If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   On Tuesday night, Democrats swept the Presidential and Senate elections, but despite more total votes for Democratic candidates, the solid Republican house majority was saved by the heroic actions of one man, Mr. Gerry Mander   (slate.com) divider line 36
    More: Hero, Democrats, Senate, Republican, democratic  
•       •       •

2780 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 9:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-09 09:42:43 AM
3 votes:
Three words.

Independent redistricting panels.
2012-11-09 05:54:22 AM
3 votes:
Meh, both sides do it. The only solution is mathmatical modeling based on census data.
2012-11-09 03:42:38 AM
3 votes:
fishbowl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

What democratic gerrymandering might look like

Simple solution - follow the Iowa model. Pass a national law that counties cannot be broken up by a number greater than the number of districts. 8 districts = 8 counties can be divided.
2012-11-09 10:16:28 AM
2 votes:

Triumph: Simple solution - follow the Iowa model. Pass a national law that counties cannot be broken up by a number greater than the number of districts. 8 districts = 8 counties can be divided.


Or California's model, where we voters took the process out of the hands of the Legislature entirely. Our Constitution requires compact districts that to the extent consistent with equal representation respect (in order of priority) counties, municipalities and neighborhoods, and puts the job of drawing the maps into the hands of an independent commission of Dems, GOPs and "none of the above" voters.

When we used to have gerrymandering I lived in Dan Lundgren's safe GOP district, which snaked from the Nevada border all the way to Napa, sometimes less than a mile wide and snaking around cities to capture nothing but reliably GOP voting ranchers, farmers and vintners. I was voting with people who lived 100+ miles from me rather than the town 5 miles away.

This year the district was compacted into co-terminus counties, including several small cities he had previously avoided, where he fought a close and ultimately losing fight with his Democratic opponent. District 7 now comes no closer than 50 or 60 miles to me, and I still vote with my neighbors.

Our Commission doesn't break up neighborhoods, either, so when Vallejo was put in the same district as Napa, there was no giving half the blacks to Napa and half to the neighboring district, thereby diluting their voting power. Successful candidates will have to appeal to their entire district instead of getting to pick their own voters.

The rest of the country could do worse than adopt a similar system.
2012-11-09 10:01:20 AM
2 votes:
In 2014 the Republicans will have 13 Senators up for reelection. The Democrats will have 20. Six of those Democrats are in red states, and seven are in swing states. On the House side, Republican only need to win 1/3 of the competitive seats to stay in control. That all sounds bad for the Democrats. However, the Republicans are nuts and have already vowed to double down on the Ryan plan and their rape-rape thing. So the Democrats have that going for them, which is nice.

When the Democrats retake the House in 2014, I'm looking forward to Alan Grayson (D-FL) reintroducing his Public Option Act. It lets anyone buy into Medicare. It's as close as we're going to get to single payer.
2012-11-09 09:39:03 AM
2 votes:

Nofun: Meh, both sides do it. The only solution is mathmatical modeling based on census data.


This is the biggest lie ever told in US politics. BOTH PARTIES ARE EQUALLY AS BAD. No, they aren't. States like PA and OH have no business having like 4 D districts.
2012-11-09 11:56:06 AM
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: Liberals should really give up this whining about gerrymandering because liberals do exactly the same thing every time they get the chance. Doesn't make it right by any stretch of the imagination, but clutching at pearls and hand wringing about the Republicans doing it is pretty hypocritical.


If you'd RTFA: "To be perfectly fair, Democrats played the same game in Illinois and Maryland, squeezing out suburban Republicans by packing just enough of Cook County and Montgomery County, respectively, into their districts."

So no, it's not "pretty hypocritical." What IS hypocritical is you whining about "liberals whining" and calling it hypocritical.
2012-11-09 11:02:50 AM
1 votes:

super_grass: "Republicans gerrymander for their own benefit."

"Quit being smug, democrats pulls that stunt all the time."

"HURR, CLEARLY YOU THINK THE GOP IS BETTER THEN, WHY DO YOU NOT WANT TO FIX THE PROBLEM"

It's like the politics derp never left.




Yeah..... no. Everyone admits both parties do it, and its a constant problem. In fact, I'd say it is the MAJOR problem in American politics. Its the root of the partisan gridlock (because in a really red district you worry about getting primaried on the right, not losing to the Democrat. Vice versa in a blue district).
2012-11-09 10:51:36 AM
1 votes:
"Republicans gerrymander for their own benefit."

