End gerrymandering! Take redistricting away from the state legislatures!

[Little_Nemo]

Here’s a suggestion.

When it’s time for redistricting, allow both parties to create their own plan and submit them. If there’s any other official bodies let them submit a proposal as well. And then have a state-wide public vote on which plan is used.

Obviously there will still be some partisan bias. But it will at least be by the voters as a whole instead of the politicians. And if the majority party goes too far in created a blatently biased district, the minority party can attempt to sway voters by submitting a “fairer” proposal.

[Northern_Piper]

@CalMeacham

But can you honestly say that if you gave control of disdtricting over to another body that that body would not itself then become a battleground between the two parties? How would you insulate the Drawers of Boundaries from party politics?

You can never completely insulate, but you can include institutional checks to neutralise party politics.

For example, the Florida proposal is for a commission of 6 Dems, 6 Pubs, and 3 non-registered voters, for a total of 15. In addition to splitting up the membership that way, you could put in a super-majority rule, requiring more than just 50% + 1 of the Commission. Put it high enough, and it forces the members of the Commission to adopt a map that has high consensus approval. So for example, on the Florida proposal, you could say that you need a two-thirds vote of the Commission to approve the map. With 15 members, that means that to approve the map, you would need to get consensus from some of the Dems, some of the Pubs, and some of the independents. A consensus map would be one that everyone can live with, without marked advantage to anyone.

[OtakuLoki]

Problem one: I object to ANY law based on the assumption of the contuation of the current two-party system. I’ll grant that realistically - there’s no way short of the legislative version of a complete melt-down to have the current two parties actually be replaced by other parties. Having said that - there have been real third parties in the past. And will be again. By giving 4/5 of the power for redistricting to only two parties, and then specifying that the other 1/5 of the power must go to independents (Not Independents, note) this proposal is another nail in the coffin for either of the two major parties to change.

I don’t disagree with the OP that Gerrymandering is an evil of the current political system, and exists to keep incumbents in safe districts. I can’t, I live in a pretty damned egregious example of the beast. But I also live in a state without voter initiatives, where the current election laws are such that any political party that gets 5% of the electoral vote in the previous gubernatorial election cycle need not actually qualify for the next four years of ballots - and which strictly examines any petititions for ballot slots for parties that do not meet that 5% minimum, where the state legislature is controlled in each house by the whim of the majority membership’s leader - to the point of being able to prevent any bills he does not want to be debated or examined. Gerrymandering is so far down on my list of electoral woes, I’m not excited.

And while I’d support Paul in Saudi’s suggested at-large elections - I’m very much afraid that would further leave my area of the state further in the cold, since NYC remains the ass end of the state wagging the whole state. (I can’t, in all justice, call it the tail, it is important, but it shouldn’t be able to dictate to the rest of the state, either.) I don’t know what the ideal solution would be. I certainly don’t have one. I just have qualms about this plan as well.

[Cunctator]

@Northern Piper

I have to say that this practice has always struck me as one of the oddest features of the U.S. system. We used to do it that way in Canada, just as in Britain, and we’ve since gone to a system of electoral boundaries commissions, at both the federal and the provincial levels, for much the reasons you describe. I think that’s pretty standard in most liberal democracies. Why has this practice continued in the U.S.?

It’s pretty much the same in Australia. At the Commonwealth level the electoral boundaries are redrawn by an independent Redistribution Committee for each state and territory, comprising:

• the Commonwealth Electoral Commissioner (EC);
• the Australian Electoral Officer (AEO) for the particular State or the Northern Territory (the Senior Divisional Returning Officer (DRO) in the case of the ACT);
• the State Surveyor-General (SG) or the person holding an equivalent office;
• the Auditor-General (AG) for the State or if unavailable a senior Australian public servant.

A similar “independent committee” approach is taken for the redistribution of electoral boundaries at the state level in NSW.

[cckerberos]

@CalMeacham

This practice goes back to the earliest days of the Republic (witness the name, taken from a political cartoon showing Elbridge Gerry’s partitioning of voting districts in, IIRC, Connecticut), and it’s always been bad.

[nitpick]
It was Massachusetts.
[/nitpick]

[Giles]

I think two things need to happen:

(1) You need a cultural change, so that most people support an electoral system which is run independent of any partisan bias. I don’t care if they are party members, as long as they aren’t given the job because they are party suppoprters, and as long as they behave like independents.

(2) You need clear criteria for good electoral divisions, such as following established boundaries if possible (such as county, city and township boundaries), and being as compact as possible (i.e., preferring a district which is roughly a square with 10 mile sides, rather than a rectangled which is 2 miles by 50 miles).

[smiling_bandit]

Replacing the single-member-district system with some form of proportional representation would allow racial minorities to elect a few of their own

Returning a hijack with a hijack: this will empower extremists, and that tends to amplify as time goes by. Aside from which, it’s not as if the legislatures are pearly white, although they are usually heavily male-dominated.

One oproblem has been that the folks with the upper hand might outsmart themselves, cutting up the districts to get themselves a majority now that, unfortunately, doesn’t work their way down the line because of changing demographics.

