Yes, that’s how it’s supposed to be. Your regional representative is supposed to represent your region. If you’re the minority in the region then you don’t get to pick the representative.
We don’t have a proportional voting system. The system is not designed to ensure that elected party makeup matches voter preference distribution.
The minority voters in your scenario get their say in the Senate votes where everything is equal and the district is the entire state.
In any case, the scenario you’re describing is more representative of the cracking type of gerrymandering that’s the problem. A collection of voters in a region being split amongst multiple districts to dilute their votes is what gerrymandering is.
stevedice@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Hmm, I think I might have completely fucked up my phrasing somewhere because you seem to be agreeing with me.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
It appears you’re saying that in some circumstances it’s appropriate to layout voting districts based on the political affiliation of the people who would end up in the various districts, with the intent of ensuring some seats are won by a minority party that would otherwise not hold power.
I’m saying that districting should be based on shared interests, predominantly geographic in nature because that’s how our system is designed, but that it should definitely not factor in political affiliation.
This means that if a political group is spread out and in the minority, they will not be represented by someone sharing their party affiliation, and that’s as it should be in our system.
stevedice@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I see. Yeah, that’s definitely entirely on me. When I said they should be grouped by political affiliation, I did mean “shared interests” but somehow forgot people treat politics like football teams.