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

[MAGAman]

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.

You're purposely missing the point.

Who.picks the non partisan group?

Who picks the judges?

Who decides on which lines make more common sense?

It's a lot easier to admit you're wrong than to keep digging.

 

[MAGAman]

RW... Seriously think about it.

Judges are either politicians or they are appointed by politicians.

Politicians are selected by the elections.

Democracy has its flaws, but allowing elites to rule is much worse.

 

[Crepitus]

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'.

Gerrymanders should be Hunter to extinction no matter which party they support.

Congressional (and other) districts should be regular rectangles as much as possible.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

If there are 7 seats, why does your map show 8 districts?

 

[martybegan]

Districts should be designed by computers based on court approved parameters

And the court's biases will be seen in those programs.

 

[MAGAman]

Gerrymanders should be Hunter to extinction no matter which party they support.

Congressional (and other) districts should be regular rectangles as much as possible.

Who decides what rectangle? Vertical or Horizontal? Fat or thin?

Who determines how much is possible?

You people are like dogs chasing your tails...

There is no other viable system.

Racists would love your plans because it would wipe out the majority of black Representatives, but who else would want such a thing?

 

[MAGAman]

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

Why not.

Let the people who gerrymander the districts now pay someone to write a computer program that gives them the same exact districts. Everybody's happy.

 

[konradv]

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

Why not. Let the people who gerrymander the districts now pay someone to write a computer program that gives them the same exact districts. Everybody's happy.

Not what I said. Did you miss the part about "compact districts"?

 

[Crepitus]

Gerrymanders should be Hunter to extinction no matter which party they support.

Congressional (and other) districts should be regular rectangles as much as possible.

Who decides what rectangle? Vertical or Horizontal? Fat or thin?

Who determines how much is possible?

You people are like dogs chasing your tails...

There is no other viable system.

Racists would love your plans because it would wipe out the majority of black Representatives, but who else would want such a thing?

Do you not understand what a "regular rectangle" is?

It would not wipe out black representatives, it would most likely increase them.

You conservitards are against ending gerrymandering because you benefit more often than Democrats do.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

???....Most of the people are getting the leaders they want.

Gerrymandering is not so much about who gets elected from individual districts, it’s about the control of the state. So when you say most people get who they want, what you are really saying is most people who didn’t get who they want were in the wrong district.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

This is manifestly untrue.

 

[MAGAman]

Not what I said. Did you miss the part about "compact districts"?

I missed the part about who decides how compact and what shape they are.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Gerrymanders should be Hunter to extinction no matter which party they support.

Congressional (and other) districts should be regular rectangles as much as possible.

Who decides what rectangle? Vertical or Horizontal? Fat or thin?

Who determines how much is possible?

You people are like dogs chasing your tails...

There is no other viable system.

Racists would love your plans because it would wipe out the majority of black Representatives, but who else would want such a thing?

Do you not understand what a "regular rectangle" is?

It would not wipe out black representatives, it would most likely increase them.

You conservitards are against ending gerrymandering because you benefit more often than Democrats do.

Rectangles? That is absolutely silly. Districts are not comprised by equal land area. They are comprised by equal populations. They would all be rectangles if they were made by third graders.

Both parties engage in rampant gerrymandering, and whichever party is in control at the time, is the one against ending gerrymandering.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You're purposely missing the point.

Who.picks the non partisan group?

Who picks the judges?

Who decides on which lines make more common sense?

It's a lot easier to admit you're wrong than to keep digging.

Some states already have nonpartisan committees set their voting districts.
The committee can be an elected position and not be subject to replacement every time a new government takes office.

They can also be subject to strict rules on the criterion they must use in establishing borders

If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong

 

[rightwinger]

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.

???....Most of the people are getting the leaders they want.

Gerrymandering is not so much about who gets elected from individual districts, it’s about the control of the state. So when you say most people get who they want, what you are really saying is most people who didn’t get who they want were in the wrong district.

People don’t get the leaders they want

The leaders get to select who will be voting for them

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

???....Most of the people are getting the leaders they want.

Gerrymandering is not so much about who gets elected from individual districts, it’s about the control of the state. So when you say most people get who they want, what you are really saying is most people who didn’t get who they want were in the wrong district.

People don’t get the leaders they want

The leaders get to select who will be voting for them

Actually that is a very good way to put it.

 

[MAGAman]

Do you not understand what a "regular rectangle" is?

It would not wipe out black representatives, it would most likely increase them.

You conservitards are against ending gerrymandering because you benefit more often than Democrats do.

There are an infinite number of regular rectangles. Someone has to choose which one to use.

And no. Many of the most absurdly designed districts are drawn that way just to get a minority district. The US population is 12% Black. If you randomly draw districts, you'll get very-very few black districts.

But I'll bet you the KKK and NAZI groups would be glad to help fund your efforts.

 

[MAGAman]

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.

You're purposely missing the point.

Who.picks the non partisan group?

Who picks the judges?

Who decides on which lines make more common sense?

It's a lot easier to admit you're wrong than to keep digging.

Some states already have nonpartisan committees set their voting districts.
The committee can be an elected position and not be subject to replacement every time a new government takes office.

They can also be subject to strict rules on the criterion they must use in establishing borders

If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong

Non partisan committees selected by partisan politicians? I hope you let a friend help you the next time you buy a car.

So these entrenched elite committee members can't be removed for being overly partisan even after the next election? What could go wrong with that?

I also like the part about politicians in power writing strict rules that the committee must follow. That can't possibly fail.


Boys and Girls... I hate to tell you this, but you will never get politicians to form a committee that they know will act against their own interests.

 

[rightwinger]

Redistricting commission - Wikipedia

Iowa conducts redistricting unlike any other state. The Iowa system does not put the task in the hands of a commission, but rather non-partisan legislative staff develop maps for the Iowa House and Senate, as well as U.S. House districts, without any political or election data (including the addresses of incumbents). A 5-person advisory commission is also formed. This is different from all other states.[1] The redistricting plans from the non-partisan legislative staff are then presented to the Iowa Legislature for a straight 'Up' or 'Down' vote; if the Legislature rejects the redistricting plans, the process starts over. (Eventually, the Iowa Supreme Court will enter the process if the Legislature fails to adopt a plan three times.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans need to continue Gerrymandering for a few more decades in order to make right the wrong the democrats did when they were in power.