Speaking as a Californian, the author totally misses the point of redistricting by citizens committee. We want our districts to be drawn impartially, not by the pols in Sacramento, regardless of their persuasion. The map is "better" since the redistricting triggered by the 2010 census, not because Democrats came out ahead (I'm not sure that they did), but because more of our districts are now competitive. Neither party can assume a representative's seat is safe.
Cohn's harping reveals the schism between left and right with respect to voting rights (not just this aspect): For Cohn, it is all about winning at any cost; for the rest of us, it is about representative democracy. Cohn should not assume all voters behave the way he would, if he could get away with it.
Cohn's harping reveals the schism between left and right with respect to voting rights (not just this aspect): For Cohn, it is all about winning at any cost; for the rest of us, it is about representative democracy. Cohn should not assume all voters behave the way he would, if he could get away with it.
5
What a completely weird article! Isn't the aim of elections to elect representatives who will represent the voters? Gerrymandering prevents that result, and whether it helps one side or the other is completely beside the point. Having said that, comparing the popular vote by party to the makeup of the House of Representatives, we can see that it's the Republicans who have benefited from the current districts, and if some states will swing one way and some will swing the other, the result will still be an improvement
4
Pree-cisely! If you look at older comments here, you'll find many people (including myself) saying exactly the same thing: a strange focus on partisanship in an article about redistricting, which is fundamentally non-partisan; seeking only a reasonably fair mix of voters in any given district rather than a set purposefully chosen to marginalize the opposition in future elections.
Its interesting, to be against redistricting reform is like saying you recognize you can't win elections by having the better ideas. So you have to stack the deck by choosing 'preferable' voters to make up for what you can't win by convincing just any voter. You 'win' by misrepresentation, which is cheating what would be the popular will. That's how we have the now-consistent phenomenon of Democrats receiving the majority of total votes for Congress, but end up being the minority party in Congress. That it happens once in awhile, that's a given with our system of representation. That it happens consistently, is a problem. And its a new problem. The 'historical gerrymander' was self-limiting. The modern computerized gerrymander, however, is not. The GOtP is over-represented in Congress, due in large part to partisan gerrymandering in the states. Imagine that, in the US the Congressional majority has not reflected the actual number of voters for each party for the past 3 election cycles! Yet the Speaker gets up there with a straight face talking about speaking for 'a majority' of Americans.
Its interesting, to be against redistricting reform is like saying you recognize you can't win elections by having the better ideas. So you have to stack the deck by choosing 'preferable' voters to make up for what you can't win by convincing just any voter. You 'win' by misrepresentation, which is cheating what would be the popular will. That's how we have the now-consistent phenomenon of Democrats receiving the majority of total votes for Congress, but end up being the minority party in Congress. That it happens once in awhile, that's a given with our system of representation. That it happens consistently, is a problem. And its a new problem. The 'historical gerrymander' was self-limiting. The modern computerized gerrymander, however, is not. The GOtP is over-represented in Congress, due in large part to partisan gerrymandering in the states. Imagine that, in the US the Congressional majority has not reflected the actual number of voters for each party for the past 3 election cycles! Yet the Speaker gets up there with a straight face talking about speaking for 'a majority' of Americans.
1
The author is not completely accurate about how Arizona selects is redistricting commission members. The process begins with the state Commission on Appellate Court Appointments which solicits and reviews applications from the public and nominates 25 candidates--ten Democrats, ten Republicans and five independents. It then goes to various steps in the legislature to pick the members, none of whom can be legislators themselves. In any case this is simply a much better way of doing this than a completely political exercise, whomever might have the advantage. The Arizona legislature has been trying for years to gut any campaign reform acts, including the commission. And by "legislature" I mean republicans.
1
Mr. Cohn,
As a California voter who mostly votes for Democrats, I was not sure that I liked it when California went for the impartial committee to redraw the voting lines. But I came to support it simply because it was the right thing to do. If we are to support democracy, we must support democratic principles. It really is that simple.
As a California voter who mostly votes for Democrats, I was not sure that I liked it when California went for the impartial committee to redraw the voting lines. But I came to support it simply because it was the right thing to do. If we are to support democracy, we must support democratic principles. It really is that simple.
12
Gerrymandering is the betrayal of democracy, effectively disenfranchising millions of Americans. I don't see how voters belonging to the parties in power in gerrymandered states sleep at night.
7
I am not a Democrat who thinks redistricting by party controlled state legislatures is a bad thing. It has been advantageous for Democrats in the past and will be again unless liberals get their way. Although it is not in the constitution, it has been with us since the founding of the nation and is more democratic than an independent commission. It means that before you can win national power you must first win at the local level. The way you build a national consensus is to win in the states first, then gerrymander the states’ congressional districts to take national power. The only reason liberals don’t like it is they can’t win this way and they can’t build a true national consensus for their policies. People tend to be self-serving and rig the system in their favor, but Republicans won under the current rules of the game and it is liberals who now want to change them.
1
Gerrymandering by a legislature determined to draw district lines to their advantage is not more democratic than an independent commission that is tasked to draw them fairly.
3
@Benjamin Greco
Advantageous, sure, obviously. But unfair, and unconstitutional, because it removes democracy from 'one person, one vote' when some votes become immaterial to the outcome BY DESIGN. That's what gerrymandering IS, whether it was done 200 years ago or being done today.
The problem with modern gerrymandering is its done by computer, and by doing in weeks what used to take at least a year by hand (demographic map-making is computationally-intensive) it can now be used to affect national political strategy, not just state politics, as in the past when it wasn't so easy to do.
And in a system such as ours, requiring congressional districts, oversight commissions of some kind are FAR PREFERABLE to the politicians themselves determining the rules for demographic maps that can, if politicized, remove the franchise from selected groups of voters.
And this statement: "The way you build a national consensus is to win in the states first, then gerrymander the states’ congressional districts to take national power." makes me feel like you're OK with having one last election (which your side hopefully wins) and then having that party rule forever after. That, in essence, is what you're advocating. Cheat your way to power through gerrymandering, and then keep it that way by making it virtually impossible for opposing coalitions to form in any given district.
You can put the label 'democracy' on that, but it most definitely is anything but.
Advantageous, sure, obviously. But unfair, and unconstitutional, because it removes democracy from 'one person, one vote' when some votes become immaterial to the outcome BY DESIGN. That's what gerrymandering IS, whether it was done 200 years ago or being done today.
The problem with modern gerrymandering is its done by computer, and by doing in weeks what used to take at least a year by hand (demographic map-making is computationally-intensive) it can now be used to affect national political strategy, not just state politics, as in the past when it wasn't so easy to do.
