# End gerrymandering! Take redistricting away from the state legislatures! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087 "2005-05-02T18:05:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/61 "2005-09-05T17:13:40Z")
Update: Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood has rescinded the approval her department earlier granted to one of the three ballot-initiative petitions being circulated to reform the redistricting process. [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/12481093.htm](http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/12481093.htm) The summary was six words too long. The Department of State overlooked this previously, but, in Hood’s words, “Our error does not cure their defect.” However, the petition in question is the one that sets standards (compact districts, “communities of interest,” etc.) for the projected redistricting commission to follow; the other two petitions – to establish the commission, and to put the changes in place before the 2008 election – remain in play. ---
**Author:** ![Vooodooochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/0ea827/32.png) [@Vooodooochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vooodooochile)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/62 "2005-09-05T17:33:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, strictly speaking we don’t have “party membership” here at the ordinary-voters level. The parties do not collect dues from members, issue party ID cards, or keep a list of members. You “join” a party simply by registering to vote as a Dem, Pub, or other. Uh, this is just plain not true. Yes, there are dues paying members of all political parties, yes political parties issue ID/membership cards, yes political parties can kick out members if they wish. Political parties in the US are private organizations, with all the legal privelages etc that entails, in the same way the Elks Lodge, the Kiwanas and the Sierra Club are all private organisations. This is why your pet fetish of proportional rep would change far more than you realize, as effectively people would have to join private organizations in order to vote. For someone of your obvious research into politics, either your statement above is evidence of a very fundamental lack of knowledge on your part, or you deliberately misled. No, you dont ‘join’ a party simply be registering to vote that way. When you register, you are asked your party ‘affiliation’, as in ‘which party do you feel most aligned with’. You are not declaring any party membership, and you can be a member of the Dems while registering Repub if you want. Voter registration has nothing to do with party membership. ---
**Author:** ![Vooodooochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/0ea827/32.png) [@Vooodooochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vooodooochile)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/63 "2005-09-05T17:39:51Z")
> [@Freddy the Pig](#): > > The odd thing about American primaries is that they nominate _party_ candidates, but they’re run by the state. This joins the major parties and the government at the hip in a way that may not be entirely healthy, but I’ve never seen it generate much debate. Well, they arent ‘run’ by the state, but I know what you mean. Its because there is one day that govt provides the whole voting apparatus for primaries. Parties can either use this date to have their primary, or they can use another and pay for it all themselves. It doesnt generate much debate because its open to all parties to use the infrastructure on that day, so theres no favoritism. ---
**Author:** ![Vooodooochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/0ea827/32.png) [@Vooodooochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vooodooochile)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/64 "2005-09-05T17:46:06Z")
I do agree with you on gerrymandering though, and Im sure youll be delighted to know so does governer Arnie. An independant commision is exactly what hes trying to push through the Cal assembly (but itll end up being an initiative that we’ll have). The dems are luke warm of course, they cant seem to come up with formula for an independant commision that will allow them to make sure we get a correct, socially responsible government. Its just far too serious an issue to be left to the public. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/65 "2005-09-05T17:47:47Z")
> [@Vooodooochile](#): > > Uh, this is just plain not true. Yes, there are dues paying members of all political parties, yes political parties issue ID/membership cards, yes political parties can kick out members if they wish. What on Earth are you talking about? I’ve never even seen a Democratic or Republican Party membership card. Have you? In my experience you don’t have to pay dues to call yourself a Republicrat, or even to serve on your country Republicrat Executive Commitee. And there is absolutely **no** mechanism for expelling a member. That’s why David Duke still gets to call himself a Republican and Lyndon LaRouche gets to call himself a Democrat. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics\_of\_the\_United\_States#Organization\_of\_American\_Political\_Parties:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States#Organization_of_American_Political_Parties:) > [@](#): > > Unlike in some countries, American political parties are very loosely organized. The two major parties, in particular, have no formal organization at the national level that controls membership, activities, or policy positions, though some state affiliates do. Thus, for an American to say that he or she is a member of, the Democratic or Republican party, is quite different from a Briton’s stating that he or she is a member of the Labour party. In the United States, one can often become a “member” of a party, merely by stating that fact. In some U.S. states, a voter can register as a member of one or another party or vote in the primary election for one or another party, but such participation does not restrict one’s choices in any way; nor does it give a person any particular rights or obligations with respect to the party. A person may choose to attend meetings of one local party committee one day and another party committee the next day. The sole factor that brings one “closer to the action” is the quantity and quality of participation in party activities and the ability to persuade others in attendance to give one responsibility. > > Party identification becomes somewhat formalized when a person runs for partisan office. In most states, this means declaring oneself a candidate