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

[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.

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.

No, I understand the concept. But it's easy to say how thing should work, and another thing to actually do it.

I would truly like to see that system put into practice, and see how it works. There is always a disconnect between concept and implementation, no matter how much you think it's should work just like you say.

I hope your state does it, and we can see how it works.

 

[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.

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

What they do in their state, is their business. It doesn't bother me.
What business is it of mine, who California sends to congress?

Do you think whether they send another Democrat, or another Republican, changes how many needles are on their streets? Do you think it will change them demanding more money for Amtrak whether they send another Democrat or Republican? No it won't.

Let California be California. Let Ohio be Ohio. I'll deal with my state, and you deal with yours. Let's be a people that stops shoving our noses up each others butts all the time. Trying to control how everyone else operates in the world, is what self-centered busy bodies do.

 

[MAGAman]

Answer:

Gerrymandering is the only way Congressional districts are drawn.

Or short answer:

Neccessary.

 

[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.

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.

And give it to who? Sorry, but the idea of a non partisan group is laughable in this day and age.

 

[fncceo]

I just love to mander!

 

[Syriusly]

Answer:

Gerrymandering is the only way Congressional districts are drawn.

Or short answer:

Neccessary.

A) No it isn't and
B) Why do you think gerrymandering is necessary/good?

 

[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

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.

Sigh. State Assembly Districts- here again

Why are some districts massively Democrat and others massively Republican? Gerrymandering.

Look at how the votes went in 2008 before the Republican gerrymandering- and then in 2012 after the Republican gerrymandering.

In 2008 the distribution of assembly seat roughly mirrored the distribution of votes:
56% votes- 54% of seats, 44% of votes, 46% of seats.

Then look how it was 4 years later- completely out of line with the votes
54% Democrat votes/36% of the seats. Republicans got 46% of the votes, and 64% of the seats.

 

[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.

What they do in their state, is their business. It doesn't bother me.
What business is it of mine, who California sends to congress?

Do you think whether they send another Democrat, or another Republican, changes how many needles are on their streets? Do you think it will change them demanding more money for Amtrak whether they send another Democrat or Republican? No it won't.

Let California be California. Let Ohio be Ohio. I'll deal with my state, and you deal with yours. Let's be a people that stops shoving our noses up each others butts all the time. Trying to control how everyone else operates in the world, is what self-centered busy bodies do.

No problem then- you are just fine with gerrymandering and the corruption is encourages.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Doesn't matter the worse offenders of Gerrymandering ae the democrats, No one complained for 50 years about their gerrymandering until Republicans suddenly started winning state legislatures then suddenly people like serious were "concerned". Every State was forced to Gerrymander by democrats in the US Congress for 30 years. Not a peep and even now when seriously complains he ALWAYS uses a republican example.

 

[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?

Doesn't matter the worse offenders of Gerrymandering ae the democrats, No one complained for 50 years about their gerrymandering until Republicans suddenly started winning state legislatures then suddenly people like serious were "concerned". Every State was forced to Gerrymander by democrats in the US Congress for 30 years. Not a peep and even now when seriously complains he ALWAYS uses a republican example.

Yeah, it's hilarious how the left-wing can do something for decades on end... and then a republican does it, and it's instantly this democracy destroying thing that will ruin the entire nation.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

What they do in their state, is their business. It doesn't bother me.
What business is it of mine, who California sends to congress?

Do you think whether they send another Democrat, or another Republican, changes how many needles are on their streets? Do you think it will change them demanding more money for Amtrak whether they send another Democrat or Republican? No it won't.

Let California be California. Let Ohio be Ohio. I'll deal with my state, and you deal with yours. Let's be a people that stops shoving our noses up each others butts all the time. Trying to control how everyone else operates in the world, is what self-centered busy bodies do.

No problem then- you are just fine with gerrymandering and the corruption is encourages.

It's not corruption. Each state has the right to determine the laws that run their state.

It's ridiculous for you to elect leaders who make laws, follow those laws, and then call it corruption, just because you don't like the outcome. That is not evidence of corruption, but rather of a whiny spoiled brats that don't like it when they don't get their way. You not winning isn't corruption. It's you being a whiner. Stop crying so much. If you want someone different in your state, then vote differently. Put it to a referendum of you want. personal attack removed

 

[rightwinger]

Districts should be designed by computers based on court approved parameters

 

[rightwinger]

How districts should be set

 

[MAGAman]

How districts should be set

View attachment 299186

Who picked those districts?

Which politicians should do your version of gerrymandering?

I'm still waiting for the whiners come up with an alternative.

 

[MAGAman]

Districts should be designed by computers based on court approved parameters

Republican judges or Democrat judges?

Who determines the people that write the computer programs?

You really didn't think this out very well.

 

[rightwinger]

How districts should be set

View attachment 299186

Who picked those districts?

Which politicians should do your version of gerrymandering?

I'm still waiting for the whiners come up with an alternative.

Politicians should have nothing to do with setting the districts

Selecting your voters....people lose

 

[MAGAman]

Politicians should have nothing to do with setting the districts

Selecting your voters....people lose

Who draws up the gerrymander plans that people get to vote on?

Politicians, or people appointed by politicians?

You really don't have a substitute for gerrymandering, so just admit it.

 

[MAGAman]

No problem then- you are just fine with gerrymandering and the corruption is encourages.

You don't seem to understand that there is no viable alternative.

The only alternative is "at large" voting for all representatives which means no districts and virtually no diversity of thought.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Then Why do they spend millions on it, and do it, if it "did nothing"....?

 

[rightwinger]

Politicians should have nothing to do with setting the districts

Selecting your voters....people lose

Who draws up the gerrymander plans that people get to vote on?

Politicians, or people appointed by politicians?

You really don't have a substitute for gerrymandering, so just admit it.

The courts, a nonpartisan citizens group

If politicians cannot be trusted to fairly draw districts, the courts should step in and set standards based on municipal lines, geography and common sense.