Sorry, but when batshit state maps like these are created with the sole intent of stripping away voting power from voters you disagree with you lose a lot of credibility when you complain about "cancelling my vote". Anything underlined and in bold in this text contains a link.

My president wants to silence my voice and cancel my vote by taking power away from the state legislators whom I have voted for and whom are enacting voting legislation aligned with my beliefs on what is needed to achieve a secure and justice election process. These actions are necessary to restore confidence in the process and research is backing up this claim.

Yes, it is very important to maintain the sacred integrity of state elections who are enacting legislation aligned with the voters, when a party who wins 200,000 fewer votes still ends up with two thirds of the seats and a supermajority in their state legislature.

This trend is repeated in virtually every state that has a Republican drawn map, carefully designed with partisan intent, which in 2010 was the focus of a concerted effort called REDMAP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Georgia - 97,000 vote difference, 9-5 split on seats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina_House_of_Representatives_election -  Loses statewide elections by 87,000 votes but still ends up with 10 more seats in the legislature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Texas Captures 53% of the vote, but captures 2/3 of the house delegation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Michigan_House_of_Representatives_election Loses statewide elections but still ends up with 6 more seats in the legislature

Even if I took you at face value and looked at every other part of the legislation and deemed it horrible, (it isn't, standardized election rules for federal office makes perfect sense and would cut down on a lot of confusion in the long run, even if it resulted in short term hiccups) I would still happily take it if it meant the end of gerrymandering, which is by far the most consequential piece of this legislation.

Gerrymandering allows legislators to choose their voters and continues to exacerbate both out of touch representation and extreme partisanship, when your only real worry is getting a primary challenge because you aren't crazy enough.  To not concede that this needs to be changed to allow for voters to have legislators and representatives that represent their area accurately is frankly, ridiculous, or an acknowledgement that you are more interested in a partisan outcome than a fair one.

Sorry, but when batshit state maps like these are created with the sole intent of stripping away voting power from voters you disagree with you lose a lot of credibility when you complain about "cancelling my vote".

1. Do you live in one of these states?  If so I hope you have been advocating with your fellow citizens for your state leadership to create a process that is better.  If, however, you can not convince your fellow citizens to see things as you do than at least you have an option of moving to a state that does not do this.  However, if you trade state-level partisanship for federal-level partisanship (and you would be with this Act) than suddenly you have no other option than to move to a different country.  If you think moving to a different state is hard, how much harder would it be to move to a different country.  Also if you think that one side of politicians has any moral high ground over the other side you are severely mistaken.   Look elsewhere if you are seeking better angels.
2. I have lost credibility?  A pretty big assumption since you have no idea who I am, what I have done, or what I believe beyond a few paragraphs on some random game's forum.  You seem pretty comfortable sitting in pre-judgement of me.   Are you doing what President Biden is doing and just lumping a huge swath (half the country it would seem) of Americans together because they have a different world view (to various degrees) than you?  If not than is it a case of you deprioritizing my lived experiences?  

Yes, it is very important to maintain the sacred integrity of state elections who are enacting legislation aligned with the voters, when a party who wins 200,000 fewer votes still ends up with two thirds of the seats and a supermajority in their state legislature.

I will refer you back to #2 above as this seems a continuation of that topic.  However, an additional note comes to mind at this point that I would like to seek clarification on from you.  Are you familiar with the distinctions between a pure democracy and a republic?  You seem to be conflating the two.

Regardless of any pre-judgements I might should mention here for the record that I personally believe that districting lines should be done in a manner that focuses on compactness, contiguity, equal population, preservation of existing political communities and partisan fairness.  I have also vocalized my beliefs to my state representation and to my fellow statesmen, and though I am sure the process is not perfect in my state I believe its ability to reach perfection has a greater chance of succeeding when those legislations guiding the process are being drawn up by people I grew up with and know by name rather than someone a thousand miles away with no accountably to me, the voter. 

