Changing America's Political Maps

[longknife]

The way Congressional districts are drawn is the way politicians seek to establish their own little fiefdoms to guarantee their political futures. They are laid out by state legislatures based upon which party is in power at the time. More and more states are being forced to change the way this is done by voter initiatives. SCOTUS approved how it's done in Arizona and this article deals with Florida. How many other states will follow suit?


One personal thought – do you think these changes just might possible allow Independents and other third parties to step in and compete against the Big Two?


Read the article @ Court Florida Districts Not Gerrymandered Al Jazeera America


And, of course, the Libs shout to the heavens that it's a GOP loss in Fla @ Florida s Supreme Court strikes down the GOP-drawn congressional map

 

[Pogo]

AVG-JOE might be interested in this...

 

[Nyvin]

There is at least the beginning of a movement on the left to end partisan gerrymandering, but the Republicans almost seem dependent on it nowadays. I'd wager it will be quite a while until there's true motivation to end gerrymandering practices.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Gerrymandering is the single most embarrassing thing about American politics. The democrats made it common and the republicans turned it in to an extremist art form.

The result has been the protected extremism that we see in the House of Representatives today with many congressmen protected from everything except a primary challenge, the net result being a push further toward the extremes.

I heard the story about FL on the news this morning... all I can add is that it's about damn time.

 

[jwoodie]

The best way would be a mathematical formula with a fixed starting point. But then we could not guarantee minority representation, could we? Neither side has clean hands regarding this issue.

 

[HenryBHough]

Remember, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, for whom the Gerrymander was named, was a Democrat.

He earned the honor. One of the few things a Democrat has ever honestly earned.

 

[Mr. H.]

The way Congressional districts are drawn is the way politicians seek to establish their own little fiefdoms to guarantee their political futures. They are laid out by state legislatures based upon which party is in power at the time. More and more states are being forced to change the way this is done by voter initiatives. SCOTUS approved how it's done in Arizona and this article deals with Florida. How many other states will follow suit?


One personal thought – do you think these changes just might possible allow Independents and other third parties to step in and compete against the Big Two?


Read the article @ Court Florida Districts Not Gerrymandered Al Jazeera America


And, of course, the Libs shout to the heavens that it's a GOP loss in Fla @ Florida s Supreme Court strikes down the GOP-drawn congressional map

In Illinois, it doesn't matter how the map is drawn. It's perennially "Blue".

 

[auditor0007]

There is at least the beginning of a movement on the left to end partisan gerrymandering, but the Republicans almost seem dependent on it nowadays. I'd wager it will be quite a while until there's true motivation to end gerrymandering practices.

If gerrymandering is brought to an end, Republicans will really be in trouble.

 

[longknife]

There is at least the beginning of a movement on the left to end partisan gerrymandering, but the Republicans almost seem dependent on it nowadays. I'd wager it will be quite a while until there's true motivation to end gerrymandering practices.

If gerrymandering is brought to an end, Republicans will really be in trouble.

Well, just throwing out a comment without discussion seems to be your forte. Care to cite some examples or give us something to look at?

Of course not,. Typical liberal response.

 

[auditor0007]

There is at least the beginning of a movement on the left to end partisan gerrymandering, but the Republicans almost seem dependent on it nowadays. I'd wager it will be quite a while until there's true motivation to end gerrymandering practices.

If gerrymandering is brought to an end, Republicans will really be in trouble.

Well, just throwing out a comment without discussion seems to be your forte. Care to cite some examples or give us something to look at?

Of course not,. Typical liberal response.

Apparently you are not very good at math. In 2012, Democratic Congressional candidates received 1.4 million more total votes than Republican Congressional candidates, yet Republicans won 33 more seats. This was due in great part to Republican gerrymandering of districts in many states. If districts were to be redrawn across every state, and done so more fairly, what do you think would happen when Democratic candidates received 1.4 million more votes than Republicans? Do I need to spell it out for you, or do you think you can figure it out from here? There's your dumb liberal response .

 

[XploreR]

Here's a suggestion. Since there are only two Senators for each state, eliminate all district boundaries for the office of Senate, and let the candidates run statewide. The two candidates receiving the most votes win the two offices. For the House of Reps, draw district boundaries along straight latitude and longitude lines only. That prevents gerrymandering. I agree with most commentors here, that gerrymandering is a national disgrace and MUST be eliminated.

 

[Nyvin]

Here's a suggestion. Since there are only two Senators for each state, eliminate all district boundaries for the office of Senate, and let the candidates run statewide. The two candidates receiving the most votes win the two offices. For the House of Reps, draw district boundaries along straight latitude and longitude lines only. That prevents gerrymandering. I agree with most commentors here, that gerrymandering is a national disgrace and MUST be eliminated.

There aren't any district boundaries for Senate, they're already elected statewide.

I'm not sure the latitude or longitude line thing would work either, since you still need to have equal populations in each district and some areas are more densely populated then others, but with tweeks it could work.

 

[jwoodie]

Here's a suggestion. Since there are only two Senators for each state, eliminate all district boundaries for the office of Senate, and let the candidates run statewide. The two candidates receiving the most votes win the two offices.

First, you would have to eliminate staggered terms, which would limit elections to once every six years. Secondly, you would just about guarantee one Republican and one Democrat from each State, thus promoting even greater deadlock.

A better solution would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and let state legislatures appoint their state's Senators. Also, eliminating the filibuster rule would cut down on voting trickery and elevate the Senate's legislative responsibilities.

 

[Nyvin]

For the Florida CD map there are mainly three areas the court is pushing the legislature to fix.

