Strike Down GOP Gerrymandering

Are you seriously suggesting that a specific cite of a section of the constitution of the USA isn't enough - that someone needs to cut and paste it for you???

 

Yes, he is. Apparently, it’s not a “discussion” unless you cite chapter and verse for, and explain it for him, too. Meanwhile, all he has to do is to grunt his disagreement.

 

I would say that citing a specific amendment of the US constitution is a VERY explicit and complete citation.

And, yes, I didn't see him cite anything at all to support whatever idea or objection he might have had.

 

Now it's four-liner rubbish. Great improvement ... !

 

Have you found the US Constitution yet?

If so, I could help you find the cited amendment.

 

Yeah, you’re practically Daniel Webster.

Do you care to make a point?

 

Yes, this: Learn how to debate economic matters by making cogent arguments based upon factual information and data underscoring the argument.

Ie., Try Harder ...

 

The founding fathers wrote the Constitution in a way to limit open democracy. They felt those of higher classes with land, wealth & education would be better suited to lead the nation and make the important decisions required in its management. So, originally, the House was the only place where direct elections were permitted. Over time, our leaders have gradually managed to widen the impact of democracy, by making Senators elected by public vote, allowing blacks & women & younger citizens to vote. We are still a "Republic," but we're a more democratic republic than when the founding fathers were in charge. Gerrymandering is a foul system of twisting voter results in your party's favor. And it works. But it works for the benefit of a party rather than the voters or the nation.

As a Democrat & a liberal, I favor eliminating any & all gerrymandering. I favor having our courts rule gerrymandering unconstitutional. I favor having voting districts drawn with the goal of as close to 50/50 party split as possible, and letting Independents & undecideds determine the outcome. OR, I favor eliminating voting districts altogether and allowing those candidates accruing the most votes statewide becoming the winners. If there are more than one office in contention, then the next largest vote winner would become the second office holder & so on down the line.

I realize democracy has its problems. But the icons of the republican system--the Electoral College & gerrymandering--have had their problems as well. No system is perfect. But based on our current malaise, I'm ready to deal with the problems of democracy, because the Electoral College & gerrymandering have become dangerous to our country's health.

 

I am not clear that you understand you just defended Gerrymandering.

 

Interesting.

The Democrats cut their own throats a lot when they create a district that guarantees the election of a Black Representative, and turning previous "Swing Districts" into Lean Republican (by removing Black Voters).

For example (this example uses 5 five districts), you could have a scenario (Pre-Redistricting) where you have 3 White Democrats and 2 White Republicans. All 5 are considered competitive districts.

Then, during Redistricting, the Dems agree to a map that assures the election of a Black Democrat.

And the end result, after Redistricting, is 1 Black Democrat and 4 White Republicans.

 

If you're going to have voting districts within states, you have to have some standard on which to base the boundaries. You can identify ANY standard you select as a basis for gerrymandering if you want to play word games. What I'm saying is that the age old process of using gerrymandering for party gain over voter voice is wrong and should be stopped. If you draw those boundaries in such a way as to achieve a 50/50 party split, then the elections would be more fair and more in tune with voter preferences. I don't regard that as "gerrymandering." If you have a better idea, please share it with me and other readers of this forum.

 

Gerrymandering is a division of a group and the excuse given to a lot us does not matter at all.

It happened to my part of CA, done for the express benefit to the Democrats. And it worked for them. They prevent republicans from getting enough votes for our own area.

 

I like the raw irony of your posts.

 

Im fine with either one. As you said mathematicians will have to sort the nitty gritty stuff but the two you posted look clean and organized and not like the usual chaotic mess you seen in maps. The only issue I see withe second one is that it looks like it might not follow actual streets and instead cuts right through them which might make for some awkward wards.

 

Where does the Constitution recognize political parties and give a right to equal representation even when that does not reflect the body politic and you just lowered what democratic process there is by insuring the minority, independents like me have the most power.

