Voters in Colorado, Missouri, Michigan and (it looks like) Utah have voted to establish independent commissions to draw state district lines. Ohio voters did this in the spring, and Pennsylvania had it forced on it by a court. If you want to see what a non-gerrymandered state looks like, see Iowa.
Once you add the states without the potential for gerrymandering since they only have one representative (MT, SD, ND, DE, AK, VT, WY), we're more than quarter of the way toward rational, fair districts.
In case anyone is wondering, the "Being a Grandmother is the perfect training for a Governor" candidate won.
(no message)
The thought of her in charge of banking and finance is mind-boggling...
(no message)
Sure, it is preferable to the attack ads, but still a terrible ad and using your grandchildren as props? I really can't believe it worked.
You can watch it at the link.
Link: https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2018/10/new-reynolds-tv-ad-focuses-on-her-role-as-a-grandmother/
That's what you always say to me when I proposed bolstering federalism by repealing the 17th Amendment. Democracy is always good, right?...putting the Senate under the control of the state legislatures is bad, because it removes control from the people by one layer.
Now, you support removing control from the people by one layer, by putting control in the hands of unelected "independent" (which is total BS) commissions. Democracy is suddenly bad when you think that the Republicans are winning too much.
Your two-faced, totally hypocritical approach is shameful.
Removing politics from the districting process is a good thing.
About a year ago I posted my surprise regarding Ned's political stance. I thought he was much more like you.
You are normal.
He's crazy.
I'm sorry.
In fairness to me, I don't really read your posts.
(no message)
But, I don't trust who is doing it. I think they are concentrating power in corruptible hands...hands that they will corrupt.
I think this is a case of "the current system is terrible, but it is the best system."
I could be wrong. I hope I am. Doesn't matter. My opinion is not worth much.
Gerrymandering is bad for liberty, period. No matter who is doing it.
These were ballot initiatives that decided how districts would be drawn. The people voted. The people chose.
The notion that this somehow takes the choice AWAY from the people is, to say the least, bizarre.
BTW - electing senators puts the choice in the hands of the people, directly. I'm not sure if you are serious about this, since it is so blatantly stupid.
There is a reason we have a republic, and not a pure democracy. You know it, and I know it. You just pretend not to know it now, because you have a nefarious motive: take control away from people you think are "deplorables."
Legislators are there to consider secondary effects. The average voter does not often consider secondary effects. Primary effect good? Great! Vote: Yes! But, secondary effects happen, which is why referendums often end up passing bad overall policy...policies that would not get out of committee in a legislature.
My point about direct elections for the Senate was to expose your hypocracy. I'm not sure if you are serious about this either, because you should be able to understand a basic argument: You use a pro-democracy argument on the 17th, but you use an anti-democracy argument on gerrymandering. I think you are feigning ignorance, and trying to shift that ignorance to me, so that you don't have to directly address the hypocrisy.
The voters voted, directly, to make it independent. How is that undemocratic?
I think you should take the holidays off.
Interestingly, these anti-gerrymandering initiatives are very similar. This is because they did not originate from problems that Missourians perceived with the Missouri election process, or problems that Michiganders perceived with the Michigan election process. They originated from problems that New Yorkers and D.C. residents perceived in Missouri and Michigan...namely, too many Republicans getting elected in flyover country.
These New Yorkers and Washingtonians then got the proposals on the ballots in those states, and they put a summary on the ballot that sounded nice (emphasizing supposed impartiality, while ignoring unaccountability). And, there you go. Guy who works at the 7-11 is sold a fraudulent bill of goods in the voting booth, so he surrenders his rights without knowing he is doing it. Democrat Party driven "democracy" at its finest. Seriously, this is anti-democratic, and pretty disgusting.
Like fire across the country. They are really redistricting because they want to take all your guns and kill the unborns ( before they join the caravan invasion).
