TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2026
Olsen on gerrymanders: You're right! It actually has been quite a while.
That said, we won't be posting until this afternoon, due to an intervening mission of unmistakable national import.
Meanwhile, what the heck, we leave you to ponder this. It's part of an essay by the Washington Post's Henry Olsen about some possible better ways to form congressional districts:
How to escape the gerrymandering trap
[...]
A good gerrymander—good not in a moral sense but in the way it works as designed by the gerrymanderers—gives the line-drawing party more seats than it would be entitled to based on its share of the vote. Perform that task well enough, and massive majorities can be forged out of slim vote margins.
That’s what the Republicans’ recent gerrymanders have done. No one doubts that popular majorities in states such as Texas and Florida would select a majority of Republican representatives under a fair map. Democrats should, however, be able to elect some 40 to 45 percent of those members, since that’s their usual share of the statewide vote. But Florida’s new map has 24 districts—86 percent—that would have been won by Donald Trump in 2024, while four would have been won by Kamala Harris.
Democrats practice these dark arts, too. Trump got 38 percent of Californians’ votes in 2024. The state has 52 House seats, so with fair districts, Republicans should elect about 20 members. But Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Newsomander—so dubbed by Republicans—created just four seats the GOP can reasonably be expected to win, plus a couple more where they have a fair shot.
Olsen, a conservative, is being fair-minded here. That said, his basic premise, as expressed below, is built on sand:
Democrats [in Texas and Florida] should be able to elect some 40 to 45 percent of those members, since that’s their usual share of the statewide vote.
With regard to gerrymanders, the current "race to the bottom" really is a race to the bottom. But there's no easy or obvious answer to this question:
How might it be addressed?
Publicly funded-only political campaigns and elections, FTW!
ReplyDelete& none lasting longer than 60 days.
DeleteCampaign ad blackouts at all other times.
DeleteWhat do you do about social media?
DeleteThat’s… a very good question.
DeleteAnother bigoted Republican voter:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8BliUeIM1k
CA had a system of forming districts by bipartisan committee, enacted by state law. When the Republicans began their partisan gerrymandering campaign at Trump's behest, CA temporarily set aside its fair system in order to combat the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteSomerby pretends that people are too stupid to know how to address districting intelligently when the actual problem is the partisan warfare in the take-no-prisoners style adopted by Republicans. This isn't about gerrymandering at all, but about Republican abandonment of the good of the people in their quest for absolute power.
Somerby should talk about that some time.
Right wingers like Somerby always ignore asymmetry.
DeleteIt is one of their superpowers, along with lacking integrity and being proud of that.
If an entity does something bad 10 times or to the 10th degree and then an opposing entity does something similar one time or to one degree, typically in a self defensive manner, right wingers will claim they are equal. "What about??" "Both sides!!"
This is a tool right wingers/Republicans/authoritarians/fascists have been weaponizing forever, but with the democratization of media it is harder to pull off with the same impact, which is why Somerby is always squealing about it.
It is unclear why Somerby thinks that the fair assumption he decries should not be the starting place for discussions of districting. Why is this not a reasonable assumption. Somerby never explains that. Is he perhaps thinking that districting should start with no goal at all? Why would he think that? Why shouldn't fairness be a goal? Is Somerby suggesting districting should be random? He doesn't say that either. In fact, Somerby doesn't say anything at all. He just addresses Olsen with a vaguely negative tone without any explanation of why Olsen shouldn't have said what he did.
ReplyDeleteSomerby is correct -- there is no reason on earth why Olsen shouldn't start with that assumption. And Somerby himself gives no explanation for his own negative tone toward Olsen. And that makes Somerby an annoying asshole who offers an obvious critical tone without supporting his own negativity with any competing suggestion or procedure of his own.
Whatever it is, he is against it, even when he himself says there is no reason not to start with Olsen's assumption that fairness should be a goal. So what is Somerby's point? Who knows? Somerby has none but he doesn't want anyone to think that there exists any fair way to accomplish districting, because they Republicans would have no justification for their own partisan gerrymandering tearing apart any system based on fairness to both parties.
This comment appears to be reacting to a somewhat different claim than the one Somerby actually made.
DeleteWhich is what?
DeleteIt views Somerby as attacking fairness as a goal, when he is actually questioning whether proportional representation is the correct measurement of fairness.
