The Beginning of the End of Gerrymandering?

[Terraceth]

Yeah - unfortunately, on top of parties pulling at one another, racial and even gender issues are considered.

I think the solution is to eliminate congressional districts altogether. If a state has 14 seats, hold an election and the top 14 people take the 14 seats. Add term limits and we might actually have an end to gerrymandering and a return to political civility.

This would result in monstrously large elections where you'd have dozens if not hundreds of names on the ballot for the more populous states. I'm not really a fan.

If you want to get rid of districts, some form of proportional representation voting in each state would probably be better, though that has its own issues and in the specific case of the US could get wonky when it comes to states with only one or two representatives.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Regarding Gerrymandering, there are two solutions that I have heard about.

The first one could be used for drawing congressional districts in each state whereas the second could be used for state representatives though it might get a bit crazy.

[carpedm9587]

Regarding Gerrymandering, there are two solutions that I have heard about.

The first one could be used for drawing congressional districts in each state whereas the second could be used for state representatives though it might get a bit crazy.

Both thoughtful ideas. Thanks!

[Teallaura]

Yet that is the way we vote for the Senate...and the President...and no one thinks that way. Today, with gerymandering, we don't have representation. Instead of the people picking the representative, the representative is picking their voters, and crowding the voters that would vote against them into "super districts" to ensure the vote of the opposition is diluted in the remaining districts. This is the "representation" we so cling to? Somehow, I'm not seeing anything being lost...

But, to be honest, if redistricting was taken OUT of the hands of the state legislatures, and was put into the hand of a multipartisan commission in each state, that would be the best. But it still doesn't deal with the self-sorting modern populations are doing.

The Senate wasn't designed to represent the people directly but the states collectively. The House is more directly representative of the people. The balance was between Fed, state and population - right up until the Senate was changes to popular election - however, that still left it more representative of the state because the 'districts' are state wide.

The problem with gerrymandering is that it reduces the effectiveness of representation of certain groups - eliminating that representation altogether is not a solution - it's simply a child's answer to a problem they don't really understand.

There's a need for stronger oversight - lassoing still occurs despite the prohibition - that doesn't rely on lawsuits. But better definitions of districts are what we really need - and it's an incredibly complex thing to do, to define how districts are established such that they aren't unfairly weighted and aren't unfairly centered. They do need to be geographic - people living near each other usually have like interests (not hobbies, sheesh) but populations don't live in perfect little squares so districts cannot be uniform geographically.

[Teallaura]

Regarding Gerrymandering, there are two solutions that I have heard about.

The first one could be used for drawing congressional districts in each state whereas the second could be used for state representatives though it might get a bit crazy.

*emphasis mine.

Sorry, I don't follow - do you mean the House or state legislatures?

[carpedm9587]

*emphasis mine.

Sorry, I don't follow - do you mean the House or state legislatures?

This question confuses me. There are Senate/House structures at both the state and federal level. Does your use of "house" mean the House of Reps in Congress?

[carpedm9587]

The Senate wasn't designed to represent the people directly but the states collectively. The House is more directly representative of the people. The balance was between Fed, state and population - right up until the Senate was changes to popular election - however, that still left it more representative of the state because the 'districts' are state wide.

The problem with gerrymandering is that it reduces the effectiveness of representation of certain groups - eliminating that representation altogether is not a solution - it's simply a child's answer to a problem they don't really understand.

I have to admit - it's amazing how you folks seem to regularly find a way to bury an insult into a response. Do you REALLY think that's a reasonable way to discuss? The argument is that the current district-level problem has already destroyed "representation selected by the people" and has made it "voters selected by the representative." The proposal for a statewide system is not unheard of, also has some problems, but fixes others. It's at least a reason option to be considered - though you appear to fairly violently disagree.

There's a need for stronger oversight - lassoing still occurs despite the prohibition - that doesn't rely on lawsuits. But better definitions of districts are what we really need - and it's an incredibly complex thing to do, to define how districts are established such that they aren't unfairly weighted and aren't unfairly centered. They do need to be geographic - people living near each other usually have like interests (not hobbies, sheesh) but populations don't live in perfect little squares so districts cannot be uniform geographically.

No - they cannot. There have been several proposals made - but ultimately the solution would be to take it OUT of the hands of those who will benefit from the structure (the representatives themselves) and turn it over to a multi-partisan commission. Perhaps the answer is to have THAT commission designed to have equal party representation, and elected statewide.

Of course, I suppose it's always possible that I'm a child that doesn't understand the problem...

[JimL]

Because Democrats don't gerrymander either, right?

Republicans took it to a whole new level which is why the courts are involved.

