And if so, how? I know some states have non-partisan redistricting committees. What types of representatives do districts so drawn send to the House?
If gerrymandering were to end, what effect would it have extremism in Congress?
Thanks,
Rob
Well, in California you have the complication that simultaneously with introducing non-partisan redistricting, they introduced (essentially) non-partisan primaries. So that in my newly redefined district, there were two Democrats running against each other in the general election.
The result was that the long-time extremely liberal old Democrat was defeated by the new somewhat-but-not-quite-as-liberal young Democrat.
ETA: As for the question in your title, in California it was done via ballot proposition. I’m not a huge fan of those but this is a case where I really don’t think there’s another way to do it. Politicians would never give up this power otherwise.
“Should” gerrymandering be ended? No, it serves a purpose. Sometimes it’s abused, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.
Please elaborate.
Since this is essentially a political question let’s move this over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Depends on what type of gerrymandering you have in mind.
*The constitutionality of using racial considerations to create districts remains difficult to assess, despite past injustices. In Hunt v. Cromartie (1999), the Supreme Court approved a racially focused gerrymandering of a congressional district on the grounds that the definition was not pure racial gerrymandering but instead partisan gerrymandering, which is constitutionally permissible. With the increasing racial polarization of parties in the South in the U.S. as conservative whites move from the Democratic to the Republican Party, gerrymandering may become partisan and also achieve goals for ethnic representation.
In a few circumstances the use of goal-driven district boundaries may be used for positive social goals. When the state legislature considered representation for Arizona’s Native American reservations, they thought each needed their own House member, because of historic conflicts between the Hopi and Navajo nations. Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation, the legislature created an unusual district configuration that features a fine filament along a river course several hundred miles in length to attach two Navajo regions, Arizona’s 2nd congressional district.
The California state legislature created a congressional district that extends over a narrow coastal strip for several miles. It ensures that a common community of interest will be represented, rather than having portions of the coastal areas be split up into districts extending into the interior, with domination by inland concerns.*
Then there’s Chicago Democrat Luis Gutierrez 4th congressional district which must have been designed to pay homage to the Chicago Cubs. :smack:
I tend to think the best solution is to go to less location-based representation–for example, in a state with ten representatives, grant seats to the top ten vote-getters in the state. But that’s unlikely to happen.
The Senate does this sort of election already.
The House’s system was specifically created to give rural people (the South at the time) an influence in governing.
Not to pick nits, but to give rural wealthy white men an influence.
At this point, we have a society in which rural wealthy white men still wield political influence in excess of their numbers, and in which poor black people wield influence far less representative of their numbers. That’s not a good thing.
That’s as it should be. When districts are gerrymandered invariably one or two are grouped to represent the minority, be it party, racial group, whatever, simply because the majority has to find a way to maximize their opportunities to win. Make the elections open with the top ten vote-getters taking office and you’ll save them the trouble of thinking about it. Minority candidates won’t have a chance in hell of being included.
Rural whites are wealthy? Probably from all they save in dental care. Especially in the south. 
Pretty much all money has gone straight to the major cities and the workers stay out in the boondocks even if the rich people own it.
You do have enclaves in certain areas conducive to a random rich community, but they are the minority of the rural landmass anymore.
So why are you proposing a system where black people are banned from electing people to represent them?
Blanket ballots would reduce their influence to basically zero. And the House is still the only part of the federal government where black people can be elected with any regularity. In the era of elected senators, there have been four (4) black people elected to the Senate, one of them within the last few hours.
In my state, the redistricting process is nonpartisan and has been generally without much controversy.
Basically, districts are drawn by the Iowa Legislative Services Agency using a computer, with only population and county boundaries as a factor. Once a map is completed, it must be approved by the governor and the state legislature. If a map is rejected, the Legislative Services Agency tries again. If three maps are rejected, the state Supreme Court makes the call on what map to use. While the state did have to go to the second version of maps in 2001, the first try was approved in 2011.
So, long story, I know, but it is possible for a state to draw its districts fairly and equitably without playing tricks with the boundaries to pack certain districts. True, if you’re trying to accommodate certain groups or a “community of interest,” that’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish, but I can see where that can be important (the tribe thing mentioned above is a good example).
Also, even though our districts are drawn by a computer using only population as a factor, my state still sends Steve King back to Washington every two years. I’m really, really sorry about that, even though it’s not my district. Suffice it to say western Iowa is … well, different.
That purpose being?
In Soviet Canuckistan, the boundaries of ridings (representative districts) are drawn and redrawn by nonpartisan commissions of career civil servants with public input.
Learn, guys.
Do you envision a state-wide election with each voter choosing a single candidate? If not, please clarify.
Not if my interpretation of Leftie’s proposal is correct. Now most states have two Senators from the same party. Leftie’s way they’d almost all be split 1-1.
Everyone interprets Lefties’ proposal differently than I do. I think it almost guarantees minorities (if large enough) representation.
Party-list candidacies, used in many parliamentary systems, are another way to a similar end.
Congress has become dysfunctional; gerrymandering is a big part of the problem; but is change likely? Some say you need to hit rock bottom before reform begins; are we there yet?
Not quite. Bi-partisan committees, chaired by a judge.
The problem with a non-gerrymandered system is that it is likely to disenfranchise minority voters. In Iowa, nobody gives a shit, but in Mississippi, that’s a Very Bad Thing.
I’m envisioning a system where the voting districts are drawn by computer, but people in any given district may register in that district or any contiguous district. Thus, the constitutional imperative of creating districts that are as equal in size as possible will be handled by The Invisible Hand of the Market, so even Republicans will love it.
True, if we stick to a 1 candidate / district system. Which is why some people are suggesting a proportional system or the “Top N vote-getters get elected” system. It also has the side-effect of allowing third parties to gain seats. (Though this is probably why we’d never see such a system in the US.)
Yes–that’s what I’m talking about. Parties would need to choose whether to run a lot of candidates (and dilute each one’s chance of getting into office) or a single candidate (and increasing that one’s chance of winning). But each person gets to vote for one candidate, and the top ten vote-getting candidates win.
I’m not married to this solution, but I do think our current region system both ignores the political realities (i.e., that I have a lot more in common with a teacher in Massachusetts than with a tobacco farmer who lives fifteen miles away) and encourages gerrymandering. We need some sort of change.