"I think that it's going to lead to more civil tension and possibly more violence in our country. Because, think about it if 35% of Texas is Democrat, solidly Democrat, and they have zero representation or like in my state, we're a very Republican state, but we have one Democrat area in Louisville, and we have a Democrat congressman. We could carve up Louisville and get rid of that one congressman, but how does that make Democrats feel?"
"Because once Texas is done and changed five seats to be Republican, California's going to do the same thing, and it's back and forth and back and forth. And how do you put the genie back in the box? I mean, how do you get back to detente? I mean, how do you do something better? But I think there is the potential that when people have no representation, that they feel disenfranchised, that it can lead and might lead"
Aggressive mid-decade redistricting by either party risks escalating civil tension and possibly provoking violence. Removing representation for sizable political minorities can leave voters feeling their votes do not count and foster disenfranchisement. Carving up concentrated opposition areas can eliminate single representatives, intensifying perceptions of exclusion. Reciprocal redistricting across states could become a tit-for-tat cycle, shifting seats repeatedly and hardening partisan divides. The mutual escalation lacks an obvious path to de-escalation or restoration of balanced representation. Sustained one-sided representation in large states could deepen polarization and erode public trust in the electoral system.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]