h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

BG, you should definitely write Biden on the gerrymandering problem... and send same to every other interested politico, partisan as well as office holders.

All my representatives are reprehensible. Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and another nasty little trumpster, Randy Weber.

The Democratic National and State committees?

Meanwhile, the map differentiating red and blue Texas should be showing some detail on the border.

Gerrymandering is a national issue.

Selected News people and organizations that have taken an interest in voter fraud?

Gerrymandering is a form of voter fraud.

Reapportionment is one of the things the census is used for.

(Its that time again.)

Pennsylvania will likely lose one congressperson.

Massachusetts will likely keep its nine representatives.

Gerrymandering like that in the Houston map or Gerry's original map, suggests an emotive age in the 9 - 12 or preadolescent age group. ...or maybe the doggie fell asleep on the map and drooled it.

Elbridge Gerry was once the governor of Massachusetts. He drew a very strange map for a congressional district to favor one particular party, and the practice took on his name. He was later a vice president, so you can see that this form of dishonesty did not result in his being punished. Unless you feel that the Vice Presidency is the most useless job in the country.....

It isn't now. Since both parties have 50 seats in the Senate Kamala Harris has the deciding vote

Who would be the Majority Leader then?

Chuck Shumer.

So, the Vice President's status as the tie-breaker gives the Dems an edge?

Yes.
And I misspelt Schumer.

That's okay. I didn't spot the error. Phonetically, both spellings sounds about the same.

It's a limited edge, mind you. At least some laws need a majority of at least 60 senators.

"We have always been leery of kings..." [paulh]
Well, so am I, but that hardly matters and besides I have more interesting things to deal with.
However, it is a bit interesting (and a little absurd) to hear other Americans (like for instance my late aunt) think that, for example, the UK, Norway and Denmark are not true democracies since they are still monarchies.
There are three things to keep in mind in this context:

1. When Norway wanted to re-establish the monarchy and had suggested the Danish Prince Carl as their new monarch, he demanded that the people by a democratic vote should say yes to this proposal. It happened and Prince Carl was then installed as King Haakon VII.
Imagine that, a democratically elected monarch.

In 1953, the people of Denmark voted in favor of an amendment to the Constitution, including the Royal Act. A majority followed the government's desire to introduce gender-neutral succession. Thus, King Frederik IX's eldest child Margrethe was elected new heir to the throne at the expense of the king's brother Knud and his son Ingolf.
At the death of King Frederik IX, Denmark thus got a democratically elected Queen Margrethe II. Unlike her father and - when the time comes - her eldest child, who will automatically become King Frederik X.
(In other words, we have chosen to replace gender discrimination with age discrimination. This, too, is of course absurd.)
In principle, Denmark could also have chosen to abolish the monarchy, but there were obviously so few who wanted this that the proposal was not even discussed (except in a few small circles).

2. What is the role of these monarchs then? I can not comment on the UK, where both the Queen and even her son have apparently "given well-meaning advice" to changing governments. Several times. But in Norway and Denmark that is unthinkable. Here it is rather the opposite. The Queen of Denmark speaks to her people every year on 31 December. The content of the speech is closely aligned with the government. In Norway and Denmark, in other words, the monarchs are only ceremonial figureheads.

3. Unlike the monarchs in Norway and Denmark, the President of the United States has the power to pardon even the worst criminals. And uses it.

Surely not every president does so.

That's not the point. The point is that one single politician overrules the entire judiciary system. At their own discretion. And in the process breaks down the division of power (between the legislature, the judiciary and the executive powers).
The kings of old did the same. Monarchs in modern democratic societies don't.

You are not wrong.

I would love to live in a world where this does not happen.

There are 44 monarchies in the world. You may be thinking of the enlightened monarchs of Europe, but might there be some in Asia or the Middle East who are les enlightened?

Yes there are, that's sadly very true. One of them is King Salman of Saudi Arabia. One of USA's closest allies. His son most likely ordered the asassination of his countryman, the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. He denies it but has taken responsibility for it.

The truth can be very sad indeed.

I have written a review of Biden's inauguration for the Post.