Gerrymandering - whether by D's or R's - is a national disgrace...what should be done about it?

[Shrink726]

It is nothing less than stealing people's votes, their voice in the governance of their own country. It's about as morally justifiable as breaking into someone's house and taking their valuables or stealing a 65" TV from a store.

And yet the Supreme Court has turned a blind eye to this moral outrage.

If Texas succeeds in disenfranchising almost half of its population, it's going to create a domino effect the likes of which this country has never seen. And millions of people will lose their right to determine what kind of governance they want in the country they live in.

 

[The AntiDonald]

As long as the Supreme Courts (State and Federal) keep upholding certain republican gerrymandered maps, nothing can or will ever be done about it. Dems need to use all their power to do the same thing in areas where they can. We must fight a gun battle with a bigger gun. Bringing a knife hasn't been working.

 

[Shrink726]

As long as the Supreme Courts (State and Federal) keep upholding certain republican gerrymandered maps, nothing can or will ever be done about it. Dems need to use all their power to do the same thing in areas where they can. We must fight a gun battle with a bigger gun. Bringing a knife hasn't been working.

Agree 100%, but it's a damn shame.

We're supposed to be better than this.

 

[NatMorton]

It is nothing less than stealing people's votes, their voice in the governance of their own country. It's about as morally justifiable as breaking into someone's house and taking their valuables or stealing a 65" TV from a store.

And yet the Supreme Court has turned a blind eye to this moral outrage.

If Texas succeeds in disenfranchising almost half of its population, it's going to create a domino effect the likes of which this country has never seen. And millions of people will lose their right to determine what kind of governance they want in the country they live in.

What we should do about it is both a good and difficult question.

I honestly can't think of a way to remove gerrymandering that doesn't resort to some form of identity politics, e.g. grouping together voters by race or income level. Any way the those demographics are sliced they'll be accusations the divvying favors those doing the divvying (and chances are those charges are going to be reasonable as parties, like people, function on self-interest and self-preservation).

In other words, the "solution" to gerrymandering will always be "my side's approach to gerrymandering."

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

What we should do about it is both a good and difficult question.

I honestly can't think of a way to remove gerrymandering that doesn't resort to some form of identity politics, e.g. grouping together voters by race or income level. Any way the those demographics are sliced they'll be accusations the divvying favors those doing the divvying (and chances are those charges are going to be reasonable as parties, like people, function on self-interest and self-preservation).

In other words, the "solution" to gerrymandering will always be "my side's approach to gerrymandering."

What you wrote makes no sense.

Gerrymandering is identity politics. If you remove it, you're removing the problem.

 

[NatMorton]

What you wrote makes no sense.

Gerrymandering is identity politics. If you remove it, you're removing the problem.

Understood, but I don't think it will ever be removed, which is my point.

For example, are you prepared to remove raced-based gerrymandering? If done, it will gut the Black Congressional Caucus, a very loyal voting block for the Democrats.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What we should do about it is both a good and difficult question.

I honestly can't think of a way to remove gerrymandering that doesn't resort to some form of identity politics, e.g. grouping together voters by race or income level. Any way the those demographics are sliced they'll be accusations the divvying favors those doing the divvying (and chances are those charges are going to be reasonable as parties, like people, function on self-interest and self-preservation).

In other words, the "solution" to gerrymandering will always be "my side's approach to gerrymandering."

Not allowing US House districts to contain parts of more than one county would help. My (very gerrymandered) congressional district contains parts of 4 counties (but no entire county) and parts of two cities about 80 miles apart.

Texas's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NatMorton]

Not allowing US House districts to contain parts of more than one county would help. My (very gerrymandered) congressional district contains parts of 4 counties (but no entire county) and parts of two cities about 80 miles apart.

Texas's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's an interesting idea, but if done I think the gerrymandering effort will simply shift to drawing (or rather redrawing) county lines.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Understood, but I don't think it will ever be removed, which is my point.

For example, are you prepared to remove raced-based gerrymandering? If done, it will gut the Black Congressional Caucus, a very loyal voting block for the Democrats.

What you don't seem to fundamentally understand is that it is Republicans that create those black Democratic districts.....because they want to minimize African American representation in the states.

Probably the two worst gerrymandered states in the country, Wisconsin and North Carolina, were performed by the Republican majorities in those states. Those are both 50/50 states, yet the representation in both states heavily favor Republicans. Those crazy looking districts where African Americans were essentially put on separate islands was done by Republicans, not Democrats.

It makes you feel good to whine about the Congressional Black Caucus, but you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[aociswundumho]

What you don't seem to fundamentally understand is that it is Republicans that create those black Democratic districts.....because they want to minimize African American representation in the states.

Probably the two worst gerrymandered states in the country, Wisconsin and North Carolina, were performed by the Republican majorities in those states. Those are both 50/50 states, yet the representation in both states heavily favor Republicans. Those crazy looking districts where African Americans were essentially put on separate islands was done by Republicans, not Democrats.

It makes you feel good to whine about the Congressional Black Caucus, but you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Please, both parties benefit from it and both parties want it.

