Pa. Supreme Court strikes down congressional map as unconstitutional

I never said anything about proportional representation. I just believe in the basic idea of good representation and that any attempt by politicians to increase their chances of winning by hacking the system to reduce good representation is wrong. .

 

No, that's rather the point, if you know this country's political history AT ALL. Democrats were the ones doing the gerrymandering (and other election shenanigans, btw) for the majority of our history......and never considered it a problem, of course......until the GOP really made major gains in the 1980s under Reagan and have built on that up through today. The GOP never took it to court when they were on the receiving end, they just LEARNED how the game was played and when they got the power, did it even better. Boo-hoo. They've still got quite some time to make up for, historically. But now the losers have to be whiners, and only follow "to the victor goes the spoils" when the DEMS win, ok then fine. Do what some states already do and have a nonpartisan/bipartisan commission set the district voting lines. And fix the census apportionment while you're at it.

 

No, it is entirely fair and nothing to do with the logic of having districts. In fact, more than fair it is necessary for a healthy democracy. In a system dominated by two parties allowing any party to consistently gain more seats than its share of the vote undermines the representative nature of democratic institutions. The really is 'democracy 101' stuff' (and spare me the 'we're a Republic' bit, you are a Republican democracy).

The value of districts is that an area has a local member who should, in theory, represent that district's interests. Inevitably some districts will be 'safer' than others for a given party, but there should always be enough marginal seats to mean that getting more than about 51% or at most 52% of the vote means that you get a majority of seats. Even that should not be weighted so that it favors one party consistently.

Allowing one party to entrench an electoral advantage that is not based on the popular vote is antithetical to the purpose and healthy functioning of a democratic system.

 

They should get more representation because they have more people. Just like states with more people get more representation. If any party wants to win more seats it should appeal to more voters, city or country. I am struggling with the idea that anyone thinks this should even be debatable when discussing a House of Representatives.

 

People in any district will vote how they want.

It does not matter how the rest of the state voted or how any other district voted.

And since it does not matter there is simply no sense in drawing districts such that the state wide voting pattern is reflected in the results of the individual districts.

That's the idea I've been fighting here.

A number of people here think that if a state wide sum of votes is mostly Democrat then the elected Reps from that state should also be mostly Democrat.

Is that what you're saying?

Because it if is, please read post #15 ...again if need be.

 

How about doing this instead?

Within each state have the voters choose to vote for parties instead of candidates. That includes ALL parties like the Libertarians and the Greens. Then depending upon the number of Congressional House Seats the state is allocated by the Census give those seats to the parties in proportion to the votes they received. That way we could eliminate gerrymandering entirely and have the possibility of smaller parties having a say in Congress.

 

I read post #15 several times. It didn't get any better. Perhaps using an example which is completely removed from how actual elections work is the problem. Perhaps that was the point of using it. Try using actual examples of states where the number of seats going to a particular party is out of sync with the way people vote. Use one where Democrats get too many seats if you like, gerrymandering is just as bad no matter who is doing it.

My argument is really, really simple. Boundaries should be drawn so that no party consistently gains more seats than its share of the vote. Obviously that can never be precise, but it should be a goal of boundary drawing. In any given election the correlation may not be perfect, but at any given election boundaries should be drawn so that it is as close as possible.

If Republicans get 60% of the vote in a state with 10 seats they should ideally get 6 seats. If they are consistently getting more than 6 with the same vote the boundaries should be redrawn. Same deal if it is Democrats getting more seats than their share of the vote.

Legislatures should reflect the will of the people voting as closely as the system of election allows. This is simple, simple stuff. Really it is. I honestly can't believe people are even debating it in a democracy. The only possible reason to oppose this concept is partisanship.

 

1. Its not even an augment its the whole goal. Problem is its not an achievable one because people just don't live in evenly distributed between nice little grid lines.

