# Republicans Move to Gerrymander Presidential Elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 16, 2013, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360 "2013-01-16T04:49:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/101 "2013-01-24T05:43:18Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > And if you’re surprised that it’s legal to redraw districts mid-term (i.e. without requiring a new census first), recall that when [Texas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting) made a similar move in 2003 (one which led to Democrat legislators fleeing the state to prevent a quorum that could pass the new map), the [Supreme Court ruled](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5520371) that mid-term redistricting was legal. I wish people would stop referring to “Supreme Court.” It gives that desecrated institution an honor it no longer warrants. Since most cases are decided by the Court’s centrist, Anthony Kennedy, I’d just refer to it as _“Kennedy, Four Justices and the Four Little Pigs.”_ In the case **CJJ** mentions, Kennedy did find that the 23rd District violated Federal law, but by only a 5-4 margin, with all four Pigs dissenting. Does anyone sincerely wonder if any of the Pigs would have moved its vote had the partisan alignment been reversed? Kennedy ordered a lower court to redraw districts; Texas appealed the redraw and in a late-breaking news development, AFAICT, [Kennedy recently decided for the Texas GOP](http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2013-01-21/lawmakers-await-ruling-texas-redistricting-battle-nears-end#.UQDImW-ceSo). Are the individual Justices’ positions known? Anyone want to bet which way the Pigs went? ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/102 "2013-01-25T01:45:05Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > Meanwhile the same legislature is looking to adjust their electoral vote apportionment to [make sure the Republican wins](http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/23/virginia_state_senate_moves_ahead_on_electoral_college_rigging_bill.html):As it notes, in the last election that would give the guy that lost the state by 150,000 votes nine out of the state’s thirteen electoral votes. To support this party is to be an enemy of democracy. What’s the problem? This is nothing more than getting back to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. By my calculations, after the bill passes, black votes will be worth three-fifths of a white vote. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/103 "2013-01-25T11:53:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **crucible** , the solution you propose is exactly what proportional representation is. We’ve already been discussing it for a while. With obvious respect, I think I included a couple of twists that made it work. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/104 "2013-01-25T15:25:01Z")
By way of our good friends at ThinkProgress, a report on an endangered species, the honest conservative… [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/25/1494831/gop-florida-house-speaker-blasts-plan-to-rig-electoral-college/](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/25/1494831/gop-florida-house-speaker-blasts-plan-to-rig-electoral-college/) > [@](#): > > Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford (R) poured cold water on a Republican plan to rig the Electoral College that is being considered in a number of states to all but ensure that the next president will be a Republican… Good for you, Mr. Weatherford. Pip, pip. Good show, that. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/105 "2013-01-25T15:49:08Z")
Yeah. He’ll be missed. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/106 "2013-01-25T17:29:52Z")
Some good news- [one Virginia State Senate Republican opposes this measure](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/virginia-sen-ralph-smith-r-opposes-electoral-vote), which means it probably won’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/107 "2013-01-25T17:36:38Z")
Florida and Virginia are good news as well since hopefully the push-back there will lead to plans falling apart in other states. The more states with Republicans saying “This is a bad idea and we reject it”, the worse it’ll look for the other states. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/108 "2013-01-25T17:57:19Z")
> [@Shoujin](#): > > Time cures all ails?😕 _Tempus fugit_ - “Time flies,” Latin. _fugeddaboudit_ - “Forget about it,” North American. _Tempus fugitaboutit_ - **'luc** ism combining the two. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The electoral college was not set up the way it was due to communications problems but due to a desire to give States power in electing the President. It was intentionally designed to not reflect the popular vote but a consensus of “electors” who represent semi-sovereign geographical entities. They were intentionally thus weighted in such a way that some States would benefit much more from the system than others. Well, the Constitution as of 1790 could also be construed as protecting specific classes of people–influential landowners, say. The elites of large states like Virginia were in effect disenfranchising small landholders in their states–compared to those who were able to create small states like Vermont, and mostly compared to themselves. It was the law as respecter of persons, or at least of groups of people. Solutions designed to weight power-sharing among a handful of wealthy landowners 222 years ago don’t mean the same thing today, and may not be desirable. > [@Chronos](#): > > **crucible** , the solution you propose is exactly what proportional representation is. We’ve already been discussing it for a while. Technically, it’s a form of party list. I think he threw some sortition in there, which is a neat idea. STV, SNTV, and MMP are also proportional or proportional-tending systems. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/109 "2013-01-25T18:04:25Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > …a system designed to make it very hard to get legislation passed and to force compromise, as both a check on an overpowerful government and a check on political factions had a good, reasonable place at one point. But in strongly democratic societies with 200+ years of liberal democratic traditions I think it’s just a structural impediment to reasonable governance, and can be changed with no threat to liberty. > > … > > We don’t have to make our President tied to whichever party is in power, but maybe give him the power to dissolve the lower house of congress and force new elections if compromise is impossible. It’s scary how much I agree with this post (including some parts I snipped). ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/110 "2013-01-25T18:39:43Z")
The existence of this thread, the fact that this is happening and that there are people who support it, just makes me so enormously sad. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/111 "2013-01-25T18:47:45Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **crucible** , the solution you propose is exactly what proportional representation is. We’ve already been discussing it for a while. No, it is not. Many people who have no vested interest in a representative from, e.g., their city or county, nonetheless want a choice in the _individual_ for whom their vote goes. Pit Susan Collins against Bob Conley, for example, and I’d vote for the Republican. What he is suggesting mandates party unity over intelligent weighing of issues – which is what has gotten us to the present impasse. Voting for a party and letting the party leaders choose who gets the seats their party is allocated from the voting, removes the choice of your supposed representatives from the people nominally being represented. You almost might better have ExxonMobil, SmithKlineGlaxo, a Prudential/Hartford/State Farm coalition, and G.M. choose their candidates directly, and be done with it. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/112 "2013-01-25T18:49:20Z")
