You cant explain this

Did your mother smoke crack during the pregnancy?

The 1.3m/1.1m totals are for the entire state. It’s not 1.3m from 36 seats, it’s 1.3m from the entire state.

No, you're being purposefully dense about this. You're oversimplifying how the creation of districts work, which is by minimum population count within a certain area.
If you tried to chop up a city into a bunch of small districts and then only gave the rest of the state one or two districts, that's literally the definition of gerrymandering.
You know, that thing the dems try to whine and claim the gop does?
Districts are formed on a minimum population threshold.
Just because a bunch of bug people want to live on top of one another in a giant concrete hive does not mean that the needs and interests of the rest of a state should be ignored.
Therefore, we don't divide the state into districts strictly by population numbers, we do it by minimum thresholds for population within a region.

>The State Assembly is PROPORTIONAL, so yes that does indeed mean areas with concentrated population with have more smaller districts and sparse regions will have fewer larger distrcts
>This is balanced out by the State SENATE which divides the state into an even number of regions with an even number of representatives, meaning there will be more representation for sparsely populated regions.

Look at how this works federally: California has many Congressmen and Montana has 1 Congressman - in the Senate both states have 2 Senators each.

1.3 million votes won 36 seats
1.1 million votes won 63 seats
46% of the population got 63% of the legislature
54% of the population got 36% of the legislature

oh no, this is all wrong. only shitskin infested cities are allowed to vote on state issues right?

>minimum population count
36,000 vs 17,000 - thats an awfully wide margin

>people I dont like are voting

Attached: calm rational man.jpg (860x619, 41.34K)

See I knew this is what you believed. It's not directly proportional. Period. Each district is formed by a minimum population threshold and then divided proportionally, after. Again, if you simply divided proportionally, then you'd have situations where a bunch of bug men would have 99% of the districts and the rest of the state would be only one district.

>Are you suggesting there is something underhanded afoot here?
Possibly something not well-heeled at hand there

Only landowning white men should vote.

Yes. Universal suffrage is a terrible idea.

Let’s say there’s a city with 10 council districts. One party wins 6 of the districts with 55%, the other party wins 4 districts with 100% because the main party doesn’t run there .

Then the party with 4 seats wins more votes but doesn’t win the most seats because the opposition didn’t run there.

A lot of the Milwaukee/Madison seats were not contested by Republicans.

Every state legislature seat is drawn to have essentially the same number of people living there.

>It's not directly proportional
"Since 1973, the state has been divided into 99 Assembly districts apportioned amongst the state based on population"
>minimum population threshold
>more than twice the people are in Democratic voting districts vs Republican
Pick one
>Again, if you simply divided proportionally, then you'd have situations where a bunch of bug men would have 99% of the districts and the rest of the state would be only one district.
>WhySkulls?AreWeTheBadies.mp4

>implying Dems don't gerrymander
Look at what they did in Maryland to screw the GOP out of a representative or two lmfao

Attached: md gerrymander.png (872x477, 215.02K)

user that makes no sense
It simply means those people won those 4 seats resoundingly

Attached: pepe apu maths.jpg (411x306, 36.71K)

Your feelings won't change this, it doesn't matter what you want or desire. Learn the facts and stop spewing nonsense.
If you want it changed then advocate for a constitutional convention in your state and ask your legislators to rewrite their thresholds within the constitution of said state.
That said, I don't give a damn how many people they can pile into a single square mile. The fact remains that there are interests outside of those city areas, and raw numbers are NOT the way to divide up a states districts.
If you want something closer to fucking what you're whining about, move to California or New York, because you can see they've gerrymandered the hell out of their states and you have entire regions of California and New York which have more population than their neighboring states with almost no representation at all in the state govts there.
Frankly, people who live in a city should be more interested in what their city government is doing, because in many ways, what the city does is far more relevant and impactful over those bug men's lives than how the state decides to regulate stuff like raw milk.

Imagine being this retarded. Also, memeflag.

>A lot of the Milwaukee/Madison seats were not contested by Republicans.
Because they were drawn in such a way as to contain Democratic leaning voters and the Republicans had given themselves more districts and so they didn't need to bother running in them?

