Only to the same extent people are stuck in a district now. There would be regular redrawing of district boundaries just as there are now.
The difference is my proposal would be redrawing district boundaries so people are placed in a district that matches how they already are voting.
You’re never going to convince most of the residents of rural counties that someone “representing the entire state” represents them and not the cities.
There really is a massive difference in most people’s daily lives.
I can pretty much guarantee that I wouldn’t be.
Whereas, before this last round of gerrymandering, I was in a pink district that stood some chance, even if a thin one, of electing the candidate of my choice.
Yes, I feel in your case that would be true.
The other issue is: if every district is carefully drawn so each individual district will be no contest: why even have an election? The election’s already been decided by drawing the district lines. Nobody’s vote will matter, not even the votes of those in the majority in each district.
No, it would be up to chance and whoever had the most effective voter suppression to move turnout a point or two away from their opponent. “Paying attention to their constituents” would be pointless since even massive popularity would still just get them the luck of the draw. All the incentives are to sabotage the other side.
I’m not sure if I understand that argument coming from voters in Iowa or Arkansas where the biggest metros in the state constitute about 10% of the state’s population.
It does, however, raise the issue of whether proportional representation would lead voters to begin assessing candidates on the effectiveness of their party’s policies rather than on “likeability” or a deep campaign war chest.
A system where districts are determined entirely by how people vote in elections and you can’t understand why people would feel voting in elections matters?
about 60 or so percent of this country’s social problems could of been solved if they would of wrote " you have freedom of religion but also freedom FROM religion if you so choose "
So you’re suggesting vote first, then draw districts around the voters based on how they’ve voted?
That is a very novel and very interesting idea. Of course that’s exactly what PR and multi-member constituencies do.
It’s about saying geography in and of itself doesn’t matter. Don’t use geography as a crude proxy for assumed near-unanimity of ideology or interests or desires for government policy.
Instead actually have the people vote for whatever ideology or interests or desires for government policy they want and then on that basis deliver to them reps who say they are going to do that. And who, based on past records, are likely to at least try in your desired direction.
How refreshing.
For any given election, you’ve decided that election based on the results of the previous one. Which are going to be warped, if this isn’t the first go-around, by the fact that people knew in the previous one what the results had to be, because the results are decided by the district lines.
No, it would be an ongoing process. District boundaries would be based on past elections. Probably with some kind of weighted system so the more recent an election was, the greater the effect it would have on districting.
Alas you are as flawed there as with your other point.
As a base point, the State of Texas covers 268,596 square miles
Also, the electoral divisions of Australia are subject to redistribution after every election and so their precise borders, or even their existence is subject to change. Most Australian Federal electorates have a voting population of around 100,000.
First; in Western Australia the Division of Kalgoorlie (886,241.1 sq mi)
An area the size of France, Spain, Germany, Poland and the UK combined. The bulk of the population reside in & around the mining centre of Kalgoorlie in the south east.
Second; in South Australia the Division of Grey (349,376.5 sq mi)
A fair bit of Grey has the population density of Death Valley and the urban populace reside in & around the industrial triangle of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie.
Third; in Queensland the Division of Kennedy (219,065.5 sq mi)
Though tourism on the Great Barrier Reef is a significant industry, the largest city being the mining centre of Mount Isa in the far west.
Fourth; in New South Wales the Division of Parkes (151,897.6 sq mi) Broken Hill
The largest city being the mining centre of Broken Hill in the west.
These are several more current examples, these just being the more extreme based on area. But all the non-metropolitan state and federal divisions of the country have the same urban/rural/remote character.
When I grew up, my family’s properties were in the Division of Riverina-Darling which at that point included Broken Hill. It was a long, boring 9 hour drive to the local seat of government, if you only stopped for fuel. And the largely conservative farmers and graziers of the bulk of the electorate were politically administered from the trade union dominated mining city of Broken Hill.
Yes, and by making the claim that no other country in the world has as strong a rural urban split as the United States, you were just demonstrating your personal American Exceptionalism and ignorance of other countries.
So in the covenant of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” you include the expectation for your congressperson to be the same political persuasion as your own? And by converse all congress represent exclusively people who voted for them? Neither co-operative or collaborative on national or local issues. No notion of the the greatest good for the greatest number or allocation of scarce resources to the greatest needs. Just “We won, I got mine, fuck you”.
Over on this side of the puddle roughly 50% of the population are represented by a HoR who they didn’t vote for. But with or without my primary vote, or even my preference, they are my representative. If I have a constituency issue I will approach my local member Sally Sitou, even though I stood on the town hall steps in the cold handing out “how-to-vote” cards for one of her opponents. And her initial response will be ('cause I have approached her and it was) “how can I help you”, and my inquiry on her government’s response to my specific situation be handled on it’s merits, not the “You didn’t vote for me, fuck off” response your notion would entail.
Your proposal puts the electoral borders within the home. The Dad who voted GOP and the Mum who voted DEM have different representatives. The gerrymander line divides the bedroom.
Having recently rewatched Ken Burns series on Jefferson and Franklin, I think the Founding Fathers did a brilliant job. I doubt they expected their viewpoint to apply to any future situation. And they are not responsible for future failure to amend and improve upon their efforts.
Politics is the art of compromise. The Founding Fathers wanted a republic but not full democracy. They avoided monarchy. Their biggest failure was not instituting proportional representation or ranked balloting, improvements often defeated in Canada when voted on in referenda. Their biggest failure was not addressing slavery and other contentious issues leading to Civil War due largely to a perceived need to compromise to get things done.
You might also blame your parents for every decision or grievance in your life. But this blame might be misplaced. I don’t see most of your recommended improvements as being in the purview of the Founding Fathers or, in the big scheme of things, resulting in a dramatically different system than what they proposed. It is up to present politicians to modify laws to suit modern society.
Okay, that’s not what gerrymandering means.
And I have repeatedly made it clear that this proposal would only be carried out as much as possible. It should be obvious that dividing a residence between two districts would not be practical.
My point, which again I have repeatedly made, is that I feel it would work better to have a standard that says a district should have people who share the same political views as much as possible rather than to have a standard that shares we should intentionally mix people who hold opposing political views together into a single district.
That said, I’m done repeating myself to people who apparently don’t want to pay attention.
Your proposal is to do the gerrymandering after the vote.
If nothing else, it would be a more precise gerrymander.
The repeated view is that a district and it’s constituents in total should have monolithic political views. A curiously totalitarian view of democracy.
Stamp the feet and spit the dummy to your heart’s content, old bean.
Having a conviction doesn’t make you right.
We see what you’re saying. We disagree with it.
You can’t judge what party membership would look like in non two party system by looking at the numbers under the 2 party system and projecting things would be the same.
Any system that is geographically based sorts voters prior to collecting votes. As long a that happens, there will be people in a region where the winner isn’t their choice. And people can’t relocate after every election.
If all seats were at-large and proportional, then there would likely be someone who covers their interests. But it’s easier to see you have dedicated representation when the seats are geographic. Of course, you also see when you don’t have representation, i.e. your candidate loses.
Iowa is 64% urban, Arkansas is 56%.