The salamander lobby is going to sue.

My state is a pterodactyl. Your arguement is invalid.

Maryland is almost as blatant about Gerrymandering as Texas.

No kidding. I live in a district that encompasses some of the richest people in MD, in the richest county and goes in a straight, tiny line the whole way to downtown baltimore. It was clearly gerrymandered to be a black district.

/that said, I love my Congressman. He's awesome.

Johnny, what can you make of this redstricting plan?
Ooh, I can make a hat, or a brooch, or a pterodactyl...

Personally, I think redistricting should be done by the judiciary or another politically independent group. But hey if you can't have that, I'm glad the Maryland Democrats are doing what the Republicans did in Texas. Sucks to be on the short end of the stick, doesn't it?

I think it's time to develop an open source program that creates districts by minimizing the length of the borders in the districts yet keeps the same number of people in each district.

You plug in the census data and whatever district borders it spits out are the ones you keep.

Letting whichever political party that controls the state legislature right after the census draw the lines results in obvious bullshiat.







The obvious goal as things stand is to create "safe" districts where the party in power can't possibly lose until the next redistricting.

clyph: Maryland is almost as blatant about Gerrymandering as Texas.

Yeah, but it's Democrats doing the mandering.

XveryYpettyZ: Personally, I think redistricting should be done by the judiciary or another politically independent group. But hey if you can't have that, I'm glad the Maryland Democrats are doing what the Republicans did in Texas. Sucks to be on the short end of the stick, doesn't it?

The Judiciary is politically independent?

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "gasp"
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, gerrymandering is wrong no matter who does it: Progressives or Regressives...no difference. It is the way that the 2012 election will be stolen.

I don't see how anyone with a shred of intelligence can't see that our "representative" democracy is a sham.

If voting could change anything it would be illegal.

BullBearMS: I think it's time to develop an open source program that creates districts by minimizing the length of the borders in the districts yet keeps the same number of people in each district.

You plug in the census data and whatever district borders it spits out are the ones you keep.

Letting whichever political party that controls the state legislature right after the census draw the lines results in obvious bullshiat.

The obvious goal as things stand is to create "safe" districts where the party in power can't possibly lose until the next redistricting.

Or, you know, just include an actually binding compactness standard.

Maryland: To the extent permitted by other controlling considerations and by the geographical configuration of the State, the subdivisions, and election precincts, each legislative district should be compact in form. Although not legally or constitutionally required, Congressional districts, to the extent possible, should be compact. To the extent possible, recognition may also be given to prior legislative boundaries.

Minnesota: The districts must be composed of convenient contiguous territory. To the extent consistent with the other standards in this resolution, districts should be compact. Contiguity by water is sufficient if the water is not a serious obstacle to travel within the district.

Notice how one kinda says "*wink wink* see how many outs we gave you to make that thing look like a pterodactyl"

dj1s: XveryYpettyZ: Personally, I think redistricting should be done by the judiciary or another politically independent group. But hey if you can't have that, I'm glad the Maryland Democrats are doing what the Republicans did in Texas. Sucks to be on the short end of the stick, doesn't it?

The Judiciary is politically independent?

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "gasp"
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, gerrymandering is wrong no matter who does it: Progressives or Regressives...no difference. It is the way that the 2012 election will be stolen.

In a word, "yes." Judges who are elected do not generally seek endorsement by a political party. Judges who are appointed serve long (or lifetime) terms without review outside of the judiciary. They aren't robots, they have pasts and are elected or appointed because they resemble the people who elected or appointed them-- but they are much harder to regulate, predict or punish than any other group.

As for your second point, which election in 2012? Not the Senate or the Presidency, since it's gotten damned hard to gerrymander state boundaries of late.

XveryYpettyZ: Personally, I think redistricting should be done by the judiciary or another politically independent group. But hey if you can't have that, I'm glad the Maryland Democrats are doing what the Republicans did in Texas. Sucks to be on the short end of the stick, doesn't it?

Yeah, Texas Republicans were the first people to ever do this.

As ever, this is relevant:

Top Ten Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts

AlanSmithee: Pterodactyls aren't dinosaurs.

Came here to say that, fellow pedant.

XveryYpettyZ: Or, you know, just include an actually binding compactness standard.

This would certainly be an improvement.

However, entirely removing the decision of where the district boundaries lie from the eager hands of whichever politicians control the statehouse right after the census would be a bigger improvement.

NC gerrymandered its voting districts several years ago so that one of them ran down I-85 between Greensboro and Charlotte, in places barely a few hundred feet wide, just to create a minority heavy voting district.

Now that the GOP controls both state houses, do you think they cleared that mess up? Let me stop laughing first...

No, they've gone fullscale gerrymandering, splitting up long-time Democratic districts and linking the pieces with mostly rural (and they hope, mostly Republican) voting districts, to the point where Raleigh is now carved into three different districts when in the past we only had one.

