Enough with Gerrymandering!

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmm...

 

While various folks try to cut and parse da election results, its seems for da most part we ended up right back where we were. And I got to thinkin' and wonderin' about that.

 

When da Democrat gets the majority of the votes and a substantial majority of the Electoral College, how is it that da House of Representatives stays Republican? Da House is supposed to be the body in the Constitution most representative of and responsive to the People.

 

Funny thing, eh? Then yeh look at da votes, and it appears that more people voted for Democratic candidates for the House than did for Republican candidates. Huh.

 

Most of this, I reckon, is da result of small population states votin' more Republican. States are guaranteed one representative, regardless of whether they have da 700K or so population to merit one. But yeh have to figure that some of it is also due to da absurd district gerrymandering that goes on. That can both skew da results as well as create districts that are far more extreme in their views than da average. It ups da polarization. One wonders if a Pelosi or a Bachmann could be elected in a non-gerrymandered district.

 

Seems like we'd do da nation a favor by promoting state constitutional amendments across da country which required congressional districts to be drawn along county lines in a way that minimizes perimeter to area ratio. Some objective, computable formula to make 'em all nice, easily comprehended slices of a state's population, not some goofy jiggered geometric monstrosity.

 

Beavah

 

[Sentinel947]

Beavah, in my State, (Ohio) we tried to pass a bill creating a Committee to do redistricting. It failed 30% to 70%. It was Issue 2 this year. You can look it up if you'd like.

[AlFansome]

I know that California bashing is popular and all, but we here in the Golden State have solved the problem that you've mentioned.

 

First, the electorate passed a proposition whereby the legislature doesn't create the congressional districts at re-districting time. An independent, bi-partisan, 8 member Redistricting Commission sets the final lines. The 8 members are randomly selected from pools of Democratic, Republican and non-affiliated nominees. A website with way too much gory detail is at http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/. There were many court challenges which were eventually all rejected and if you compare 2010 vs 2012 district maps, you can see that there are many fewer gerrymandered districts and much more geographical integrity to quite of few of them as well.

 

Regarding Pelosi: She's not from a gerrymandered district. Her district is 4/5 of the city of San Francisco, and I'd say that the 1/5 that's not in her district has more in common with the area to the south that with the rest of the city, so her district makes sense from an objective point of view. Pic of the district is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_House_of_Representatives,_California_District_8.png (copy and paste the link...clicking won't work) You can insert whatever comment you want about how SF pics their congressperson, of course. :-)

 

 

Secondly, in an attempt to get more moderates elected as opposed to the wingnuts on either end of the spectrum, another voter-approved proposition was passed whereby the top 2 vote-getters in the primary REGARDLESS OF PARTY are the ones in the general election. So, in an extremely, heavily Republican or Democratic district, you'd get 2 Democrats running or 2 Republicans running in the general election, with the idea being that the minority party and perhaps many independents would vote for the more moderate of the 2 candidates. An indeed, that's what has happened already this year. Pete Stark (42-year House member) and a Democrat just got defeated by a young Democrat on Tuesday. No way that happens without the new law.

 

(This message has been edited by AlFansome)

[Twocubdad]

Interesting hypothesis. I'd like to see the data. I wonder if the difference couldn't be explained by the "all or nothing" the Electorial College? It would be interesting to see how the Electorial College count would be effected if voting for president were counted by congressional district, not state?

 

Back in college, for one of my senior Poli-Sci courses we had to redistrict the state's congressional districts. Especially in the pre-PC era, it is amazing that it can be done at all, much less balancing all the political, jurisdictional and legal requirements.

 

Problem with your proposal, Beav, is it will violate the Voting Rights Act. In some cases the DOJ requires districts split counties, even precincts, to meet minority representation requirements. In our area we have one of the worst gerrymandered districts in the country, the NC 12th "dragon" district. It was specifically created in 1990 as a "majority minority" district and originally rambled over half the state connecting minority areas in Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Greensboro and Durham. In some places it was only as wide as I-85, which it roughly follows. The 2010 redistricting did make it a little less squirely. The result? Mel Watt, the one and only person ever to represent the district for the past 20 years, won Tuesday night with 80% of the vote, a statistical outlier? No, about average for the 12th. Consequently, parts of the rural area where I live I'm just outside the 12th) is represented by a guy, Watt, who probably can't find us on a map. And Charlotte which basically swung the state for Obama in 2008 and site of the 2012 Democratic convention, is represented in Congress by a Republican.