This trend is repeated in virtually every state that has a Republican drawn map, carefully designed with partisan intent, which in 2010 was the focus of a concerted effort called REDMAP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Georgia - 97,000 vote difference, 9-5 split on seats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina_House_of_Representatives_election -  Loses statewide elections by 87,000 votes but still ends up with 10 more seats in the legislature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Texas Captures 53% of the vote, but captures 2/3 of the house delegation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Michigan_House_of_Representatives_election Loses statewide elections but still ends up with 6 more seats in the legislature

Shall I list link after link where Democrats have gerrymandered a map?  I could, but there would be no point to it.  The truth of the matter is that politics is about grabbing power in all its forms.  When they have the opportunity they all do it and they all say they are doing it for the betterment of the country.  The real question is how best the citizenship can manage their behavior.  At least when state legislatures draw boundary lines, or establish a state-level commission, I the voter may punish egregious behavior at the next election.  They have accountability to me, the voter. This Act would establish a commission of unelected national bureaucrats that do not answer to the voters in any way. I can not think of a better way to allow corruption to runamok than in that kind of a set up.

Even if I took you at face value and looked at every other part of the legislation and deemed it horrible, I would still happily take it if it meant the end of gerrymandering, which is by far the most consequential piece of this legislation.

Thank you!  I appreciate being taken at face value.  I can also tell that the topic of gerrymandering is important to you.  It sounds that we actually agree on just about everything on the topic except on the matter of who has the authority to over see it.  I look at our name -- the United States of America.  We are a country made up of states, first and foremost.  My worldview is that the federal government should be limited in it power to the items that are specifically spelled out in our constitution and everything else pushed down to the state and local level. 

I realize that there are many people out there who do not share that world view with me.  This is okay and perfectly acceptable.  I can still co-exist with people that have a difference in opinion than I do.  However the whole point to my original post was that my president has labeled me an enemy of the people because I have a different opinion than he does.  How can I co-exist peacefully with my fellow Americans when I am being demonized in such a manner by the man who is suppose to represent all Americans?

There isn’t a democrat, or republican alive that cares about anyone they represent. They’re all in it for their own personal interest, which always means putting more funds in their pockets.

Indeed.  Did you know this Act lines the pocket's of our politicians by giving them $6 of tax payers' money for every one dollar they raise!!!!  Heck I don't even give a dollar to the presidential fund on my income tax return!  They can go get their own money and don't be using mine unless I choose to give it to them. 

Do you live in one of these states?  If so I hope you have been advocating with your fellow citizens for your state leadership to create a process that is better.  If, however, you can not convince your fellow citizens to see things as you do than at least you have an option of moving to a state that does not do this.  However, if you trade state-level partisanship for federal-level partisanship (and you would be with this Act) than suddenly you have no other option than to move to a different country.  If you think moving to a different state is hard, how much harder would it be to move to a different country.  Also if you think that one side of politicians has any moral high ground over the other side you are severely mistaken.   Look elsewhere if you are seeking better angels.

Iterations of this argument were more or less the defense that states made for keeping slavery legal in their respective states, the argument against giving women the right to vote, and the arguments made against passing the Voting Rights Act.  Why do State rights arguments always seem to come up when a state is repressing its own citizens rather than talking about the issue itself? Some things in the United States should be universal to their citizens.  The right to vote is undoubtedly one of them, as it is the primary focus of roughly five amendments to the constitution.

And, respectfully, there’s also only so far "convincing your fellow citizens" can get you when your vote is intentionally diluted for partisan gain, preventing you from even getting in the door. An outcome where two thirds of the seats of a legislature continue to go towards a minority party after an election is the epitome of corruption and engineered unaccountability.  I am no longer interested in having partisan politicians draw maps that are inherently designed to unfairly minimize their opponents representation, regardless of their political affiliation, nor am I interested in continuing the tyranny of a minority in any party that is hell bent on keeping power at the expense of their populations.  Some states also don't have the benefit of enjoying voter-driven ballot initiatives that can bypass these mechanisms.