DeletePlease quote where he says that. I don't see it anywhere in his essay. He says the result in MA is disproportionate but doesn't explain why. Is this your idea of what that has happened there?
DeleteAnd why exactly would proportionate representation be unfair should it occur?
He never says it in exactly those words. That was an interpretation of the thrust of his argument. He agrees that proportional representation sounds fair on its face. If a party gets 40% of the vote, many people instinctively think it should get about 40% of the seats. He's NOT saying fairness shouldn't be a goal or that he's against fairness or saying districting should be random.
DeleteHe says "It seems like common sense and simple fairness to say that congressional representation should turn out to be 'proportionate' to some state's statewide vote on a two-party basis. We agree—that does seem fair! But in no way is the matter that simple...".
He believes "depending on the distribution of the vote in some particular state, it may be that gerrymanders aren't necessary to produce a vastly disproportionate outcome."
He is arguing people mistakenly assume a gap between vote share and seat share automatically proves unfair district maps.
That he doesn't provide an idea for an alternative system doesn't negate his point. You're free to disagree with this point but not to mischaracterize it.
How is saying that I don't understand his point because he hasn't explained it well a mischaracterization of his position?
DeleteHow is it that you know what Somerby believes when he hasn't expressed such beliefs here?
If a gerrymander were based on proportion during some previous election (or registrations), why would a vastly disporportionate result not be appropriate in a state with strongly partisan voting patterns, one way or the other? I don't see that as unfair but Somerby seems to equate it with unfairness. I do not see Olsen as suggesting that party distributions must be equal anywhere. If MA has few red districts because it has few Republican voters, how is that unfair? Fair doesn't mean equal outcome in this situation, any more than it does in any other racially fair situation. It means equal opportunity for participation in a system not rigged against racial minorities (or partisan ones, where partisan voters exist from both parties).
Somerby provides no arguments or evidence why vote share and seat share don't prove unfair districting where demographics support proportionate districting.
And yes, his lack of evidence to support his criticisms do negate his point. Hypotheticals need to be grounded in reality.
You mischaracterize it by asking "Why shouldn't fairness be a goal?", "Is Somerby against fairness?", "Is Somerby saying districting should be random?"
DeleteHe said nothing of the sort.
I guess it's fair if you think his point is negated if he doesn't present alternatives. As always, you don't have to agree with him. But you may do yourself a favor by trying not to misrepresent and mischaracterize what he says, which seems to happen, basically every time you post.
This is the problem today. Somerby attacks Olsen for asserting that fairness is important but he suggests nothing himself. Of course you can say "he said nothing of the sort" because he basically has said nothing except that there is some problem with Olsen who has talked about fairness.
DeleteYou, similarly, can accuse anyone who disagrees with Somerby of mischaracterizing what he said, because he said nothing. He has no position except "Olsen could be wrong."
You don't have to agree with me either, but I am not mischaracterizing Somerby because I disagree with you about what he has said, especially when he is slippery and hasn't said anything, as is the case today.
You guys say that Somerby means whatever you believe about him, but you do not know his thoughts any more than I do, and you are attributing beliefs to him that you have no way of confirming, especially when you cannot quote where he has said what you think he means.
Somerby said that fairness seems like common sense but can result in a bad outcome (which he does not describe -- you guys have added that 49.9% idea). It is not mischaracterizing Somerby to say that he is rejecting fairness.
And let's be honest. You don't really care about any of these issues. You never take any concrete actions towards remedying them. You're removed from the issues and have made the practice of criticizing Somerby more important than the issues themselves. It's about consumption over action. It's for you more of a ritualized game of oppositional identity. It's so boring. But I realize you're doing the best you can with what you've been given.
DeleteIf you really cared, you would be doing something about these issues themselves instead of spending all day on the computer writing lengthy critiques. You're spending all day in a pretend version of political engagement.
DeleteYou're very, very lonely. I get that. I am too sometimes.
DeleteOlsen says that gerrymandering is destroying democracy. Seems like a fundamental assertion. If one agrees with it, one might think that doing something about it is important.
Delete“you would be doing something about these issues themselves instead of spending all day on the computer writing lengthy critiques.”
DeleteAre you directing this comment at Somerby? Cause that’s kind of what he does.
@12:51 I agree with your call to action, opposing Republican redistricting between censuses and working on real issues. How do people engage in political action?
