,233,358

    6

    4

    66.67%

    2

    33.33%

    55.27%

    40.97%

    -7.64%

    Oklahoma

    4,053,824

    5

    0

    0.00%

    5

    100.00%

    31.90%

    66.16%

    33.84%

    Connecticut

    3,617,176

    5

    5

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    56.40%

    41.89%

    -41.89%

    Utah

    3,417,734

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    37.79%

    59.38%

    40.62%

    Iowa

    3,207,004

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    42.52%

    55.73%

    44.27%

    Nevada

    3,194,176

    4

    3

    75.00%

    1

    25.00%

    47.49%

    50.59%

    -25.59%

    Arkansas

    3,067,732

    4

    0

    0.00%

    4

    100.00%

    33.56%

    64.20%

    35.80%

    Mississippi

    2,939,690

    4

    1

    25.00%

    3

    75.00%

    38.00%

    60.89%

    14.11%

    Kansas

    2,944,376

    4

    1

    25.00%

    3

    75.00%

    41.04%

    57.16%

    17.84%

    New Mexico

    2,114,371

    3

    3

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    51.85%

    45.85%

    -45.85%

    Nebraska

    1,978,379

    3

    0

    0.00%

    3

    100.00%

    39.06%

    59.63%

    40.37%

    Idaho

    1,964,374

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    30.39%

    66.89%

    33.11%

    West Virginia

    1,770,071

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    28.11%

    69.98%

    30.02%

    Hawaii

    1,435,138

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    60.59%

    37.48%

    -37.48%

    New Hampshire

    1,402,054

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    50.65%

    47.87%

    -47.87%

    Maine

    1,395,722

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    52.44%

    45.50%

    -45.50%

    Montana

    1,132,366

    2

    0

    0.00%

    2

    100.00%

    38.46%

    58.39%

    41.61%

    Rhode Island

    1,095,962

    2

    2

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    55.54%

    41.76%

    -41.76%

    Delaware

    1,030,132

    1

    1

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    56.63%

    41.89%

    -41.89%

    South Dakota

    919,318

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    34.24%

    63.43%

    36.57%

    North Dakota

    783,926

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    30.51%

    66.96%

    33.04%

    Vermont

    647,464

    1

    1

    100.00%

    0

    0.00%

    63.83%

    32.32%

    -32.32%

    Wyoming

    586,485

    1

    0

    0.00%

    1

    100.00%

    25.84%

    71.60%

    28.40%

    Total

    331,589,273

    435

    215

    49.43%

    220

    50.57%

    48.3%

    49.8%

    0.77%

    I'd think you'd have to take into account the likelihood of a registered Dem vs a registered Rep to vote. 

    It's also only based on actual party registration, not political leanings. Obviously the data can't be perfect though. --- read it wrong, that's not how the data is set up

    You could try comparing it to how the state voted in the presidential election. --- nevermind, I see that's how it was setup now. Unfortunately that would add the voter turnout element. 

    Or how they voted for senators. But that's not perfect either. 

    Interesting though. But I am still hesitant to just use AI gathered data 

    @mld-woody said:

    But I am still hesitant to just use AI gathered data 

    It's actually really damn good at parsing raw data. For now, I draw the line at letting AI interpret the data, it's still susceptible to unknown biases. But when I need to find an exact Medicare guideline for them to cover a specific service, I let AI find what I need and verify. 

  • @mld-woody said:

    But I am still hesitant to just use AI gathered data 

    It's actually really damn good at parsing raw data. For now, I draw the line at letting AI interpret the data, it's still susceptible to unknown biases. But when I need to find an exact Medicare guideline for them to cover a specific service, I let AI find what I need and verify. 

    @vaportrail said:

    It's actually really damn good at parsing raw data. For now, I draw the line at letting AI interpret the data, it's still susceptible to unknown biases. But when I need to find an exact Medicare guideline for them to cover a specific service, I let AI find what I need and verify. 

    Well, I have no complaint with a I, and yes, I know. It doesn't know the difference between bullshit and straight up once in a while. But on the other hand it's not actively twisted toward left or right. Like google.

    Of course, it's always funny to see people switch hats on gerrymandering, depending on whose side benefits.

    WSS

  • @axe said:

    If it gets rid of that nasty @#nt Crockett, yer damn right I'm on board with it!!

    It's about time!

    530297007_1336573954491855_1599162258020091921_n.jpg