Gerrymandering

[dbroncos78087]

Don't get me started on gerrymandering.

I Googled "best Gerrymandering" and came across these images:

Florida's 10th - Why is Pinellas in a different district?

Illinois' 4th - I don't know but I'm guessing a GOP house member represents th 4th.

Texas ??? - I don't know which district this is but come on guys.

Maryland 3rd (I think) - Another liberal state so I'm guessing that this is a GOP district.

North Carolina's 6th - I thought this was Vermont (and another example of Democrat redistricting but the URL indicates its North Carolina.

Ohio's 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 16th - I used my own judgement about which were particularly bad but really you could probably include more than I did.

This is just a quick glance over the first couple pages of Google searches. But really this is downright pathetic. This is why we have such a hard time making these deals. You have representatives who only fear a primary from someone more extreme than themselves. They aren't going to get beat by someone of the other party unless something drastic happens.

Ok so let me explain, I started this discussion in another thread but I would like to make it its own topic. I look at those examples above and can't help but be disgusted. I mean these districts are drawn up in a way to guarantee victory for one party or another will win. It has created an atmosphere where more and more congressmen don't fear being beaten by someone in the other party but by a primary challenge. This leaders to more and more polarization.

I don't really have a solution because I don't think there is anything that can be done to redistrict without making it political. The best that I can think of is a committee that has to be made up of equal members of all parties.

[waveycrockett]

I wiki'd it. Very loaded and confusing term to say the least.

[homestarunner93]

I don't really have a problem with it. The party in power has the opportunity to set the rules. In fact, the 6th district in SC was required by the Supreme Court to be packed with black voters, which guarantees one Democratic representative from the state. This is why the idiot Jim Clyburn continues to win and win with little opposition.

[dbroncos78087]

I wiki'd it. Very loaded and confusing term to say the least.

It is a loaded term and it is typically associated with racism but its a deeper problem than that in my opinion. Both sides have done it, which is why I posted some from D-states and some from R-states. They are used to protect politicians from the other party.

This has helped us elect more and more polarizing politicians and a contributor to why our politicians won't (not can't) get their heads out of their *** long enough to make a deal until they are physically forced to do so.

[yfern328]

Haha. Look at what NY's 28th congressional district looks like. It's one of the best examples of gerrymandering I can come up with

[dbroncos78087]

Haha. Look at what NY's 28th congressional district looks like. It's one of the best examples of gerrymandering I can come up with

I think Ohio's 3rd district is a pathetic example of what I see. I don't know who represents that district but that is a terrible example of why we should have a better system of setting districts than what we use now.

[subroc]

I expect a significant part, if not most, of the process of redistricting is political, but I can't help but believe in some cases there is the difficulty of keeping the districts even in size with similar numbers.

[AmsterNat]

Man, DBroncs, I really didn't want to get into this....

I had a look through the districts you listed. Of the eight Ohio districts, five are Rep. and three are Dem. The Third, to which you refer, is Rep. Though both parties are guilty of this perverted practice, there are more Reps. than Dems amongst the ones you listed.

The one generally considered to be 'worst', Maryland's Third, is a Dem. seat.

Maryland’s 3rd congressional district, the most gerrymandered in the nation, is a Rorschach test in the most literal sense. The Washington Post called it a “crazy quilt.” A local politician compared it to “blood spatter from a crime scene.” A federal judge said it reminded him of a “broken-winged pterodactyl, lying prostrate across the center of the state.” DCist suggested we ditch metaphor altogether and change the word “gerrymander” to “Marymander.”

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109938...dered-district




It is my fervent hope that the more liberal minded SCOTUS that is likely to be in place by the end of the first Clinton Administration, will either regulate or ban this bizarre and archaic practice.

[cabernetluver]

We in California, took redistricting out of the hands of the political parties. All and all, the districts that were drawn looked at the communities, not the parties. I wish the entire country did it in a fashion like California did. As a side note, we also made the general election candidates a choice of the top two in the primary, irrespective of party. This gives the people who are in the minority party a vote that might really count, even if it is for the person who is less far from their point of view. It made for some really interesting contests.