And in a system such as ours, requiring congressional districts, oversight commissions of some kind are FAR PREFERABLE to the politicians themselves determining the rules for demographic maps that can, if politicized, remove the franchise from selected groups of voters.
And this statement: "The way you build a national consensus is to win in the states first, then gerrymander the states’ congressional districts to take national power." makes me feel like you're OK with having one last election (which your side hopefully wins) and then having that party rule forever after. That, in essence, is what you're advocating. Cheat your way to power through gerrymandering, and then keep it that way by making it virtually impossible for opposing coalitions to form in any given district.
You can put the label 'democracy' on that, but it most definitely is anything but.
5
The Democrats held the Congress almost 50 years this way. You don't understand Representative Democracy and you don't understand Federalism. The "politicians" in the state legislature are elected by the people. That is far more Democratic than any independent commission. As for ruling forever, your exaggerating, they rule until the other side convinces enough people to switch sides. In the south the Republicans did it and if they tried the Democrats could do it again. You are only complaining because you don't like it when Democracy results in you not getting your way.
I'm a Democrat -- I say do it whether or not it helps Democrats.
I'm an American first.
I'm an American first.
12
The premise of this article is odd. It seems to presume that redistricting reform is meant to help (or hurt) political parties. That may be the end consequence of reform, but that's not the purpose of doing reform.
No, the purpose of redistricting reform is for VOTERS, not the parties per se. It's so voters can have confidence that their vote counts, regardless which party ends up actually 'winning' in any particular election. It may seem like a distinction without a difference if democracy is simply about winning.
But a healthy democracy cannot be just about 'winning', because no one 'wins' all the time. Everyone in a democracy has to know how to lose, because...you win some; and you lose some.
Its about fairness. A fair vote on issues put before citizens FOR their vote. Not a rigged system manipulated by those who want to 'win' by any means necessary. That doesn't help democracy, it doesn't help our society, and it certainly doesn't help craft better public policy.
I don't care if Republicans win or Democrats win, as long as I have confidence that I and my fellow citizens have heard what we needed to hear about the issues enough to make informed decisions, and that collectively, we all have confidence in the system being able to accurately reflect the will of the people, and not interested parties.
Redistricting reform is about enhancing democracy, not the win/lose ledgers of either party.
No, the purpose of redistricting reform is for VOTERS, not the parties per se. It's so voters can have confidence that their vote counts, regardless which party ends up actually 'winning' in any particular election. It may seem like a distinction without a difference if democracy is simply about winning.
But a healthy democracy cannot be just about 'winning', because no one 'wins' all the time. Everyone in a democracy has to know how to lose, because...you win some; and you lose some.
Its about fairness. A fair vote on issues put before citizens FOR their vote. Not a rigged system manipulated by those who want to 'win' by any means necessary. That doesn't help democracy, it doesn't help our society, and it certainly doesn't help craft better public policy.
I don't care if Republicans win or Democrats win, as long as I have confidence that I and my fellow citizens have heard what we needed to hear about the issues enough to make informed decisions, and that collectively, we all have confidence in the system being able to accurately reflect the will of the people, and not interested parties.
Redistricting reform is about enhancing democracy, not the win/lose ledgers of either party.
8
Dear Nate,
As someone who has drawn districting lines for both parties and testified about these and other peoples' plans in federal and state courts, I think you will agree with me on two things re: most of the comments we see here:
1. Democrats are incredibly naive and principled at the same time about redistricting. There is something endearing about that, though shockingly sad at the same time.
2. Most people simply do not understand or cannot accept that the current distribution of the two-party vote across urban, suburban, and rural areas naturally favors the GOP because of the "packing" problem that Democrats face in urban and majority-minority areas.
For example, there are NO congressional districts where MItt Romney won more than 85% of the vote in 2012, but there are DOZENS of such areas where Obama did so. Some of these are obviously the result of the GOP packing black votes into urban districts, but most are just the consequence of a more monolithic Democratic vote concentrated by geography. This can work both for and against both parties in a "fair" system.
And those of you who advocate a computer algorithm for drawing districts to take the politics out of this and merely do it by population and population density: that is certainly possible. In fact many free programs exist that do just this. But try getting that past the NAACP or a federal judge.
In the end, there is no such thing as a fair and transparent redistricting.
As someone who has drawn districting lines for both parties and testified about these and other peoples' plans in federal and state courts, I think you will agree with me on two things re: most of the comments we see here:
1. Democrats are incredibly naive and principled at the same time about redistricting. There is something endearing about that, though shockingly sad at the same time.
2. Most people simply do not understand or cannot accept that the current distribution of the two-party vote across urban, suburban, and rural areas naturally favors the GOP because of the "packing" problem that Democrats face in urban and majority-minority areas.
For example, there are NO congressional districts where MItt Romney won more than 85% of the vote in 2012, but there are DOZENS of such areas where Obama did so. Some of these are obviously the result of the GOP packing black votes into urban districts, but most are just the consequence of a more monolithic Democratic vote concentrated by geography. This can work both for and against both parties in a "fair" system.
And those of you who advocate a computer algorithm for drawing districts to take the politics out of this and merely do it by population and population density: that is certainly possible. In fact many free programs exist that do just this. But try getting that past the NAACP or a federal judge.
In the end, there is no such thing as a fair and transparent redistricting.
1
"there is no such thing as a fair and transparent redistricting"
Perhaps not, but there IS such a thing as making it better, within admittedly archaic constitutional frameworks.
Speaking of which, what rarely gets talked about it in the redistricting debate is the nature of gerrymandering in the digital age. People need to understand the bright divide between historical gerrymandering, when the maps were calculated and drawn by hand; and 'digital' gerrymandering where data and maps are drawn by machine (roughly since 1984).
The historical gerrymander was self-limiting in its effect on national politics because of the length of time needed to create a map versus the length of time until the next state legislative or congressional election (2 years). Many factors within that time-frame could derail or minimize the effect of a gerrymander.
The digital gerrymander has no such self-limiting characteristics because the maps can be drawn within weeks and, assuming a pliant or majority-controlled state legislature, passed easily within the term of the last electoral victors, thereby 'locking in' their victory in virtual perpetuity.
This is how an unscrupulous electoral minority can affect a kind of coup of state (and federal) government that is exceedingly difficult to reverse, often requiring super-majorities of voters and/or court challenges to what should be the most transparent part of democracy: Fairness.
Not Perfection, but as fair as is reasonably possible.
Perhaps not, but there IS such a thing as making it better, within admittedly archaic constitutional frameworks.