DeleteIt isn't by spending all day doing political stuff, unless you are like Tom Sullivan holding freeway signs with slogans on them where voters can see them. It is helpful to politicians to donate money to their campaigns, but it is also helpful to talk to friends and neighbors and try to combat the Russian-funded bots on social media. I don't see opposing Somerby as a waste of time, any more than those funding him consider his blog a waste of time either.
But this is a free country. People can indulge whatever hobbies they want. Sentences beginning "if you really cared..." usually are about others trying to control your personal time and space, not relevant to whether a person cares or doesn't care about anything.
If Somerby really cared...he wouldn't be behaving like a Republican shill and would go read a book instead. I would love to see Somerby go away and never touch his keyboard again. He has less time on this planet left than I do and he is wasting his time as surely as I am, if your premise is right and there is no value in talking to other people about anything.
I spend my time playing duplicate bridge. You trolls overestimate the time it takes me to write anything. Literacy is hard, but the more practice the faster and better you get at it. I doubt it takes much time at all for Somerby to cut and paste his garbage and it takes me less time to comment. When Somertby decides he doesn't want to hear comments, he can remove his comment section. What do you waste your time on? Sports?
Get a room you two cuties
Delete@1:11 No thank you.
DeleteCorby, you know, actually you should think about driving to Baltimore and going on a date with Somerby. All your psychobabble every day is about one thing honey: UNMET NEEDS. You could drive out there and go on a date. Go to a romantic restaurant, see a horror movie, watch some amateur boxing on TV. Whatever! It may lead to something very, very exciting.
DeleteQuit projecting, 3:40. It’s rather unseemly.
DeleteChew some gum.
DeleteI'm sure Corby draws the line at stalking.
DeleteLook how a few legitimate questions led to a sexist attack.
DeleteThe original commenter patiently explained how the fanboy was wrong, and you could see how the fanboy was then backed into a corner and was left wimpering something about "well what are you doing".
DeleteYou could see that. They were backed into a corner and left whimpering. Somerby was opposing fairness and not making an argument whether proportional representation is the correct measurement of fairness.
DeleteSpot on.
His point is that if partisans were distributed evenly, and one party received 51 percent of the vote, then that party would win every single seat, even if there were 100 seats.
ReplyDeletePlease quote where he says that.
DeleteHe tells us the basic premise that a minority party should get representation equal to its vote share is a premise “built on sand.”
Deletebut that is not the premise or the mandate of the VRA, right DG?
DeleteI see no mention by Somerby of minorities. Is he upset because some minorities might be able to get a representative or two under Olsen's proposed fair start?
DeleteI have no idea what Somerby means by "race to the bottom" either, but it sounds like he considers attempting fairness to be some kind of bad race to the bottom, of what? He is making no sense to me at all. And what does "built on sand" mean? Does it mean that the resulting districts might change due to future circumstances? Why is that bad? There is no prior assumption that a districting plan would always produce the same results. That is why there is a census every 10 years -- because there is an assumption it would change due to population changes and require redoing to ensure fairness.
The premise of districting in the first place is that people should have representation based on their numbers in the population. Now Somerby says that is wrong and shouldn't be a prior assumption because outcomes might change. I think Somerby is wrong on that score. You wait and rearrange the districts every 10 years, tolerating some disproportionate representation until it can be revised to be more proportionate to the people doing the voting (not the results of their choices).
I don’t know enough about the VRA to say.
DeleteHere is a place to find out more about it:
Deletehttps://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/voting-rights-act
well you seems to be offering a hell of a lot opinions on the SC decision gutting the VRA, am I wrong?
Delete“the basic premise that a minority party should get representation equal to its vote share is a premise “built on sand.”
DeleteOlsen says “here’s how other countries solved the problem.”
In Germany, coming in second in an election still gets you seats in parliament. That seems a hell of a lot fairer, and more democratic, than “you got 49.9 percent, so you get no seats.”
Given that Olsen is supplying alternative solutions, that explains why Somerby will not consider any.
Delete"well you seems to be offering a hell of a lot opinions on the SC decision gutting the VRA, am I wrong?"
DeleteYes, you are. By "minority party" I meant the party receiving 49% of the vote.
So, if black people always got 49% of the vote in any district created that included them as residents, would that be fair? Black people are called minorities because that always seems to be the situation in legacy Jim Crow states.
