[RD] Gerrymandering

[onejayhawk]

This is a very partisan issue and it always has been. Gerrymandering is the party in political power shaping the political districts to perpetuate their political position. In general the idea is to highly concentrate your opponents, allowing yourself to maintain a slight majority in many districts. It does not always work as one might expect. For example, there are several instances from the 1960s and 1970s where black Democrats worked with Republicans to ensure black control of certain inner city districts.

Generally, I think the subject is a political crutch. While the effects are real, they are also transitory in many case. Demographics change much faster than election maps and narrow majorities turn easily into narrow minorities.

Since there is a Supreme Court case on the subject coming soon, it is once again making news. Here is a good look at the Democrat's view of the subject.
http://prospect.org/article/slaying-partisan-gerrymander

J

 

[mrt144]

It's a political crutch until you see what happens when one party controls 2/3 branches of government and can't get a damn thing done because it flies in the face of general popularity that gerrymandered districts can't possibly reflect by design. Gerrymandering might give you the votes but it doesn't give you mandate.

 

[uppi]

Generally, I think the subject is a political crutch. While the effects are real, they are also transitory in many case. Demographics change much faster than election maps and narrow majorities turn easily into narrow minorities.

I would dispute that demographics change much faster than election maps. Significant demographic changes require a redraw of the election maps to keep the number of people in one district constant. So the timescales for these two processes have to be similar to avoid large imbalances in the voters/seat ratio.

 

[dutchfire]

As far as I understand, several states have adopted non-partisan citizen-based redistricting and it works well.

 

[rah]

It's hard to gerrymander the Senate.

I would love Illinois to pass a non partisan redistricting bill. The Dems have been taking advantage of this for way too long.

 

[JollyRoger]

Based on oral argument, there is a good chance that the Court comes down 5-4 to do something about partisan gerrymandering. Abusive "cracking" (such as splitting up Austin, Texas into 4 districts with outlying suburbs and rural areas to eliminate the chance that deep blue Austin will be represented by even a single Democrat) or "packing" (putting a very large number of one party in one district so that you can ensure smaller victories for the other party in multiple districts) may come under fire. These cracking and packing schemes generally work, except in a wave election like 2006 where the numerous smaller-margin-for-victory districts get wiped into a large number of small-loss districts. They can generally be easily picked up again (see 2010).

 

[onejayhawk]

Calling Austin deep blue is an overstatement. A couple of Austin's sectors meet that definition.

Reading your statement, you advocate packing the sections into one district so the Democrats are guaranteed a Representative.

J

 

[Perfection]

538 has a pretty good podcast on the matter

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gerrymandering-is-on-trial/

I am anxiously awaiting the results of Gill v. Whitford and I really hope the really nasty practices that the Wisconsin GOP put in place can be reversed.

In general I think Gerrymandering is extremely politically toxic. By creating safe(ish) seats for tow-the-line majority party idealogues and packing the opposition party into hyperpartisan districts, the moderates lose their voice.

 

[JollyRoger]

The population of the current 4 districts where Austin is cracked should produces 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, not 4 Republicans. I advocate a less blatant crack than what is currently in place.

 

[dutchfire]

It's hard to gerrymander the Senate.

I would love Illinois to pass a non partisan redistricting bill. The Dems have been taking advantage of this for way too long.

In Illinois, Democrats won 11/18 = 61% of the house seats in 2016, with 53.62/(53.62+45.75)=54% of the two-party vote.

In North Carolina, Republicans won 10/13=77% of the house seats with 53.22/(53.22+46.60)=54% of the two-party vote.

Not comparable.

 

[caketastydelish]

The population of the current 4 districts where Austin is cracked should produces 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, not 4 Republicans. I advocate a less blatant crack than what is currently in place.

Agreed. I wonder what these people are on?

 

[onejayhawk]

The population of the current 4 districts where Austin is cracked should produces 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, not 4 Republicans. I advocate a less blatant crack than what is currently in place.

Saying there are only four districts is incorrect. Travis County has five. City limits of Austin has six. The boundaries of the Congressional districts are a lot simple than the boundaries of the city itself. That said, I agree there would be at least one majority Democratic district if it was all done with simple shapes.

J

 

[Zkribbler]

 

[Berzerker]

Arnooold said it best, with gerrymandering, politicians pick their voters instead of voters picking them

 

[rah]

In Illinois, Democrats won 11/18 = 61% of the house seats in 2016, with 53.62/(53.62+45.75)=54% of the two-party vote.

In North Carolina, Republicans won 10/13=77% of the house seats with 53.22/(53.22+46.60)=54% of the two-party vote.

Not comparable.

The dems have run the Illinois house for a long time.
How is that not comparable. 61% is more than enough to control it. It's not like 52% of something.
They're exactly comparable. Both situations the party in power has taken advantage of it to make sure they keep it.

It's wrong in both states. IT's wrong wherever it happens regardless of who's doing it. Simple as that.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yep the democrats did gerrymandering but Republicans took it to an entire new level
I think either have computerized system which calculates the districts that way, even if the districts are around +/- 5% would be acceptable but given how many states the Republicans have gerrymandered and to what extent I doubt anything will change

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I don't mind it when its a mutually beneficial arrangement that creates safer seats. That's fine, makes politicians a bit more brave anyway. What I don't like is when one party takes control by gerrymandering everything possible.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Gerrymandering is too manipulative for modern politics and ranks right up there with "money is speech" as anti democratic. Computer driven or non partisan would be the best approaches.

 

[Arwon]

Letting legislatures draw their own boundaries is lunacy

 

[onejayhawk]

It would not be hard to have a required mathematical relationship between area and edge length. Some exemptions, say ocean coast, could be identified. This will prevent districts that are a hundred miles long and three miles wide. What will be harder is putting the corner to three different districts in the center of a partisan concentration. This is what JR is complaining about In Austin, TX.

The other issue is old districts that would not pass new tests. As noted in the OP, inner city blacks actively worked for districts with a black majority. Many obvious tests would force them to redistrict.

Letting legislatures draw their own boundaries is lunacy

They aren't. This is state legislatures drawing districts for federal elections. Each state has the ability to write the rules that apply to the national elections in that state.

J