Are you suggesting Wisconsin is gerrymandered in retaliation for Maryland being gerrymandered?

Attached: crying baby.jpg (205x246, 7.74K)

Oh noes people who live in the densely populated city areas where liberal echo chambers create a confirmation bias effect have their votes matter less.

Reality check for you: People are stupid and highly susceptible to peer pressure. Weighting votes by capping support per-area at 50% is a brilliant move. A city full of brainwashed NPCs should never, ever, get to dictate how 99% of the rest of the state gets used.

Attached: 1568341676726.jpg (960x803, 125.47K)

>your feelings wont change this
>insists that proportional representation would let unpeople have votes that count and that is bad so this is necessary

Attached: 1267991972711.jpg (354x357, 27.93K)

>its retarded to notice that this sort of result means there are significantly more people in some districts than others

>echo chamber
I love how on the one hand some of you try to make nonsense arguments to rationalise this as not at all unusual
And on the other hand there are others here who have the honesty to acknowledge it and try to claim it is just and right, like the Belgiums in the Congo there is something to be said about such brutal honesty and I do have a modicum of respect for you for admitting it

Attached: 51718KHHA4L.jpg (313x475, 35.73K)

Uh, yeah that's going to happen when you pile as many people as you can in a single area.

Let's make a state:
Say it's a population of 100.
We decide a legislature of 10 is good.

65 people move into the downtown area.
35 spread out across the rest of the state.

Why is your view that the small downtown area has 65% of the political power?
Almost no one in that city knows how to farm, or cut lumber, or whatever.
Most probably couldn't even survive a week in the woods on their own.
But, in your pure democracy view of politics, where the number of people should be directly proportional to power, these bug men in the downtown area would basically be telling the rest of the state how to run their business and their lives.

See, this is a fundamental split in how conservatives and idiots like you view the world.
Some city nigger should not be telling a rural farmer what he's allowed to grow or what kind of cattle he can raise. Period.

Well democrats pad their numbers with illegal and dead people votes.

>Why is your view that the small downtown area has 65% of the political power?
There is also a State Senate.
That city would likely be covered by 1 or 2 districts.
And the rest of the districts would comprise the rest of the state.
You literally cannot figure out how a bicameral legislature works, can you?

Attached: 3mLydMU.jpg (600x494, 44.38K)

Lmao, don't run on an anti-white ticket in a white state.

>pile
People naturally congregate together for work and industry, you make it sound like a plot lolwut

Attached: pepe silvia.jpg (680x680, 110.9K)

>the solution to alleged voter fraud is gerrymandering

Attached: Burns snrub.jpg (500x363, 25.18K)

This is some NA democracy right there

It's one solution.

>Why is your view that the small downtown area has 65% of the political power?

If its more fair for the minority to have power, shouldn't socialists and communists be running things?

Attached: cat cool.jpg (800x751, 314.2K)

And the democrats do both

Niggers and spics only count for 1/3rd a vote

Attached: image.jpg (932x960, 234.12K)

You're definitely retarded.
I'm saying that your feelings won't change the LAW you stupid fucking child.
You're here whining about the system this country has run and operated under for over 250 years you stupid faggot. And yet you're here whining and LYING (to the brit) that what is being done is gerrymandering, when IT IS NOT.
It's how our republic is designed you stupid meme flag twat. Jesus christ.
Lying about it on an anonymous forum won't change anything, and it only makes you look like an emotional brainlet.
I was attempting to have a discussion about this with you, help you see why someone might actually agree with a system that has worked fine for hundreds of years now, and why centralized representation is not an ideal way to govern a state/country.
But I can see you're just going to keep whining about your position and calling other people "evil" because they don't accept your premise that direct democracy is a good thing; while hiding behind greentext attempts to deflect.

>"You're saying you don't believe direct democracy is an ideal way to run society?"
>chews crayons
Yes.

What the fuck is "the minority"? No, obviously shitskins and parasites shouldn't have power regardless of what percentage of the population they make up.

But they do have votes that count. This is done to prevent mob rule and to have low population areas still have their needs and interest addressed.

