Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't know what those would be. Unless it is to pack Congress with people who can stop laws that pressure groups don't want.
Computer programs might not be optomal in a grouping communities together based on the preferences of people who live in those communities. Furthermore computer programs might not be all that great at deciding which communities will be split when splits occur. Also computer programs might be weighted too much to one particular concern at the expense of others. It isn't that simple.
I wouldn't expect that Republican heavy districts are any more gerrymandered than Democratic heavy districts. Seems it comes with civil equalities legislation. I'd prefer all districts are strictly square, stretched and skewed for equal numbers, regardless of diversity preferences.
Oh, yes they are, in the states where the districting is decided by the ruling political party. Gerrymandering has become a finely tuned political art form in many of them. And, with new technologies coming into wider use, the gerrymandering will become ever sharper in the future.
It is much less so in states that have a bi-cameral or independent districting committee by state law. These states' committees may reach an impasse, but if that happens, there is some provision or other written into the law that will resolve an impasse.
A governor may force the committee to stay in session until the impasse is resolved, for example, or may order an entirely different committee to be formed by both parties to do the job.
Since it's the electoral college that determines a Presidential outcome, it's doubtful that gerrymandering will ever be willingly give up. Once either party gains an advantage, it's not going to hand it over, especially when their side is losing ground.
Computer programs might not be optomal in a grouping communities together based on the preferences of people who live in those communities. Furthermore computer programs might not be all that great at deciding which communities will be split when splits occur. Also computer programs might be weighted too much to one particular concern at the expense of others. It isn't that simple.
What constitutional provision safeguards "the right of people to be grouped together". Does this mean we should treat as sacred the wish of racists to be represented by another one?
Its not a good system, but it is one that is self perpetuating. Personally I think independent commissions should draw them. This is one of the rare cases where I will say that Arizona should be a model for the nation. They probably have the best conceived of system.
Idaho also has an independent districting committee. It was accomplished by public referendum. The last committee this time could not reach resolution, and it was disbanded. The second committee did reach an agreement. In a solid Republican state, the election outcome was almost a given, but no one could object to the fairness of the districting, and no one did.
What constitutional provision safeguards "the right of people to be grouped together". Does this mean we should treat as sacred the wish of racists to be represented by another one?
I don't see what is racist about cities, towns, counties, and neighborhoods not wanting to be split up in terms of representation. Furthermore, I am not sure this would implicate the Constitution since states are the ones in charge of redistricting with a few exceptions. Again I think the best way of doing it is having an independent commission that listens to people in the various communities of the state and draws based on enumerated goals and public imput.
Remember the 14th amendment? Laws have to apply equally. There's no exclusivity exception. Congressional districts are not gated communities. A majority can't just decide "those people can't belong".
Remember the 14th amendment? Laws have to apply equally. There's no exclusivity exception. Congressional districts are not gated communities. A majority can't just decide "those people can't belong".
The 14th amendment doesn't mean communities cannot or should not have imput into redistricting. That is a rather extreme view of it. Even most legislative redistricting processes allow for at least some token public comment.
The 14th amendment doesn't mean communities cannot or should not have imput into redistricting. That is a rather extreme view of it. Even most legislative redistricting processes allow for at least some token public comment.
If it doesn't result in unequal protection. The amendment trumps any "community wish".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
