# Let’s not be too eager to abolish gerrymandering **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 22, 2019, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881 "2019-06-22T06:31:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/61 "2019-06-27T15:26:12Z")
And it’s apparently been ruled not (facially?) unconstitutional: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/62 "2019-06-27T15:57:18Z")
Now hopefully this decision will spur Democrats to realize unilateral disarmament in blue states would be political suicide. > [@CarnalK](#): > > This thread is about gerrymandering and you said “let’s not forget Harper got a majority government with a minority of the votes, so maybe Canada is not the model to follow”. That’s a non sequitur because Canada redistricting system had nothing to do with Harper’s majority. So yes, maybe you shouldn’t switch to a FPTP parliament but that doesn’t mean our redistricting is bad. At best, it’s completely irrelevant to our system. The idea of being anti-gerrymandering is (or should be) to avoid having a minority of voters control the majority of seats in the national legislative body. Canadians fail at this worse than Americans, so have no standing to lecture us. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/63 "2019-06-27T16:01:32Z")
Oh sorry, didn’t realize you were just being touchy about a lecture. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/64 "2019-06-27T16:14:41Z")
We’re not trying to disarm Democrats in blue states. We’re trying to keep Republicans from hogging the power even when they shouldn’t have it. Take North Carolina, for instance: What color is it? You’d probably call it a “red state”, but it’s only red because of gerrymandering (and other anti-democratic policies, some of which are illegal). If we get rid of gerrymandering, we turn that red state blue. If we keep gerrymandering there, then guess who’s going to be doing the gerrymandering? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/65 "2019-06-27T16:30:28Z")
Curious why both sides have showed restraint in gerrymandering thus far. You would think that red states would end up with some 10-1 advantage in terms of districts won, and vice versa for blues. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/66 "2019-06-27T16:41:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > We’re not trying to disarm Democrats in blue states. We’re trying to keep Republicans from hogging the power even when they shouldn’t have it. Take North Carolina, for instance: What color is it? You’d probably call it a “red state”, but it’s only red because of gerrymandering (and other anti-democratic policies, some of which are illegal). If we get rid of gerrymandering, we turn that red state blue. If we keep gerrymandering there, then guess who’s going to be doing the gerrymandering? I’m speaking of course about states where the legislature and governor’s mansions are controlled by Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/67 "2019-06-27T16:49:02Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I’m speaking of course about states where the legislature and governor’s mansions are controlled by Democrats. Very, very few of those around. I would think it would behoove Democrats to try and adopt anti-gerrymandering as a rallying cry, so that they could reduce the effect that partisan gerrymandering has had in maintaining Republican control of certain states, which would probably have a bigger overall effect on growing Democratic power. But, then again, I am someone who believes that you shouldn’t do bad things just because the end justifies the means you use. So I reject your hypothesis entirely, and, thankfully, as I noted, so do most other Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/68 "2019-06-27T17:13:51Z")
Open season, boys. Let’s start the gerrymandering right away. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/69 "2019-06-27T17:32:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Velocity** : > > Curious why both sides have showed restraint in gerrymandering thus far. You would think that red states would end up with some 10-1 advantage in terms of districts won, and vice versa for blues. The one I really wonder about is Nebraska. Overall, the state is pretty solidly Republican, enough so that it’d be really easy for even a very slight gerrymander to give them three reliably Republican representatives. But if you look at the map of Nebraska’s three Congressional districts, it’s almost identical to what a minimum-boundary-length algorithm would give you, with the result that they can have one or even two of their three districts Democratic. And this on top of their unusual (shared only by Maine) splitting of their electoral votes, which meant that even as conservative as the state is, they still ended up giving Obama one elector. The best explanation I can find is that Nebraskans just like doing politics their own way, without regard to what the rest of the nation is doing (see also their unique unicameral legislature). ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/70 "2019-06-27T17:47:34Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Curious why both sides have showed restraint in gerrymandering thus far. You would think that red states would end up with some 10-1 advantage in terms of districts won, and vice versa for blues. Possibly because neither side wanted to push the SCotUS into a decision against it. Now that the Court has rule the issue non-justiciable, you may see some legislatures get even more creative. > [@Chronos](#): > > The one I really wonder about is Nebraska. Overall, the state is pretty solidly Republican, enough so that it’d be really easy for even a very slight gerrymander to give them three reliably Republican representatives. But if you look at the map of Nebraska’s three Congressional districts, it’s almost identical to what a minimum-boundary-length algorithm would give you, with the result that they can have one or even two of their three districts Democratic. And this on top of their unusual (shared only by Maine) splitting of their electoral votes, which meant that even as conservative as the state is, they still ended up giving Obama one elector. > > The best explanation I can find is that Nebraskans just like doing politics their own way, without regard to what the rest of the nation is doing (see also their unique unicameral legislature). It would certainly be nice if more states got independent in their thinking on things. You would expect that, with 50 states, and some significant regional differences still, there would be a number of different ways for dealing with this question applied. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/71 "2019-06-27T18:59:37Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > …Now that the Court has rule the issue non-justiciable, you may see some legislatures get even more creative… “Creative”. You have a gift for euphemism. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/72 "2019-06-27T23:11:41Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Just so people understand: Harper’s Conservatives parlayed a distinct minority of the vote into a comfortable majority of seats. Not a plurality, an outright majority. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > The idea of being anti-gerrymandering is (or should be) to avoid having a minority of voters control the majority of seats in the national legislative body. Canadians fail at this worse than Americans, so have no standing to lecture us. At the recent Australian federal election the LIB/NAT coalition won 41.44% of the primary vote and 51% of the seats. The Greens won 10.4% of the primary vote and 0.6% of the seats. Yet there is no suggestion from any active political party that there are instances of gerrymander in any seat and that malapportionment is as minimal impact as practical. To do our little bit to help you make a more perfect union we are going to continue to inform and agitate because the US electoral system has been behind worlds best practice for over a century. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/73 "2019-06-28T01:02:55Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > Consistently on these boards ‘Mercians bemoan their political environment not having multiple parties … I find this statement puzzling. I didn’t realise Mercia had a strict two-party system for the Witangemot. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/74 "2019-06-28T01:10:55Z")
'Mercia! Futhark Yeah! ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881/75 "2019-06-28T09:38:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The one I really wonder about is Nebraska. Overall, the state is pretty solidly Republican, enough so that it’d be really easy for even a very slight gerrymander to give them three reliably Republican representatives. But if you look at the map of Nebraska’s three Congressional districts, it’s almost identical to what a minimum-boundary-length algorithm would give you, with the result that they can have one or even two of their three districts Democratic. And this on top of their unusual (shared only by Maine) splitting of their electoral votes, which meant that even as conservative as the state is, they still ended up giving Obama one elector. > > The best explanation I can find is that Nebraskans just like doing politics their own way, without regard to what the rest of the nation is doing (see also their unique unicameral legislature). Omaha, which makes up the majority of the district that went to Obama, has a large poor black population, concentrated in a relatively small urban area who came out for Obama in a big way. It’s worth noting that the Republicans immediately acted to redraw the district line to move some of those poor black neighborhoods into the second district, thus preventing them from repeating the electoral vote division in 2012. Because gerrymandering. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-s-not-be-too-eager-to-abolish-gerrymandering/835881.md?page=3)