Like I said, I think the whole “are Republicans racist” and gerrymandering stuff isn’t really part of the thread about whether or not Obama’s inexperience is something we are dealing with right now. But I’ll note that gerrymandering happens when district lines are redrawn, this typically happens once every ten years because the decennial census has to be done for the populations to be known.
The GOP won a large number of statehouses in 2010, in what was a pretty negative year for the Democrats at the ballot box, it was an off-year so that means fewer moderates and independents vote. For whatever reason people in the middle seem to think only Presidential election years are worth voting. So you have a more polarized electorate, and in 2010 with the tea party and anti-Obama sentiment running high the far right came out in much bigger numbers than the far left. This basically meant the GOP won a “bonus” from their success in 2010 in that they got to gerrymander a lot of districts.
I’ve been following politics since the 70s, and this has always been the case, that every 10 years one side or the other benefits from doing well in the census year because they get to stack the odds in their favor for the next 10 years.
Here in Ohio there was a ballot measure to change the constitution and remove the re-districting power from the legislature and give it to a board that would be non-jpartisan. (And they had a pretty good method to prevent either party gaining control over it.) It was fought, and defeated, on the grounds that it was non-democratic.
Yes, I know. which was why I found it so amusing for you to single out the Democrats for being notorious at gerrymandering. Especially when this year the GOP is really going to town on it.
I was just pointing out they do it. On this forum it’s already assumed everyone both knows about and condemns the Republican gerrymandering in 2010, since it’s been mentioned in probably over 100 threads since the November election.
I couldn’t say whether or not Republicans took gerrymandering to an unprecedented extent in 2010, but in any event it’s true both sides have done it to their advantage and that this element of the political system shouldn’t be in the hands of partisan elected officials. Since it is, I’m not sure how it can be fixed.
That’s how it’s done in the SoW (see here if you’re a glutton for [DEL]brains[/DEL] details). Based on the latest cycle, it would appear that the commission’s primary goal is to ensure that safe seats remain safe. While that led to complaints about being dedicated to preserving the status quo, I suppose it’s preferable to mangling the legislative map in order to reflect the whims of the current majority.
Actually, the method proposed would have guaranteed a 7-5 or 8-4 split in the commission in favor of the majority party. And while it should have been defeated on the grounds that it was non-democratic, the grounds that it was actually defeated on seems to have been mostly the (incorrect) argument that it would have cost too much.
The California system, using a commission with no partisan majority, seemed to work pretty well this time. Of course, the board’s Californians may see it differently.
It would seem to be arbitrary and pointless, is based on one major unverified assumption, and doesn’t take communities into account in any way. What interests do I have in common with people whose SSNs end the same way mine does?
Or, it is so ludicrous as to assume it was not offered seriously. How is a constituent in Cedar City supposed to visit the office of a Congressman in San Diego?
He’s talking about dividing up each state that way, but it’d still be a problem in a state like California (imagine people in Los Angeles whose representative is in Sacramento). Oh, and it makes absolutely no sense.
Well part of a message board is the flow of the thread, which you missed here. I made my post in response to someone who had already laid out Republican ill behavior. It would not have made sense to repeat that in my own post.
It’s brand new, so we’ll have to see. Seems to be OK so far, but again, let’s see what things look like 5 years down the road.
On a personal level, I live in NorCal, Silicon Valley, and it’s heavily Democratic. I don’t think I’d see much change in my district no matter how the map was drawn. Our Cook PVI is D+15. You might think we were fairly tightly contested since our US Representative election in 2012 split 52-48, but
that was between 2 Democrats.
Still, I like the idea of depoliticizing this activity.
The British Boundary Commissions they set up in the 40s seem to work pretty well and seem to be pretty apolitical. The British situation was a lot different though, since historically (and this has only changed a wee bit recently) local governments in the UK had very little power and the British Westminster system means reforms can be pushed through very quickly something like the Boundary Commissions can be set up pretty easily by a majority party.
Well, I’ll grant that the present system is pretty bad. But at least, as things stand right now, the legislature isn’t legally obligated to gerrymander the districts, as the proposed commission would have been. If you looked into the fine print of the proposed amendment, the commission’s maps would have been required to meet the constraint that no district could favor one party or the other by more than 5%, which would have required a rather extreme amount of gerrymandering (if it was even possible).
Basically, I think it was an attempt by the Democratic Party to pull off an unfair power grab of the same magnitude as the Republicans are currently getting away with in this state, rather than an attempt to restore fairness. The fact that they were unsuccessful in it makes the attempt no less fair.
