Gerrymandering has been going on for more than a century. Its when Congress or States draw Congressional or State disttrict lines so as to put as many Democrats or Republicans in the samed district. That way those Democrats or Republicans can't hurt the chances of an opponent winning in a neighboring area. The results have affected the number of Republicans and Democrats in state and Federal elections. Should it be legal to drawn districts this way, so as to try to affect election results?
Yes, make Gerrymandering illegal. Gerrymandering cancels out the democracy from all our elections by creating electoral majorities and minorities and making the minority vote irrelevant. Instead, have statisticians use computers to draw district boundaries that reflect the closest balance between registered Democrats & Republicans possible. Then every election would be close and determined by the stances on issues by competitors. This would also force winning candidates to be more responsive to voters, since every election would be "competitive."
Legislators are going to outlaw gerrymandering? Good luck with that. But, questions like these are exactly why Article V allows the State legislatures, acting in concert to draft and circulate for ratification, constitutional amendments. But, the State Legislatures are also from gerrymandered districts. In CA we by referendum tried to adopt a non-partisan commission to draw state districts and the Dems took the GOP to the cleaners. GERRYMANDERING DIDN’T BECOME A BIG DEAL UNTIL IT STARTED BEING DONE TO, RATHER THAN BY, DEMOCRATS:Pivotal Moment’ for Democrats? Gerrymandering Heads to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has found redistricting on partisan lines to be non-justiciable, because there’s really no way to do it along non-partisan lines. (“Non-partisan” commissions are anything but — see what the Democrats conned the GOP into in California, for example.) https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/263130/ Democrats’ share of state legislature seats has shrunk to a level not seen since Warren G. Harding was president Experts disagree over how much gerrymandering has hurt Democrats. One prominent 2013 study mostly blamed geography, not partisanship, because Democrats tend to cluster in cities. While racial or ethnic gerrymanders can be statistically measured — a Latino remains a Latino from election to election — judges have struggled to identify overly partisan districts, knowing voter sentiments can quickly change. In Supreme Court cases in 1986, 2004 and 2006, justices have never struck one down. And in 2004, they came within a single vote of ruling them impossible to judge, because nobody could draw the line between unavoidable political influence in redistricting and an unconstitutional rigging of the vote. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/democrats-gerrymander-supreme-court.html?_r=0
I seem to remember Gerrymandering being done a few decade back with the purpose of establishing "Black Districts" for a population that was divided among other, less Black districts. Redistricting is State business and should not involve the Federals unless a violation of the most abhorrent Constitutional amendment is proven. The most abhorrent Constitutional amendment? Why the 14th of course. Passed under duress with unrelated sections and judicially employed to chisel away at the 9th & 10th amendments. I especially like Section 3 of the 14th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Moi r > g
As your post clearly demonstrates, getting rid of gerrymandering can and probably will be a huge challenge. Nonetheless, I think it's crucial if we ever want to actually have anything approximating a real democracy, or a government that actually reflects the views of the voters. With gerrymandering it certainly doesn't. I have three suggestions off the top of my head. 1: Let each state hire a company specializing in statistical methodology and give them the job of determining boundaries for voting districts that reflect the current living locations for democrats and republicans in as near equal portions as statistically possible, or 2: Give the job to a group of graduate student statisticians within a math department of a major university within each state. Make sure the grad students are either balanced in democrat vs republican numbers or have them all be registered independents. Give them the same task as described for the private statistical company above, or 3: Draw horizontal lines east to west across each state along existing lines of latitude and allow those lines to divide one voting district from another. Each state will be divided into several equal districts measured from north to south as the number of voting districts they are entitled to. There would be no attention paid to the numbers of people or the party preferences of those living within those districts as a basis for drawing the boundaries.
There are computer programs that can create districts that are equal in population and that would not favor either party - THAT is what is needed.
I believe gerrymandering is bad regardless of which party benefits. It breeds extremes and increases voter apathy. There are numerous sites that have various mathematical solutions but nothing will ever be perfect. The other issue is that the House only has 435 seats making each seat worth 700k voters. That is absurd. Increase the seats so that one Congress critter only represents at most 200k people. Then, take it out of the hands of states and hand it over to a non-partisan group under the FEC that meets for one year before and after a census. Lets get back to democracy as it was intended by our founding leader, Thomas Paine.
Gerrymandering is illegal. Federal courts have blocked in many times. What Democrats NOW want is that there be no community interests involved in elections and rather just some form of a grid drawn. Some process would have to be devised for when the cut a person' house or apartment building in half as to which precinct the person is in.
That is an ignorant message. Congressional districts and the number of congressional districts are based upon population and therefore must be approximately equal. Without gerrymandering there would be few blacks in Congress since all black communities would be all chopped up, thus denying a black majority.
Of those choices, I like 3 the best. Another I have heard suggested is a simple computer program that divides the State into equal populations, using the least amount of lines (simplest pattern). Should it be an equal division of people, or eligible voters?
