CDZ What are your thoughts on Gerrymandering? Good? Bad?

[Syriusly]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I would outlaw gerrymandering only if all out-of-state contributions both direct and laundered to state and municipal candidates were also outlawed.

 

[bluzman61]

I always say there will be NO mandering with MY Gerry!

 

[Syriusly]

I would outlaw gerrymandering only if all out-of-state contributions both direct and laundered to state and municipal candidates were also outlawed.

Not sure what the two have to do with each other. Care to explain? Do you find the concept of gerrymandering wrong only in certain circumstances?

Personally, I would be happy to outlaw all contributions by corporations and unions but I don't see the relevancy to gerrymandering.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I would outlaw gerrymandering only if all out-of-state contributions both direct and laundered to state and municipal candidates were also outlawed.

Not sure what the two have to do with each other. Care to explain? Do you find the concept of gerrymandering wrong only in certain circumstances?

Personally, I would be happy to outlaw all contributions by corporations and unions but I don't see the relevancy to gerrymandering.

Both effect elections. Frankly, I think out-of-state contributions more damaging.

For example, why should Michael Bloomberg be permitted to influence Virginia state politics? Restrict that to Virginians only.

 

[konradv]

I don't see, with a carefully written program that favors compact districts, why it couldn't all be done by computer.

 

[Andylusion]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.

So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?

It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.

 

[Syriusly]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.

So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?

It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.

The differences may not be in whether the elected officials are more to the extreme left or right- but that voters are not getting the leaders that they want.

This is an example of how the results are unfair to Democrats, but in reality both parties have done this for their own parties advantage- AND for the advantage of elected officials who want to keep getting elected.

How do you end up with 54% of the votes- and 36% of the seats? Gerrymandering.

Look at the illustration below- in a perfect world the 5 districts would be 2 gold and 6 purple- representing the actual allocation of voters. Statistically in a world without gerrymandering this average out to work. But politicians don't want voters to have that choice, so they devise districts to protect their jobs- and their party.

 

[martybegan]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

The other solution, a "neutral" way of doing things is quite frankly bullshit. Someone will always try to gain advantage, someone will always get it.

At least when the politicians themselves do it, the bias is out in the open, and admitted to.

 

[martybegan]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.

So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?

It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.

The differences may not be in whether the elected officials are more to the extreme left or right- but that voters are not getting the leaders that they want.

This is an example of how the results are unfair to Democrats, but in reality both parties have done this for their own parties advantage- AND for the advantage of elected officials who want to keep getting elected.

How do you end up with 54% of the votes- and 36% of the seats? Gerrymandering.

Look at the illustration below- in a perfect world the 5 districts would be 2 gold and 6 purple- representing the actual allocation of voters. Statistically in a world without gerrymandering this average out to work. But politicians don't want voters to have that choice, so they devise districts to protect their jobs- and their party.

Is that an actual state, or made up numbers?

 

[candycorn]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

It’s supposed to be the voters picking the politicians, now it’s the politicians picking the voters.

They should assign each district by zip codes pulled out of a hat.

 

[Syriusly]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

The other solution, a "neutral" way of doing things is quite frankly bullshit. Someone will always try to gain advantage, someone will always get it.

At least when the politicians themselves do it, the bias is out in the open, and admitted to.

The answer is to take the politicians out of designing their own districts.

California did that- the Democratic Party and politicians fought the changes and they were both wrong- and over-ruled by California voters.

 

[Andylusion]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.

So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?

It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.

The differences may not be in whether the elected officials are more to the extreme left or right- but that voters are not getting the leaders that they want.

This is an example of how the results are unfair to Democrats, but in reality both parties have done this for their own parties advantage- AND for the advantage of elected officials who want to keep getting elected.

How do you end up with 54% of the votes- and 36% of the seats? Gerrymandering.

Look at the illustration below- in a perfect world the 5 districts would be 2 gold and 6 purple- representing the actual allocation of voters. Statistically in a world without gerrymandering this average out to work. But politicians don't want voters to have that choice, so they devise districts to protect their jobs- and their party.

In fact, even within one state, the same is true.

Districts are spread over land areas. But one area, LA, can have a high density of people. Another area, like Bakersfield, or Fresno, is far less population, and Republican dominated.

So naturally if you compare the 20 votes that wins a district for a Republican, and the 4 million for democrats.... yeah it's going to look surprising as many Republicans win elections in California based on the lop sided voting.

 

[Andylusion]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

It’s supposed to be the voters picking the politicians, now it’s the politicians picking the voters.

They should assign each district by zip codes pulled out of a hat.

I would actually like you to do that. I'd really be interested to see how that would work in your state.

 

[Andylusion]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

The other solution, a "neutral" way of doing things is quite frankly bullshit. Someone will always try to gain advantage, someone will always get it.

At least when the politicians themselves do it, the bias is out in the open, and admitted to.

The answer is to take the politicians out of designing their own districts.