 

I found an article listing the 10 worst gerrymandered districts in the country -- TX 35th, OH 9th, FL 14th, IL 4th & 7th, NC 1st & 12th, MD 2nd & 3rd, and PA 7th. Interestingly, eight of the 10 are held by Democrats.

 

Of course gerrymandering works both ways. One of the reasons NC 12th votes 80% Democrat is it has become a Democratic dumping ground. The Republican legislature dumps Democratic voters into the 12th creating safe Republican districts adjacent to the 12th. And it worked. Tuesday one of the adjacent districts changed from D to R, largely due to redistricting (and because the incumbent Democrat is an idiot.) But I chalk that up to Federal interference. The Republicans read the Voting Rights Act which requires "majority-minority" districts and figured they would give them a REAL majority-minority district.

 

 

[SSScout]

 

Murlen's 3rd Congressional District:

 

http://www.planning.maryland.gov/PDF/Redistricting/2010maps/Cong/Dist_3.pdf

 

Referendum to refer the redistricting plan back to the planners APPROVED the plan as written. 63% in favor of the plan. Watcha gonna do.

[Second Class]

Democrats complain when the Texas republicans do it, and Republican's yelp when the Democrats do it. Both sides are dirty in this regard. The Democrats did it first, over 100 years ago. The courts have upheld gerrymandering.

 

As to the electoral college; each state has the power to decide how votes are apportioned, all or none, or as Nebraska does it, apportioned by per centage to each candidate.

 

The long slide down started with the 17th amendment.

[AlFansome]

 

Going back to Beavah observation that there are more Republicans in the House, yet more Democratic voters (and electors):

 

Just an unsubstantiated (and unresearched!) theory: Maybe it has to do with the fact that Dems tend to (generally) dominate the large cities and perhaps are more "dense" with their voting and therefore tend to win those districts with 70-30 or 80-20 splits??

 

As a simplistic example, if you have 4 Democratic districts with 70(D)-30® splits and 8 Republican ones with 60®-40(D) splits, you get the same overall total vote totals, but twice as many Republican representatives (assuming the same population in each district).

 

It'd be interesting to see what the average percentage margin of victory is for Dems vs. Republicans in house races to see if this theory is correct, or if (perhaps), the total Democratic vs. Republican vote split at the presidential level doesn't correlate with the total Democratic vs. Republican vote split in House race.

 

Another theory is that currently, Republicans control something like 29 out of the 50 state legistatures and perhaps this control allowed for some extra special gerrymandering after the 2010 census which would help to solidify their control on their districts and even extend the map further in their favor. (The Dems do the same thing, of course, but with fewer states under their control, the effect is less).

 

[packsaddle]

I agree with the sentiment to do away with Gerrymandering and the fact that the Democrats have also done this in the past. This is a bipartisan failure. I don't see why, in this day of fairly robust GIS databases, politicians have to be involved in deciding district boundaries at all. This should be a fairly simple optimization problem that could addressed quickly and arbitrarily (read: fairly) using modest computational power available to any state.

This approach would eliminate the need to seek compliance under the Voting Rights legislation and free our representatives to do useful things instead. It could cut the cost of elections and probably make them more efficient.

It could be a much improved way to promote democracy throughout the nation, regardless of creed, ethnicity, or economic status..............NAAAHHHH!

[moosetracker]

As to the House being mostly Republican, some of that is Gerrymandering, as you note.. But, I think something else too..

 

The house leaned slightly Democratic before the 2010 election, which probably was a good representation of this country. Presidential Elections is the one that normally the casual citizen wakes up to vote for, then goes to sleep for 4 more years.. I think this was true of Democrats & Republicans..

 

In the election of 2010, the Democrats were in their 4 year hibernation, and did not realize the swarming anger of Republicans whether it be for Obamacare, or just the insult of having a black man in the high office.. Angry Republicans swarmed to turn out for this election, and the with Democrats it was only those with enough political interest to bother..

 

But, after the Republican swarm.. Republicans started making laws like they were not elected officials, but more like they were mini monarchs.. Which angered the Democrats..

 

I am unsure if Democrats have been shaken enough to realize that they now have to come out for the elections other then just the Presidential one.. If they haven't 2014 may still win some red, if Democrats stay awake to match turnout in the other elections they will little by little flip things back to an equilibrium..

 

I think in some states that are suffering though bad republican State government, they know to turn out.. Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Virgina are some counting the days off until they can send their Governors packing.. Here in New Hampshire, we never suffered through a tea-party Governor, but alot of our house went red, causing our poor Governor to have to use his veto power alot over the last few years until we could turn the house back to blue in this election.. I wish our new Democratic Governor the best, but loved our old one, and those two years of hell is probably why he didn't run for another term in this election.

