New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Gerrymandering...

Woolleybugger

Woolleybugger

Mayor
I ran across an article about the house seats in Congress where folks in blue states were complaining that despite having two elections go blue, the Congressmen/women from their state were mostly Republicans. The culprit was gerrymandering after the census when the districts got redrawn to pick voters for one side or the other. Since the GOP won many state governorships in 2010, they got to redraw the maps to favor their side. One of the comments section pointed to a youtube video that is linked here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A

It's called "the shortest split algorithm". If you watch the short clip it will explain how to split up voters without ever considering politics or any other factor besides location and density. This idea is further explained in a website that has so many interesting components to it that it is worth bookmarking. You can see how your state would be split using this method by selecting your state. Then, check out how it is set up today in comparison. It is pretty revealing.

http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html

My bet is that if we did something like this nationally, we would be far less polarized as an electorate and have more rational elected officials than we have today.
 
This can be pushed through at the national level. It would take a lot of force from the bully pulpit, though, to get the American people riled up in favor.
 
did you view the clip? Very interesting solution to a complex problem. I think there could be a case based on the 14th for a national system of setting up districts....
 
My state seems to have accomplished redistricting reasonably well. Prior to the election, we had 5 "D's" and 4 "R's". Post, we have 6 and 4 (we got a new district). Based on the voting for president, these numbers are right in line. If we had applied this "computer formula" instead, I'm reasonably certain that it would've been to the Democrat's favor, by at least one district. As a Democrat, I'd be fine with that! But, it would skew the numbers AWAY from the presidential numbers, not towards them.
 
did you check the before and after results for your state on that site? It will show you if your state has been gerrymandered.
 
Agreed. In California, we voted to have judges do it for us. Then we voted again to approve the judges decision. I bet next time we will vote to approve the judges being approved to approve and so on and so on until we give up or throw up, whichever is first...lol.
 
I haven't yet, but I wanted to say that I believe that M. Bauchman in MN. wouldn't have won. Now I will go look.
 
Gerrymandering is pretty chickenshit, no matter which side does it. I also think it is time to get rid of the Electoral College System. 3 or 4 states deciding the election for the other 46 or 47, is just plain stupid.

Woolleybugger said:
I ran across an article about the house seats in Congress where folks in blue states were complaining that despite having two elections go blue, the Congressmen/women from their state were mostly Republicans. The culprit was gerrymandering after the census when the districts got redrawn to pick voters for one side or the other. Since the GOP won many state governorships in 2010, they got to redraw the maps to favor their side. One of the comments section pointed to a youtube video that is linked here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A

It's called "the shortest split algorithm". If you watch the short clip it will explain how to split up voters without ever considering politics or any other factor besides location and density. This idea is further explained in a website that has so many interesting components to it that it is worth bookmarking. You can see how your state would be split using this method by selecting your state. Then, check out how it is set up today in comparison. It is pretty revealing.

http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html

My bet is that if we did something like this nationally, we would be far less polarized as an electorate and have more rational elected officials than we have today.
Click to expand...
 
as I suspected, we would have been rid of MB. Really a simple solution, but one that screw special interest groups.
 
Woolleybugger said:
did you check the before and after results for your state on that site? It will show you if your state has been gerrymandered.
Click to expand...

They must not think my state is a good exemplar of the "problem". They don't offer much on it. They've got a colorful picture showing their "straight line" scheme, but it's really outdated in that it only shows 8 districts rather than 10.
 
Don't quote me but...I think the way we do it, is that the Governor (a "D" since '84) appoints a panel of 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 "unbiased". None are in elected office at the time. I'm not sure about the "unbiased" member, but I think the "D's" and "R's" have to agree on that member.

In any case, they seem to've accomplished redistricting, whilst ruffling nary a feather. We heard virtually no one bitching before the election, nor after. The most interesting race was in the 1st District. This one was supposed to be as "swing" as a district could possibly be, but the Democrat ended up winning by a healthy margin. Most agree though, that that was a result of her opponent's being a Teabagger-type, with his own instances of legitimate rape-type flatulation on his "record". So...we're not hearing any GOPs complaining about how that one was redistricted.
 
JackDallas said:
Gerrymandering is pretty chickenshit, no matter which side does it. I also think it is time to get rid of the Electoral College System. 3 or 4 states deciding the election for the other 46 or 47, is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

We should go one step further and have Senators based on population Jack. Why should a state with 2 million voters get the same amount of senators as say California.

Bet these states won't want to give up that right will they. Oh by the way can you show us where this has ever happened, this 46/47 states went one way and 3/4 states went another way? Right now a state like NY may get more EC votes but they have a lot more people.

i think you want what you want Jack but only if it suits your desires.
 
I keep telling folks that if you are one of millions of conservatives in California, your vote means nothing. Same with dems in Texas. Yet a few thousand one way or the other in the right state elects our POTUS. I think the EC needs to go especially since populous states are getting screwed.
 
Thats a good track record. But even if they did it so no one complains, that does not mean it was done without political bias or intent. It just means the deal was fair to everyone.
 
Here in Houston's Harris County GOP redistricting sucks

Checkout precinct #1 in light blue, where the Latinos were horded so as to allow the other three precincts have a greater GOP representation.



agregsopinion.com_wp_wp_content_uploads_2011_11_hccomm_court_5901.jpg

​

Sad.

Best Regards

Lobato1
 
Woolleybugger said:
Thats a good track record. But even if they did it so no one complains, that does not mean it was done without political bias or intent. It just means the deal was fair to everyone.
Click to expand...

Ours is a "political", rather than dictatorial system. So, if the political bias or intent led to everyone being happy, it's all good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top