Discussion for article #229888
Two or three observations. These gerrymandered districts in the House are very similar to what was known as rotten boroughs in the early 19th century United Kingdom. These boroughs would have a population of one or two and yet return a member to Parliament. So that Parliament was weighted greatly in favor of the wealthy and nobility in the UK. We may need to make an effort to reform these districts. Second, the gerrymandering is unconstitutional in that it does not provide equal votes. I am surprised that no one has made an effort to change this. Three, the Senate was supposed to be, in our constitution, the saucer that cools the heat of the cup. The Senate was not supposed to be representative of our political will and in this design, the House is the least representative of our political will. This needs to be fixed.
The entire purpose of gerrymandering is to defeat fairness to the individual voter. Thus, the use of algorithms to restore fairness is quite straightforward. Here, for example, is range voting dot orgâs solution using its algorithm:
These districts do not have a population of one or two. It is also a practice that both sides have been guilty of doing for their Partyâs benefit. I agree that something needs to be done about the Senate, are you suggesting we go back the Constitution and have Senators be appointed by the State Legislatures instead of direct vote by the people?
ââŚunwinnableâŚâ
Democracyâs equivalent of a hypoxic dead zone in the sea. Conservatives call it âCitizens Unitedâ. There are other names for one-party rule.
The solution is nonpartisan redistricting. I live in the blue state of Michigan that has a overwhelmingly red legislature (at both the state and US levels.) A cursory glance at the chart shows that the legislature is not a representative body for the Michigan electorate.
First, the Constitution was amended, which IS a constitutional remedy. Second, they donât have populations of one or two, but they are clearly as rigged as if they were. If the House is the house of the people, then it shouldnât be possible, as a rule, for the majority of people to vote one way and have the result turn out a completely different way. That is clearly subverting the will of the people any way you look at it.
TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY!
Never has it been so desperately sought and held.
This will be known in the future as the Dangerfield Decade for Congress, no doubt.
Itâs time for a Constitutional Amendment that does away with Congressional districts and goes to proportional representation.
No. The solution is to go to proportional representation because no matter how you draw a district you allow for the district lines to be manipulated.
Republicans have done a much better job at concentrating on state legislatures, which in almost all states draw district lines. If Democrats will be in the minority in the house for the rest of this decade, so be it. But the time is now (in fact, it should have been done earlier) for the national Democratic Party to work on winning more state legislatures.
At least the next big reapportionment year isnât during a mid term. US Census happens in 2020, a presidential election year. This can be fixed.
There is a solution. In Iowa, we have a party-neutral system for redistricting. The committee presents a proposal; the legislature can accept or reject but they canât modify. If they reject, the committee goes back and comes up with another proposal. If the proposal is rejected twice, the 3rd time becomes law. Itâs a solution that keeps party politics out of redistricting and encourages both parties to accept the âleast onerousâ solution.
Ya Just like in Florida when a ballot initiative mandated redistricting.
A judge threw out the attempt and so they met in a back room and basically changed nothing, thumbing their nose at the judge. This is why we will have a red supermajority in Florida for the foreseeable future . Will of the people? Go fuck yourself
All explained here:
http://www.theledger.com/article/20130916/COLUMNISTS/130919361
Proportional representation favors smaller parties which would get House seats even if they only got a few % of the vote. Therefore, neither major party is likely to support it. Thatâs the reality.
Leave it to Todd to lie in GOTP favor and say 2022 instead of 2020, the presidential election year.
Dems canât win because they run from each other. Why sometimes I think they run as a Democrat because there are just too many Republicans running. In other words they couldnât win a Republican primary.
We have something similar in California, which was one of Governor Schwarzennegerâs most important achievements: http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov
He also worked to change the voting to a âtop twoâ primary, so that whoever were the top two in the primary run in the general election (they can be of the same party).
The monkeys-slinging-sh*t pundits in the media are just selling issues, screeching for viewers, yammering for listenersâŚetc. The TRUE lesson of the last decade in politics is not to over-interpret the damned results of any single election.
The truth. The dominant trends in American politics were mostly reinforced in the mid term election: The freakinâ country is increasingly polarized; the low-turnout midterm electorate benefits Republicans and their odious âbaseâ of oldzâ and crazeesâ ; the Senate will remain closely contested for the foreseeable future; the House will remain the anchor of the RepiguKKKlan Party; Democrats have a demographic advantage in presidential elections.
Finally: Very little will get done in Washington.
SSDD
This is one of the reasons the US is doomed to fail. It happens to every society, when the wealthy invent ways to take control from the people. Unless there is another revolution, this will continue to get worse for the average citizen. We will eventually become like one of the countryâs we have helped over the past few decades.