All this despite the facts that the most undemocratic thing to do is what the Republicans did over the 10 years or so. Win power and then redraw crazy lines on a map; call it a new voting precinct that ensures your majority and power.
(no message)
(no message)
JFC
Remember? It was unfair to Democrats, because gerrymandering is only done by Republicans to harm Democrats...to box them in.
This is a national initiative by the Left. It is what it is, your opinion of me notwithstanding.
Look, there is nothing to do but wait and see. The initiatives all passed. It will be years (probably decades) before we know if you are right or not.
If I did, it was once or twice and I don't recall. I'd be willing to bet it was never.
And the only reason I am hear is because you make no sense.
As Chris said, the Dems do it as well (see Maryland). The Rs do it more. Getting rid of it everywhere is good.
This is probably a healthy development
The Dems are gaming the system. Referendums are perfect for issues that sound good at first glance, but have terrible unintended consequences. (unintended by voters, but intended by the Dems)
When progressives passed the 17th Amendment, giving the people the right to directly elect the Senate, it sounded like a great idea. Democracy! Yay! Except that it undermined a very carefully constructed system of federalism designed to keep our national government from usurping power intended to be held by the states. That was probably the primary goal of the progressives...not to increase democracy, but to centralize power in DC. But the people didn't vote to centralize power in DC; they voted to increase democracy.
These "anti" gerrymandering provisions are just like that. They replace one kind of gerrymandering (one controlled by the people) with another kind of gerrymandering, which will supposedly be controlled by an unbiased group of people. Except that such people don't actually exist, and they are really just replacing it with a group of unaccountable people. The voters voted for impartiality, and they got unaccountability. And, they also got a concentrated group of people, which makes it easier to corrupt the process.
For someone who has no idea what he is talking about, you sure do talk a lot.
Will we know the political backgrounds of the people inputting the data, writing the code, and providing the answers? Can we vote those people out of their positions if we find out they volunteer for only one party?...or have a seat on a board of a charity run by one side?
That's comical. Even the people who put these measures on the ballot are secret. Why would we think the people they pick to draw the lines will be any more transparent?
You have no idea to what extent computers will be used. You are just repeating a talking point to me. All you know is that Vox or Huffington had a piece supporting this, so you are fighting the fight, pretending to be a neutral steward of democracy. What utter bullshit.
Again - to repeat - you do not know what you are talking about.
If you want to see what it looks like, see Iowa.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa%27s_congressional_districts
However, there is no way to prevent hurting some groups. For example, white people are close to 77% of the population (non-Hispanic whites are about 61%). If we apportioned voting districts on a strictly statistical bases, white candidates would prevail almost everywhere. As it is today, 80% of the Congress is white.
Oh, yeah, you are already talking about those gerrymandered lines of the Electoral College. The march towards concentration of power in D.C. continues. Have the media say something is good when it is bad...over and over and over again. Get it on a ballot, and then it is too late. Any one who calls for repeal is accused of being anti-democracy (gasp)...as if pure democracy is something anyone wants. Now I see the danger of eliminating civics classes.
California should be split into at least 2.
Illinois cow country should be divided up among Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri and Indiana proportional to their impending bailout.
(no message)
What has happened, what are/were the consequences?
North Carolina gerrymandering.
(no message)
His briefing came with crayons. He struggled to stay inside the lines.
It will be done by an independent commission, and will reflect population distribution, not party.
So we will have more competitive elections in all those states, and fewer safe seats - so less polarization in congress.
Link: The evolution of Iowa districts is a good example
So, congress people could influence their own results by drawing their voting district around areas they know are heavily favored to their party?
Make sure one district has 90% of the other party's voters, and draw all the other ones 55-45 us. A 50-50 state can then give 5 out of 6 reps to one party.
It creates safe districts in which incumbents have to worry more about primary challenges than the other party, so they run to the extremes instead of the center. It's terrible for the quality of governance.
Maybe I should read about this stuff.