Speaking of which, what rarely gets talked about it in the redistricting debate is the nature of gerrymandering in the digital age. People need to understand the bright divide between historical gerrymandering, when the maps were calculated and drawn by hand; and 'digital' gerrymandering where data and maps are drawn by machine (roughly since 1984).
The historical gerrymander was self-limiting in its effect on national politics because of the length of time needed to create a map versus the length of time until the next state legislative or congressional election (2 years). Many factors within that time-frame could derail or minimize the effect of a gerrymander.
The digital gerrymander has no such self-limiting characteristics because the maps can be drawn within weeks and, assuming a pliant or majority-controlled state legislature, passed easily within the term of the last electoral victors, thereby 'locking in' their victory in virtual perpetuity.
This is how an unscrupulous electoral minority can affect a kind of coup of state (and federal) government that is exceedingly difficult to reverse, often requiring super-majorities of voters and/or court challenges to what should be the most transparent part of democracy: Fairness.
Not Perfection, but as fair as is reasonably possible.
2
Kevin Hill,
You're right in that there is no perfect formula and don't blame the NAACP or any other organization for that. The Declaration of Independence offers us "...the pursuit of happiness." not the attainment of it. "In order to create a more perfect union..." does not promise a perfect union. It's up to us to keep trying.
You're right in that there is no perfect formula and don't blame the NAACP or any other organization for that. The Declaration of Independence offers us "...the pursuit of happiness." not the attainment of it. "In order to create a more perfect union..." does not promise a perfect union. It's up to us to keep trying.
1
There is a also, of course, the problem of intentionally-drawn majority black and Hispanic districts, which packs Democrats into a few guaranteed districts and "bleaches" the surrounding ones.
This is why, for example, in the 1990s, 2000s and even 2010s redistricting rounds, the state or local GOP teamed up with the NAACP in several places against the white Democratic establishment.
This is why, for example, in the 1990s, 2000s and even 2010s redistricting rounds, the state or local GOP teamed up with the NAACP in several places against the white Democratic establishment.
2
Agreed. That was a short-sighted (and somewhat understandable) mistake by those who had been short-changed in their votes for so long. But they ended up trading on the race of their representatives at the expense of the quality of public policy.
Also, they tended to disregard the national implications of acceding to local gerrymandering schemes, which allowed the GOP to engage in a classic 'divide and conquer' strategy: we'll give you (minority) representation in your state, but WE will determine who gets sent to Congress in Washington.
Result? The TEA Party obstructionists, preventing a timely exit from a deep recession, and through budget brinksmanship, preventing much-needed investments in infrastructure and education.
Also, they tended to disregard the national implications of acceding to local gerrymandering schemes, which allowed the GOP to engage in a classic 'divide and conquer' strategy: we'll give you (minority) representation in your state, but WE will determine who gets sent to Congress in Washington.
Result? The TEA Party obstructionists, preventing a timely exit from a deep recession, and through budget brinksmanship, preventing much-needed investments in infrastructure and education.
1
This article misses the point, instead trying to frame it in an 'us vs them' mentality that political polarization has devolved into. All Americans should celebrate a ruling that moves redistricting to a fairer, more democratic, process.
We should celebrate the rulings that bring us closer together as a society instead of trying to frame them into a reductionist, and ultimately destructive, ideological struggle.
We should celebrate the rulings that bring us closer together as a society instead of trying to frame them into a reductionist, and ultimately destructive, ideological struggle.
11
Liberals and Conservatives alike should believe that the redistricting verdict will help them. It will help us all in that it is a move towards a more representative democracy, not one held hostage by the fringes of the political spectrum.
3
This article misses the point entirely and represents what government has reduced itself too: a game of who can score the most points (or seats). I would much rather know how this ruling will affect public policy than how it will help one team or the other. What does this mean for education, jobs or trade? What does this mean for representative democracy and will representatives be more or less accountable to the public with this ruling in place?
This nonsense about who is playing the game better is what is wrong with our entire democratic process today. It is politics for the sake of politics rather than politics for the sake of people.
This nonsense about who is playing the game better is what is wrong with our entire democratic process today. It is politics for the sake of politics rather than politics for the sake of people.
10
The cause should not be a matter for liberals or the Democrats, but for democracy itself. Playing fast and loose with demographics is another form of vote stealing. By piling members of one party into a so called safe district for their party, the votes of those opposed are split so that the other party cannot win House seats. This should be a crime. Why is it permissible for any political party to cancel out the votes of the opposition? Mainly, because it is "business as usual", the way things have always been done. Each party waits and hopes for the time when it can take advantage of the other, the voters be damned.
It was widely noted that the Democrats actually won a majority of the total votes cast for House members in 2012, even though they remained in the minority in actual representation. (They said nothing about 2014, so evidentially they lost both counts last year.) An outcome where you win a majority of votes and get minority representation is an outrage, an insult to democracy of close to the highest order. Had the Dems been in power from 2012 to 2014, our recent history would be totally different.
It is the rights of the people that are important and in need of protection. Our political system is being held captive by the two parties with the needs of the public a secondary issue, at best. This must change as quickly as possible as part of a larger effort to protect and expand the healthy exercise of democracy in America.
9
Nate:
With Democrats routinely winning millions more overall votes in House races than Republicans but that outcomes resulting in far fewer Democratic House seats than Republican House seats, I guess I'm willing to take my chances on other redistricting methods.
With Democrats routinely winning millions more overall votes in House races than Republicans but that outcomes resulting in far fewer Democratic House seats than Republican House seats, I guess I'm willing to take my chances on other redistricting methods.
7
I agree with all those who have noted that this shouldn't be about which party has an advantage in which state - it should be about how our democracy should work.
I'd like to see computerized redistricting, using criteria such as equal population, compactness, minimal separation of existing governmental entities (cities, counties, townships, etc.) Yes, this would still result in some districts that are overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican but that merely reflects reality.
I'd combine this with open primaries to give independents a voice in selecting the candidates for the general election. With these two reforms we still wouldn't have a perfect system, but it would certainly be better.
I'd like to see computerized redistricting, using criteria such as equal population, compactness, minimal separation of existing governmental entities (cities, counties, townships, etc.) Yes, this would still result in some districts that are overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican but that merely reflects reality.
I'd combine this with open primaries to give independents a voice in selecting the candidates for the general election. With these two reforms we still wouldn't have a perfect system, but it would certainly be better.
9
I have to chuckle after a while at the anhedonic spin some articles put on what is unvarnished good news for progressives, from health care to gay marriage to non-partisan redistricting commissions. I can only imagine an earnest upshot headline when progressive legislation sponsors research that results in a cure for cancer. "Progressives fund cure for cancer. Concern that unemployment in non-profit fundraising will damage certain sectors."