2. No, just flat out no. That is NOT how districts work nor is it their purpose. You're still making this same mistake by not taking into consideration the geographical allocation of population. Representatives are determined by population, districts are determined by population, but the voting INSIDE the districts is NOT determined by anything or anybody else but the people within those zones. What you're asking for is simply not what Congressional districts are about. The sum total of the votes in the state has no bearing on the votes within a district. If that were the case then we wouldn't have districts at all.

 

No you are arguing for more representation because they vote for one party. We are not a proportional representative system. Representatives represent districts not parties.

 

Sorry, you are flat out wrong and arguing for the destruction of democracy so that your party can maintain an unfair and unrepresentative advantage. Duly noted.

 

No, I'm arguing for representation in the House of Representatives to reflect the way voters vote as closely as possible. Democracy 101. In fact, its the whole point of having a representative chamber in the first place. If you don't like it then you are not arguing for a representative system.

 

No it's not the point if a representative chamber because the founders did not want parties.

 

But this simply isn't the case.

Consider the reason why we have an electoral college.

Its purpose is to safeguard against massive population regions from have total control over the Presidency.

And the reason we need that safeguard is due to the human nature of people gravitating towards the interests inspired by their environment and the rivalries that ensue.

Left vs right, north vs south, coastal vs landlocked, Dodger fans vs Giants fans.

The EC was put into play to attempt to help ensure that the needs and wishes of the few wouldn't be completely suppressed by the louder voice of the many.

By this same logic we have Congressional districting.

The needs and wishes of the people in the inner city are not the same as the needs of those in the rural area.

And the purpose of the Representatives from those districts is to speak for the people in those districts.

If we took the sum voting pattern of the entire State and used it to create a grid that would reflect it then representation would be end up being controlled by whatever party carried the most densely packed areas and that isn't what districts are for.

Because in the end its not about what party gets what and its not really even about how the State as a whole is represented (that's what the Senate is for), its about proportional representation of the people within the state; the districts.

As for the square grid idea, the only way we could ever achieve that is if we reverted to a dynamic amount of Representatives based on the original 30k citizen per zone formula in which case we'd have over 10,000 people in Congress.

 

Its a mathematically sound idea but it would completely defeat the purpose of representing the differences in each region which are not based on party, they're based on people.

 

The founders are long dead and there are parties. Unfortunately the system they created made it easier for just two to dominate. Allowing any one of them to gain representation consistently out of proportion to their percentage of the vote can in no way represent the purpose or desirable of the House of Representatives.

If this was an entrenched Democrat advantage you would find a way to argue the other case. I think it is bad for democracy no matter who is doing it.

 

Then shove off because you've failed to process and of the knowledge I've been delivering.

Its not about parties, its about people.

Its not about the state, its about the districts.

I've been speaking to the perpetual problem of a system that has no fair solution nor shall it.

(mark my words you'll be hearing about Gerrymandering till the day you die)

You're ignorant to the function of The House of Representatives.

You think it represents the State, it doesn't.

You think its "fair" for people to have the Representative for their region decided by somebody who lives elsewhere, its not.

And you think I'm jockeying for "an unfair advantage for my party" because your erroneous perception of the knowledge I've been giving you combined with an ignorance of civics has led you to think I'm trying to "steal" a Democrat kingdom away from you, I'm not.

People in different regions are entitled representation that represents them.

 

So no actual arguments, just a lot of arm waving that amounts to 'my party should be allowed to entrench itself in Congress regardless of what voters want'. The only one who is after a Kingdom here is you. I just want voters to get what they vote for.

 

Isn't the concept of the party to represent the regional interests of the people? Why is it only possible for an individual to do that?

 

In bold, spot on.

 

Except that I didn't write the sentence properly. Should have read 'desirable structure'. Oops.

 

Not using cracking and packing to determine voting outcomes.

Don't be so daft.

 

Hit that edit button and go for it!

 

I think the concept behind the political party was strength in numbers.