WashPo: GOP’s gerrymandered advantages

[Kilmer17]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Here's how to fix it.

More Congressmen. Using early 1900 representative percentages, we would have 1500 members of Congress. If we went back to the FFs, we'd have 5000.

Dilute the power and influence of each of them.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Here's how to fix it.

More Congressmen. Using early 1900 representative percentages, we would have 1500 members of Congress. If we went back to the FFs, we'd have 5000.

Dilute the power and influence of each of them.

So, your answer is to have MORE politicians?

[DogofWar1]

There's not really a quick, easy, or good solution to gerrymandering.

On the one hand, it would be nice to simply make every district a snapshot, demographically, of the state it's in. (if the state is 50% White, 20% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 15% African American, for example, the district should reflect that).

On the other hand, as someone mentioned, minorities tends to congregate in pockets, which makes geographical mapping very difficult.

The other problem is that you often run the risk of marginalizing minority candidates, in a district with 50% white and 15% African american, what are the odds of an african american candidate winning? Even if people voted purely party lines in the general election, what about in primaries? It is somewhat within human nature to support people like you, so if you are presented with two candidates with similar positions, one white, one african american, odds are whites will vote for the white candidate.

I like the idea of taking congressional district drawing out of the hands of the state legislatures and putting it in the hands of a citizens committee. They'll be imperfect, I'm sure, but I suspect the absence of intent to gerrymander would do a lot of good by itself. It probably wouldn't strike a perfect balance, but it'd be a lot better than the current system. Furthermore, the citizens committee could, in succeeding elections, look at the results and make changes to the congressional districts to strike a better balance, and would do so without the political concerns and intent the legislature would have.

[The Evil Genius]

My question would be how many of those votes came in MASSIVE Dem strongholds like NY, Cali, Mass (and in reality, the entire NE corridor), major urban areas (be realistic, almost all major cities lean HEAVILY towards the left). It wouldn't strike me as all that odd that Dems would hold a 5% vote advantage nationwide based solely on the urban, NE corridor, Cali, and Pacific NW. Doesn't change the fact that the rural areas are going to elect Reps by an overwhelming majority. It just isn't goint to happen, just like Romney had 0% cahnace of winning NY or Cali based entirely on NYC/Albany/Buffalo and SD/LA/SF/Oak/Sac. Upstate NY and rural Cali? Probably carried by Romney.

In case you are interested in California.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/president/

[Kilmer17]

So, your answer is to have MORE politicians?

I think adding seats means less influence of career politicians. And adds more citizen politicians. Plus with smaller districts, it will be more difficult for any member to be there for life.

[Popeman38]

In case you are interested in California.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/president/

That is an awesome site. I wish every state has as easy to use interactive graphics as that. I know VA does, bit some of the states were ridiculous. Fox and CNN were FAR more useful than the states.

VA looks much the same: Fairfax, Loudoun Prince William, Arlington, Alexandria, Henrico, Richmond, Hampton Roads all went to Obama. The rest of the state was red (with a few cities mixed in that went to Obama, like Winchester). But in the Congressional districts, why would VA somehow reflect more Demm seats? If 5 of the 11 go blue, but the other 6 go red, did the Dems get "screwed" because more people voted for Dems than Reps statewide? No, because the Dem votes came from Dem strongholds, which are population centers. Of course Dems got more votes. There are more Dem voters in Fairfax than there are in multiple ***counties*** in SW VA.

***edited from districts.

[The Evil Genius]

The only significant population areas that went to Romney in California were Orange/Riverside counties (which accounted for something like 18% of his total state vote) and most of the San Joaquin Valley.

The rest of the red counties, while large in land, are poor in population.

[JimboDaMan]

That is an awesome site. I wish every state has as easy to use interactive graphics as that. I know VA does, bit some of the states were ridiculous. Fox and CNN were FAR more useful than the states.

VA looks much the same: Fairfax, Loudoun Prince William, Arlington, Alexandria, Henrico, Richmond, Hampton Roads all went to Obama. The rest of the state was red (with a few cities mixed in that went to Obama, like Winchester). But in the Congressional districts, why would VA somehow reflect more Demm seats? If 5 of the 11 go blue, but the other 6 go red, did the Dems get "screwed" because more people voted for Dems than Reps statewide? No, because the Dem votes came from Dem strongholds, which are population centers. Of course Dems got more votes. There are more Dem voters in Fairfax than there are in multiple districts in SW VA.