7
@mikeyz
Nothing is 'unvarnished' in this nation. If we've learned anything in the past 70 years, its also that nothing is ever truly 'settled'. That SHOULD be the mark of an engaged public that questions everything, if it weren't for the stubbornly low average voter turnout in most elections. There's some 'other' group out there that refuses to let bad ideas die a decent death, and they have the money to keep churning the minds of voters with fear and loathing, instead of letting them remember what HAS worked in the past.
Nothing is 'unvarnished' in this nation. If we've learned anything in the past 70 years, its also that nothing is ever truly 'settled'. That SHOULD be the mark of an engaged public that questions everything, if it weren't for the stubbornly low average voter turnout in most elections. There's some 'other' group out there that refuses to let bad ideas die a decent death, and they have the money to keep churning the minds of voters with fear and loathing, instead of letting them remember what HAS worked in the past.
1
Both parties are adept at reconstructing Elbridge Gerry's salamander. He was a Dem, so the liberals might have figured they should be better at it.
If anything, the Dems are more brazen with their mile-wide specials, such as the single district running from San Francisco to Oregon along the coast. But the solution is ALWAYS the same: just elect people to state legislatures.
The Dems problem has been that those voters won't line up to support arrogant king-wannabes who refuse to even bargain with the loyal opposition.
Arrogance and ideology are fun but not for the voters. THEY actually want results, pesky things.
If anything, the Dems are more brazen with their mile-wide specials, such as the single district running from San Francisco to Oregon along the coast. But the solution is ALWAYS the same: just elect people to state legislatures.
The Dems problem has been that those voters won't line up to support arrogant king-wannabes who refuse to even bargain with the loyal opposition.
Arrogance and ideology are fun but not for the voters. THEY actually want results, pesky things.
Steve Austin,
There is no district running from San Francisco to Oregon other than a senate seat. I know because I live in San Francisco. I don't need to look it up.
Comparing the present Democratic Party to the days that gerrymandering began is like saying that the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln. President Lincoln would not survive in today's Republican party. They changed when the Civil Rights Act gave them all the "Dixiecrats" in 1968. LBJ said (and I paraphrase) "There goes the South." I miss the old Republicans. They were conservative but wise.
There is no district running from San Francisco to Oregon other than a senate seat. I know because I live in San Francisco. I don't need to look it up.
Comparing the present Democratic Party to the days that gerrymandering began is like saying that the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln. President Lincoln would not survive in today's Republican party. They changed when the Civil Rights Act gave them all the "Dixiecrats" in 1968. LBJ said (and I paraphrase) "There goes the South." I miss the old Republicans. They were conservative but wise.
3
This isn't a liberal issue. It's a democracy issue.
9
Exactly! Why does it always have to be how can one party get an unfair advantage instead of doing what is right? Sorry, I'm an idealist.
4
i personally don't care if my political party could benefit from gerrymandering or not. That is not what is important. It is more important that all of our citizens think their vote counts and that representatives have to work for our vote. As it is now, many of them know that they will continue to win their district in perpetuity.
8
I cannot understand why any of this is necessary. Why not form the districts by an algorithm that takes the geographic distribution of citizens--and nothing else--as input? Even with independent commissions, there are many ways the system can be gamed.
1
Yes, but which algorithm?
1
Everyone assumes that elections are a purely state responsibility, but actually that's not true. Article I sect. 4 of the Constitution says Congress may, at any time, set regulations for Federal elections. So Congress could mandate non-partisan redistrcting.
1
Look at the aggregate nationwide vote for House members. It always shows a Dem majority.
So do you think this hyper-Republican Congress would mandate non-partisan redistricting? The question answers itself.
So do you think this hyper-Republican Congress would mandate non-partisan redistricting? The question answers itself.
3
I am a sort of a liberal. I do not want redistricting commissions to help either side. I want them to help save our Republic.
9
There is an assumption in this argument that Democrats want to gerrymander their way back into power. Seems to me we just want to have accurate representation of our party and its constituents.
9
When you try to make sure insider A gets re-elected because of what he represents for the party or for minorities, you of course slide the non-helpful voters over to the next district where Upstart B finally manages to carry an election and proceeds to the same legislature where he neutralizes insider A's votes.
Right on!
Actually in Arizona the legislature picks 4 candidates from a list sent to it by the commission that selects appellate judges. From that list the Ds pick 2 and the Rs pick 2. Then those 4 choices together vote on a chairman who must be a registered independent.
In Arizona, the commission, in redrawing the district lines (and they are redrawn from scratch, not merely extended from existing boundries), did not favor Democrats, even though that is what conservatives whine about.
The commission created two competitive swing districts where each party has a shot at winning based on ideas and experience, and that scares the you know what out of conservatives because they know they can't win unless the game is rigged.
In Arizona, the commission, in redrawing the district lines (and they are redrawn from scratch, not merely extended from existing boundries), did not favor Democrats, even though that is what conservatives whine about.
The commission created two competitive swing districts where each party has a shot at winning based on ideas and experience, and that scares the you know what out of conservatives because they know they can't win unless the game is rigged.
6
Each state should have at least one at-large House member to represent the party voted for by the majority of voters, regardless of the split of the state's delegation. This would help lessen the impact of the "wasted vote problem".
4
The title of this article misses the point entirely. This is NOT about coming up with a system that riggs election in one direction or another. It's about DE-rigging elections so they more truthfully result in the desires of a democracy.
23
Yes, but as Cohn points out, the de-rigging may actually hurt Dems unless it is done in all states. Right now it looks like Democratic states are inclined to de-rig and Republican states are not.
I can tell you this: if independent commissions hadn't been upheld, Arizona's nine districts (split 5R-4D like the court) would have quickly been redrawn as 7 republican and 2 democrat, the latter in inner city Phoenix and Tucson.
As for anywhere else, I don't particularly care.
As for anywhere else, I don't particularly care.
7
The redistricting commission in Alaska mentioned in the article must have an easy job, since there is only one congressional district covering the entire state!
2
coulda, woulda, shoulda, doesn't matter - you ignore the factual reality that in California when the legislature controlled redistricting the Democrats and Republicans reached an unholy agreement decade after decade to protect incumbents of both parties. In fact, under the Commission's redistricting, Democrats gained seats in Congress, the state Senate, and state Assembly. That NEVER would have occurred if redistricting remained with the state legislature. Your assertion regarding California is factually wrong!
7
Clueless author and article. The point of commissions is to take the power of gerrymandering out of the politicians or legislatures hands entirely regardless of party and regardless of who is in power at the time. Geographically, it is very easy to write a computer program with very few needed rules in a Geographic Information system that would eliminate almost all the gerry mandering. I know, I wrote one some years ago at the request of a state committee on elections but both political parties rejected it because it was too simple and gave no advantage to either party.
