@smomwetgobam@MaxMaaxMaaax Bodnar hadn’t entered yet I don’t think so it was a 2 way in an open trump +20 seat. The possibility of a blue tsunami and a good candidate is very low but not 1%
@HunterWillis@leedrutman Yes some areas are naturally packed but we aren’t talking about not gerrymandering, we are talking about actively gerrymandering
Smaller districts mean you can pack more precisely as I laid out in this theoretical example
@HunterWillis@Ed_of_O@leedrutman One conceptual way to think about it: say you’re a Republican trying to gerrymander. You need 700k for a district. There is a 500k city that votes 100% dem. All areas outside vote 100% R. You would waste 200k R voters. Say instead 50k for a district. You waste 0 R votes.
@HunterWillis@leedrutman 70% of the vote in Illinois is +23 improvement from 2024 which makes the 6th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, and 17th districts flip plus the three they already have which is 60%
@HunterWillis@leedrutman No. If republicans got 70% of the vote in Illinois they would get 60% of the seats.
Again, smaller districts make it easier to gerrymander
@HunterWillis@leedrutman Find me a congressional map by any state where Republicans or Democrats would need to win 70% of the vote to get 50% of the seats.
@HunterWillis@Ed_of_O@leedrutman The case being Dems won by eight points and got 33% of seats?
And you’re linking the 2024 maps. Quite famously Wisconsin had their 2010-2020 maps tossed out. It was literally the poster child for gerrymandering in this country for the better part of a decade
@Ed_of_O@HunterWillis@leedrutman In my example you will have 1 700k safe 70-30 dem seat (100% D 0% R share). If you adjust to 100k you could have 3 60-40 R seats and 7 nearly 100% D seats. (30% R, 70% D share). Ds lose 30% of their seat share for the same land area because of precise packing.