DeleteReally, the concept is not that difficult to grasp. The "basic premise" Somerby decries is the premise that if a party represents 49% of the electorate, then it would receive 49% of the seats if districts were drawn "fairly." But if there is a perfectly even distribution of voters, then "fairly-drawn" districts would always leave the party with 49% of the voters without any representatives at all. No matter how you drew the district lines, the party with 51% would win every seat.
DeleteWhy is TDH decrying a position that was not promoted by those deploring the racist Supreme Court decision?
DeleteHe's simply pointing out a logical error, that's all. If you want to build your arguments on sand, go ahead.
DeleteThere is not going to be a "perfectly even" distribution of voters given that housing patterns are correlated strongly with voting preferences. This is part of sociology, that rich people live in neighborhoods where there are more expensive homes and tend to vote Republican whereas poorer people tend to live where there is more affordable housing, or closer to public transit or places where they work, and tend to vote Democratic. The idea that voting would be distributed evenly across geographic areas assumes that people have no basis for choosing where they live. That is far from true. Districts formed to include rural areas (farms) are always red because mostly farmers live there and they hold similar views and party affiliations. Republicans live in the wealthy suburbs and Democrats live in the poorer suburbs, in inner cities and urban areas, even in very blue states.
DeleteSomerby's adoption of a hypothetical that does not match human behavior is sophistry used to argue against fair approaches that are based on reality. Until the government starts assigning people to housing, Somerby's concern makes no sense because people don't live that way (randomly). People live in neighborhoods and communities that share common interests and thus vote similarly forming political majorities that should dictate seats and representation.
Somerby himself lives in a majority black city with many black neighborhoods. Although Southern, the state is blue because of the ability of black residents to vote for Democrats in districts representing their interests. Somerby is white and not much of a Democrat any more (if he ever was). I have no doubt he feels outnumbered, but he chose to live where he does because of his job teaching inner city black children in Baltimore. That makes him unusual, but it doesn't mean Maryland is gerrymandered against people like him. It is fairly representing the people of the state, who are not like Somerby. He is the minority and it is understandable he feels like the approach is unfair to him, but he may not be thinking about how others feel in Baltimore and the state as a whole.
DeleteI recall Somerby's complaints about what he felt was unfair gerrymandering in MD, long before Republicans provoked this recent gerrymandering war. Where does Al Gore live these days? "Al Gore primarily lives in a sprawling, eco-friendly estate in the Belle Meade neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee." I'll bet he feels represented there. Somerby might too. There is a historic plantation mansion you can tour to see what life used to be like for the gentry before the Civil War.
https://marylandmatters.org/2019/08/20/why-is-md-so-blue-demographics-tell-the-story-magazine-says/
"A recent survey by (soon-to-be defunct, alas) Governing magazine found that demographics determine how a state will vote in most elections. And that explains why Maryland is such a Democratic stronghold, most of the time.
This is not a surprise, but it’s worth unpacking. The magazine used federal data to rank the most rural states to the most urban states, the most white states to the least white and those with the lowest rate of undergraduate degrees to the highest. From that Governing determined how likely the states are to vote Democratic or Republican.
Using those factors, the survey shows Maryland to be the fourth state in the union that most favors Democrats demographically, just ahead of Massachusetts and behind Hawaii, California and New Jersey. The five most Republican states, demographically: West Virginia, Kentucky, Maine, Wyoming and Arkansas."
"A person's race, educational attainment and the population density of the place where they live increasingly shapes whether they'll vote as a Republican or Democrat. "The stark demographic and educational divisions that have come to define American politics were clearly evident in voting preferences in the 2018 congressional elections," according to the Pew Research Center. "There were wide differences in voting preferences between men and women, whites and nonwhites, as well as people with more and less educational attainment."
The question at hand is whether gerrymandering should be used to buck the trends inherent in the demographics of a geographic region where people have chosen to live. I think it is unfair to do so. Somerby seems to want to ignore those trends.
Dogface, logic is not part of this situation. This is a practical problem that demands an empirical solution.
DeleteNobody is suggesting that voters are distributed evenly. His hypothetical simply demonstrates that disproportionate outcomes don't prove gerrymandering.
Delete12:41 - But I think Somerby's point is that this "practical problem" is an exceedingly difficult one. Suppose there is a huge disparity between how men vote and how women vote. How do you draw the lines "fairly"?