I like the idea and agree. Having districts drawn so they reflect democrat and republican voters in as near equal numbers as possible would insure those elections would be won or lost based on the persuasiveness of the candidates rather than the boundaries of the district. It would force every candidate to care about and become much more in tune with the voter's of their district, unlike now, when they seem perfectly content to totally ignore how voters feel because their re-election is secured based on gerrymandered boundaries rather than voter's opinions. District boundaries should be redrawn after each national census, but always in keeping with a politically neutral outcome.
Good question. Since districts must be redrawn after every national census to reflect changes in populations, I personally feel it would be better to set a goal of making every district in every state in the union be as equally divided between Democrats & Republicans as possible. That would ensure that every election would be highly competitive and force every candidate to be in tune with the feelings of their constituents. This would eliminate the "safe districts" that exist now where politicians have ceased to care about the opinions of the voters because their district boundaries are drawn to guarantee their re-election anyway. Gerrymandering sabotages the democratic process.
I initially found myself in agreement with that when you posted it, but thinking about it further, here are my concerns: 1) A great many people move between the parties. There are some of us that are lifelong one or the other, but a great many are truly independent. 2) This virtually assures the shutting out of 3rd parties. I think it is very important that the two parties not have a lock on being the only game in town. Now in practice, they essentially have that now, but a 3rd party could arise. I can't argue with that, but I'm not confident that having the Judiciary drawing these lines is the answer either. Until the Warren Era, the courts were pretty clear, that these were not justicable questions. I have a feeling we may return to that. I think this may take a Constitutional Amendment.
Gerrymandering is an attempt by politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing them and is an attack on democracy. Other countries don't have this problem. Some states have independent panels that decide districts and researchers even built a computer program that can draw districts very well. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mmer-solved-gerrymandering-in-his-spare-time/
If you are quite alright with allowing Native Americans to have their own semi-autonomous ethnic states, they you should not care anything about other races drawing boundaries to promote their own causes.
If you redraw lines you are affecting election results period. If you appoint a neutral committee, their work affects election results. If you agree on a set of criteria, you are affecting election results. If you change the size of the congressional delegation, you are affecting election results. The DNC just likes to scream about gerrymandering when they cannot even field and fund a proper candidate in many races because the conservative democrats that did not flee the party were purged by it. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/democrats-candidate-recruitment-run-for-something
How could the lines ever be drawn in a way that makes everyone happy? Anyone unhappy with the results will call it Gerrymandering. There is no logical way to draw the lines so that it's "fair", whatever that means.
It's clear that every generation has its own views on everything. I am personally dedicated to the concept of human equality stated for the first time in the Declaration of Independence, which drives much of my political thinking. When the Native American reservation system was established, it was based on strong racial thinking of the time, coupled with a determination by ruling whites not to share anything in their lives with darker skinned peoples or "lesser" cultures, even if they lived in the same area. It might have also had something to do with the fact that the whites had stolen the Native American lands by force and didn't want an Indian presence there to remind them of their own malfeasance. At any rate, I see current conservative attempts to allow racially motivated local controls to spread, as a form of tribalism and a danger to the nation. It's a form of sliding backward socially and culturally. I don't agree with it, nor support it.
Natives had now been living on these reservations for over 100 years and don't appear to want to share them with any significant number of people outside their own race/tribe. Also for thousands of years before Columbus, these tribes were all taking other tribe's lands by force, and not providing welfare or a reservation system for their defeated foes. Just like national boundaries have changed a good bit in Europe just in 100 years, so have those for Native Americans. Sounds like you are just anti-White. To prove this to yourself, think of any US city that has too many Blacks or Hispanics in it that you want removed.
For some inexplicable reason when I was a youth and learned of the Declaration of Independence, I actually believed Jefferson's powerful statement that "all men are created equal," could and should be true. In spite of living an entire lifetime never seeing that simple statement actually lived up to by America, I still believe it to be a fundamental truth, except I've broadened it in my own mind to say, "All people are created equal," and should be treated as such. I'm inherently against any policy or any plan or any action or any group that works against that simple but profound truth. I'm not anti-white, I AM white. But I'm not proud of the prejudicial trace of white history, or ANY history of any people that subjugates or treats any other people as something or someone less than themselves. There is no U.S. city that I feel has too many Blacks or Hispanics or any other kind of group or subgroup that have to be removed or balanced with any other group. In my mind we're all human and as such share so very much more in common with each other than differences, to concentrate and act on only those differences is not only shallow-minded, but prejudiced, unfair and in contradiction to the truth stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Wonderful post and thank you for trying to be true to our better nature. This should be the common theme of all Americans, right or left. Unfortunately, one party does not believe this and they are in power. The left needs to take these sentiments and use them as the basis for political action and policy. Very well said.
Going back to your earlier quote: "I see current conservative attempts to allow racially motivated local controls to spread, as a form of tribalism and a danger to the nation. It's a form of sliding backward socially and culturally. I don't agree with it, nor support it." You are being prejudiced again, just against conservative (Whites). Therefore, your dishonest and yes, prejudiced views do not allow you to hold all people to the same standard of behavior. If you did in fact support equality, then you would railing against the "tribalism" of Black and Hispanic gangs, the NAACP, La Raza, Native American tribes and every other non-White supremacist group.
