http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023971851Oh my.
Apparently the primitives aren't aware who invented convoluted congressional districts, and who've been responsible for their perpetuation since, oh, about the beginning of the Democrat party.
One wonders why this was never an issue before the mid-term elections of 2010.
Or, rather, one doesn't wonder.
kentuck (69,775 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:01 PM
"Why isn't gerrymandering illegal?"
My wife asked me that this morning.
I had no answer. Is it something that both Parties agree with?
It does seem to me to be racism in its most basic form. It does segregate the different races for political purposes. They will draw the lines with mostly African-Americans in the district or they will draw the lines with mostly white Republicans in the district. Both seem to be wrong to me.
I don't know why it isn't challenged more? If not illegal, it is wrong and discriminatory, in my opinion.
When we see extreme candidates out of these districts take over our Congress, it has to make you take notice. It is unfortunate that moderates in the Republican Party are so fearful of these extremists in their own Party that they will not challenge them.
Can "gerrymandering" be repealed by Congress??
onehandle (38,301 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:05 PM
1. Congress can address anything with new laws.
Fat chance this will be addressed anytime soon.
spanone (73,657 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:06 PM
2. because those who change those laws are those who stay in office because of them
^^^this primitive's probaby thinking of all the Democrats in the northeastern and New England states, and in California, who've gotten lifetime tenure because of gerrymandering.
fredamae (1,492 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:06 PM
3. As I understand it
Re-districting began during the census in order to better address particular needs in particular areas, for particular people based upon population growth and changes. It began with good intent.
Who, When and How this tool became a matter of political manipulation? I cannot tell you.
It became a tool about the time the Democrats in the northeastern states and New England--not the southern Democrats, but the northern ones--decided to mis-use it as a tool oh, about 200 years ago now.
SheilaT (13,545 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:12 PM
4. The states can draw districts any way they like, so long as they adhere reasonably close to the one person one vote rule.
The problem is that those drawing the districts know perfectly well where the registered voters for each party reside. Which makes me wonder. I believe there are states out there that don't require voters indicate party affiliation when they register, so I wonder how good they are at gerrymandering. On the other hand, they will know precinct by precinct how voters voted, so it's still a doable thing.
About thirty-five years ago I was taking a college level geography class. One of our assignments was to redraw Congressional Districts in some particular state. I think it was either Oregon or Washington, and I was in school in Virginia, so the assumption was probably that none of us knew too much about the state chosen. I cannot recall if we were given party affiliations, but I do recall how difficult it was to draw the lines to adhere to the one person one vote rule.
There's probably no good reason why someone in some other country who is blessedly ignorant of the partisan politics of this country, couldn't be given the job of writing a computer program that draws the districts. But it will never happen. Some states have turned to more or less bi-partisan or neutral commissions to draw the districts.
Lifelong Dem (138 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:13 PM
5. Gerrymandering is the only way the Repubs can win the House
As long as they have gerrymandering to control the House we can't change the law. The turnout needs to be huge to stop their control.
Gerrymandering's the only way the Democrats managed to control the House of Representatives for 40 consecutive years, 1955-1995, and the only way Democrats have a majority of the House seats from California, New York, Illinois, &c., &c., &c.
MineralMan (58,612 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:17 PM
7. The biggest problem is that states are in charge of elections within their states. Congressional district elections are state elections. So redistricting after each census is done by the individual states, and every state does it in its own way.
In some states, like Minnesota, there are strict rules for redistricting that make it very difficult to do any real gerrymandering. In other states, the state legislature does the redistricting, and then it becomes a political football, with the party that controls the state legislature doing everything it can to gerrymander the districts to benefit that party.
Congress can't do much about redistricting, since there's nothing in the Constitution about it. By federal law, congressional districts must have the same population so they are all roughly the same. But that's it. Beyond that, it's up to each state to figure out, and it's unlikely to change.
The Constitution limits the federal government to just the things specified in the Constitution. That's slipped over the years, but elections are still a matter for state governments. Congress can say when the Presidential elections are held, but that's about it. In the Electoral College, Electors are chosen according to state rules.
kentuck (69,775 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:27 PM
12. Yep.
It is the responsibility of the states to re-draw districts, not the Congress. Does that mean Congress can make no law that pertains to all states in regards to gerrymandering?
The way I see it, the Congress could pass a law but a state could then challenge it to the Supreme Court, where it would most likely meet a quick demise.