Regardless of any pre-judgements I might should mention here for the record that I personally believe that districting lines should be done in a manner that focuses on compactness, contiguity, equal population, preservation of existing political communities and partisan fairness.  I have also vocalized my beliefs to my state representation and to my fellow statesmen, and though I am sure the process is not perfect in my state I believe its ability to reach perfection has a greater chance of succeeding when those legislations guiding the process are being drawn up by people I grew up with and know by name rather than someone a thousand miles away with no accountably to me, the voter.

Great! I believe that the ability to reach perfection has a greater chance of succeeding when partisan politicians aren't involved in drawing the maps they're going to be competing in.  The law would establish uniform rules that every state would have to follow when drawing their own maps, which specifically includes keeping towns, neighborhoods and areas where people have a shared identity together. 

You also seem to be under the belief that these maps will be created by someone in Washington, when in reality they're being drawn by commissions pooled from individuals in each state that represent their areas and demographic makeup accurately.  It also requires that those redistricting efforts be transparent and open to participation by its population with the ability to review, comment and offer amendments on those proposed maps.  This also only applies to federal representation, and states are, unfortunately, free to continue passing horrible state maps for local state representation.

Are you doing what President Biden is doing and just lumping a huge swath (half the country it would seem) of Americans together because they have a different world view (to various degrees) than you?  If not than is it a case of you deprioritizing my lived experiences?

I’m curious as to why you feel personally targeted by this speech, which was primarily aimed at state legislatures and their politicians who hastily passed voting laws that were inspired by grand allegations of fraud and abuse, unproven in any court, in states where one party conveniently lost. Are you advocating for aggressive gerrymandering in your state and changes to your laws that would result in fewer people voting? It doesn't quite sound like it from your original post.  It appears that you yourself have lumped a huge swath of Americans together as the punching bag for a speech that was squarely aimed at protecting voting rights, for a bill that is actually far more popular than with just "half" of Americans.

I will refer you back to #2 above as this seems a continuation of that topic.  However, an additional note comes to mind at this point that I would like to seek clarification on from you.  Are you familiar with the distinctions between a pure democracy and a republic?  You seem to be conflating the two.

Democracies and Republics are not exclusive forms of government that exist in separate vacuums, and we share attributes of both, as inconvenient as it is towards people who wax poetic to explain away the unfairness of our current voting system or other deficiencies in our country due to us being a "Republic". 

At least when state legislatures draw boundary lines, or establish a state-level commission, I the voter may punish egregious behavior at the next election.  They have accountability to me, the voter.

I don't think I need to continue to hammer you on the point of how effective a political party can be in nullifying your voting power - I've more than proven my case in this respect and it is rather obvious in a redistricting year where the winds will blow as it pertains to the next decade barring this kind of legislation.  A voter's ability to punish egregious behavior is effectively gone at the local level, and is only relevant in statewide races - provided that those constantly changing voting laws don't trip them up.

I realize that there are many people out there who do not share that world view with me.  This is okay and perfectly acceptable.  I can still co-exist with people that have a difference in opinion than I do.

We can coexist peacefully with different opinions as citizen to citizen, but as it pertains to lawmakers and the people you're sending to office, I'm simply done with zero sum power games being played at the federal and state level from people who are in a minority who continue to wield authority over a population that on the whole, increasingly disagrees with it, and has used every tool in their box to avoid accountability to them.

Why do State rights arguments always seem to come up when a state is repressing its own citizens rather than talking about the issue itself?

When talking about the Act (which by the way my original post had less to do about the Act and more to do with the President himself), the issue is state's rights.  At it's core it is legislation that is seeking to federalize the election process.

We are talking about federalizing the election process -- removing a right given to the states by the constitution.  There is precedent for doing this as long as it can been demonstrated that someone is actually being denied their right to vote.  So where is the empirical evidence that people are being denied their right to vote?