>accusations are evidence

Attached: COME ON.jpg (666x715, 78.74K)

>your feelings
>most of the posts here acknowledge the gerrymandering and say its good

Attached: 1263672539353.jpg (604x453, 53.21K)

>45 posts itt
>20 posts by faggot (op)
The absolute state of United States of cope

Attached: 1586170128961m.jpg (1024x542, 63.66K)

It's not about majority or minority. It's about good governance. It's about regional automony and a lack of centralization around single population centers.
That's the entire idea behind the entire concept. If everyone left the city and went back to rural living, you wouldn't suddenly see the city area get all the districts. The districts would stay close to how they are now, and that's the whole point you smug brainlet.

>accusations
nice try, faggot.

Why are you confusing the creation of districts as gerrymandering?

Keep hiding behind your greentext deflections. Because it's all you have left.

1.1 million people voting for Republicans is 46% of voters and 1.3 million people voting Democrat is 54% of the voters
1.1 million is less than 1.3 million
46% is less than 54%
That's a... minority
Not ethnic minorities
Thank you for showing how triggered you are

Democrat votes come from big cities where there are a lot more people in each district.

Their votes aren't counted if a party gains a 2/3 majority on a 46% vote

As for rural areas being crowded out in a properly proportional vote: that is where the Senate steps in to balance things out.

Except that the reason that the republicans should win has nothing to do with them getting less votes, and everything to do with them being the much less retarded party. The democrats should never win anywhere, and every effort should be made to resist them, regardless of how many they are in any region.

>its about good governance for a party to gain a 2/3 majority on 46% of the vote
No, that is the party and its followers with that power telling themselves this to justify to themselves why they do this
>I know better
>That party is extreme
>We represent the real Americans
etc
That is called rationalizing your crime.
>It's about regional automony
Regional autonomy requires a minority to have a majority of power??

You do understand gerrymandering is all about how districts are drawn?

True dat
But somehow the districts in the cities have many more people in them than rural districts
If there were roughly the same number of people in districts across the state then you would have many small districts in populated areas, and few large districts in rural areas
>oh noes the rural will be crowded out
That is balanced out by the State Senate

And why would this even hurt rural regions?
Republicans are the ones closing rural hospitals. Regional and interurban rail is an issue rural and urban agree on supporting - and would encourage more people to move out of cities! There are plenty of issues they help one another on.

Attached: Homer ice.jpg (512x384, 27.27K)

>That is called rationalizing your crime.
There is no crime in reducing the governmental say of parasites.
>Regional autonomy requires a minority to have a majority of power??
Yes.

>Their votes aren't counted if a party gains a 2/3 majority on a 46% vote
I don't think you know what you're talking about. It's that party's fault for not having policies to win other votes.

>As for rural areas being crowded out in a properly proportional vote: that is where the Senate steps in to balance things out.
Are you really suggesting that rural areas shouldn't have any say in the house?

You do understand that still doesn't make them one and the same.

>Regional autonomy requires a minority to have a majority of power??
HOLY SHIT YOU ACTUALLY GOT IT!!!
Wow, holy fuck dude. In your own faggoty way you finally understood the point behind our republic. In your attempts to be snarky and deflect, you managed to stumble into the reality of how our system is designed to work.
I mean, you're clearly still a fair ways off from fully grasping the concept entirely, but you definitely nailed this point.

Wow, holy shit. I don't think I've ever seen a meme flag faggot like you actually step in the truth like you just did.
This is a learning moment for you buddy, I'm sure you'll miss the point or push it out of your mind as quickly as you can, but you had it, for a moment, you understood.

>But somehow
It's because they are insects that live in hives.
>And why would this even hurt rural regions?
Because faggot urbanites do stupid shit like make retarded zoning laws, increase taxes to pay for welfare programs that only apply to inner city niggers, pass blatantly tyrannical and unconstitutional gun control legislation.

>Except that the reason that the republicans should win has nothing to do with them getting less votes, and everything to do with them being the much less retarded party.
And now we see the rationalizing.
Telling yourself its good and right and proper and for the best, that you know better and they dont and you have to do this to them - for their own sake. If anything they should be thanking you.