37
When the Republicans redistricted for the first time in my state, Democrats complained that it was rigged to favor Republicans. In answer, Republicans displayed the prior redistricting, which was obviously rigged to favor Democrats. In particular a large urbanized area had been prevented from incorporating as a city because Democrats feared it would lean Republican
Stop pretending that gerrymandering is a strictly Republican tool. Both parties have used it. Probably the best way to thwart it is to empanel something like a jury, without political ties, and ask them to do the redistricting.
Stop pretending that gerrymandering is a strictly Republican tool. Both parties have used it. Probably the best way to thwart it is to empanel something like a jury, without political ties, and ask them to do the redistricting.
7
I don't think he's pretending that Republicans are the only ones to use this tool - perhaps they are just the most prolific more recently (as compared with 40 years ago, maybe?). But, they certainly aren't the only party that will do it given the chance.
It would have been better to give examples of rules that work to minimize wasted votes rather than the horse-race type analysis. Or, perhaps, to talk about the merits of different methods of redistricting (i.e. do we care if a district is won 90-10 more than whether the district map has shapes that resemble something from Jackson Pollock? Is it possible to do both?). The whole point, as you say, should be to thwart the appearance of impropriety and to try to give each person an equal voice.
It would have been better to give examples of rules that work to minimize wasted votes rather than the horse-race type analysis. Or, perhaps, to talk about the merits of different methods of redistricting (i.e. do we care if a district is won 90-10 more than whether the district map has shapes that resemble something from Jackson Pollock? Is it possible to do both?). The whole point, as you say, should be to thwart the appearance of impropriety and to try to give each person an equal voice.
1
We need proportional representation if not nationally than at least at the individual state levels. This way, there will be no safe districts, and voters' participation will get a boost - plus role of money in the elctions will drop. And who knows, in large states with many Representatives we may even see the third parties' people getting elected...
4
It doesn't matter if this helps democrats. It helps democracy. It makes it easier for voters to choose their legislators, rather than legislators choosing their voters. Gerrymandering is a disenfranchising, suppressive act. When taken to the extreme, it prevents the people from even voting out the legislators who are stripping them of power. This independent commission creates more competitive districts than the partisan, legislature-drawn map would. This enfranchises voters.
And I'd believe this even if I didn't live in Arizona. Though, since I do, I'd like to extend sincere thanks to the Supreme Court for keeping this important task out of the hands of the self-interested legislature.
And I'd believe this even if I didn't live in Arizona. Though, since I do, I'd like to extend sincere thanks to the Supreme Court for keeping this important task out of the hands of the self-interested legislature.
37
Why should I care if it is good or bad for Democrats? Is the NYT so distorted that all stories have to have that slant? I don't know if an independent commission is good or bad but I certainly don't care if it is good for Democrats or Republicans.
11
REALITY-CHECK: No humans should be drawing up electoral districts.
LeftWing/Dem gerrymandering is bad just like RightWing/GOP gerrymandering.
Whenever we get either political party or some so-called 'independent' commission drawing up our electoral districts; they are mostly deciding explicitly, which communities will be represented by which political party.
The current system, run by whoever is in charge in the State Legislatures, allows incumbent politicians to choose their constituents,
rather than letting the voters freely choose their own representatives.
The only really valid way to draw electoral boundaries is also the simplest, quickest, and cheapest.
Every 10 years have the Census bureau draw up all the boundaries across the whole country using one computer algorithm, that starts in on corner of each state and creates new districts, based only on population, without any regard to previous exit-polls, or any socio-economic data.
Sadly, this would require a constitutional amendment, which would never get off the ground because too many incumbents, and career politicians are committed to allowing insiders to draw up these boundaries in order to create non-competitive 'safe' districtss.
LeftWing/Dem gerrymandering is bad just like RightWing/GOP gerrymandering.
Whenever we get either political party or some so-called 'independent' commission drawing up our electoral districts; they are mostly deciding explicitly, which communities will be represented by which political party.
The current system, run by whoever is in charge in the State Legislatures, allows incumbent politicians to choose their constituents,
rather than letting the voters freely choose their own representatives.
The only really valid way to draw electoral boundaries is also the simplest, quickest, and cheapest.
Every 10 years have the Census bureau draw up all the boundaries across the whole country using one computer algorithm, that starts in on corner of each state and creates new districts, based only on population, without any regard to previous exit-polls, or any socio-economic data.
Sadly, this would require a constitutional amendment, which would never get off the ground because too many incumbents, and career politicians are committed to allowing insiders to draw up these boundaries in order to create non-competitive 'safe' districtss.
8
ZZinzel: Most of the independent commissions in Western states were the result of the initiative process, Not quite a state constitutional amendment, but something close. A popular movement against gerrymandering. So far so good. Hopefully this Western innovation will find ways to spread East.
2
There must be a fair, nonpartisan way to draw lines that let voters be represented. That's the goal.
6
Special interests, with their immense money, have sabotaged the democratic political process. People are so demoralized that the voter participation rates are well under 40 %. Let the independent, non-partisan commission re-draw the voting district; give democracy a chance.
6
There may be one leaf in this opinion that's still unexplored. (Link to PDF in Adam Laptak's article.) And if so, it would be at least balm for the Left.
In the opinion the phrase "one person, one vote, a bedrock principle announced in 1964 in case called Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964), although back then it was "one man, one vote." And crucially, the Court did so without so much as a footnote acknowledging that on May 26th, it agreed to hear Evenwel v. Abbott, in which the trial court found that "one registered voter, one vote" was just fine.
Where today's opinion was announced more that a month after Abbott was accepted for next year's calendar, it's hard to believe that Justice Kennedy's chambers would have been cavalier in the unquestioned use of the phrase, were he inclined to support "one elector, one vote."
So while the home-team might not necessarily see the Arizona Redistricting decision as a gain, it's at least encouraging, to the extent that Congressional Districts, etc, are at risk of being determined in the basis of registered voters. Which would put Abbott at least on par with Citizens United,
In the opinion the phrase "one person, one vote, a bedrock principle announced in 1964 in case called Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964), although back then it was "one man, one vote." And crucially, the Court did so without so much as a footnote acknowledging that on May 26th, it agreed to hear Evenwel v. Abbott, in which the trial court found that "one registered voter, one vote" was just fine.
Where today's opinion was announced more that a month after Abbott was accepted for next year's calendar, it's hard to believe that Justice Kennedy's chambers would have been cavalier in the unquestioned use of the phrase, were he inclined to support "one elector, one vote."