 I am no longer interested in having partisan politicians draw maps that are inherently designed to unfairly minimize their opponents representation, regardless of their political affiliation, nor am I interested in continuing the tyranny of a minority in any party that is hell bent on keeping power at the expense of their populations.

So part of FTPA is a requirement to use next gen computer generated map testing.  Having computers draw the lines seems like a great thing.  After all computers lack bias... until you think about the fact that the people imputing those parameters and making those algorithms are also partisan (everyone has biases).  There is a saying in my industry: Garbage in, garbage out.  Just because a computer spits it out doesn't make it non-partisan. 

Great! I believe that the ability to reach perfection has a greater chance of succeeding when partisan politicians aren't involved in drawing the maps they're going to be competing in.

This legislation doesn't remove those partisan politicians from the processes.  Who do you think is going to decide who goes on those commissions and who is going to "vet" them?  

The law would establish uniform rules that every state would have to follow when drawing their own maps

You have faith in partisan politicians to establish non-partisan rules, but don't have faith in partisan politicians to draw lines on a map?  Seems a little contradictory.

 You also seem to be under the belief that these maps will be created by someone in Washington, when in reality they're being drawn by commissions pooled from individuals in each state that represent their areas and demographic makeup accurately. 

Will the states get to determine what is "accurately" when it comes to the demographic makeup? 

It also requires that those redistricting efforts be transparent and open to participation by its population with the ability to review, comment and offer amendments on those proposed maps.

Will the states determine what is transparent and open? 

I’m curious as to why you feel personally targeted by this speech, which was primarily aimed at state legislatures and their politicians who hastily passed voting laws that were inspired by grand allegations of fraud and abuse, unproven in any court, in states where one party conveniently lost

What is your evidence that it was primarily aimed at state legislatures and their politicians?  My recollection is that President Biden spoke in a wide and encompassing manner with little to no limiting verbiage.

 Are you advocating for aggressive gerrymandering in your state and changes to your laws that would result in fewer people voting? It doesn't quite sound like it from your original post. 

This seems a bit trollish... maybe it isn't.  Regardless of the reason for engagement... thank you for helping me to get my vision up :D

It appears that you yourself have lumped a huge swath of Americans together as the punching bag for a speech that was squarely aimed at protecting voting rights

Just went back and re-read my original post and it is without a doubt a punching bag of one man.  The exception might be the last paragraph in which I lumped the reaction of the legacy media and the politicians together -- hardly a huge swath of Americans by any stretch.  Also what you call a bill to protect voting rights, I call a corrupt bill intended to line politicians' pockets and a power grab lightly veiled in popular vernacular.  As always the devil is in the details.

I don't think I need to continue to hammer you on the point of how effective a political party can be in nullifying your voting power - I've more than proven my case in this respect

I don't think you have proven your case at all.  States have the ability to change how they run elections.  States like AZ, CA, CO, OH, VA and MI have all recently undergone re-districting reform.  There is nothing stopping a grass-root effort from rising up in any state if it has enough public support.  On the right and on the left, it is grass-roots efforts that are affecting change right now.  The only limit is the public support those efforts can garnish. 

A voter's ability to punish egregious behavior is effectively gone at the local level, and is only relevant in statewide races - provided that those constantly changing voting laws don't trip them up.

Maybe where you live, but not where I live.  That is why it doesn't make sense for politicians from GA to tell people in Missouri how it should run their elections.  They have not lived the experience of being a Missourian voter.  We are perfectly capable of working out any issues in our process we each other and don't need a disconnected big brother looking over our shoulder.

We can coexist peacefully with different opinions as citizen to citizen, but as it pertains to lawmakers and the people you're sending to office, I'm simply done with zero sum power games being played at the federal and state level from people who are in a minority who continue to wield authority over a population that on the whole, increasingly disagrees with it, and has used every tool in their box to avoid accountability to them.

Thank you for admitting that this Act is a power grab.  The FTPA is nothing more than an federal overreach to gain power and line politicians pockets.  It is the most corrupt bill in recent history.