This is what happened in texas. The democrats owned the state just 15 years ago. They Gerrymandered it so badly they felt they couldn’t lose. But eventually, the state swung so far into the Republican camp they lost everything.

[furt]

@BrainGlutton

We have five appellate districts in Florida. So, the CJ will choose three from a list of 15 names submitted to him by the chief judges of the appellate districts – and all of them must be registered voters, and none of them can be registered Democrats, nor Republicans. So, the commission will include 6 Pubs, 6 Dems, and 3 independents. Pretty nonpartisan, no?

I’m suppose if asked, Brutus might agree to register as an independant a month before being named.

[zamboniracer]

@smiling bandit

Returning a hijack with a hijack: this will empower extremists, and that tends to amplify as time goes by. <snip.>

So what you’re saying is that us extremists don’t deserve representation and that we can’t be trusted with the vote. Where should we pay our poll tax and/or verify our property ownership so that we may exercise our vote, subject to your Democrat/Replublican label approval, of course? :rolleyes:

I myself favor proportional voting, which is how our corporations have shareholders vote for seats on the board of directors. If there are 20 seats up for election, each voter has 20 votes that he can divvy up as he wishes. He can cast 20 votes for the vegetarian party candidate or one vote each for the big party’s slate of 20 candidates, or any assortment in between. Fringe parties won’t be a problem because if they have good ideas the major parties will co-op their ideas quickly, and if the major parties don’t do so then they will cease to be major parties and will go the way of the Whigs.

[JRDelirious]

System here: 3-member commission; CJ as President, then two members appointed by Guv-w-consent-o-Senate, who must be of different parties. Right now we have 3 parties who run and elect legislators, so technically this arrangement leaves one party out (since the CJ, even though he’s a “nonpolitical” lifetime appointee, is obviously identifies w. whatever was the party that appointed him), but the 3rd. Party only elects in the at-large slate (11 seats/house) so it comes out pretty even. Plus we’re constitutionally required ot have our district be “contiguous and compact, taking into consideration transportation and communication links” .

We have a pretty good alternancy, one or both houses have changed majorities in 68(H), 72(H), 76(H,S), 80(S), 82*(H), 92(H,S), 00(H,S), and 04(H,S); and the average time-of-service being 2 terms. But of course, this is a society that is pretty much dead-even split between our two major parties at all socioeconomic levels anyway, and what passes here for distinct “ethnic enclaves” are not (yet) large enough to make it worthwhile assembling them into districts. (*court case)

[Polycarp]

@Mr. Moto

I don’t disagree with this OP, but I must add that in the recent past some districts were drawn to ensure that the representative elected was a racial minority.

This practice was addressed in Shaw v. Reno and some subsequent cases. The consensus seems to be that race can be a factor in drawing districts, as long as they don’t look too screwy.

Needless to say, any reform will run against this decision and the discriminatory practices in the past that led to minority districts in the first place. I’d like to think this could be resolved neatly, but I’m not that optimistic by nature.

John, it’s my impression from reading material on this that the case law governing racially motivated districting is some of the silliest decision-making since the incident during Teapot Dome when one man was convicted of accepting a bribe the other man was acquitted of offering. Essentially, racially-based districting is both required and forbidden. Minorities are entitled to have adequate opportunity to have one of their number represent their particular concerns; yet districting on the basis of racial standards is contrary to the purpose and intent of the Civil Rights Law. Fortunately, judges are (using judicial activism, I’m afraid) able to construe these conflicting guidelines in such a way as to produce the desired result: districts constructed with eyes open to concentrations of racial minorities, but not strictly racially motivated.

[Mr.Moto]

I agree with that assessment.

BTW, my name isn’t John. It’s Rob.

[Chance_the_Gardener]

Gerrymandering is a blight, I’ll agree, and it’s been getting particularly bad lately. I like the idea of non-partisan committees redrawing the districts. Iowa does this, and it works fine. In the 2004 elections, four of Iowa’s five House races were considered competitive, which is much better than most states. The one district that wasn’t was in heavily Republican western Iowa, so no reasonable person could possibly make an argument that this was the result of gerrymandering. And it’s not that the results of the races please me in a partisan sense—of Iowa’s five Representatives, four are Republicans. I’d rather see things the other way around, but I can’t complain about the integrity of their process.

A lot of other states are utter messes. Packing and cracking ravaged districts in Pennsylvania and Michigan in 2000, for example. It didn’t happen in Texas until the coup de Lay, of course, which is one of the vilest power grabs in memory. Many (but I’m sure not all) redistricting exercises have favored Republicans in recent years, but I’m sure that if things are left unchanged, the winds will blow in another direction. While Republicans will certainly overturn the unfairly-drawn pro-Democrat districts in Georgia, if they still control the state legislature (which they likely will,) more changes will likely favor the Democrats. Consider New York, Illinois, and New Jersey, which in 2000 had Republican-controlled legislatures and Republican governors. Since then, the Democrats have taken over the state legislatures and governor’s mansions of Illinois and New Jersey, and there’s a good chance that they’ll take New York’s soon, too. These are big states with a lot of districts gerrymandered to favor Republicans. Changes in Southern states where Republicans have taken over the legislatures during the past decade might offset this, but they might not. Between those three states are 59 House seats, and gerrymandering could turn a whole lot in the favor of the Democrats.