"Quit being smug, democrats pulls that stunt all the time."

"HURR, CLEARLY YOU THINK THE GOP IS BETTER THEN, WHY DO YOU NOT WANT TO FIX THE PROBLEM"

It's like the politics derp never left.
2012-11-09 10:36:22 AM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: It's never been okay in places like Texas where Tom Delay was massaging the districts, but it sure is fine in places like California, New York, Illinois and (until Tuesday's result) Pennsylvania. TFA is obvious cherrypicking. It's still okay anywhere Democrats won on Tuesday.


What are you talking about? New York's redistricting helped republicans like Richard Hanna (R). The old district lines put Ithaca and Binghamton in the same district, pretty much guaranteeing a democratic majority there; the new lines cut Ithaca free to float in the derp of its own county, and tie Binghamton up with Utica. Also, NY has a republican majority in the state legislature, at least up until tuesday, and democrats opposed the redistricting.

That being said, the redistricting in NY looks very logical. If it helped Republicans, it's only because some unjustifiable squiggles were redrawn into straighter lines.
2012-11-09 10:29:37 AM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: I can also think of a scenario where everyone in the city votes for the same people and the top 3 candidates get 50% of the votes. The rest of the state gets disproportionally represented.

It's not ideal but its better than the way it is now.


This whole idea does work if you only get to vote for one person instead of 12. I was thinking of a situation where each person can vote for 12.
2012-11-09 10:24:10 AM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: all of a sudden NOW it's an issue


No, it's an issue after every farking election. It was an issue before this election. There have been lawsuits. Stop making shiat up.

Gulper Eel: It's still okay anywhere Democrats won on Tuesday.


Your words, nobody else's. If you're that butthurt about it, go write your own article.

Gulper Eel: I hope that covers enough for your finely honed and superior sensibilities.


If you don't like society, feel free to get the fark out of it. Nobody is making you stay here to reap the horrible, horrible benefits that come from living in a modern world supported by a system constructed and maintained by the collective wisdom and resources of the people.

Get your bootstraps and GTFO.
2012-11-09 10:23:56 AM
1 votes:
Four words: Mixed Member Proportional Representation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

----

lamecomedian: Headline: "How Ridiculous Gerrymanders Saved the House Republican Majority"

TFA: "To be perfectly fair, Democrats played the same game in Illinois and Maryland, squeezing out suburban Republicans by packing just enough of Cook County and Montgomery County, respectively, into their districts."


Blue states where Republican legislatures and governors gerrymandered the districts: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin: 83 Representatives.

Red states where Democratic legislatures gerrymandered the districts: Arkansas, West Virginia: 7 Representatives.

But hey, both sides are bad, right?

----

If I had time, I'd do the math for each state, but I've already done it for my own. In OH, Republican representatives got 52.5% of the votes statewide. Republicans won 75% of the seats, though: 12 out of 16. If representation were proportional, Republicans should have 9 out of 16 seats--as the majority, they get the "round up" benefit.

Average Republican share of 11 districts (1 R district uncontested): 57.8%
Average Democratic share of 3 districts (1 D district uncontested): 71.0%

These are the numbers you have to look at.

----

Since Maryland was brought up as a counter "But but Dems do it too!" example, let's consider their shares:

Democrats received 64.8% of the votes, which should translate to 6 out of 8--again, they get the "round up" benefit. They will have 7 out of 8 seats.

Average Democratic share of 7 districts: 70.0%
Average Republican share of 1 district: 70.1%

----

Anyone want to do the math on all the rest of the states?
2012-11-09 10:22:48 AM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: Ridiculous gerrymandering in Pennsylvania was okay until Jack Murtha died.


It was never OK, districts should not look like a jigsaw puzzle.
2012-11-09 10:22:01 AM
1 votes:

StoneColdAtheist: Triumph: Simple solution - follow the Iowa model. Pass a national law that counties cannot be broken up by a number greater than the number of districts. 8 districts = 8 counties can be divided.

Or California's model, where we voters took the process out of the hands of the Legislature entirely. Our Constitution requires compact districts that to the extent consistent with equal representation respect (in order of priority) counties, municipalities and neighborhoods, and puts the job of drawing the maps into the hands of an independent commission of Dems, GOPs and "none of the above" voters.