for the nomination of a particular party and intent to enter that party’s primary election for an office. A party committee may choose to endorse one or another of those who is seeking the nomination, but in the end the choice is up to those who choose to vote in the primary, and it is often difficult to tell who is going to do the voting. > > The result is that American political parties have weak central organizations and little central ideology, except by consensus. A party really cannot prevent a person who disagrees with the majority of positions of the party or actively works against the party’s aims from claiming party membership, so long as the voters who choose to vote in the primary elections elect that person. > [@Vooodooochile](#): > > This is why your pet fetish of proportional rep would change far more than you realize, as effectively people would have to join private organizations in order to vote. Where are you getting that? Whatever it might mean to “join” a political party, you don’t have to join it before you can vote for its candidates in the general election. Not in any democratic country. Why would any political party support such a rule? They would just be limiting their potential vote pool to hard-core loyalists, and nobody wants that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/66 "2005-09-05T17:51:07Z")
> [@Vooodooochile](#): > > I do agree with you on gerrymandering though, and Im sure youll be delighted to know so does governer Arnie. I know he does, and with the full support of Governor Jeb – who for some reason balks at the exact same reform in his own state. He thinks what’s good for California is bad for Florida. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Vooodooochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/0ea827/32.png) [@Vooodooochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vooodooochile)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/67 "2005-09-05T18:37:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What on Earth are you talking about? I’ve never even seen a Democratic or Republican Party membership card. Have you? In my experience you don’t have to pay dues to call yourself a Republicrat, or even to serve on your country Republicrat Executive Commitee. And there is absolutely **no** mechanism for expelling a member. That’s why David Duke still gets to call himself a Republican and Lyndon LaRouche gets to call himself a Democrat. And its why both could call themselves Kiwanas and both could call themselves Catholics, and all either organisation could do would be to issue a statement saying ‘Well no, he’s not really’. Its not as if he could be sued and told to stop telling people he was Catholic even after being excommunicated. Duke ~was~ expelled from his states Repub party if I remember correctly, but its not as if they have a patent on the name. No, there is no national mechanism for expelling members, however there are 50 state mechanisms to do so, strangely all very similar to each other. No, there is no national level ID cards, there are 50 state party ID cards (Ive seen my sisters Washington state Dem Party ID card too many damn times). And no there are no national level party membership dues, there are 50 state level party membership dues systems. Sure, to the letter, youre right; there are no national-level any of those things. But the fact remains, simply by being registered Democrat or Repub, you are ~not~ a member of either party. You have declared an affiliation, not a membership. You want to be an actual member without paying dues? Get elected. Try going to the convention of either party and being a delegate, and when they ask you if youre a member, say ‘Yes, Im a member, I registered to vote this party!’ and see what happens. You can register to vote either Dem or Repub your whole life and never become a member of either party. > [@](#): > > Where are you getting that? Whatever it might mean to “join” a political party, you don’t have to join it before you can vote for its candidates in the general election. Not in any democratic country. Why would any political party support such a rule? They would just be limiting their potential vote pool to hard-core loyalists, and nobody wants that. But in prop rep as you would like to see it, one isnt voting for candidates, but groups. Which in this country right now are private organisations. No, it certainly wouldnt be made into a law that one had to join, it would just be a consequence of the structure, far more so than it is now. Yeah, thats the way to get rid of partisanship and ideologues, we’ll just add more parties and ideologies! Boy, that will sure empower individuals! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/68 "2005-09-05T18:54:12Z")
> [@Vooodooochile](#): > > But in prop rep as you would like to see it, one isnt voting for candidates, but groups. That applies only to the straight “party-list” form of PR, which few countries use. (Israel comes to mind.) In most PR systems, the voter has an actual choice of candidates. > [@Vooodooochile](#): > > Yeah, thats the way to get rid of partisanship and ideologues . . . What would be the point of getting rid of partisanship and ideologues? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/69 "2005-09-05T18:57:31Z")
> [@Vooodooochile](#): > > Duke ~was~ expelled from his states Repub party if I remember correctly . . . Nope. He got a nasty letter from the state GOP when he announced his candidacy for governor of Louisiana, but he was not expelled from the party. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_Duke#The\_state\_house\_and\_campaign\_for\_governor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#The_state_house_and_campaign_for_governor) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/70 "2005-09-05T23:00:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nope. He got a nasty letter from the state GOP when he announced his candidacy for governor of Louisiana, but he was not expelled from the party. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_Duke#The\_state\_house\_and\_campaign\_for\_governor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#The_state_house_and_campaign_for_governor) I should add – and this is crucial – after this letter, Duke was still allowed to **run for governor in the Republican primary.** It wasn’t just a question of an excommunicant claiming still to be Catholic – Duke had an actual, official role as a Pub candidate on the primary ballot. There was just no way the state GOP could authoritatively declare, even by its own rules, that this man was not, in fact, a Republican. A similar problem arose last fall when James Hart, an open racist who espouses a pseudoscientific theory of racial eugenics, ran for Congress as a Republican in Tennessee. ([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=281401](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=281401)) He had no prior connection to Republican politics. He managed to slip onto the ballot because no other Pub was contesting the heavily Democratic 8th District, and once the state GOP figured out was going on, it was too late. The state party leaders were embarrassed and publicly dissociated themselves from Hart’s candidacy, but they couldn’t expel him from the party, nor declare he had never been in it; there was no mechanism. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/71 "2005-09-06T04:19:58Z")