MineralMan (58,612 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:35 PM
16. The states are required to make districts equal in population so that the one person one vote concept is upheld. A few states have had to submit their redistricting plans to the federal government for pre-approval, due to prior issues. I don't remember which states or whether that is still in effect.
In my state of Minnesota, it is the job of the legislature and the Governor, but if the two cannot agree, a committee of the Supreme Court of Minnesota draws the districts. Other states have commissions who draw the boundaries. The federal government is interested in gerrymandering that affects ethnic voter distribution and that can have an impact, but it's a complex thing.
Some states have laws that limit redistricting in some ways. For example, as in Minnesota, districts should include all of a city or town, where possible, for example. It also has restrictions on boundaries that wander too much from the simplest possible design, but those get all muddled in some places, where population densities are low.
A few states have sometimes drawn really contorted Congressional districts, making the district map look like a jigsaw puzzle. It can be really strange, and it does have a strong impact on Congressional representation in some states. It's a weird system, indeed.
<<<notices the mineral oil primitive doesn't say "one
living person, one vote."
last1standing (10,193 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:27 PM
11. How would you make it different?
I agree that the extreme gerrymandering going on is reprehensible but what would be a viable alternative? Stronger enforcement of existing laws that prohibit the practice? New laws? Giving up on representation based on district and moving to a more direct voting system?
Gerrymandering is as old as the US and rarely does even the most outrageous example of it get struck down using current laws. However, if we enact new laws will they be followed any better than the current ones? As for direct voting, that move would have its own issues and questions to deal with. How do we allot representatives in a state if it votes 51% Democrat/49% Republican? Would candidates have to campaign throughout the state? Would citizens vote for a party which then assigned representatives?
And then we have to ask ourselves whether the Senate is yet another example of gerrymandering? Why should 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same power as 38,000,000 in California? Is the average Wyoming resident really worth more than 63 Californians?* Does it pass the smell test when a state like Montana with fewer than 5000 African Americans has the same Senatorial representation as New York which has more than 3,000,000?
Perhaps, in an age of instant communication and homogenization, we have outlived the purpose of State Voice. Maybe we need to move toward more direct - and equal - representation.
*Yes.
MineralMan (58,612 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:43 PM
21. The Senate and House were set up specifically to be that way.
The states insisted that one house, the Senate, be formed giving equal power to each state, regardless of population or geographical size. The House, on the other hand, was designed to represent the people, rather than the state, so each state gets a number of members of the house that represents their relative population.
So, some states have two senators and just one House member. That's the balancing act. On the other hand, a state with a large population will have more House members, in proportion to the population.
That was the balance decided on by those who wrote the Constitution. And it was a hotly disputed thing at the time. The states with low populations insisted on equal representation in the Senate, so that's what we have. The House is the body that represents the population, though. That's why it is charged with creating all funding and budgeting legislation, based on the "no taxation without representation" principle.
Learning about why things work as they do should be part of everyone's education. Maybe it is, but most people seem to have forgotten the information. It's all very fascinating, and sometimes seems archaic, but there are reasons for all of it.
last1standing (10,193 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 03:00 PM
23. LOL! If you don't think I understand the history/reasoning of our current system, reread my post.
Unless you're a Constitutional lawyer, I very much doubt you have a better understanding of how this nation was set up and the Constitutional rules that govern it than myself.
That said, my comments were directed at the gerrymandering system and how the rules that were set up over two hundred years ago may not be the most useful today. They are certainly not the most representative of the population. Propping up a system that no longer works is not in the best interests of the people or the nation.
The post-Civil War period changed much more about this country than most people realize. States are no longer sovereign over the federal government and the 14th Amendment's incorporation clause gave powers to the people that were once held exclusively to the states. Based on these changes, it can reasonably be argued that the states no longer need, or have a right to, equal voice in national government regardless of their population.
"We've always done it this way," without more, is not a valid argument.
<<<suspects the mineral oil primitive knows mountains more about American constitutional history than the above primitive does.
MineralMan (58,612 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 03:54 PM
24. I don't know what you know.
I posted some information. If you already knew that, good for you. Others might not know the history of it. You're not the only one reading this thread.
last1standing (10,193 posts) Sun Nov 3, 2013, 04:10 PM
25. Then I apologize but the tone of your post sounded rather condescending to me.
Regardless, the point of my original comment and follow up is that there are other ways, possible better - maybe worse, to engage in representational democracy that could allow the people to have a more equal voice.
