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.
The Democrats say it that way because the minorities, in a very large percentage, vote Democrat. So, wherever there is a pocket of Republican voters, they snake their Democrat districts into the Rep strongholds to water them down, so that only a Democrat can win. MD used to be 4-4 D vs R. Now it is 7-1. The one Republican representative is Andy Harris, from the Eastern Shore, where there was no way they could justify gerrymandering, because the area is too spread out and mostly Republican.
Oh, they tried. There was just no way they could draw it that wouldn't have put another Democrat seat in danger.
The main aim of the last redistricting was to get rid of Roscoe Bartlett. To eliminate him his very rural and poor district in far Western Maryland was extended to one of the wealthiest suburbs in the US, Montgomery County, which adjoins DC.
To get rid of a Republican in the 1st, Harris' district, would have meant redrawing so Bartlett's defeat wasn't assured.
Depending on what happens with this Court case I expect that Harris' district will be the focus of another attempt to turn it Democrat making the state 0-8. Looking at voting patterns the delegation should actually be 3R-5D or at the very least 2-6.
They tried really hard the last time to make another majority/minority district but let it go since Steny Hoyer's district will become one be default when he retires. Which he was supposed to do this year but recently announced he was running again.
How do you end gerrymandering but uphold the voting rights act?
Good question. Also, I note that it is precisely because of the VRA that Dems have a major disadvantage when it comes to redistricting. The requirement for minority majority districts ensures that key Dem voters are scrambled into non-competitive districts, when they could otherwise be more spread out into other Red districts to make them more competitive.
Good question. Also, I note that it is precisely because of the VRA that Dems have a major disadvantage when it comes to redistricting. The requirement for minority majority districts ensures that key Dem voters are scrambled into non-competitive districts, when they could otherwise be more spread out into other Red districts to make them more competitive.
Or maybe redistricting should have literally nothing to do with politics. Why not just use a computer to assign districts based on rules that are consistent, reasonable, and make sense.
There is almost nothing that makes sense with how redistricting is done in many states.
Or maybe redistricting should have literally nothing to do with politics. Why not just use a computer to assign districts based on rules that are consistent, reasonable, and make sense.
There is almost nothing that makes sense with how redistricting is done in many states.
I like the current system as it is. Don't see the need for change.
Let's face it. Even in "competitive" districts, incumbency has major benefits and incumbents are almost never defeated. Having computer drawn districts isn't going to bring about as much change as some people think, especially given the geography of where people live based on ideology, class, etc.
Note, also, you can't take politics out of the process. Your entire argument is a political one (although not a traditional partisan approach). But its one that I cannot support.
I like the current system as it is. Don't see the need for change.
Let's face it. Even in "competitive" districts, incumbency has major benefits and incumbents are almost never defeated. Having computer drawn districts isn't going to bring about as much change as some people think, especially given the geography of where people live based on ideology, class, etc.
Note, also, you can't take politics out of the process. Your entire argument is a political one (although not a traditional partisan approach). But its one that I cannot support.
It is not a partisan argument, I don't care who is redistricting, it is likely not going to be fair.
Take the human component out of it as much as possible. Apply a clearly-defined and transparent algorithm to the problem.
You might not always like the results, but it will be fair and consistent.
The Democrats say it that way because the minorities, in a very large percentage, vote Democrat. So, wherever there is a pocket of Republican voters, they snake their Democrat districts into the Rep strongholds to water them down, so that only a Democrat can win. MD used to be 4-4 D vs R. Now it is 7-1. The one Republican representative is Andy Harris, from the Eastern Shore, where there was no way they could justify gerrymandering, because the area is too spread out and mostly Republican.
It was never a secret. In 2010, the conservative political strategist Karl Rove took to the Wall Street Journal and laid out a plan to win majorities in state legislatures across the country.
"He who controls redistricting can control Congress," read the subhead to Rove's column.
The plan, which its architects dubbed REDMAP for Redistricting Majority Project, hinged on the fact that states redraw their electoral maps every 10 years according to new Census data. REDMAP targeted states where just a few statehouse seats could shift the balance to Republican control in the crucial Census year of 2010.
That plan worked spectacularly. It's why today Republicans have a majority in nearly two-thirds of the country's state legislative chambers. And it's why in 2012 Democratic statehouse candidates won 51 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania, which voted for Barack Obama in the presidential election, yet those candidates ended up with only 28 percent of the seats in the legislature.
It is not a partisan argument, I don't care who is redistricting, it is likely not going to be fair.
Take the human component out of it as much as possible. Apply a clearly-defined and transparent algorithm to the problem.
You might not always like the results, but it will be fair and consistent.
I never claimed it was a partisan argument (at least not inherently). But it is a political argument.
What is really wrong with the current system, though? And how would the reform that you call for radically change things (in terms of the realities of representation)?
I don't claim that you fit into this boat, but another thing that truly frustrates me is that the calls for redistricting "reform" exponentially grew only after the GOP took firm control of the process following the 2010 Census. When Dems had control of the process in multiple states and cities prior to the more recent political realignment (for instance, the GOP won control of multiple southern state legislatures for the first time since Reconstruction in only the last 5-10 years). The calls from so-called concerned groups weren't so great then when the Dems controlled the process. It wasn't until after the GOP took control of the process (and, note, the GOP took control of the process via winning in districts that Dems drew themselves often times, which leads me to again question what independent commissions are going to accomplish/why they are needed if people often move to areas to be among like-minded people in a partisan sense) that we started seeing the mass cries for reform. That doesn't scream of honest calls for reform, but rather temper tantrums (of course, this isn't universally true) now that some people's preferred party isn't in power.
You do realize that, in order for the GOP to control the redistricting process in these "red states," they had to actually win over the state legislatures in these states? Note, accomplishing this was easier to do given the anger over Obamacare and the rise of the Tea Party, factors which helped ensure that multiple southern state legislatures flipped to GOP control for the first time since Reconstruction during this era. But that meant that the GOP won in districts that were drawn back in 2000 by Dem legislatures/governments (yes, this is true even for the "south"...note Georgia only got its first GOP governor since Reconstruction in Sonny Perdue back in 2003!). It wasn't until after the GOP came to power in these Dem drawn seats that they drew the lines to benefit them more closely.
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.