 

When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they looked at the party warfare in England and decided they didn't want that kind of political malfeasance here. The Constitution tried to avoid political party formation, but failed. G. Washington was the ONLY President to enjoy non-party rule, but parties took root during his second term and were prominent in the election for his successor. I'm strongly against gerrymandering as it currently exists. Finding a way to make things more fair & responsive to the voter is difficult. How do we protect future voters from having the system relapse into the same gerrymandering patterns over time? Perhaps the best way would be eliminate voting districts altogether and allow the top vote getting candidates statewide, to fill the offices that are open, regardless of party affiliation. I don't know the best answer, but I know the current system stinks and desperately needs fixing.

 

I want MY congressman from MY district to represent MY DISTRICTS concerns and issues. I have two Senators for statewide issues. The purpose of the districts is to have someone from THAT district to represent those persons living there. The idea that every state should have districts drawn to give 50-50 representation to Democrats and Republicans is folly. States are not equally made up of Democrats and Republicans.

 

You make some good points. I don't disagree with you in concept, but how do we draw those district boundaries in ways that don't guarantee one-party wins in spite of voter opposition? This past week, Rachel Maddow showed results from several states in the recent election, where every office decided by state-wide vote went for Democrats, but for offices defined by Republican gerrymandered voting districts, the winners were all Republicans. The Blue Wave was unable to penetrate those gerrymandered districts, in spite of the fact that statewide, large majorities of Democrats voted. But their votes were ignored within those gerrymandered districts, and the clear choices for winning were overridden by the district boundaries, which favored Republicans. Maddow cited at least four states where this happened. Michigan and Wisconsin were two of them I believe. She showed by the numbers why this was so unfair & undemocratic. It made me angry just watching it. It's a big issue, and one that demeans our democracy. It ignores the will of the voters thru manipulation of boundaries. It needs to be fixed in a way that respects the changing will of the voters, regardless of party affiliation.

 

If you were honest, you would say "strike down ALL gerrymandering". Democrats are more guilty of gerrymandering than Republicans.

 

I am a liberal Democrat, and I say get rid of ALL gerrymandering. I'm not actually sure about how to do that exactly, but do it we must, if we care about "democracy." Since Republicans have been in charge of government far more than Democrats since the Civil War, I doubt they are "more guilty" than Republicans, but you are right that they've done it too. I say stop both parties from gerrymandering any more. Make it illegal, and find a way to be more responsive to democracy than we've been.

 

I don't know that you can guaranty much anything and what are you proposing that district be drawn to that each party always has a 50/50 chance, should districts in California be drawn to insure and equal number of Republicans as Democrats are election to the state legislature and the Congress?

Ok people in those districts wanted Republican representation does the fact that statewide the Democrats won they should have all the districts too?

Well maybe they should offer more Red policies, why would you expect Red areas to sudden vote Blue?

Yeah and she Trump on his tax returns.

 

Adjusting districts to achieve a preordained racially based outcome is gerrymandering, and thats been the main route for "progressive" gerrymandering.

And gerrymandering is local and state and city, not federal. Republicans have note been "in charge" of govt everywhere.

 

1. You make a good point that demonstrates the difficulties in resolving this issue. There are other states in the Mid-West & South that have the same problem, but reversed by party. They would be equally difficult to resolve. I don't know the answer here. I'm no voting expert. But I still feel the gerrymandering has caused major problems with representing voter choices accurately, and I still feel this issue needs a lot of attention, discussion & a resolution soon.

2. The gerrymandered districts were drawn to reflect the party affiliation of the residents within them at the time of drawing--just after a national census. Over time, many districts experience human migrations that changes the way voters see issues. But the district borders still reflect the situation from the last census. That creates problems for a democracy striving to allow voters a voice. Your post and its questions accurately reflect a few of the many complex, critical questions that must be dealt with in finding an answer to gerrymandering issues. I don't know the answers, but I DO support finding them soon.