At it's core it is legislation that is seeking to federalize the election process

Yes, this makes perfect sense for offices that pertain to the state’s representation in the federal government.  Should states have the right to only allow people with the surname Smith the right to vote in a federal election? Should states allow only one polling area in a precinct area of 500,000 but allow for 50 in the next precinct over with a tenth of the population?  How much deference am I expected to give in the name of states rights?

So part of FTPA is a requirement to use next gen computer generated map testing.  Having computers draw the lines seems like a great thing.  After all computers lack bias... until you think about the fact that the people imputing those parameters and making those algorithms are also partisan (everyone has biases).  There is a saying in my industry: Garbage in, garbage out.  Just because a computer spits it out doesn't make it non-partisan

Testing is testing.  Computers are tools to be used, and they aren’t making the decisions on which maps go live, at the end of the day, so this doesn’t seem very relevant to me.

This legislation doesn't remove those partisan politicians from the processes.  Who do you think is going to decide who goes on those commissions and who is going to "vet" them?  

Great question! A portion of the members are randomly selected from a group of applicants who submit their names as potential commission members, each providing the same demographic data that they provided during the census, who then in turn appoint the rest of the members through the same applicant process, verifying their eligibility as an active voter and ensuring that they do not have a conflict of interest in their role as a member of a commission. Applicants are also not allowed to be lawmakers or have any affiliation with a lobbying group.

Maybe where you live, but not where I live.  That is why it doesn't make sense for politicians from GA to tell people in Missouri how it should run their elections. They have not lived the experience of being a Missourian voter.  We are perfectly capable of working out any issues in our process we each other and don't need a disconnected big brother looking over our shoulder.

I’m so glad that you feel that you’re represented fairly!  That’s a luxury that many citizens in their states don’t have due to gerrymandered districts. And it shouldn’t be a luxury in the first place. We clearly aren’t capable of working out our issues in our own process, otherwise the Voting Rights Act wouldn’t have been necessary to prevent states from enacting districts and maps that unfairly marginalized people of color.  Perhaps, too, the Americans with Disabilities Act should have been left to individual states so they could have figured out the best way to build ramps and accommodations for their disabled population.  I’m sure that would have been far more efficient and compassionate than a unified nationwide standard that allows for continuity regardless of where you are in the country.

I don't think you have proven your case at all.  States have the ability to change how they run elections.  States like AZ, CA, CO, OH, VA and MI have all recently undergone re-districting reform.  There is nothing stopping a grass-root effort from rising up in any state if it has enough public support.  On the right and on the left, it is grass-roots efforts that are affecting change right now.  The only limit is the public support those efforts can garnish. 

All states with the exception of VA which have ballot-initiatives available as a tool for their citizens to use, and all states where elected Republicans have aggressively attacked these initiatives as power grabs.  In states that don’t have the privilege of bypassing their legislature which may or may not be representative of their views, we’re frequently stuck with consistently gerrymandered maps that are not representative of the actual population.

You have also repeatedly dodged the point of my argument in this discussion as to why an outcome like Wisconsin’s 2018 elections are acceptable in a modern society that has come to expect that their individual vote has equal strength. Grass-roots efforts are meaningless when one side has to win ~62%+ of the vote to control their state’s legislature while another can simply capture 45-49% and still comfortably maintain control of the state’s levers of power with plenty of room to spare. If you feel like this is an acceptable outcome for the population in these states in the name of “states rights”, simply state it. 

Barring that, these trends will continue as long as there is an incentive to do so for political power, and voters will continue to have their ability to check these politicians neutered as long as this is the case. I’ve more than said my piece on this, and we’ll agree to disagree.

How much deference am I expected to give in the name of states rights?

Well if you are asking me I would love us to go back to the point when the state legislature elected and recalled the state’s senators.  That is how far I personally feel state’s rights should go.  However, I recognize that I am in the minority there.  In fact I doubt less than 1% of the us population even knew that was how senators were once chosen.

