Explain Gerrymandering

How the fuck does changing invisible lines and the voter location cause "wasted votes"?
Explain it to me like I'm retarded because I've been trying to grasp how this could throw Ohio one way or the other and it just seems stupid.
Why the fuck would I not vote for the guy I was going to vote for just because someone changed an invisible line???

Attached: how-to-vote-democrat.jpg (421x257, 33K)

Why vote in a rigged two-party system? It's not like Republicans are the "good guys." Not saying Democrats are either.

By putting all of the opposing party in a couple districts you generate a couple safe seats for the opposition but even more safe seats for your party. This causes retards to complain but democracy is a scam so I’m fine with it

wow there really are a bunch of you just waiting with the "don't even bother to vote" shilling

Attached: 1548570250901.jpg (915x960, 97K)

>img-bait
Note that in #3 while the red minority ends up with a majority of representation, red is only able to achieve this by ceding some representation to blue.

Attached: file.png (474x346, 177K)

I never said give up on what you want, but I don't recommend voting for someone who's on TV.

fuck I'm a moron, thanks

Attached: gerrymandering.png (1198x858, 35K)

So basically don't vote..
Until they remove the two-party system your vote counts for nothing if not picking one of the two.
It's like people saying they don't tip because if we all stop tipping they'll just give the servers a minimum wage - though it is most likely true, you would have to organize enough people to make that change happen, until then you're just an asshole that doesn't tip

Everyone should vote and desu you should always back candidates willing to put line drawing in the hands of independent commissions. Nothing good comes from officials choosing their voters.

Based, second post best post

Okay so now that I understand how the redistricting works, how the fuck do they know exactly where to draw the lines to fuck the other party?
I understand they have polls and voter history data, etc., but how can they make such an up to date chart that they can know one small area has the thousand votes they need to fuck the other guys so accurately?
Or is it not accurate?
What data were they looking at that told the judges, "hey this shit is very unfair, redraw it"?

Np lol.
It actually goes further than just "who has control". Because Red has had to "pack" some districts with Blues, the representatives of those districts are likely to become more and more radical. There is no need for centrism without an ideologically-mixed constituency, and Red has given the Blue Reps a nearly pure-blue constituency.
On the other hand, Red has spread the remaining Blue consituency out across its own districts. Every Red Rep has a mixed constituency and acts of "reaching across the aisle" become more potentially profitable.
So there's a natural shift in discourse: Red Reps will lean more centrist, Blue Reps will radicalize. Gerrymandering has given Red temporary control, but in doing so it will shift the overton window toward Blue.

Democrats want urban cores (heavily liberal) carved up in the hope they will overwhelm as many suburban districts as possible.

The Founding Fathers saw the House Districts as grouping people of like background as much as possible. Thus town was to be paired with town and country with country. Creating urban core districts is consistent with this.

The Democrats are being disingenuous here. They are advocating for a gerrymander that benefits them

>Why vote
idiot shill
google censorship is reason enough to vote in fucking numbers!

don't forget to call your senators and tell them to investigate Google/Alphabet for RICO

Minorities vote on strict racial lines

It was made because surprise surprise the founders weren't complete idiots and could conceive of a future where the overwhelming majority of people were complete idiots and selection of leaders should involve more than a popularity contest. I only dislike that they didn't up the ante and put the entry to voting even higher barring it solely to land owning net positive tax contributors over the age of 30 (code for only middle class white men).

don't forget to call your senators and tell them to investigate Google/Alphabet for RICO

Completely unnecessary if you up the ante and make the entry point to voting even higher to solely land owning net positive tax contributors over the age of 30 (code for white men only).

>I only dislike that they didn't up the ante and put the entry to voting even higher barring it solely to land owning net positive tax contributors over the age of 30 (code for only middle class white men)
thissss as the constitution and god intended

>the jew's own example for "perfect representation" involves segregating voters into their own districts
>when a Republican does it it's evil
I hope these kikes suffer before they die.