So while the home-team might not necessarily see the Arizona Redistricting decision as a gain, it's at least encouraging, to the extent that Congressional Districts, etc, are at risk of being determined in the basis of registered voters. Which would put Abbott at least on par with Citizens United,
1
This decision is one small victory in overcoming the rampant cynicism that tells us we citizens can never make government work for us. That cynicism is destructive of democracy and republican government, *whatever* your politics are.
Beyond this, as a Democrat and a liberal, I believe there are critically important problems we simply can't solve if we cannot bring government to bear on them. (For instance, dealing with inequality and global warming, and performing the blue-sky scientific research that private enterprise traditionally hasn't invested in.) We have too many politicians trashing government because they prefer not to address these problems at all, and know full well they won't be addressed without government.
So, in the long run, I believe this decision is good for my country *and* my political worldview, regardless of what might happen in the short term, in California or any other individual state.
Beyond this, as a Democrat and a liberal, I believe there are critically important problems we simply can't solve if we cannot bring government to bear on them. (For instance, dealing with inequality and global warming, and performing the blue-sky scientific research that private enterprise traditionally hasn't invested in.) We have too many politicians trashing government because they prefer not to address these problems at all, and know full well they won't be addressed without government.
So, in the long run, I believe this decision is good for my country *and* my political worldview, regardless of what might happen in the short term, in California or any other individual state.
10
Gerrymandering has a long tradition in this country, done to the detriment of the citizens by both parties. I generally favor independent commissions as it reduces the temptation to disenfranchise citizens. In one Midwestern state, as a result of an independent commission, districts generally now have simpler and more rational boundaries. Areas which were traditional Republican strongholds now elect some Democrats, and areas which were traditional Democratic strongholds now elect some Republicans. Where I live now the legislature is known for doing whatever it can to tilt the electoral map in it's own favor. They tried to gerrymander one Congressman of the opposite party out of office twice, but only succeeded when he chose not to run again. Gerrymandering may tilt the field, but it does not guarantee success :-(
4
I live in a district that looks like a strangled earth worm. It was specifically crafted to make it a solid Republican district. Although the natural geographical, political and economic region is comprised of rural hamlets, small towns, suburbs and medium sized cities; the interests and needs of most of the citizens receive little actual attention.
Counties, cities, boroughs and even townships are eviscerated by the current Congressional district. Even neighbors living next door to each other in the same town, whose children go to the same school, have different Congressional Representatives.
When I call the Congressman's office I am asked if my street address is an odd or even number on my road. And they have to check the map to insure I am in their District as three Congressional districts converge in my county.
The gerrymandering by the Pennsylvania legislature really is a detriment to responsible representation of the interests of my community. Maybe hope is on the horizon, although I am not holding my breath.
Counties, cities, boroughs and even townships are eviscerated by the current Congressional district. Even neighbors living next door to each other in the same town, whose children go to the same school, have different Congressional Representatives.
When I call the Congressman's office I am asked if my street address is an odd or even number on my road. And they have to check the map to insure I am in their District as three Congressional districts converge in my county.
The gerrymandering by the Pennsylvania legislature really is a detriment to responsible representation of the interests of my community. Maybe hope is on the horizon, although I am not holding my breath.
27
As another Pennsylvania resident, I can confirm the squalidness of its electoral boundaries. My district's boundary looks like a salamander's body and includes my Pittsburgh inner suburb and my sister's small town 60 miles away in order to make it possible for a Republican to win. This is just about the only way they could get one in the Pittsburgh area.
But then, Pennsylvania has always ranked just behind New Jersey and Massachusetts in the eastern US integrity sweepstakes.
But then, Pennsylvania has always ranked just behind New Jersey and Massachusetts in the eastern US integrity sweepstakes.
Indeed, liberals cheered this ruling—as we've cheered every move toward independent redistricting—because liberals care about democracy more than we care about partisan advantage. Very much unlike today's conservatives, we believe that an educated, enfranchised citizenry will make smart decisions, and it's worth some short-term setbacks to move in that direction.
72
LOL Check out Illinois's redistricting. Done by Democrats to disenfranchise the majority of the State's non urban population.
Matthew, if you care about democracy, did you oppose judicial reversal of Proposition 8 in California? How about the Michigan referendum on affirmative action? Howe about the anti-abortion clinic laws democratically adopted in states like Texas and Kansas?
More people voted D than R in the last House election. Yet the R's dominate the House. Gerrymandering is part of the reason, and independent commissions speak to this process. From my point of view the better approach would be proportional representation, applied at the state level. Under PR if D's are 40%, R's are 35%, Greens are 10%, socialists are 5%, and Libertarians are 10%, each of these groups would be represented in a state's delegation in that proportion. Per the Constitution, the House could implement PR at any time if it so chose.
11
Gerrymandering is only a minor part of the reason. First, the Democrats gerrymander also, which partially offsets the Republican's gerrymandering. Second, as I suspect you know, most of the Republican advantage comes from the way our population distributes itself, with lots of "wasted" Democratic votes in the big cities. I agree that proportional representation might largely cure the problem. Ain't going to happen, not until and unless the political climate changes so much the PR would no longer really be necessary.
Except, even with all the advantages listed, California Democrats have done BETTER under the independent plan than they did under the old one. The old maps were drawn to protect incumbents of both parties. The new map has a few swing districts, which the Democrats have been winning thanks to the Republican suicide pact with a diminishing number of anti-immigrant, anti-homosexual voters.
8
Republicans are for legal immigrants. California is free to absorb and go bankrupt giving freebies to illegals.
52% of California voted for 8, remember?
52% of California voted for 8, remember?
1
What percentage of California's voters voted in that election?
An interesting case. The No on 8 campaign ran one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen. Full of meaningless endorsements, devoid of emotional content. They were barely willing to put that dangerous, terrifying symbol of gay marriage, Ellen DeGeneres, on the air. In a re-vote today, it wouldn't be close.
Anyway, California is not going bankrupt. Once we elected a Legislature full of Democrats, our economy boomed!
Anyway, California is not going bankrupt. Once we elected a Legislature full of Democrats, our economy boomed!
Why don't we look at what's in the best interest of the country rather than particular parties? Over the long run, it will help all of us if districts are competitive. Artificially partisan districts are the reason we have hyper-partisan nuts staking out fringe positions, treating other members of Congress with a shocking lack of civility and refusing to compromise to pass actual legislation. I can take a few districts going the "wrong" way in furtherance of that ultimate goal.
21
"It also makes it easy for an independent commission to protect Republican incumbents without resorting to the slithering, non-compact districts that betray aggressive partisan gerrymanders."
