You claimed judge selection couldn't be affected by gerrymandering. I then showed you that indeed it can, depending on the state.
You responded to a general claim made against your general claim by "citing" a hypothetical specific claim of an exception.
Yes, I do understand all of this. I know it has nothing to do with the Senate. I know some blue states are guilty of it, too, but looking at the map it definitely seems to be more of a problem in red states.
Ideally, there should be none.
My dude, we can all see what Potato said that you were responding to:
The problem with democracy is that if the other guys get more votes than your team, they win...
That's not a problem. This is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States
For instance: "Republicans in North Carolina acquired 50% of the vote, which subsequently garnered them about 77% of the available seats in congress." And then you install corrupt judges who back this and you are set.
Very democracy!
When I told you that's just the result of geographic districts you ignored that to talk about gerrymandering again and then started saying stuff like "land votes" which doesn't even make sense. It seems to me you obviously believed that mass gerrymandering (probably countrywide) was somehow allowing Republicans to win elections without actually winning elections. I know you believed this because when I pressed you on this point you started talking about hypothetical veto-proof majorities caused by gerrymandering. Then when I told you directly why hypothetical PR results were irrelevant you "cited" a Raw Story article about hypothetical PR results proving something or other even though as I just had told you, the United States doesn't do any of these elections by PR. Did you even realize that Congressional districts in states are uniform population sizes until I gave you the Oregon example you ignored? Just how many seats an election cycle do you believe are being flipped by gerrymandering? It honestly sounds like you think it's hundreds and more at lower levels. Are you ever going to make a proposal about what you do think should be done because it sounds like your beef is just about local representation in general? (Which is yet again a problem you only seem to have with the United States doing it.) You can't do at-large statewide districts so do you want them to redraw the lines after each election to do something impossible (match the statewide vote) when constant redistricting is exactly what gerrymanderers and Republicans do? I pointed you towards one potential solution a number of states have implemented and you brushed it off by saying "land votes" while also spending your time invalidating another by declaring any judge who gives a result you don't like "corrupt" and part of the conspiracy.
You read an article or some claims without knowing the context, thought you had another epic proof you wanted to share with the ignorant members of The Bire and now you're Googling and grabbing borderline irrelevant things while ignoring the direct argument in hopes of somehow convincing others that you were actually right when you said something irrelevant or wrong all without ever stopping to learn the missing context that led you to think you knew something because you knew something false. It's okay, we've maybe all been there in some way one or more times, and there's an easy solution: dig up, stupid.