 

[Tampa Turtle]

Hey I would just like to get my state to count the votes before the weekend!

[scoutingagain]

Gerrymandering is a practice protected by both major parties. It heavily favors the party in current power as well as incumbents, hence there is little incentive for those in office to do much about it. The only hope might be in those states where citizens can put up ballot initiatives on their own.

 

SA

[pchadbo]

"Seems like we'd do da nation a favor by promoting state constitutional amendments across da country which required congressional districts to be drawn along county lines in a way that minimizes perimeter to area ratio."

 

Beavah, that is a great suggestion and would work perfectly, now we just need to get the people to live that way. In my state (NH) more than 50% of the population lives in just 3 counties, we have 10. Theoretically, it is a great idea, practically, it falls on its face.

[OldGreyEagle]

First to Pack

 

::bow::

 

For the Theodoric of York reference, well played!

 

Next, Given the President, the Senate and the COngress a "normal" person is far more likley to routinely see the Congressianal Representative than the other two. The Public may have a COngressional office in the town they live, or relatively close by. They may have called the Rep on occasion and I can tell you from calling reps and senators, the congressional offices are a heck of a lot more responive than the senate. May have something to so with the 2 versus 6 year term.

 

The Rep from the area I live is a Republican but he is seen as more a Rep for the area. He does his job, brings in the Pork, which around here is thought of as "our Due", see other areas get Pork, we get our due.

 

He runs against another candidate each election and severly trounces them not because he is Republican, but because he is an OK guy who represents us well. Was not the COngress overwelingly democratic for decades until Newt Gingrich and the COntract for America? Republicans got in and as long as a Congressman keeps his constituency happy, I am not sure Party matters that much

[Brewmeister]

Could it be that voters actually looked at the candidates and the message and simply found Republican house candidates more compelling?

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm... let me try answerin' some questions.

 

Could it be that voters actually looked at the candidates and the message and simply found Republican house candidates more compelling?

 

Da point was that da actual numbers of votes were higher in total for Democratic House members. So no, this was not the case. More people voted for Democrats, but Republicans got a significant majority of the seats. That's da odd thing, eh? The House is supposed to offer proportionate representation to da population. This isn't a party thing; it could go da other way if Democrats did the gerrymandering. It's just somethin' that should be fixed out of fairness and honorin' the intent of da Constitution.

 

In my state (NH) more than 50% of the population lives in just 3 counties, we have 10. Theoretically, it is a great idea, practically, it falls on its face.

 

Nope, not at all. Yeh can either extend da same rule to township boundaries in that case, or yeh can simply say that if one county merits two representatives, then the entire county votes for two representatives.

 

The house leaned slightly Democratic before the 2010 election, which probably was a good representation of this country. Presidential Elections is the one that normally the casual citizen wakes up to vote for, then goes to sleep for 4 more years.. I think this was true of Democrats & Republicans..

 

Yah, moosetracker, yeh do realize we elect the entire House every two years, right? So what happened in 2010 really isn't relevant for this discussion. Da problem is the House doesn't accurately represent da actual voting choices this year.

 

Just an unsubstantiated (and unresearched!) theory: Maybe it has to do with the fact that Dems tend to (generally) dominate the large cities and perhaps are more "dense" with their voting and therefore tend to win those districts with 70-30 or 80-20 splits??

 

Yah, that would be gerrymandering, eh? The veritable definition of it. Try to confine voters of one party to a single district so as to skew their ultimate representation in Congress lower.

 

I wonder if the difference couldn't be explained by the "all or nothing" the Electorial College?

Electoral College has nuthin' to do with it. That's only for the Presidency. More people voted Democrat in House elections overall.

 

Problem with your proposal, Beav, is it will violate the Voting Rights Act.

Yah, hmmmm... Most of da country is not in a covered jurisdiction, so I can't see as how da Voting Rights Act would be an issue in most places. Da preclearance provisions for covered jurisdictions might come into play... or not. I suppose it depends on da DOJ. Also remember that SCOTUS has clipped da VRA in some ways (with another case pending). I don't think it would really be an issue, but I might be mistaken in da few covered jurisdictions.

 

------

 

Of course, in da end this is tryin' to do what Seattle Pioneer said, eh? Take the politics out of politics. Da thing is, we've managed to do that in other things, eh? Like da formula for actually assigning the number of representatives to each state after da census comes in. As packsaddle says, that's just somethin' anybody can run on a PC, and it avoids most of da gamesmanship.

 

Can't see why states couldn't do the same thing with districts.

 

Beavah