Speaking of slithering, non-compact districts that betray aggressive partisan gerrymanders, it's worth noting that Republicans are not the only ones who employ them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois's_4th_congressional_district
Speaking of slithering, non-compact districts that betray aggressive partisan gerrymanders, it's worth noting that Republicans are not the only ones who employ them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois's_4th_congressional_district
2
Shouldn't we be less concerned about whether it will help democrats, and more concerned about whether it will help democracy?
33
I live in California and I voted to institute the Independent Commissioning not because it favors one party or another, but because it doesn't. Politicians should not be allowed to jerry rig districts favorable to them. A level playing field should be provided for all. Is this process perfect? Probably not. But it far better than having politicians strike deals the public knows nothing about.
12
in the long run, the American public as a whole and American democracy will benefit from a better functioning government. Nate Cohn's analysis here is a bit pointless it seems, when one is looking at the long run.
3
We have an important election in Virginia this year. All 40 State Senate seats and all 100 Delegate seats are up for election. Seventeen of the Senate seats are uncontested and 62 of the Delegate seats are uncontested. That's not democracy.
8
What a breathtakingly cynical piece! This holding is a win for small "d" democracy. The citizens lose whichever party gerrymanders. There will always be safe seats; however Independent Redistricting Commissions (IRC) with redistricting standards (so the courts have something to "hang their hats on" when reviewing district maps on appeal) will lead to more swing districts overall. More voters will have a real choice on election day and perhaps be more inclined to turn out.
In Florida, which has a citizen initiative process, we amended our constitution before the 2010 census redistricting to provide "objective" standards, to help the Courts which have routinely declined to take up challenges to maps because evidence of intent to gerrymander was difficult to develop without them. It has helped a bit. The Florida Legislature drew the usual gerrymandered Congressional District maps and evidence was obtained to demonstrate their intent to violate the standards prohibiting drawing districts to favor one party—their own, of course. The trial court found for the Plaintiffs; the legislature redrew maps that were still gerrymandered; and the case is on appeal. The GOP, which controls our Legislature, bought two election cycles (at least) under the gerrymandered maps. An IRC would have helped prevent that, so this case is important to Floridians who care about a level playing field. Expect a constitutional amendment petition to set up an IRC in Florida before the next redistricting.
In Florida, which has a citizen initiative process, we amended our constitution before the 2010 census redistricting to provide "objective" standards, to help the Courts which have routinely declined to take up challenges to maps because evidence of intent to gerrymander was difficult to develop without them. It has helped a bit. The Florida Legislature drew the usual gerrymandered Congressional District maps and evidence was obtained to demonstrate their intent to violate the standards prohibiting drawing districts to favor one party—their own, of course. The trial court found for the Plaintiffs; the legislature redrew maps that were still gerrymandered; and the case is on appeal. The GOP, which controls our Legislature, bought two election cycles (at least) under the gerrymandered maps. An IRC would have helped prevent that, so this case is important to Floridians who care about a level playing field. Expect a constitutional amendment petition to set up an IRC in Florida before the next redistricting.
42
Independent commissions are the right way to go irrespective of the lost opportunities for Democrats to gerrymander in states where they may control redistricting. Let the GOP be the party of gerrymandering. We only diminish ourselves by joining them.
18
Folks. all of the comments so far miss an mathematical point important point.
If House districts are drawn by a computer, say, with the requirement they have the same number of people and sensible shapes (say minimize the ratio of the perimeter to the area), the result will still disproportionately benefit the Republicans. The will be a higher proportion of Republican Representative than the total state vote would indicate. This is because Democrats huddle together in cities and Republicans spread out. This leads to wasted votes, districts with huge Democratic majorities.
If you want to keep districts and not have a statewide vote that distributes seats proportional to the vote, you will have to draw districts that will have wild shapes. They will look like gerrymanders.
So you have to decide what you want. Reasonable shapes or districts that reflect the same proportions of Democrats & Republicans as the state has as a whole.
You can't have both.
If House districts are drawn by a computer, say, with the requirement they have the same number of people and sensible shapes (say minimize the ratio of the perimeter to the area), the result will still disproportionately benefit the Republicans. The will be a higher proportion of Republican Representative than the total state vote would indicate. This is because Democrats huddle together in cities and Republicans spread out. This leads to wasted votes, districts with huge Democratic majorities.
If you want to keep districts and not have a statewide vote that distributes seats proportional to the vote, you will have to draw districts that will have wild shapes. They will look like gerrymanders.
So you have to decide what you want. Reasonable shapes or districts that reflect the same proportions of Democrats & Republicans as the state has as a whole.
You can't have both.
13
Not exactly. You get more representatives in the higher population areas.
5
There must be some math whiz or computer geek who could figure this out so that bias is eliminated or at least greatly diminished. Or does taking "bias" out kind of diminish a democracy?
1
see DFP's comment above. Actually, I'll just copy and paste it here so you can find it:
DFP Seattle:
More people voted D than R in the last House election. Yet the R's dominate the House. Gerrymandering is part of the reason, and independent commissions speak to this process. From my point of view the better approach would be proportional representation, applied at the state level. Under PR if D's are 40%, R's are 35%, Greens are 10%, socialists are 5%, and Libertarians are 10%, each of these groups would be represented in a state's delegation in that proportion. Per the Constitution, the House could implement PR at any time if it so chose.
DFP Seattle:
More people voted D than R in the last House election. Yet the R's dominate the House. Gerrymandering is part of the reason, and independent commissions speak to this process. From my point of view the better approach would be proportional representation, applied at the state level. Under PR if D's are 40%, R's are 35%, Greens are 10%, socialists are 5%, and Libertarians are 10%, each of these groups would be represented in a state's delegation in that proportion. Per the Constitution, the House could implement PR at any time if it so chose.
5
The most important outcome of this decision should be that voters and news media in every state insist that their legislature follow the practices of almost every other major democracy by assigning to a truly independent commission the drawing of electoral boundary lines. Delegate it to retired judges (who know the voting laws and usually have been required to abstain from political activities), or to mathematics professors (who would focus on equivalent numbers and sensible shapes) or to computer algorithms (whose maps could be reviewed by neutral parties) or simply to disinterested citizens.
Require fairly drawn districts that make geographic sense. But do not have politicians or lobbyists or interest-groups configure boundary lines to create “safe” districts for an incumbent or a party. Don’t allow politicians to draw boundaries to exclude candidates as Illinois legislators did in 2002 to exclude Barack Obama’s home from a Congressional district. Stop them from creating politically-extreme districts whose legislators never compromise.