You also realize that the OP is about a specific incident in a specific state with a specific constitution, right?

Yes of course, but it is no different than what republicans have been up to all across the country. The Republican party, or more aptly put, the money behind them, care only about power, how they attain it doesn't much concern them.

[Sparko]

Republicans took it to a whole new level which is why the courts are involved.


Yes of course, but it is no different than what republicans have been up to all across the country. The Republican party, or more aptly put, the money behind them, care only about power, how they attain it doesn't much concern them.

JimL, Gerrymandering has been going on since man invented representative government. You are such a twit. Democrats have been doing it as long as Republicans. At the same levels.

[JimL]

JimL, Gerrymandering has been going on since man invented representative government. You are such a twit. Democrats have been doing it as long as Republicans. At the same levels.

Yeah, so, when did I say any different? You're comprehension abilities really seem to be waning, Sparko.

[carpedm9587]

Republicans took it to a whole new level which is why the courts are involved.

Yes they did - because the technology to do it existed (it didn't really in 2000) and the motivation existed as well (Democrats had a federal trifecta). It's hard for me to believe that Democrats would not have done the same thing had the tables been reversed. The degree to which Maryland is gerrymandered in favor of Democrats is an indication of their willingness to take that road.

Yes of course, but it is no different than what republicans have been up to all across the country. The Republican party, or more aptly put, the money behind them, care only about power, how they attain it doesn't much concern them.

I'm not certain that claim can be made strictly about Republicans. Both sides want to control the purse strings and the policies. In general, I find Republicans more driven by money (e.g., economy, allowing big money into politics, creating tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the electorate) and the Democrats to be more driven by a desire to create and expand government programs (e.g., social safety nets, etc.). But even those themes are not absolute.

[Teallaura]

I have to admit - it's amazing how you folks seem to regularly find a way to bury an insult into a response. Do you REALLY think that's a reasonable way to discuss? The argument is that the current district-level problem has already destroyed "representation selected by the people" and has made it "voters selected by the representative." The proposal for a statewide system is not unheard of, also has some problems, but fixes others. It's at least a reason option to be considered - though you appear to fairly violently disagree.

Your solution strips people of fair representation - now, unless you can actually show otherwise - which I doubt - why should I assume you understand the way this thing is supposed to work? Really - it's a hideous idea that deprives the rural and the poor of a voice - there's nothing good about it.

Who actually benefits? Those who can raise a plurality - which will seldom be rural areas and never the most poverty stricken. Those in the rural areas will have an impossible task to stop legislation that is harmful to them - whether intentional or not - and have no one to turn to for casework - do you honestly think some farmer barely staying afloat is going to compete for staff time with a manufacturer? Do you think that happens in the Senate now? The reason houses of representatives are set up by population and not by state is to ensure that the little guy has a chance to be fairly represented by his district representative rather than have to compete with voices statewide.

No - they cannot. There have been several proposals made - but ultimately the solution would be to take it OUT of the hands of those who will benefit from the structure (the representatives themselves) and turn it over to a multi-partisan commission. Perhaps the answer is to have THAT commission designed to have equal party representation, and elected statewide.

Of course, I suppose it's always possible that I'm a child that doesn't understand the problem...

You want to solve the problem of party influence by giving them more influence? Parties barely able to get on the ballot should help the major parties try to slice up the pie - and then what - what happens when they don't get the job done? The reason that doesn't happen in the current system is that if the lines aren't drawn, your party may not be in power long - because they won't like what happens when the courts step in. A commission of rivals is going to somehow overcome that rivalry and step up to the plate - in THIS political environment? Over the last fifty years we've seen the rise of the 'stall tactic' - neither party solves Problem X so they can use it against the rival party next term. In this commission thing, the minority party would have reason to delay the redistricting process - the majority party reason to speed it up and the incidental parties reasons to try to play kingmaker and carve out their own fiefdoms. Which wouldn't matter for decades due to the lawsuits alone.

No, I don't think you fully get it - representatives aren't the ones that chiefly benefit - PARTIES do. If it were only individual reps, gerrymandering would be next to impossible as each rep would fight for his own turf (yeah, this does have a limiting effect even now). Your plan takes the string from the puppet and throws it into a den of puppeteers - all of whom get paid by the puppets. This does not end well...

[Teallaura]

This question confuses me. There are Senate/House structures at both the state and federal level. Does your use of "house" mean the House of Reps in Congress?

State representatives usually refers to representatives to state legislatures. Capitalized branch or body of government refers to the Federal level (excepting Court which is always the Supreme Court). I can't tell which body QW is referring to for certain.