Testing is testing.  Computers are tools to be used, and they aren’t making the decisions on which maps go live, at the end of the day, so this doesn’t seem very relevant to me.

Before a map can go live, it has to pass a computer modeling test.  Seems kind of revalent to me.  Especially given that computer modeling can be highly manipulated.

Great question! A portion of the members are randomly selected from a group of applicants who submit their names as potential commission members, each providing the same demographic data that they provided during the census, who then in turn appoint the rest of the members through the same applicant process, verifying their eligibility as an active voter and ensuring that they do not have a conflict of interest in their role as a member of a commission. Applicants are also not allowed to be lawmakers or have any affiliation with a lobbying group.

Didn’t see that in the legislation but could have easily missed it in the what 800 pages?  I did see where the pools are approved by the Select Committee on Redistricting.

That’s a luxury that many citizens in their states don’t have due to gerrymandered districts.

Many citizens?  How many?  Statistically evidence of voter suppression as a norm versus an abnormality.

otherwise the Voting Rights Act wouldn’t have been necessary

I did state in my post above that there was a time when it was necessary.  The further removed from that time the further removed the need becomes and the more unconstitutional the law becomes by precedent.  Can you tell me a state that has a law on the books to day that denies a marginalized citizen their right to vote?

All states with the exception of VA

I believe Michigan is also an exception.  The point is that’s even those exceptions were able to achieve reform because it was something the citizenry wanted.  The same can happen in any state.  Some states may choose to prioritize other legislation.  To each their own.  Who am I to tell the citizens of another state what they should or should not prioritize?

You have also repeatedly dodged the point of my argument in this discussion as to why an outcome like Wisconsin’s 2018 elections are acceptable in a modern society that has come to expect that their individual vote has equal strength. Grass-roots efforts are meaningless when one side has to win ~62%+ of the vote to control their state’s legislature while another can simply capture 45-49% and still comfortably maintain control of the state’s levers of power with plenty of room to spare. If you feel like this is an acceptable outcome for the population in these states in the name of “states rights”, simply state it. 

I had not spoken about Wisconsin 2018 because frankly I hadn’t even heard of Wisconsin 2018 before you brought it up.  I usually try to avoid talking about things I don’t know about.  However, I had some time last night where I could set down and educate myself on the matter.  Here is what I found:  The system ain’t broke so don’t fix it.

Here is why I say that:

1. There is a long history of both parties using redistricting as a means of grabbing power. The courts are routinely required to step in and act as mediators
2. When Democrats were last in control (prior to the last redrawing), a member of their party put forth reform legislation to make WI redrawing process similar to that of Iowa.  For whatever reason, the Democrats did not prioritize the bill.
3. There is a growing grassroots effort underway for reform and it is working.  A consensus among the citizenry is growing and it is starting to gain bi-partisan support.  Local governments are passing referendum.  Grassroots organizations are educating the citizenship and using PR to put pressure on the politicians.  Change IS happening, but it is a slow process by design.  Our system of government was created to move slowly and its ingenious design is what has allowed us to survive as a country for as long as we have.  It requires a consensus to govern.  It prevents knee-jerk action and ensures cooler heads will prevail. It also promotes unity among the citizenry and protects the social fabric while still allowing change to occur.
4. All evidences seems to be pointing to the fact that WI will soon be reforming it redrawing processes all on their own.  In the process they have created unity in the citizenry and it will make them stronger.  The system isn’t broken.

I’ve more than said my piece on this, and we’ll agree to disagree.

Indeed we will.  Thank you though for having this civil conversation with me on the matter.

Sooooooo back to the original point of this thread.   President Biden - With a friend like him, who needs enemies?

The presidential race was a joke in th USA,All the corruptionin the lefts'Democrats of course. my self i'm a patriot   i vote trump and he will be back.

Say it loud enough you just might start believing it. However there were some very enlightening topics posted here.