To be fair, the Dems in NC were pretty bad gerrymanderers when they were in control; I think the reason they weren’t as bad as Republicans is because the technology wasn’t quite as good, not because they’re better people.
Which is why I think we need to make gerrymandering harder to do. The party in power should, if they want to stay in power, offer good policy and good constituent services. Providing alternate routes to staying in power, such as gerrymandering the fuck out of the area they govern, is necessarily going to lead to worse government, as their incentive for governing well is lessened.
This will apply to both Democrats and Republicans.
In Pakistan, just as an example, seats in Parliament are reserved for women and non-Muslims. A fairly large number of countries, including some fully westernized democracies, have similar set asides. It’s easier to implement this way with parliamentary systems, but the basic principle of preserving some democratic power for groups with fewer members, or historically disenfranchised, while potentially foreign to the United States, is not uncommon globally.
I don’t know about you, but I would not immediately dismiss bringing more of this to the United States. Just as an example, if there were a movement to reserve a handful of seats in Congress to native peoples, I could imagine being in favor. This is a group whose historic lack of power is consistently reflected in US policy towards them, largely to their detriment. Their numbers are so low that it’s hard to imagine this changing under a pure, one-person-one-vote system, but perhaps it should change nonetheless.
I certainly never said that the Democrats were saintly or would never gerrymander a district. I’ve just seen no evidence that they have, in the post-civil rights era, engaged in, or seem likely to engage in the wholesale undermining of democracy that the republicans are pursuing and you’re cheerleading for.
Without opining on whether such a system is suitable for Pakistan, I don’t think it’d be the right solution for the United States. One of the US’s relative strengths (compared to Pakistan, and yes, I realize the implications of that benchmark) is a relative willingness to vote outside of our identity group. Measures taken in places where folks are much less willing to vote outside of the group are not necessarily suitable here.
Native groups are different: they have this quasi-sovereign status in the United States, a status that has historical underpinnings but that doesn’t necessarily serve Native interests particularly well (a fully sovereign status that respects original treaty rights would serve Native interests much better, but I don’t think it makes sense to hijack this thread in to that discussion).
Relative strength?
The US would be a standout among Western democracies where your political affiliation forms such a major and immutable part of your identity group.
Slavery was a system enforced by slave-owners against slaves who, despite being people, didn’t get to vote on the matter. No one who complains about the heavy hand of government could be for such a system, its adherents, or their (philosophical) descendants. Well, not with a straight face, anyway.
There’s an accompanying court case forcing the district to be redrawn, right? Because if the court doesn’t say it’s so, then it’s not so, or so I’ve been told. Unless you don’t like what the court said, then it’s bad anyway.
And yet, those same Founders also wrote a national constitution which prohibited states from assigning representation in the manner you propose. Funny, that.
Right, because one badly drawn district is the same as targeted, systematic disenfranchisement. Clearly you’ve got all the angles covered on this one. Maybe these “debates” would go easier if you provided us with a script? That would save you the trouble of twisting our words around before you declare victory.
If you see where wiki got that map, then you would see that it is the second most gerrymandered district, the most gerrymandered, was in NC.
I think this is similar to your monopoly “free parking” rule. Just because someone is against a particular rule, if they do not get to remove that rule, then they should take advantage of it, even while lobbying for its removal.
It is not hypocrisy to be against gerrymandering, and yet engage in it to less levels than your opponent does.
I think this is something of an inaccurate take. There’s no evidence at all that Democrats who are drawing district lines have had fairness as a major concern: they’re playing the game according to the rules, and if it fucks people over in terms of getting representation, they’ve historically been fine with that. The fact that they’ve traditionally tried to privilege their voters over Republican voters, whatever other demographics they fall into, has been the goal.
I’m not fine with that. And I think we should find ways to decrease gerrymandering, to bring it under control, whether it’s Dems or Republicans who have engaged in it.
Much of the gerrymandering done by democrats is done in such a way to ensure minority representation in congress. If it is randomly selected, then it is much harder to get a minority candidate elected when they are being voted for by majority white areas. This is much less of a problem than it was 50 years ago, and so maybe is not needed anymore, but the reason for it was a due to a certain kind of fairness.
I am sure that democrats also did some gerrymandering with the intent of increasing the representation.
I was really just responding to this line “There’s no evidence at all that Democrats who are drawing district lines have had fairness as a major concern”.
In fact, in drawing district lines in such a way as to increase minority representation, and that minority would be typically voting for D’s, actually weakens the democratic strength slightly, as more than necessary numbers of democratic voters tend to get concentrated into districts in order to ensure the minority representation.
This form of “non-blind” districting had a useful purpose, and may or may not be still necessary to prevent backsliding on the representation of minority demographics. If it is still required to avoid homogeneity in the elected representatives, then it may lead to further gerrymandering for less noble purpose.
Is there any evidence, through conversations or claims, that Democrats engaged in gerrymandering were knowingly weakening the “democratic strength”? I find that claim difficult to credit.
From the opinion piece: "To create the seat held by Rep. James Clyburn, the assistant Democratic leader in the House and a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus, African-Americans are gerrymandered into a district that makes Gerry’s original salamander-shaped scheme look like a geometric design. As applied throughout the South, this has been devastating to Democrats while largely transforming the party into one where, ironically, black politicians have a disproportionate amount of influence. "
There are those that might argue that this plays into Republican hands as well since the lawmakers from such “electoral ghettos” tend to be more liberal than their white counterparts. This allows the Republicans to portray the Democratic party as being further left than it actually is. The name Maxine Waters comes to mind.