When we used to have gerrymandering I lived in Dan Lundgren's safe GOP district, which snaked from the Nevada border all the way to Napa, sometimes less than a mile wide and snaking around cities to capture nothing but reliably GOP voting ranchers, farmers and vintners. I was voting with people who lived 100+ miles from me rather than the town 5 miles away.

This year the district was compacted into co-terminus counties, including several small cities he had previously avoided, where he fought a close and ultimately losing fight with his Democratic opponent. District 7 now comes no closer than 50 or 60 miles to me, and I still vote with my neighbors.

Our Commission doesn't break up neighborhoods, either, so when Vallejo was put in the same district as Napa, there was no giving half the blacks to Napa and half to the neighboring district, thereby diluting their voting power. Successful candidates will have to appeal to their entire district instead of getting to pick their own voters.

The rest of the country could do worse than adopt a similar system.


That sounds much more fair. It's equally objectionable to me to have things gerrymander-ed to be close as to gerrymander vote sinks and safe districts. People who live near each other should work together to pick a representative.
2012-11-09 10:21:03 AM
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: Liberals should really give up this whining about gerrymandering because liberals do exactly the same thing every time they get the chance. Doesn't make it right by any stretch of the imagination, but clutching at pearls and hand wringing about the Republicans doing it is pretty hypocritical.


You're right. Both sides do it so we should never fix it ever.
2012-11-09 10:04:26 AM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: BMulligan: CPennypacker: The district concept is flawed and needs to be reworked. Land does not need representation, people do.

And this is exactly why congressional districts are drawn the way they are. Those boundaries that look so artificial on the map are intended to follow demographic, not geographical, contours. As much as I regret the present Republican majority in Congress, I think people who point at oddly shaped congressional districts as though they represent some tragic flaw in the system are being kind of dumb.

They are drawn by partisans. The states are enough of a geographical divisor. Just take how many seats the state has and let everyone vote for their top 2 or 3 candidates. If a state has 12 seats the top 12 voted-for candidates get the seats. This way everyone's voice is heard.


And when I want to go down to my congressman's neighborhood office and speak to a policy assistant, maybe even make an appointment to speak directly to my representative, which of those 12 at-large representatives represents me? None of them, that's who. "Having a voice" doesn't mean voting; it means influencing my representative's vote by letting my voice be heard. I can do that under the current system, but not under the system you're proposing.
2012-11-09 10:02:46 AM
1 votes:
Liberals should really give up this whining about gerrymandering because liberals do exactly the same thing every time they get the chance. Doesn't make it right by any stretch of the imagination, but clutching at pearls and hand wringing about the Republicans doing it is pretty hypocritical.
2012-11-09 09:56:00 AM
1 votes:

BMulligan: Gulper Eel: Wellon Dowd: If the per-capita number of members of the House was the same now as in the first Congress there would be over 8000 Representatives. Smaller districts, by the very nature, would be more homogenous and more clearly represent the interests of the populace of that district. It would also allow regular people to run for Congress.

I could go for this.

My god, what a farking awful idea. If you think Congress is an unworkable mess now, just wait until it's sixteen times bigger.


Actually, the house generally moves legislation through smoothly since all bills have a firm time limit on amendments and discussion. It's the Senate that's intractable.
2012-11-09 09:54:11 AM
1 votes:

Wellon Dowd: If the per-capita number of members of the House was the same now as in the first Congress there would be over 8000 Representatives. Smaller districts, by the very nature, would be more homogenous and more clearly represent the interests of the populace of that district. It would also allow regular people to run for Congress.


Yes, but that would mean the Democrats would take clear control for the forseeable future, which is unfair.
2012-11-09 09:51:47 AM
1 votes:

Uchiha_Cycliste: Los Angeles county has 10 million and is almost 5,000 square miles. Does a hard limit of 8 really sound like a good idea?


You do realize that because California has 55 electoral votes, that means up to 55 counties can be divided in CA.
2012-11-09 09:51:30 AM
1 votes:
Proportionally-elected statewide Congressional delegations.

That's all I have to say about it.
2012-11-09 09:51:20 AM
1 votes:

BMulligan: CPennypacker: The district concept is flawed and needs to be reworked. Land does not need representation, people do.

And this is exactly why congressional districts are drawn the way they are. Those boundaries that look so artificial on the map are intended to follow demographic, not geographical, contours. As much as I regret the present Republican majority in Congress, I think people who point at oddly shaped congressional districts as though they represent some tragic flaw in the system are being kind of dumb.