DeleteBut we know that there is gerrymandering, DG. Legislative majorities go to great lengths to draw districts favorable to them. It is particularly problematical in states that are more evenly divided by party. You don’t need to view this in some sort of vacuum.
DeleteWhat’s wrong with proportional representation, DG? What does Olsen suggest?
DeleteYou remind me of Grand Wizard John Roberts inventing hypotheticals that no one ever suggested reflect reality
DeleteIt is not "exceedingly difficult" unless you are trying to achieve a goal that runs counter to the voting preferences of a group of people. There is a huge difference between how men and women vote. Unlike other demographics, men and women tend to live together in households, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, black or white, etc. When women become so disgusted with men's toxic behavior that they choose to live separately from them, then you might have a point, but that is not the case today.
Delete(See, you can use actual demographics to examine silly hypotheses, such as that men and women are going to abandon marriage and cohabitation. How do men and women live in different places? Look at the census data. That is why districting is tied to census results.)
I think we should all realize there’s no perfect solution and throw up our hands and just let it happen. I read TDH.
DeleteBut what's the "goal"? Proportionate representation? Men make up 71% of Congress, but 49% of the population. How are you going to draw the lines so that women are "proportionally" represented?
DeleteOr do we just forget about proportionate representation of gender as a "goal"? If so, what other factors should we forget about? Wealth? Education? Race? What?
DeleteDistricting is not based on any of that now. You are conflating elections with districting. People vote for whoever they choose because this is a democracy. Districting is not voting. It is the assignment of representatives based on population as determined by the census. Using other considerations such as partisanship is not constitutional.
DeleteAccording to the Grand Wizard of the Supreme Court, partisan gerrymandering is wildly constitutional as long as they are the ones doing it.
DeleteAnd the funny thing is, there’s no mention of political parties anywhere in the constitution.
DeleteThis reminds me of when Somerby tries to understand physics without taking a class.
DeleteSomerby seems to think he has found some fundamental flaw in relativity, a la Eric Weinstein, when in reality he is just not aware of or does not understand time dilation and length contraction.
Then Somerby does his move: "well if I can't understand it, having gone to Harvard, and no one can explain it in a way that I can understand, then it must be wrong".
Somerby's broader right wing agenda is to try to sow disillusionment of academia and of experts, thus making the population more compliant towards right wing dominance hierarchies.
"Now, in a digital blunder, Real Change PAC directly revealed its real goals and political affiliation. In a post on X, journalist Andrew Solender noted that when someone subscribes to Real Change PAC’s email list, the confirmation email comes from a cavalryllc.com email address. Cavalry LLC is one of DC’s premier Republican communications shops, founded by Josh Holmes, Senator Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) former Chief of Staff."
ReplyDeleteReal Change PAC is pretending to be blue but it uses its money to attack Democrats in primaries who may be stronger candidates against eventual Republican challengers in the general elections. There is a similar supposedly blue PAC in the CA 40th District funded by Republican dark money.
Just like Somerby pretends to be blue but today attacks the notion of fair districting. Somerby seems to be saying that because districting based on proportionate representation may turn out to be disproportionate due to some unstated circumstances, there is no point in trying to attain a fair and proportionate result when drawing districts.
Somerby neither says why the results would be disproportionate under a system of districting to obtain a proportionate result, nor does he say why one shouldn't start with such a goal if it seems fair to those involved. And he definitely has no explanation for why such a result would happen and no explanation for why a disproportionate result would emerge from an attempt at fairness.
He just says don't bother trying to obtain a fair result by starting out with proportionate representation as a goal. Is there any reason why a proportionate result should ever arise from an attempt to produce a disproportionate result? Somerby doesn't say why that would ever happen either.
He just says, fairness may be hard to accomplish, so don't bother trying to obtain such a goal. Give up from the start, says Somerby, from his unsupported stance as a glood and doom sayer who cannot even give lip service to being fair, even when someone else is proposing it.
Whatta guy our Somerby is. I hope his mission today is to get a personality transplant. He needs one. A person who pretends to be a democrat but cannot even agree that fairness is a worthwhile goal has something serious wrong with him.