​

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's an interesting idea, but if done I think the gerrymandering effort will simply shift to drawing (or rather redrawing) county lines.

Possibly, but at least each voter (in most counties/cities) would have the same ballot choices.

 

[NatMorton]

What you don't seem to fundamentally understand is that it is Republicans that create those black Democratic districts.....because they want to minimize African American representation in the states.

Probably the two worst gerrymandered states in the country, Wisconsin and North Carolina, were performed by the Republican majorities in those states. Those are both 50/50 states, yet the representation in both states heavily favor Republicans. Those crazy looking districts where African Americans were essentially put on separate islands was done by Republicans, not Democrats.

It makes you feel good to whine about the Congressional Black Caucus, but you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Please try answering my question.

 

[NatMorton]

Possibly, but at least each voter (in most counties/cities) would have the same ballot choices.

Which is the entire point of gerrymandering, once you corral the "right" mix of voters.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Please, both parties benefit from it and both parties want it.

​

Yep.

Map shows most gerrymandered states

Which states employ the controversial practice of gerrymandering most? Newsweek has drawn up a map.

www.newsweek.com

 

[ttwtt78640]

Which is the entire point of gerrymandering, once you corral the "right" mix of voters.

The point of gerrymandering is to create more ‘safe’ (or mostly ‘safe’) seats for one political party.

 

[NatMorton]

The point of gerrymandering is to create more ‘safe’ (or mostly ‘safe’) seats for one political party.

IMO, I think it's to create more seats.

Overly simplified math for illustrative purposes, a state has 1 million voters, with 55% of them Democrats, and 10 House seats. The goal of Democratic gerrymandering isn't to create, say, 7 districts with 80% majorities. It's to create 10 districts, each with a 55% majority.

The risk, of course, is that the party in goes too far and overly dilutes their majorities, turning safe seats into swing districts.

 

[CaughtInThe]

What we should do about it is both a good and difficult question.

I honestly can't think of a way to remove gerrymandering that doesn't resort to some form of identity politics, e.g. grouping together voters by race or income level. Any way the those demographics are sliced they'll be accusations the divvying favors those doing the divvying (and chances are those charges are going to be reasonable as parties, like people, function on self-interest and self-preservation).

In other words, the "solution" to gerrymandering will always be "my side's approach to gerrymandering."

Gerrymandering is identity politics.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Please, both parties benefit from it and both parties want it.

​

What a pathetic response.

The worst gerrymandering is done by Republicans, like in N. Carolina and Wisconsin. And anyone who has studied this issue knows it.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Please try answering my question.

I did. Your Republican Party is the one doing it.....they control the state legislatures in places like North Carolina and Wisconsin.

 

[NatMorton]

I did. Your Republican Party is the one doing it.....they control the state legislatures in places like North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Just to be clear, you think the Democrats, for the most part, do not gerrymander, yes?

 

[ttwtt78640]

IMO, I think it's to create more seats.

Overly simplified math for illustrative purposes, a state has 1 million voters, with 55% of them Democrats, and 10 House seats. The goal of Democratic gerrymandering isn't to create, say, 7 districts with 80% majorities. It's to create 10 districts, each with a 55% majority.

The risk, of course, is that the party in goes too far and overly dilutes their majorities, turning safe seats into swing districts.

Nope, by creating only a few (2 or 3) districts with mostly (say 70% to 80%) republicants, the remaining (7 or 8) districts would lean even more (above 60%) towards demorats. BTW, to get 10 House seats would require having 7 to 8 million voters.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Just to be clear, you think the Democrats, for the most part, do not gerrymander, yes?

Of course they do. But they don't create permanent majorities with their gerrymandering....the way that Republicans do.

North Carolina is a 50/50 state.....Republicans currently control 10 House seats. Democrats only control 4 House seats. That's a ****ing joke. It's equally bad in the NC state government representation.

Nothing like that can be found on the Democratic side.

You obviously don't want to have an honest discussion about who is the bigger sinner here.

 

[NatMorton]

Nope, by creating only a few (2 or 3) districts with mostly (say 70% to 80%) republicants, the remaining (7 or 8) districts would lean even more (above 60%) towards demorats. BTW, to get 10 House seats would require having 7 to 8 million voters.

That's not quite my example. Carrying the math out from that example, there are 1m voters in this fictional state, 550k Dems and 450k Republicans.. If they all were reliable voters, and in a model where they were spread out uniformly across every neighborhood in the state, almost anyway you slice it the state would produce 10 Democratic Reps in the House. If instead, the model had voters flocked together in nice, neat bundles we'd expect that state to send between 5 and 6 Democrats to the House every two years and between 4 and 5 Republicans.

Democrats would be gerrymandering toward the first model. Republicans would aim for the second.

 

[NatMorton]

Of course they do. But they don't create permanent majorities with their gerrymandering....the way that Republicans do.

What do they create with their gerrymandering?

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

What do they create with their gerrymandering?

An advantage....that's what. Like all gerrymandering.

Why don't you address the real problems....like in North Carolina and Wisconsin?

I already explained how you were wrong about your "Congressional Black Caucus" bullshit garbage.....and now you are going off on one of your stupid tangents again.