California did that- the Democratic Party and politicians fought the changes and they were both wrong- and over-ruled by California voters.

Erm..... Given what a disaster California is.... not sure if that's who you should use as a model.... Just sayin.

 

[Syriusly]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.

So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?

It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.

The differences may not be in whether the elected officials are more to the extreme left or right- but that voters are not getting the leaders that they want.

This is an example of how the results are unfair to Democrats, but in reality both parties have done this for their own parties advantage- AND for the advantage of elected officials who want to keep getting elected.

How do you end up with 54% of the votes- and 36% of the seats? Gerrymandering.

Look at the illustration below- in a perfect world the 5 districts would be 2 gold and 6 purple- representing the actual allocation of voters. Statistically in a world without gerrymandering this average out to work. But politicians don't want voters to have that choice, so they devise districts to protect their jobs- and their party.

Is that an actual state, or made up numbers?

Wisconsin

 

[Syriusly]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

The other solution, a "neutral" way of doing things is quite frankly bullshit. Someone will always try to gain advantage, someone will always get it.

At least when the politicians themselves do it, the bias is out in the open, and admitted to.

The answer is to take the politicians out of designing their own districts.

California did that- the Democratic Party and politicians fought the changes and they were both wrong- and over-ruled by California voters.

Erm..... Given what a disaster California is.... not sure if that's who you should use as a model.... Just sayin.

If the Democrats in California could still Gerrymander the districts- there would be fewer Republicans in the House right now.

 

[candycorn]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

It’s supposed to be the voters picking the politicians, now it’s the politicians picking the voters.

They should assign each district by zip codes pulled out of a hat.

I would actually like you to do that. I'd really be interested to see how that would work in your state.

Let’s say you have 10 districts and 1000 zip codes. You categorize the zip codes by population only. Then you parcel them out to the districts giving each district roughly the same amount.

 

[Syriusly]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.

So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?

It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.

The differences may not be in whether the elected officials are more to the extreme left or right- but that voters are not getting the leaders that they want.

This is an example of how the results are unfair to Democrats, but in reality both parties have done this for their own parties advantage- AND for the advantage of elected officials who want to keep getting elected.

How do you end up with 54% of the votes- and 36% of the seats? Gerrymandering.

Look at the illustration below- in a perfect world the 5 districts would be 2 gold and 6 purple- representing the actual allocation of voters. Statistically in a world without gerrymandering this average out to work. But politicians don't want voters to have that choice, so they devise districts to protect their jobs- and their party.

In fact, even within one state, the same is true.

Districts are spread over land areas. But one area, LA, can have a high density of people. Another area, like Bakersfield, or Fresno, is far less population, and Republican dominated.

So naturally if you compare the 20 votes that wins a district for a Republican, and the 4 million for democrats.... yeah it's going to look surprising as many Republicans win elections in California based on the lop sided voting.

In my ideal system the districts would be relatively uniform and represent the people living in the districts, without regard to what political affiliation the citizens within the district happen to be.

 

[Andylusion]

I have been very open here at USMB over the years that I am opposed to gerrymandering regardless of which party it benefits. In my opinion, gerrymandering is a corruption of the American ideal that our votes matter.
Beyond that- it frankly encourages corruption by elected officials- people from both parties have cut deals with each other to allow gerrymandering if it protects their specific district- and their specific job.

Frankly I don't understand why there is not universal condemnation of this corrupt practice.
This thread is an opportunity to express your opinion on gerrymandering. If all you want to do is condemn the opposite party for doing it- well I can't stop you but I am hoping we can get something more substentive than 'well they did it first so we should do it too'.

Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not like left-wing states, start sending ultra-conservatives to congress. Nor do you see right-wing states sending Communists to congress.

So if the people are generally speaking getting what they want.... then who cares?

It's all a bunch of wailing and screaming over nothing. Look, if your state wants to change the rules on redistricting, then you have your state do it. This isn't a significant national issue. Most of the people, are getting the leaders they want.

The differences may not be in whether the elected officials are more to the extreme left or right- but that voters are not getting the leaders that they want.

This is an example of how the results are unfair to Democrats, but in reality both parties have done this for their own parties advantage- AND for the advantage of elected officials who want to keep getting elected.

How do you end up with 54% of the votes- and 36% of the seats? Gerrymandering.

Look at the illustration below- in a perfect world the 5 districts would be 2 gold and 6 purple- representing the actual allocation of voters. Statistically in a world without gerrymandering this average out to work. But politicians don't want voters to have that choice, so they devise districts to protect their jobs- and their party.

Is that an actual state, or made up numbers?

Wisconsin

So I just looked up the Wisconsin map. It doesn't look super Gerrymandered to me.

Wisconsin's congressional districts - Wikipedia

So 54% is democrat over all... which again means little to nothing, since some districts are massively democrat, and some are massively republican.

Additionally there are only 7 total seats. So it was going to be split 4 to 3 somehow. It was either going to be

This is ridiculous. Now that I know which state this is, your entire point implodes.