You believe it or not, Vice President JD Vance has said a series of things throughout the years I agree with.
For example, when he suggested “The American people will not tolerate another endless war” Regarding the sending of help to Ukraine, I felt seen. When Vance told Podcast Theo von “We need to launch the Epstein list; that's something important,” I couldn't have accepted anymore. The sex trafficker received about $ 1.5 billion and 4,000 wire transfers To help pay your operation. The American people must know who gave money to that monster.
Recently, Vance resorted to social networks to point out that Republicans averaged 40% of the votes in California, but under a district redistribution scenario would be represented by only 9% of the states of the State Chamber.
“How can this be allowed?” He reflected.
It is a very good question, especially for Texas.
After Texas won two points due to population growth in 2021, 95% of which is attributable to people of color, Governor Greg Abbott signed a map that actually increased the number of districts in which most voters are white. In fact, 60% of the new state districts of the Senate were main targets despite white residents that represented less than 40% of the population. Today the Republicans suggest that the new map is their way of making space for Latin voters. The timeline suggests that these seats belonged to Latin voters years ago.
Vance is right to point out that there is a shortage of republican representation in California's policy. But while the Democrats have controlled the governor's mansion and both state chambers for 11 consecutive years in the golden state, in Texas the Republicans have had the three for 22 consecutive years, largely due to the type of Vance Gerrymandering denounced. (In California, it is difficult to criticize the redistribution of partisan districts for the current mixture of representation … because the State It has no redistribution of partisan districts. Voters established an independent commission 14 years ago).
Texas's current map already seems to bow in favor of Republicans. Last year, the Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, won more than 40% of the votes in the Star Lone state, and, nevertheless, today the Republicans have almost 70% of the seats of the State Chamber. And Abbott and his Maga cohorts in office want even more.
In a sense, it is a full circle moment for Vance to complain about Gerrymandering taking into account that he was a former vice president, Elbridge Gerry, who began. Gerry, one of the founding parents of the nation, was governor of Massachusetts when he approved a map of the seat in the Senate that Boston's gazette ridiculed as a form of Salamandra. This is because it was drawn in a strange way to manipulate the system to bend towards the Republicans. What Vance complains was initiated by his party and has been the reality of the country since 1812.
That does not suggest that the Democrats are not guilty.
Between 2010 and 2020, Illinois lost approximately 18,000 people. That reduction cost the State a chamber seat and required a new map of Congress. For more than a decade, Republican Adam Kinzinger represented the 16th district, a strip of land that included moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. However, after the new map was drawn by the Democrats, District 16 was erased and Kinzinger did not have a district.
That is Kinzinger who proved to be A crucial member of January. 6 Committee Because the war veterinarian put his country on a party. Then, while the Democrats of Illinois were busy grabbing more power with the new map in 2021, without knowing it forced a moderate Republican who would prove to be one of the few conservatives in Congress to defend democracy. He tried not only to be an ally of democrats oriented to democracy, but also to be one of the speakers in the National Democratic Convention of 2024, a measure that he and they expected to take more moderate to vote against Donald Trump.
If the Democrats had kept their district intact, perhaps they would have had an ally in the chamber that fights the overreach of President Trump. Remember in May when Trump's “great beautiful bill” approved the camera by a single vote?
There lies the real danger of Gerrymandering.
It is not about what goes out today, but what is prevented from happening in an unforeseen future. Kinzinger voted with Trump 90% of the time, even against the first accusation. Looking that, I don't blame the Democrats for seeing him as a political enemy when they eliminated their district. However, when it mattered, it was an ally of democracy. However, by then, it was seen as a political figure condemned due to Gerrymandering. Sophocles himself could not have written a more tragic story of self -destructive arrogance.
Then, yes, JD Vance has said a series of things throughout the years I agree with: without endless wars, launch Epstein's archives, stop gerrymandering. I agreed with the vance that was interested in fighting for democracy. But to appease your boss, she retires from the positions of principles. How the world has changed, and he with him.
YouTube: @Lzgrandershow
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The author agrees with the criticism of Vice President JD Vance to the representation of the California Congress, where Republicans earn 40% of the votes, but have only 9% of the chamber's seats, arguing that this disparity represents a deformed partisan representation that should not be allowed.
-
Although he recognizes the representation imbalance in California, the author argues that Texas presents an even more atrocious example of Gerrymandering, with Republicans that have almost 70% of the chamber's seats despite the fact that the Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris won more than 40% of the vote in 2024[1].
-
The author emphasizes that the Process of Redistribution of Districts of California differs primarily from partisan Gerrymandering because the State established an independent commission 14 years ago to manage the redistribution of districts, instead of allowing partisan control of the process[1].
-
The author argues that both political parties are involved in Danñino Gerrymandering, citing the elimination of Illinois Democrats to Adam Kinzinger's republican district in 2021, which finally eliminated a moderate voice that later became crucial to defend democracy during the investigations of January 6.
-
The author argues that the real danger of Gerrymandering is found not only in the immediate political consequences, but also in the prevention of unforeseen future alliances in the lines of the party, using the evolution of Trump's Kinzinger to defender of the defender of democracy as an example of how to eliminate moderate voices through the redistribution of the redistribution can shame.
-
The author criticizes Vance for retiring from the anti-urbanism positions of principles to appease Trump, suggesting that, although Vance correctly identifies the problem of partisan representation, he has abandoned the opposition consisting of Gerrymandering when he benefits his party.
Different views on the subject
-
Republican legislators such as the representative Kevin Kiley have introduced legislation to block the redistribution efforts of districts of the decade, arguing that such movements are harmful to democracy and violate the traditional practices of re -drawing districts only after the decenal census[2].
-
Texas Republican officials justify their redistribution efforts of districts by pointing out what they characterize as Gerrymander -led by Democrat in other states, and Trump declared that “they did it to us” when asked about the redistributed of the decade in the middle of the decade.[3].
-
Civil Rights Division of the Harmeet Dhillon Department of Justice has provided a legal justification for the redistribution of Texas districts by arguing that four current districts are “coalition districts” that represent “vestiges of a past unconstitutional racial base Gerrymandering” that must be corrected “[3].
-
The governor of California Gavin Newsom and democratic leaders frame their possible redistribution efforts of districts as a transparent response to partisan gerrymandering throughout the country, arguing that if Texas proceeds with the redistribution of districts, California should counteract their own map settings that could increase democratic seats from 43 to 48[2][3].
-
The supporters of the redistribution of districts proposed by California argue that the process would maintain transparency by placing new maps before the voters in a special election, allowing California residents to be carried out instead of the political treatment of the back room.[3].
-
Political analysts Keep in mind that the disparity of current representation of California can result from natural geographical and demographic factors instead of intentional Gerrymandering, since the state map was drawn by a bipartisan commission and California is not considered an atypical dramatic value when comparing the percentages of presidential vote of the Congress and Presidential[1].