[behindmydesk]

We in California, took redistricting out of the hands of the political parties. All and all, the districts that were drawn looked at the communities, not the parties. I wish the entire country did it in a fashion like California did. As a side note, we also made the general election candidates a choice of the top two in the primary, irrespective of party. This gives the people who are in the minority party a vote that might really count, even if it is for the person who is less far from their point of view. It made for some really interesting contests.

I didn't know California did that. That's awesome, good work.

I hate gerrymandering. Both parties do it and I hate it. We have had it quite a bit in Indiana, and it's a shame. For instance, Jackie Warlorski lost in 2010, so the republican party redistricted so she could win this time. This made Joe Donnely realize he'd lose so say screw it i'll run for Senate. So yes the indiana redistricting gave congress and extra republican they also (well lets also throw Murdock and his mouth in with it as well) gave the senate a democrat.

I also did not vote in the congressional race as my own personal objection to redistricting. I didn't like the democrat candidate at all so I wasn't voting for him, but I refused to vote for Jackie because of how the indiana house changed the rules to help her.

I prefer just going on counties these counties vote for this election.

[Pacerlive]

Ok so let me explain, I started this discussion in another thread but I would like to make it its own topic. I look at those examples above and can't help but be disgusted. I mean these districts are drawn up in a way to guarantee victory for one party or another will win. It has created an atmosphere where more and more congressmen don't fear being beaten by someone in the other party but by a primary challenge. This leaders to more and more polarization.

I don't really have a solution because I don't think there is anything that can be done to redistrict without making it political. The best that I can think of is a committee that has to be made up of equal members of all parties.

D %vote D sim R sim D seats R seats Discrepancy
Pennsylvania 50.7% 8.4 9.6 5 13 R+3.4
Texas 39.9% 9.4 26.6 12 24 D+2.6
Ohio 47.9% 6.5 9.5 4 12 R+2.5
North Carolina 50.9% 6.2 6.8 4 9 R+2.2
Michigan 52.7% 7.2 6.8 5 9 R+2.2
Arizona 45.6% 3.2 5.8 5 4 D+1.8
Virginia 49.0% 3.7 5.3 2 7 R+1.7
Illinois 55.4% 10.3 7.7 12 6 D+1.7
Indiana 45.8% 3.2 5.8 2 7 R+1.2
Net, all 9 states 48.5% 58.1 83.9 51 91 R+7.1
D-controlled D+1.7
R-controlled R+13.2

So who is the biggest offender here? Even if you look at it nationally its obvious who is mucking with the system to retain a district seat.

[Patsfan56]

Politics by the Charlie Sheen priniple. Winning.

And the term is just ironic. Just like Charlie Sheen, the politiicans, when compared to being the honorable voices of the people they were elected to be look more like strung out whoremongering selfish self interested pricks. Gerrymandering is almost the perfect illustrative example. If you can't win an election, then craft the constituency to meet your needs. It should be illegal, unless voted on and approved through referendum.

[homestarunner93]

\As a side note, we also made the general election candidates a choice of the top two in the primary, irrespective of party. This gives the people who are in the minority party a vote that might really count, even if it is for the person who is less far from their point of view. It made for some really interesting contests.

I really like this idea for populous states like California, but I can't wrap my head around it for a smaller state like South Carolina.

[cabernetluver]

I really like this idea for populous states like California, but I can't wrap my head around it for a smaller state like South Carolina.

Population size aside, why is it a good idea for California and not a good idea for South Carolina? I don't get it. To me, it is a good idea everywhere. This is really not an argument, from my side. I just don't get why it is good one place and not another.

[homestarunner93]

Population size aside, why is it a good idea for California and not a good idea for South Carolina? I don't get it. To me, it is a good idea everywhere. This is really not an argument, from my side. I just don't get why it is good one place and not another.

States like California have more people willing to be candidates in contests like this. Also, in a state that leans so far right as SC, I don't think it would do anything but put Republicans against Republicans in a general election nearly every single time. Democrats generally aren't even competitive in this state. Their state party organization is, for the most part, kind of pathetic. There's definitely benefits in a state like California that you wouldn't see here. A larger, more diverse populous makes the system work.