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.
I acknowledge that Democrats engaged in gerrymandering just as much or more than Republicans in the past and would so so in the future if given the chance. I hope the SC doesn't allow them (or any other party) to. I just find it funny that you openly admit that you see a pro-gerrymandering ruling would be a win for Republicans and not a loss for everyone.
Firstly, my comment was in response to the subject title of this thread, which explicitly attacked Republicans (those are your words). You made it be "us vs. them." Personally, I have no problem with partisan gerrymandering as I view it as being perfectly constitutional (I try not to take very many policy positions and, instead, try to ask myself if x or y policy is supported by the Constitution . . . that's the basis with which I try to support or disapprove of policy). Of course, there are exceptions, but this is my goal. But I acknowledge that Dems have and continue to rely on partisan gerrymandering to lock the GOP out in many areas, just as the GOP does the same. Unfortunately for Dems, however, and largely due to the fact that the most left-leaning Dem populations are disproportionately represented in a relatively few urban settings (whereas the GOP's base is more geographically diverse), the GOP has more tools with with to gerrymander while still maintaining the required "compactness" of the districts. But it wasn't always like this. As I mentioned, the GOP only took control of most southern legislatures, for instance, for the first time since Reconstruction during the period from 2010-2014. Before this, Dems still dominated in WV, AR, LA, MS, KY, etc., legislatures, with the GOP controlling FL, VA, a less than a handful of other southern legislatures before this time. But the Dems stepped off the deep end and lost a huge amount of local support (yes, these people were already voting for the GOP at the presidential level, but they had not yet shunned the Dems at the local/state level and Dems gerrymandered to their advantage, just like they are doing in Illinois and other places today).
According to the article, this has really gotten out of hand since 2010. New computer models make it possible to predict which way a household is going to vote with a great degree of accuracy, which allows the ruling party to draw up districts accordingly. It's currently benefiting the Republicans, but I have on doubt that Democrats would take advantage of this too if they could. Voters should choose their representatives - representatives should not be able to choose their voters.
Very true, the access to data the last decade or so has taken Gerrymandering to an entire new level.
According to the article, this has really gotten out of hand since 2010. New computer models make it possible to predict which way a household is going to vote with a great degree of accuracy, which allows the ruling party to draw up districts accordingly. It's currently benefiting the Republicans, but I have on doubt that Democrats would take advantage of this too if they could. Voters should choose their representatives - representatives should not be able to choose their voters.
the solution (however unpalatable) might be to bring in the same groups of people the UN sends to countries looking to become more balanced and fair democracies.
Yep UN. There do great work helping to fix broken systems mostly because they are actually neutral.
But i know i know. America is great, we don't need no communist UN telling us bout freedumb.
or maybe that is exactly what we really need. Some balance mixed districts that force all candidates to be reasonable or lose. You cant be are hard left or right butthead under a single transferable vote with no gerrymandering.
it really is the answer. Single transferable vote with bipartisan redistricting overseen by impartial monitors
Im sick of this "both sides do it" nonsense. Its a appeal to equality fallacy.
YES Democrats do it. But at a FAR smaller rate. Thats just a fact.
As for why....well I think that is because the Republicans thought of it first, and spent heavily to affect the people choosing the boundaries. But 80% of all gerrymandering is done by Republicans.
And its wrong no matter who does it. Its poisoning democracy here. When a area is mostly democrat, and has mostly Republican representatives, that is truly how people feel that their government doesn't represent them. Because it doesn't. And vice versa for the few areas the Democrats do it.
And the Democrats have learned by now that they need to do this as well. So Republicans, I say this to you:It was a neat thing to do, but also evil. But hey, it got you a leg up on folks. Now lets stop it before both sides truly get going on it. Its a bad thing,and trying to defend it shows that you are party before country, and that wont end well. Convince people of your viewpoint, don't force it on them via dirty tricks like this. Because it will end up going both ways.
Using ANY criteria IS gerrymandering... there are no uniform criteria for it... Supreme Court is going to vote in favor of the GOP... sorry, anti-Trumpers...
the solution (however unpalatable) might be to bring in the same groups of people the UN sends to countries looking to become more balanced and fair democracies.
Yep UN. There do great work helping to fix broken systems mostly because they are actually neutral.
But i know i know. America is great, we don't need no communist UN telling us bout freedumb.
or maybe that is exactly what we really need. Some balance mixed districts that force all candidates to be reasonable or lose. You cant be are hard left or right butthead under a single transferable vote with no gerrymandering.
it really is the answer. Single transferable vote with bipartisan redistricting overseen by impartial monitors
Lol, the UN, now that is funny.
If you want Europe dictating to you, move to Europe.
Im sick of this "both sides do it" nonsense. Its a appeal to equality fallacy.
YES Democrats do it. But at a FAR smaller rate. Thats just a fact.
As for why....well I think that is because the Republicans thought of it first, and spent heavily to affect the people choosing the boundaries. But 80% of all gerrymandering is done by Republicans.
And its wrong no matter who does it. Its poisoning democracy here. When a area is mostly democrat, and has mostly Republican representatives, that is truly how people feel that their government doesnt represent them. Because it doesnt. And vice versa for the few areas the Democrats do it.
And the Democrats have learned by now that they need to do this as well. So Republicans, I say this to you:It ws a net thing to do, but also evil. But hey, it got you a leg up on folks. Now lets stop it before both sides truly get going on it. Its a bad thing,and trying to defend it shows that you are party before country, and that wont end well. Convince people of your viewpoint, dont force it on them via dirty tricks like this. Because it will end up going both ways.
TODAY, yes. But that's because they got voted out of their massively gerrymandered districts due to changing demographics and the move toward the left by the Dem Party, which alienated many people. Republicans took control of southern legislatures (starting in 1994, but ending only within the last few years ago) in spite of the massive gerrymandering implemented by Dems. So let's not pretend that we see less Dem gerrymandering today because they somehow nobly decided that redistricting reform was the way to go. No, we see less mass Dem gerrymandering today because the demographics don't allow it.
TODAY, yes. But that's because they got voted out of their massively gerrymandered districts due to changing demographics and the move toward the left by the Dem Party, which alienated many people. Republicans took control of southern legislatures (starting in 1994, but ending only within the last few years ago) in spite of the massive gerrymandering implemented by Dems. So let's not pretend that we see less Dem gerrymandering today because they somehow nobly decided that redistricting reform was the way to go. No, we see less mass Dem gerrymandering today because the demographics don't allow it.
Lets bottom line this. Are you for representatives representing people, or are you not?
Is gerrymandering OK?
In the end I don't give a hoot about who is to blame, I just want it stopped.
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.