I still don't understand why one-man, one-vote at-large districts would be a bad thing. Or perhaps an at-large vote-for-a-slate-of-candidates thing. Either way, districts are stupid.

BullBearMS: I think it's time to develop an open source program that creates districts by minimizing the length of the borders in the districts yet keeps the same number of people in each district.

You plug in the census data and whatever district borders it spits out are the ones you keep.

Letting whichever political party that controls the state legislature right after the census draw the lines results in obvious bullshiat.

[dl.dropbox.com image 600x450]

[dl.dropbox.com image 640x480]

[dl.dropbox.com image 408x309]

The obvious goal as things stand is to create "safe" districts where the party in power can't possibly lose until the next redistricting.

There ARE many ideas floating around about district boundaries being determined via mathematical means. There are many algorithms that can take a 2d plane with varying density and spit out regions that have the same "weight" while trying to insure that the regions are as regular and convex as possible.

THe problem is EVERYONE biatches and moans, even if they're fully against gerrymandering. because change is scary and having to learn about the new district you're in is a fate worse than death.

Personally I think gerrymandering is one of the most blatant, obvious attempts to rig the system and essentially undermine democracy all in order to give more power to the stagnant 2 party system. It definitely ranks in my top 3 things wrong with the political process in America.

hstein3: XveryYpettyZ: Personally, I think redistricting should be done by the judiciary or another politically independent group. But hey if you can't have that, I'm glad the Maryland Democrats are doing what the Republicans did in Texas. Sucks to be on the short end of the stick, doesn't it?

Yeah, Texas Republicans were the first people to ever do this.

As ever, this is relevant:

Top Ten Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts

And your point is? Of course gerrymandering is older than Texas 10 years ago. "Hey remember the last time this was a big issue" isn't exactly the same as "Hey, remember when those guys invented this."

As for that list: an enjoyable read. Not all of those districts were "gerrymandered" though. Arizona-2 makes perfect sense-- it's stupid to have competing tribes represented by the same person. Whichever tribe can deliver fewer votes to the incumbent could be effectively stripped of representation. Same with calling **some** majority-minority districts "gerrymandered." Not dividing "communities of interest" is a feature of many state laws-- not all those communities are regularly shaped or easily geographically contiguous. Remember, these laws were enacted in response to real-world situations where minority communities were given NO voice by diluting their voting power across multiple districts. This isn't a theoretical problem, it was a very very real one.

clyph: Maryland is almost as blatant about Gerrymandering as Texasevery other State.

fixed

meanmutton: I still don't understand why one-man, one-vote at-large districts would be a bad thing. Or perhaps an at-large vote-for-a-slate-of-candidates thing. Either way, districts are stupid.

They did that in Minnesota in 1932. The conservative-controlled legislature submitted a district plan that was obviously gerrymandered with 2 days until the deadline and dared the liberal governor to veto it. He did. The legislature then said that the constitution put the power of districting in the hands of the legislature and made no mention of governors-- so they claimed their districts stood anyway. A lower court agreed-- the supreme court did not...unanimously.

The result was that all 9 of minnesota's representatives ran at-large. Before this mess the Minnesota delegation had been split 8-1 in favor of conservatives. After, progressives held a 6-3 edge, and only 1 conservative incumbent was returned to office.

Right now, since the legislature and the governor can't agree, judges are going to draw the districts there.

Bendal: NC gerrymandered its voting districts several years ago so that one of them ran down I-85 between Greensboro and Charlotte, in places barely a few hundred feet wide, just to create a minority heavy voting district.

Now that the GOP controls both state houses, do you think they cleared that mess up? Let me stop laughing first...

No, they've gone fullscale gerrymandering, splitting up long-time Democratic districts and linking the pieces with mostly rural (and they hope, mostly Republican) voting districts, to the point where Raleigh is now carved into three different districts when in the past we only had one.

These days they don't hope, they plug the vote tallies from every polling station for the last few elections into a gigantic program and have it spit out borders as dead certain as possible to outweigh all voters of one stripe by their preferred votes. The same programs that should be used to create a minimally compact district are the ones that get it all screwed up.

We need to ditch the whole idea of representation by geography. It made sense when mail traveled by horse, but nowadays I have far more issues in common with people thousands of miles away than with my next door neighbor.

My proposal: A member of the house of representatives is he or she who can collect the (verified) endorsement of at least 100,000 voters, anywhere in the USA. Each person can remove or give their endorsement at any time. Go below 100,000 endorsements and you can't vote on the floor. Go below 90,000 and you lose your office and staff. All these numbers are adjusted with the census.

Never going to happen, it allows for third parties or independents way too much.

Link (See inset at lower left in illustration.)

Jerrius Manderi

The whole state looks like a wang that has been largely eaten away by STDs.

AlanSmithee: Straelbora:AlanSmithee: Pterodactyls aren't dinosaurs.

Came here to say that, fellow pedant.

They're actually insects.

Bats are bugs.