They are drawn by partisans. The states are enough of a geographical divisor. Just take how many seats the state has and let everyone vote for their top 2 or 3 candidates. If a state has 12 seats the top 12 voted-for candidates get the seats. This way everyone's voice is heard.
2012-11-09 09:48:55 AM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: Good job trying to deflect attention away from a crook like the late congressman, though.


First of all, the man is dead and isn't going to win any more elections so I'm unclear why you're harping on him when he has nothing to do with TFA or election (no, just kidding, actually I'm not, it's because you're horribly dishonest). Second of all, what part of "it's never been okay" is too complicated for you? Do I need to break it down syllable by syllable for you to understand it or would that still be too much for your feeble mind? Finally, don't think you're fulling anybody with your libertarian bullshiat, you're a "Fark Independent" and everybody here knows it.
2012-11-09 09:46:57 AM
1 votes:

whither_apophis: Wellon Dowd: If the per-capita number of members of the House was the same now as in the first Congress there would be over 8000 Representatives. Smaller districts, by the very nature, would be more homogenous and more clearly represent the interests of the populace of that district. It would also allow regular people to run for Congress.

QFT. The House needs to increase in membership, but both parties and lobbyists hate that idea.


I'd love to see the Koch brothers trying to but 8000 races.
2012-11-09 09:44:50 AM
1 votes:

Vegan Meat Popsicle: No, it's never been okay, but good job trying to deflect attention away from your own party who is only desperately clinging to relevancy via gerrymandering and election tampering.


I voted for Gary Johnson, so I'm not sure who you're talking about.

Good job trying to deflect attention away from a crook like the late congressman, though.
2012-11-09 09:44:40 AM
1 votes:

Wellon Dowd: If the per-capita number of members of the House was the same now as in the first Congress there would be over 8000 Representatives. Smaller districts, by the very nature, would be more homogenous and more clearly represent the interests of the populace of that district. It would also allow regular people to run for Congress.


QFT. The House needs to increase in membership, but both parties and lobbyists hate that idea.
2012-11-09 09:44:08 AM
1 votes:

AkaDad: Three words.

Independent redistricting panels.


I'm pretty sure CA took this up in 08 or '10, but I don't know if we have done anything with it yet.

\utterly useless comment by me =/
2012-11-09 09:43:11 AM
1 votes:
Feed it into a computer program designed to have it draw the best maps with population size and density in mind, targeting as square as you can get, see what comes out
2012-11-09 09:42:28 AM
1 votes:

Aarontology: I see it didn't take long for conservatives to start with the "BUT BUT DEMOCRATS"


This is one of those issues where it really is a both sides are pretty much the same thing. I generally vote Dem but it's absolutely ridiculous. One of the guys who just one in Chicago was on public radio literally thanking the state legislature for giving him a winning district.

I'm personally for abolishing districts all together and doing party line multi party voting by state. e.g. if Texas wants to vote 15% Libertarian, 15% of their delegation is Libertarian. It also prevents turds from cementing their place because they were able to convince the DoD to buy from a plant in a county with no people making everyone happy and employed.
2012-11-09 09:41:44 AM
1 votes:
It would be really lovely if they could fix this. Also on the wishlist: non-filibuster filibusters, and attaching bullshiat unrelated legislation or poison pills into must-pass bills.
2012-11-09 09:39:39 AM
1 votes:

themindiswatching: Hero tag? Really? More like Fail for subby.


Misuse of the Hero tag is how all the cool kids are getting greens these days.
2012-11-09 09:38:51 AM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: Ridiculous gerrymandering in Pennsylvania was okay until Jack Murtha died.


No, it's never been okay, but good job trying to deflect attention away from your own party who is only desperately clinging to relevancy via gerrymandering and election tampering.

Maybe you ought to just pull down your pants and moon everybody. With the spanking you just got your ass ought to be a huge, bright red distraction.
2012-11-09 09:37:39 AM
1 votes:
And, I'm convinced, it's the reason our favorite tea partiers have made it as far as they have. Make the general election uncompetitive and the election is decided by the extreme wings of the party who bother to show up at the primary. If the general election was competitive, there'd be an incentive to moderate their choice.
2012-11-09 09:27:28 AM
1 votes:
I see it didn't take long for conservatives to start with the "BUT BUT DEMOCRATS"
2012-11-09 03:33:43 AM
1 votes:
Hero tag? Really? More like Fail for subby.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report