You seem to be missing the point that congressional districts are supposed to be of roughly equal population counts. If there are more people in those Democratic "population centers", there should be more congressional districts and on the average more of them would tend to elect Democrats. Per your point that there are more people in Fairfax than in 2-3 SW districts, then the lines should be redrawn so that SW VA gets 1 and Fairfax get 2 or 3.

[Larry]

The vote total only means more populated areas support Dems, nothing new there

Larry
http://westlawinsider.com/today-in-l...-proportional/
TODAY IN 1964: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS MUST BE PROPORTIONAL

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with proportional representation.

Do you really want me to explain what proportional representation is?

I'll confess that the reason I mentioned it was because I was hoping that somebody would ask about it, thus giving me an excuse to bring it up again.

But somebody intentionally trying to untruthfully say that we already have it will do, too.

---------- Post added November-14th-2012 at 12:06 PM ----------

There's not really a quick, easy, or good solution to gerrymandering.

On the one hand, it would be nice to simply make every district a snapshot, demographically, of the state it's in. (if the state is 50% White, 20% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 15% African American, for example, the district should reflect that).

On the other hand, as someone mentioned, minorities tends to congregate in pockets, which makes geographical mapping very difficult.

The other problem is that you often run the risk of marginalizing minority candidates, in a district with 50% white and 15% African american, what are the odds of an african american candidate winning? Even if people voted purely party lines in the general election, what about in primaries? It is somewhat within human nature to support people like you, so if you are presented with two candidates with similar positions, one white, one african american, odds are whites will vote for the white candidate.

I like the idea of taking congressional district drawing out of the hands of the state legislatures and putting it in the hands of a citizens committee. They'll be imperfect, I'm sure, but I suspect the absence of intent to gerrymander would do a lot of good by itself. It probably wouldn't strike a perfect balance, but it'd be a lot better than the current system. Furthermore, the citizens committee could, in succeeding elections, look at the results and make changes to the congressional districts to strike a better balance, and would do so without the political concerns and intent the legislature would have.

I wonder if it would be possible to mandate a computer program. A computer program which knows the population distribution (how many people live on this street), because it has to know that to make the districts equal population. But which doesn't know the party affiliations on that street.

Google Districts.

[Popeman38]

You seem to be missing the point that congressional districts are supposed to be of roughly equal population counts. If there are more people in those Democratic "population centers", there should be more congressional districts and on the average more of them would tend to elect Democrats. Per your point that there are more people in Fairfax than in 2-3 SW districts, then the lines should be redrawn so that SW VA gets 1 and Fairfax get 2 or 3.

Just for the record, Fairfax isn't a district. Fairfax has a population of just over 1.1 million people. There are only 8.1 million residents of the entire state. My mistake (edited in original post) was to say "districts in SW VA". I meant counties. There is only 1 district composing all of SW VA.

VA District 1: 643,514
VA District 2: 643,510
VA District 3: 643,476
VA District 4: 643,477
VA District 5: 643,497
VA District 6: 643,504
VA District 7: 757,917
VA District 8: 643,503
VA District 9: 643,514
VA District 10: 643,512
VA District 11: 643,509

[Rdskns2000]

Operation Relocate is what the Dems need to do. Just relocate Dems into key Republican districts and starting in 2014 Repubs will start loosing.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

"You do it too, huh?"

I think it says something that democrats actually got more votes than republicans nationwide in the house races, but the GOP has like a 30 seat advantage. It says that a lot of states are seriously gerry mandered in favor of the GOP, and it also says that the country does not want, i.e. did not vote, for a majority of GOPers in the house.

Is it just a reflex for our resident GOPers to say "Democrats do it too" whenever something negative about the Republicans is brought up?

[Prosperity]

As larry said, this should b taken out of the control of committees instead there should be a nationwide computer program or algorithm that creates districts based on objective factors.

[Burgold]

There's not really a quick, easy, or good solution to gerrymandering.
.

Sure there is. We have things called counties, towns, and cities. Those are pretty natural regions. Divide up your delegates on the basis of country population. Boom! You're done. That's not hard at all.

[aREDSKIN]

It is what it is, I'm sorry. This thread is going to facts, hopefully. More people voted for democrats than republicans, but republicans have one of the biggest majorities in the history of the House? That doesn't strike you as ridiculous?

Of course everyone gerrymanders, but that is not what is so shocking. The democrats got more votes nationwide, but have 30 less seats. Its absurd.

Nothing's Shocking really. Nationwide vote totals are irrevelant when it come to state wide representation. And I know you know that.