> [@Vooodooochile](#): > > Well, they arent ‘run’ by the state, but I know what you mean. Yes, they are. Primaries are conducted under state law, the ballots are printed by the state, the polling places are administered by employees paid either by the state or by a subordinate unit of state government such as a county, and the votes are counted and the results announced by an agency of state government. > [@](#): > > Its because there is one day that govt provides the whole voting apparatus for primaries. Parties can either use this date to have their primary, or they can use another and pay for it all themselves. It doesnt generate much debate because its open to all parties to use the infrastructure on that day, so theres no favoritism. Not so. State laws are very explicit as to what a party needs to do to qualify for primary status (in Illinois, get 5% of the vote in a particular jurisdiction). Parties are not allowed to organize or pay for their own primaries; they can do so for fun if they want, but the result will not be recognized under state law and the winner will not be placed on the general election ballot. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/72 "2005-09-06T14:41:47Z")
> [@Freddy the Pig](#): > > Parties are not allowed to organize or pay for their own primaries; they can do so for fun if they want, but the result will not be recognized under state law and the winner will not be placed on the general election ballot. 😕 Are you sure? Suppose the Green Party of Illinois (I’m just assuming there is one) wants to run a candidate for the state legislature. AFAIK, the Greens, like most third parties, have no primaries – they choose their candidates at party conventions, or simply by consensus (one likely candidate is drafted and nobody else wants the spot). So, with no primary, how would the candidate get placed on the ballot? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/73 "2005-09-13T01:05:34Z")
What’s the deal with California Proposition 77? It would place the redistricting of Congressional and State representatives in the hands of a non-partisan committee of retired judges. A [recent Fields poll (pdf)](http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2168.pdf) shows 32% in favor, 46% opposed. Republicans favor it 47-30%, and Democrats oppose it 20-57%. Why is there such opposition to this? Is it a typical Californian default _no_ vote? (I’ve yet to see any tv ads about it.) Why are Democrats against it and Republicans for it? Because Arnold proposed it? My intuition (which could be wrong) is that the Democrats, being the majority party here, would have the most to gain from it. And the Republican right would have the most to lose. As moderate Republican, I’m all for Prop 77. I’m even considering actively campaigning for–it’s that important to me. I wish I could understand what the other voters were thinking. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/74 "2005-09-13T03:57:13Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > My intuition (which could be wrong) is that the Democrats, being the majority party here, would have the most to gain from it. And the Republican right would have the most to lose. No – if the Democrats are a persistent majority in the California legislature, then they wield the power of redistricting after every census. They would lose that. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/75 "2005-09-13T04:29:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > if the Democrats are a persistent majority in the California legislature, then they wield the power of redistricting after every census. They would lose that. Good point, I hadn’t thought of that. So I can see Democratic politicians being against it. Would your average Democrat really care? Maybe so, it seems. Too bad, this is the one Prop that really should pass. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/76 "2005-09-13T07:34:26Z")
Wouldn’t they just switch to voting reps and senators at-large? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/77 "2005-09-13T20:49:41Z")
> [@ouryL](#): > > Wouldn’t they just switch to voting reps and senators at-large? I’m sure they would have to amend the California Constitution to provide for that, and I don’t think it would fly. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/78 "2006-04-12T14:35:32Z")
Update on the Florida amendment: We got the signatures. Everything certified and proper. But the #&\*%@#% Florida Supreme Court rejected the petition! They ruled the words “independent and nonpartisan” were misleading when the commission is supposed to include partisan members! [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/1009663781.html?dids=1009663781:1009663781&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+24%2C+2006&author=STEVE+BOUSQUET&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=1.A&desc=Redistricting+question+is+off+the+ballot](http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/1009663781.html?dids=1009663781:1009663781&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+24%2C+2006&author=STEVE+BOUSQUET&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=1.A&desc=Redistricting+question+is+off+the+ballot) This, after the Committee for Fair Elections had the wording carefully reviewed by a panel of constitutional lawyers, including a retired SC judge, before distributing the petition! Goddamn whores . . . :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087/79 "2006-04-12T16:38:55Z")
**BrainGlutton** , this is a worthy topic, but after seven months, I think it would have been better to open a new thread with a link back to this one. You will now have the opportunity to try that, as I am closing this one. [/Moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/end-gerrymandering-take-redistricting-away-from-the-state-legislatures/302087.md?page=3)