Pennsylvania is a little different—Republicans, in control of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion in 2000, put together an appallingly corrupt, highly partisan plan for reshaping districts. If Pennsylvania still has a Democratic governor after the 2010 census, he or she could probably work out a palatable compromise with the state legislature, which will likely remain Republican-controlled. However, if the Democrats do manage to retain the governor’s post and take over the legislature by then, then Pennsylvania could be subject to corrupt packing and cracking that would favor the Democrats this time.

The case of California in 1990 was like that: a Republican governor parried a Democratic-controlled legislature and worked out a compromise of districts that pleased no one. In 2000, Governor Davis, a Democrat, struck a compromise of some sort that left the 1990 districts intact; if he hadn’t, California would have been a pro-Democrat redistricting free-for-all. Considering how much California favors Democrats, in 2010, there’s a good chance that that will happen.

Even though I feel the pendulum is due to swing my way, I say enough! This has to stop! I agree with the poster who said that Florida’s plan is terrible: establishing a system that formally recognizes the two-party system is foolish and dangerous. We need completely neutral candidates to organize the redistricting—people like me, who either can’t or won’t put aside their partisan leanings, have no business having anything to do with it. It won’t prevent corruption, God knows, but I’m sure it will help, as evidenced by Iowa.

Arizona has adopted an Iowa-like non-partisan system as well, I understand. To look at its pro-Republican gerrymandered districts, you’d never know it, but their new system isn’t due to take effect until 2010. That’s two states; 41 to go (since seven states only have one at-large district, anyway. For now, at least…)

[Polycarp]

Sorry, Mr Moto, despite the evidence before me, I thought the post I was answering was by John Mace. (That’s what comes of reading too fast.)

[Mr.Moto]

No prob.

[Thrillhouse15]

@BrainGlutton

But the solution we’re proposing in Florida is a 15-member commission, 6 members nominated by the majority party in the legislature, 6 by the minority party, and 3 by the chief justice of the Supreme Court; so neither party will have the upper hand in it at any time, and some members will actually be nonpartisan (or, at least, won’t owe their positions to pary affiliation).

Is the CJ of the Florida Supreme Court always a nonpartisan judge, or do they have to run for re-election? I seem to remember in many states, the supreme court justices are affiliated with a polical party. Is this the case in Florida? Will this system always guarantee a nonpartisan commission?

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Thrillhouse15

Is the CJ of the Florida Supreme Court always a nonpartisan judge, or do they have to run for re-election? I seem to remember in many states, the supreme court justices are affiliated with a polical party. Is this the case in Florida? Will this system always guarantee a nonpartisan commission?

But it’s not as if the CJ can pick just anybody. He or she has to pick from lists of nominees submitted by appellate judges, and the nominees must not be elected officials and must have been registered as independent voters for at least two years.

Also, as in Iowa, the makeup of the commission is only half of the reform. The other half is establishing standards for districting–compactness and respect for municipal boundaries are allowed, partisan makeup and incumbency protection are not allowed.

So what, you say? How can you prevent the commission from looking at those things anyway? Well, a good partisan gerrymander requires elaborate computer software, and the people who write and use the software can be subpoenaed, and the redistricting plan can be thrown out and rewritten if it used such software in violation of law. I know of no evidence that this has been a problem in Iowa.

As for third parties, they’d have a better chance in reasonably shaped districts! Imagine trying to organize a grass-roots campaign for a Libertarian or Green candidate (or, for that matter, any non-incumbent) in the 17th district of Illinois, which includes a long string of Mississippi River counties joined to random neighboorhoods in Decatur and Springfield. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

[clairobscur]

@BrainGlutton

You can’t, entirely. But the solution we’re proposing in Florida is a 15-member commission, 6 members nominated by the majority party in the legislature, 6 by the minority party

Just a technical question ,out of curiosity. I know it’s currently a theorical issue, given the political situation in the USA, but I assume you thought about adressing it.

What if a third party is represented in the legislature? How are the 6 seats attributed between the two minority parties? And fot that matter, what if no party has the majority all by itself?

[clairobscur]

I shoulod have read the whole thread first, as usual. My question was already answered.
I would point out that for such a law, you shouldn’t assume that the current political situation will last forever, and doing so denying any influence to a potential third party that could manage to win some (or even many) seats.

You shouldn’t assume, either, that the president of the senate/house will always necessarily be a member of the largest party.

[JohnBckWLD]

@BrainGlutton

There is another way. In the UK, reapportionment is not done by Parliament but by an independent Boundaries Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#House_of_Commons).

Everyone’s political - so any commission will use politics as a factor.

If we truly are one people, perhaps a constitutional requirement that simply states:

‘Any and all political district boundries will have a maximum of four sides. Natural boundaries (bodies of water) and state lines wil be the only exception.’