[JimL]

Yes they did - because the technology to do it existed (it didn't really in 2000) and the motivation existed as well (Democrats had a federal trifecta). It's hard for me to believe that Democrats would not have done the same thing had the tables been reversed. The degree to which Maryland is gerrymandered in favor of Democrats is an indication of their willingness to take that road.



I'm not certain that claim can be made strictly about Republicans. Both sides want to control the purse strings and the policies. In general, I find Republicans more driven by money (e.g., economy, allowing big money into politics, creating tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the electorate) and the Democrats to be more driven by a desire to create and expand government programs (e.g., social safety nets, etc.). But even those themes are not absolute.

Yes, perhaps you are right, and perhaps if the gerrymandering shoe were on the liberal foot, one promoting a more progressive agenda, I wouldn't mind it so much either. But if you believe in democracy, gerrymandering would be wrong in either case whether one minds it or not. I'm coming to the conclusion that the problem is in the tribal nature of our democratic system of governance, if only we could do away with political parties there would be no republican party out there, owned by the wealthy, to target and recruit all of the poor idiots out there and get them to vote against their own best interests.

[carpedm9587]

Your solution strips people of fair representation - now, unless you can actually show otherwise - which I doubt - why should I assume you understand the way this thing is supposed to work? Really - it's a hideous idea that deprives the rural and the poor of a voice - there's nothing good about it.

It does nothing of the kind. The rural vote is more diffuse, but it also occupies a huge territory. Democrats currently have a 72M to 58M edge over Republicans nationwide, but gerrymandering has essentially deprived a huge slice of them of fair representation in many states. In a couple of states the reverse is true. So the statewide model does nothing more than level the playing field. It's not ideal - but it is better, IMO, than the currelty gerrymandered sysem.

Who actually benefits? Those who can raise a plurality - which will seldom be rural areas and never the most poverty stricken.

Depending on how the vote is handled (e.g., instant run-off, for example), everyone's vote is counted and the ability for citizens to vote for multiple representatives opens up their opportunities.

Those in the rural areas will have an impossible task to stop legislation that is harmful to them - whether intentional or not - and have no one to turn to for casework - do you honestly think some farmer barely staying afloat is going to compete for staff time with a manufacturer?

That doesn't happen now. The idea is an improvement, but not the best we could do. The best we could do is remove redistricting from those with a vested partisan interest, and place it in a necessarily balanced council elected by the people.

Do you think that happens in the Senate now? The reason houses of representatives are set up by population and not by state is to ensure that the little guy has a chance to be fairly represented by his district representative rather than have to compete with voices statewide.

The senate is likelily to remain skewed to republicans for the simple reason that there are more red states than blue ones. To gain control in the Senate, Democrats need to take seats in red states, and as the country is increasingly polarized, that is increasingly unlikely.

You want to solve the problem of party influence by giving them more influence?

No.

Parties barely able to get on the ballot should help the major parties try to slice up the pie - and then what - what happens when they don't get the job done?

We are in a predominantly two-party system. The votes for other parties are so low as to essentially not factor into gerrymandering, except if the party in question is more likely to take votes from one party rather than the other. A balanced council from each of the two major parties should balance that out.

The reason that doesn't happen in the current system is that if the lines aren't drawn, your party may not be in power long - because they won't like what happens when the courts step in. A commission of rivals is going to somehow overcome that rivalry and step up to the plate - in THIS political environment?

Being equally balanced - it is far more likely than if the work is done by the political party in power in the legislature.

Over the last fifty years we've seen the rise of the 'stall tactic' - neither party solves Problem X so they can use it against the rival party next term. In this commission thing, the minority party would have reason to delay the redistricting process - the majority party reason to speed it up and the incidental parties reasons to try to play kingmaker and carve out their own fiefdoms. Which wouldn't matter for decades due to the lawsuits alone.

History suggests that is not necesarily true. The legislature in Pennsylvania was given time by the court to re-redistrict. They failed to do so and the court appointed an election expert and oversaw his work. The councils could likewise be given a deadline with a similar outcome.

No, I don't think you fully get it - representatives aren't the ones that chiefly benefit - PARTIES do. If it were only individual reps, gerrymandering would be next to impossible as each rep would fight for his own turf (yeah, this does have a limiting effect even now). Your plan takes the string from the puppet and throws it into a den of puppeteers - all of whom get paid by the puppets. This does not end well...

Last I checked, the elected representatives do the redistricting, and the result is an assurance of either re-election, or election of a member of their party. I stand by my comment. Clearly the parties benefit - but it is the elected representatives doing the deed (probably with input from the party - but the redistricting vote is not a party vote - it is a vote of elected representatives).