The goal is not to prevent the other party from winning seats. If one party wins more seats than other, that doesn't mean districting has failed. It means that candidate was preferred by voters for some reason beyond party affiliation. If the initial attempt is the balance districts by partisan registration or prior presidential voting patterns, that shouldn't dictate that every candidate for every other office must conform to that districting assumption or districting has failed. It permits a level playing field for all candidates before the campaigning begins, at which point a candidate of either party may pull ahead on their own merits. So, prospective outcomes are not the measure of fairness, the way Somerby seems to think they should be.
DeleteIf Somerby thinks there is a better way to form districts, he should suggest what they might be. Otherwise he is just a fount of negativity with no ideas of his own, just a heap of criticism for the good faith efforts of others. That kind of contribution has no value to anyone actually working to improve the status quo.
Somerby never studied problem solving at Harvard. Just nihilism.
Delete"Somerby seems to be saying"
DeleteAlways a telltale sign of an unhinged screed ungrounded in anything Somerby has written.
Dogface George June 2, 2026 at 12:48 PM
Delete12:41 - But I think Somerby's point is that
DY: Why not share what Olsen thinks are possible solutions?
DeleteThe point being: do you or Somerby agree that gerrymandering is fundamentally undemocratic and as it’s currently practiced is breaking democracy? Germany awards seats to second and even third place finishers. Why would that not be fairer than our current system? Somerby is just arguing a status quo.
Somerby says nothing coherent and that allows DG and others to project their own views onto Somerby. Just like Trump talks gibberish and Trumpies tell us all what Trump meant and how wonderful he is.
DeleteI used to think that Somerby was brilliantly mocking his commenters by writing vague and incoherent messes, but now I think he isn't pretending to be foolish but this is the real Somerby. It is probably why he flunked so many of his philosophy classes and could never gain traction as a comedian or a journalist. I still think he is a right wing extremist follower of Curtis Yarvin and a pseudo-nazi who dislikes women. Those views of his have been consistent over time.
Agree with 2:03.
DeleteI have also stated the same sentiment many times here.
And I also used to think Somerby was feigning in order to help hone better arguments, but have since concluded that no this is just who he is, a racist, sexist and xenophobic right winger with a chip on his shoulder and poor thinking skills.
People who decide ahead of time that blacks should never get to elect black representatives are establishing a standard to guide districting that dictates that racial unfairness should be a goal. That is what the VRA attempted to prevent. Somerby won't say what he thinks the goals should be, if not fairness based on proportionate representation of political parties, because he knows that he shouldn't be saying the quiet part out loud.
ReplyDelete"With regard to gerrymanders, the current "race to the bottom" really is a race to the bottom. But there's no easy or obvious answer to this question:
ReplyDeleteHow might it be addressed?"
If by race to the bottom Somerby is referring to the gerrymandering war initiated by the Republicans to protect their majorities in Congress, then there is an obvious and easy way of addressing this situation.
You create a law that prohibits redistricting between census periods. The census is mandated by our Constitution. A strict reading would require redistricting be done every 10 years but prohibit it being done between censuses. A step further would be to prohibit redistricting to achieve partisan majorities in Congress, interfering with the will of the people who elect representatives of their choosing from districts based on population not party membership. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Why does it not occur to Somerby?
Calling something a "presumption" doesn't mean it is wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness to Olsen, the subheading to his essay reads “ gerrymandering is breaking American democracy. Here’s how other countries solved it.”
ReplyDeleteHe seems to list possible solutions. The article is behind a paywall, so I cannot read it.
Paywalls are bad for democracy. They prevent people with less money from participating fully in the free exchange of ideas on topics relevant to things that affect them, such as redistricting.
DeleteThe party of non DEI meritocracy is about to make Bill Pultes DNI -
ReplyDeletebecause fuck you, what are you going to do about it
Sounds like Trump's mini-me:
Delete"Pulte has no intelligence background; no national-security expertise. He’s an ultra-partisan with a highly quarrelsome personality and great inherited wealth."
Gerrymandering? meh. Blue Media not reporting on Gutfeld’s misogyny? End of democracy.
ReplyDeleteI read TDH.
Somerby is actually chiding liberals for trying to make voting more fair.
ReplyDeleteTsk, tsk.
I’m trying to find in the Constitution where it says that political parties are allowed to draw congressional districts to their heart’s content.
ReplyDeleteIt is right before the section that says if you are a corrupt fraud sexual predator lying sack of shit that somehow managed to get all the fucking racists behind you, you are immune from any crimes you commit while in office.
Delete