Having politicians draw district lines to pick the voters is wrong-headed. In fairly-drawn districts, issues and candidates are debated, whereas in politically-configured districts, often one view is so strong that alternatives are never weighed, which candidate will win is predetermined by the political boundary configurations. In California, 30,000 people applied for the 14 spots on the citizens' district-drawing commission.
Require fairly drawn districts that make geographic sense. But do not have politicians or lobbyists or interest-groups configure boundary lines to create “safe” districts for an incumbent or a party. Don’t allow politicians to draw boundaries to exclude candidates as Illinois legislators did in 2002 to exclude Barack Obama’s home from a Congressional district. Stop them from creating politically-extreme districts whose legislators never compromise.
Having politicians draw district lines to pick the voters is wrong-headed. In fairly-drawn districts, issues and candidates are debated, whereas in politically-configured districts, often one view is so strong that alternatives are never weighed, which candidate will win is predetermined by the political boundary configurations. In California, 30,000 people applied for the 14 spots on the citizens' district-drawing commission.
6
The article is all about partisan advantage: which party would be the "winner" or "loser" by adopting an independent commission. This entirely misses the point.
If this becomes a national movement, it will be because voters have become fed up with such thinking. The basis for a voting system (except for party fanatics) is fairness. Electoral districts should reflect the preferences of citizens as equally as possible. Neither party should be allowed to have an advantage.
Anything else is a perversion of democracy.
If this becomes a national movement, it will be because voters have become fed up with such thinking. The basis for a voting system (except for party fanatics) is fairness. Electoral districts should reflect the preferences of citizens as equally as possible. Neither party should be allowed to have an advantage.
Anything else is a perversion of democracy.
25
No elected official should be so insulated from the voters ability to exercise their expectation of accountability by means of the voting box. Otherwise, one of the fundamental systems of checks and balances is eroded if the people can not effect change or cast support for their own representative.
I highly doubt that Democrats would be adverse to independent commissions in all 50 states. Remember, this legal challenge was brought on behalf of those affiliated with the Republican party. They are the ones who would seek to silence the voice of the people who voted for this by referendum.
Along with voting rights restrictions, this is nothing more than another scheme to game the system in their favor. Under the insincere guise of curtailing "supposed" voter fraud. Absent the fact, that there has been zero proof given to show any common practice of voter fraud, let alone some type of increase to signal it being addressed. Plainly put, it's a cover for denying people who have a lawful right to vote simply because they don't vote for your party.
I highly doubt that Democrats would be adverse to independent commissions in all 50 states. Remember, this legal challenge was brought on behalf of those affiliated with the Republican party. They are the ones who would seek to silence the voice of the people who voted for this by referendum.
Along with voting rights restrictions, this is nothing more than another scheme to game the system in their favor. Under the insincere guise of curtailing "supposed" voter fraud. Absent the fact, that there has been zero proof given to show any common practice of voter fraud, let alone some type of increase to signal it being addressed. Plainly put, it's a cover for denying people who have a lawful right to vote simply because they don't vote for your party.
3
This of course misses the entire point of the formation of these independent commissions. I prefer to label them as bipartisan commissions, simply because they presume to grant 2 appointments only to each of the currently established political parties, Democrats and Republicans.
What if a state has a group of elected officials considered Independent? It's possible that that 5th appointment could be someone affiliated as an Independent.
The goal should not be to effect change simply in order to tilt the scales from one party to the other. The aim is to better serve the public by creating neutral areas of representation so that elected officials are more in line with reflecting the people's will.
Gerrymandering is the obvious attempt to corrupt the public's voice by means of marginalizing one platform in favor of another. Shifting populations by means of creative grouping in order to effect a disparity among elected officials and the cumulative voice of the voting concensus.
The focus on supposed short term gains by means of this unscrupulous practice is short sighted, and tears at the fabric of the democratic process.
The aim should be for the eventual implementation of impartial bodies in redistricting nationwide.
What if a state has a group of elected officials considered Independent? It's possible that that 5th appointment could be someone affiliated as an Independent.
The goal should not be to effect change simply in order to tilt the scales from one party to the other. The aim is to better serve the public by creating neutral areas of representation so that elected officials are more in line with reflecting the people's will.
Gerrymandering is the obvious attempt to corrupt the public's voice by means of marginalizing one platform in favor of another. Shifting populations by means of creative grouping in order to effect a disparity among elected officials and the cumulative voice of the voting concensus.
The focus on supposed short term gains by means of this unscrupulous practice is short sighted, and tears at the fabric of the democratic process.
The aim should be for the eventual implementation of impartial bodies in redistricting nationwide.
9
Nate, you are looking at this as a partisan, not someone interested in preserving and protecting the Constitution of the United States.
Of course, this is an instance where the best way to do that is by amending the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college & winner-take-all elections and replace that with a national popular vote, not by state.
Of course, this is an instance where the best way to do that is by amending the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college & winner-take-all elections and replace that with a national popular vote, not by state.
10
He is talking about the House of Representatives, not the presidency.
5
Democrats or liberals do not and should not be looking to gerrymander to take more seats. That's a false premise as to why it needs to be handled by an independent review board. We want to stop legislative gerrymandering to make the entire system more representative, not to "get more seats"!
End all gerrymandering.
National independent review.
End all gerrymandering.
National independent review.
35
Gerrymandering - Done by democrats and Republicans alike.
5
Would you then vote with a democrat to then stop it on both sides?
2
I am a strong Democrat, but more important than my party or an individual representative or issue is the power of the people. And the people won on this issue. Thank you Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan!
65
Sure, Dems could NOW make the state legislature and Congressional delegation even more Democratic, AFTER the independent California redistricting commission broke the Legislatively-gerrymandered artificial balance between the two parties that caused paralytic gridlock. Good thing Dems can't, as that would make California look more Blue than it really is.
We need less winners-and-losers analysis, and more analysis of what makes for better functioning government for the long haul.
We need less winners-and-losers analysis, and more analysis of what makes for better functioning government for the long haul.
49
We need less winners-and-losers analysis, and more analysis of what makes for better functioning government for the long haul.
Boy! That is one of best ideas I've seen printed in years. Are you listening NYT? I am NOT interested in who won and who lost.
Boy! That is one of best ideas I've seen printed in years. Are you listening NYT? I am NOT interested in who won and who lost.
3
I live in North Carolina, I'm willing to take my chances. Our state has suffered greatly from the 2010 GOP redistricting. I work in politics, but I work smart and hard, so a level playing field is not something I fear.
51
The purpose of non-partisan redistricting commissions is to create competitive districts where opposing candidates have a forum for presenting their ideas and a fair shot at winning. Whether the Democrats gain through non-partisan redistricting is immaterial. The objective is to promote debate and voter turnout.