The first is the St. Petersburg/Tampa area containing Districts FL-13 and FL-14. This is the one that's easiest to predict since there's really nothing else to do but add St Petersburg to FL-13. I see FL-13 becoming a safe Dem seat in nearly any scenario.

The second area is around Orange and Osceola counties. The courts are pushing for the removal of the god awful FL-5 district going from north to south and instead compact the district to going east to west. This one is a little less clear on what will happen, but what's for sure is there will remain 2 majority-minority districts in the area, and also one extra district with the remaining Democratic voters of Orange county. A fair map would have 3 safe Dem seats resulting from this, but knowing the GOP they'll probably push for that 3rd seat to either be a swing seat or a barely leaning Dem seat.

The last and least predictable area are the four Miami-Dade districts, FL-24, FL-25, FL-26 and FL-27. This area I'm a little less optimistic about changing much in the Dem's favor, but at the very least it seems like FL-25 will become at least a little more competitive, pushing it to become a swing district. Ideally the FL-24 vote sink would be broke up and make FL-25 and FL-26 lean Dem, but it's doubtful the FL GOP would let that happen.

A few small changes might also occur elsewhere, but the areas above are the only places where there could be partisan changes in the districts. An example would be adding Jacksonville to the surrounding FL-4 once FL-5 is remapped, but the Jacksonville suburbs are so republican it won't really matter.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a suggestion. Since there are only two Senators for each state, eliminate all district boundaries for the office of Senate, and let the candidates run statewide. The two candidates receiving the most votes win the two offices. For the House of Reps, draw district boundaries along straight latitude and longitude lines only. That prevents gerrymandering. I agree with most commentors here, that gerrymandering is a national disgrace and MUST be eliminated.

There are no "districts" for the US Senate.

Senators already do run state-wide.

The problem with drawing district boundaries based on a latitude/longitude grid is that population isn't evenly distributed, and each Congressional district has to represent approximately the same number of people.

 

[longknife]

Drawing congressional districts has always been a problem since the constitution was enacted. The idea of having an equal number in each district make sense, But, not how to apportion them.

Also, this was established at a time when the population was low. I'm certain they allocated them according to townships and/or counties.

I also think that the amendment limiting the number of representatives was a huge mistake. If we are going to allocate representatives by population it has to include the entire population!

At the moment, each district represents approximately 700,000 eligible voters. According to the Census Bureau, there are 206,072,000 eligible voters. That means representatives must stand for 700,000 voters - far, far too many. Congress should seriously consider increasing the number of seats to allow better representation of THE PEOPLE.

 

[AVG-JOE]

One would think that a computer program could be written to draw the appropriate number of districts in a state using limiting the number of lines used in the district boundary as the primary function after sheer numbers of people within a district instead of using the number of voters registered as this or that as the primary consideration after population numbers.

One would think that that would actually be easier than drawing districts based on partisan numbers.

Obviously, triangular or square would be best, but coastlines, population distribution and state boundaries make that a challenge.

Congressional district maps should be boring, not art.

Gerrymander Art US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[AVG-JOE]

Drawing congressional districts has always been a problem since the constitution was enacted. The idea of having an equal number in each district make sense, But, not how to apportion them.

Also, this was established at a time when the population was low. I'm certain they allocated them according to townships and/or counties.

I also think that the amendment limiting the number of representatives was a huge mistake. If we are going to allocate representatives by population it has to include the entire population!

At the moment, each district represents approximately 700,000 eligible voters. According to the Census Bureau, there are 206,072,000 eligible voters. That means representatives must stand for 700,000 voters - far, far too many. Congress should seriously consider increasing the number of seats to allow better representation of THE PEOPLE.

I like the idea of raising the number of congressional seats. This would dilute power a bit.

More important is to insist on a fair and simple tax code, thus removing from congress and the senate the power to customize the tax obligations of friends and donors via the complicated code of credits, deductions and 'special interests' we current allow them to employ.

That's the toughie, folks... the power to reward their friends through the IRS is one congress won't give up easily.

 

[jwoodie]

If we are going to allocate representatives by population it has to include the entire population!

It already does. However, we do not need more Representatives: The composition of the House and Senate was a compromise regarding State representation at the federal level: The influence of popular vote was deliberately minimized. The will of the people was to be expressed at the state (and local) level, while the will of the states was to be expressed at the federal level. As a result, smaller local districts were seen as the basic building blocks of our representative democracy.

This worked quite well for our first 150 years, but has subsequently been turned on its head through federal intrusion into local matters. Do we want to keep tinkering with this new defective wheel, or go back to using the one which actually worked?

 

[Nyvin]

If we are going to allocate representatives by population it has to include the entire population!

It already does. However, we do not need more Representatives: The composition of the House and Senate was a compromise regarding State representation at the federal level: The influence of popular vote was deliberately minimized. The will of the people was to be expressed at the state (and local) level, while the will of the states was to be expressed at the federal level. As a result, smaller local districts were seen as the basic building blocks of our representative democracy.

This worked quite well for our first 150 years, but has subsequently been turned on its head through federal intrusion into local matters. Do we want to keep tinkering with this new defective wheel, or go back to using the one which actually worked?

It actually didn't work out well at all using the original method. Senate Seats (one of the most powerful offices in the country) were regularly given out as favors or bribes or sometimes even just downright "purchased" to unqualified people back before the 17th amendment.

Also since most states have two chambers and usually the governor had to approve the candidate, it was very frequent that electoral deadlocks occurred which resulted in the Senate seat being empty for quite a while, sometimes years. With a popular vote method this never occurs.

Also the before the amendment passed congress it already was passed by 31 state legislatures anyway, even if Congress didn't pass it, it was just a matter of time until it was forced by the states.