Oh, and does absolutely nobody but myself find the question of the courts possibly intervening on a _Baker/Rynolds_ precedent worth discussing? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/113 "2013-01-26T03:57:50Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The electoral college was not set up the way it was due to communications problems but due to a desire to give States power in electing the President. So long as we are getting the history right, there are problems with this assertion. States were not popular in the federal convention. After all they were knuckling under to popular pressure for paper money and debt protections, much to the horror of elites. If the idea were to empower states then there would have been no need to mandate Electors. A larger issue is the fact that poor communications was a major factor in how the presidential election system was originally set up. They were at the heart of the requirement that Electors cast 2 votes, one for someone from out of state. It was believed that otherwise Electors would favor local leaders who would be the only well known candidates within the state and the president would regularly be chosen by Congress. Also, the reason for having Electors meet in their own states on the same day was intended, due to poor communications, to prevent collusion. Obviously all of that was extremely shortsighted. > [@](#): > > It was intentionally designed to not reflect the popular vote but a consensus of “electors” who represent semi-sovereign geographical entities. They were intentionally thus weighted in such a way that some States would benefit much more from the system than others. This though is fairly accurate so long as we realize that the intent was to empower people (elites really) within the states rather than the states themselves. Certainly power-sharing rather than popular participation was the goal. A popular vote would never have been acceptable. Not only was the franchise far more broad in the Eastern and Middle states but the geographical structure of slavery (legal then in all but one state) would have significantly reduced the influence of Southerners. In _Creating the Constitution_ Thornton Anderson offers a compelling argument that Electors were intended to represent property as much as people. Details aside, the thrust of **Martin Hyde** ’s post is accurate. It wasn’t the slow pace of communications in the eighteenth century which prevented the election of the POTUS by popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/114 "2013-01-26T14:50:52Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > No, it is not. Many people who have no vested interest in a representative from, e.g., their city or county, nonetheless want a choice in the _individual_ for whom their vote goes. Pit Susan Collins against Bob Conley, for example, and I’d vote for the Republican. What he is suggesting mandates party unity over intelligent weighing of issues – which is what has gotten us to the present impasse. Voting for a party and letting the party leaders choose who gets the seats their party is allocated from the voting, removes the choice of your supposed representatives from the people nominally being represented. > > You almost might better have ExxonMobil, SmithKlineGlaxo, a Prudential/Hartford/State Farm coalition, and G.M. choose their candidates directly, and be done with it. Nothing I said prevents the parties from having primaries to select the list. And, the people we vote for now in the present system are certainly selected in large part by ‘party leaders’. Every system has a drawback or two. I think my idea gives every person in a state some sense of being represented in Congress, even if by only one person. We have to do something to prevent gerrymandering. What is it going to be? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/115 "2013-01-28T18:28:20Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > With obvious respect, I think I included a couple of twists that made it work. I don’t see anything new in your proposal. Nevertheless, I strongly support that kind of scheme. It will also never happen. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/116 "2013-01-28T18:30:42Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > No, it is not. Many people who have no vested interest in a representative from, e.g., their city or county, nonetheless want a choice in the _individual_ for whom their vote goes. You could simply let people vote for their first, second, third choices etc. from a list of candidates in each party, or even just vote for one person out of a list. The highest vote-getters on each list would win the seats allocated to their party. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/117 "2013-01-28T18:31:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Some good news- [one Virginia State Senate Republican opposes this measure](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/virginia-sen-ralph-smith-r-opposes-electoral-vote), which means it probably won’t happen. The rest of them can just wait until he and a Democrat are both out of town. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/118 "2013-01-28T18:35:13Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Now, let me also say this, gerrymandering isn’t the only reason Republicans win more seats with less votes. It’s also because the Democrat constituency, due to sociopolitical reasons, tends to be much more highly concentrated. But every district is required to have the same number of people in it (one-person, one-vote). So concentration of voters is irrelevant. When they are concentrated, you could simply draw a district line between them. In fact, you must do so in order to follow the equal population rule. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/119 "2013-01-28T20:28:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Some good news- [one Virginia State Senate Republican opposes this measure](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/virginia-sen-ralph-smith-r-opposes-electoral-vote), which means it probably won’t happen. Senator Smith, you’re a real American hero. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360/120 "2013-01-28T20:30:54Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But every district is required to have the same number of people in it (one-person, one-vote). So concentration of voters is irrelevant. When they are concentrated, you could simply draw a district line between them. In fact, you must do so in order to follow the equal population rule. Not necessarily. For example even if one were to draw “natural” district lines (ie one designed to incorporate city, and county borders as much as possible), if most Democrats lived in a 80% Democratic area, but Republican areas are only 60% Republican on average, the former will be at a disadvantage when the district lines are drawn. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-move-to-gerrymander-presidential-elections/647360.md?page=7)