next »

[Fafnir]

I'm curious to what the easy solution to gerrymandering is.

[fairweatherfan]

I'm curious to what the easy solution to gerrymandering is.

Seconded.  Like I said I'm ok with it if gerrymandering isn't a problem.  Just don't see how it can't be.

[Interceptor]

A better word than "easy", is probably "straightforward". There are states that are attempting to get an arm around gerrymandering with independent commissions, formulas, regulations, etc. Harder to get away with things when they aren't in the dark.

[Fafnir]

A better word than "easy", is probably "straightforward". There are states that are attempting to get an arm around gerrymandering with independent commissions, formulas, regulations, etc. Harder to get away with things when they aren't in the dark.

"Independent" Commissions often end up with many of the same issues just behind closed doors as they argue, or the legislatures overrule them.

Its messy and all done at the state level with limited oversight federally.

[Interceptor]

"Independent" Commissions often end up with many of the same issues just behind closed doors as they argue, or the legislatures overrule them.

Well, nobody called it a perfect solution. Also, sort of have to compare the proposed solutions with the current arrangement, whereupon every (R) in California is out of luck forever.

Its messy and all done at the state level with limited oversight federally.

Don't see the need for federal oversight other than such things as Voting Rights Act.

[BballTim]

"Independent" Commissions often end up with many of the same issues just behind closed doors as they argue, or the legislatures overrule them.

Well, nobody called it a perfect solution. Also, sort of have to compare the proposed solutions with the current arrangement, whereupon every (R) in California is out of luck forever.

  Are you hoping for a scenario that your candidate wins by 1 vote? Because other than that your vote doesn't matter any more if you live in Ohio than it does if you live in California.

[Interceptor]

Are you hoping for a scenario that your candidate wins by 1 vote?

Answered with a rhetorical question: what do I have to do with this discussion?

[fairweatherfan]

"Independent" Commissions often end up with many of the same issues just behind closed doors as they argue, or the legislatures overrule them.

Well, nobody called it a perfect solution. Also, sort of have to compare the proposed solutions with the current arrangement, whereupon every (R) in California is out of luck forever.

California went Republican in 6 straight elections from 68-88.  2 of the last 4 Republicans elected President came from California.  Clinton won several Southern states many would currently call "Republican forever".  It's not like any state is under some permanent party ownership.

[Interceptor]

California went Republican in 6 straight elections from 68-88.  2 of the last 4 Republicans elected President came from California.  Clinton won several Southern states many would currently call "Republican forever".  It's not like any state is under some permanent party ownership.

Thanks mostly to Latinos. And this also speaks to the quality of the candidates, rather than the party. Someone who was just voting age in 1988, is now 42. This is a long time in a voter's life.

[BballTim]

Are you hoping for a scenario that your candidate wins by 1 vote?

Answered with a rhetorical question: what do I have to do with this discussion?

  Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post.

[colincb]

There are no incentives for small states to change a system that is disproportionally beneficial to them.

Probability of change is slightly better than not dying.

[Moranis]

A better word than "easy", is probably "straightforward". There are states that are attempting to get an arm around gerrymandering with independent commissions, formulas, regulations, etc. Harder to get away with things when they aren't in the dark.

This is what I was getting at.  Ohio actually has a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot today which would set up an independent commission.  It is a 12 person appointed commission, 4 from the largest party, 4 from the second largest party, and 4 not affiliated with any party.  Sure it isn't a perfect a solution, but it is a lot better than politicians voting on it (something politicians should never be able to control anyway).  And yeah it would be nice to be able to just draw squares, but people don't live in squares so it won't be as clean as that, but as long as the commission tries to keep the shapes similar it shouldn't really be a problem. 

And while I think the states could do this, if you are going to have it affect the Presidential Election, I wouldn't have a problem with some limited federal oversight just to make sure the districts are as close to regular and similar types of shapes i.e. no long winding snake like districts.

[Brendan]

I saw a site that drew precincts apolitically using an algorithm that split the state along population boundaries while maintain cohesive regularly shaped (although varying in geographic area) districts.

why any state legislature would give up their ability to gerrymander (one of the states last checks on their congressional delegation) is beyond me.

I'd go for a constitutional amendment that instituted the algorithmic approach to district drawing in exchange for returning election of senators to the state legislature.

-BW

[guava_wrench]

Cons of popular vote:  ?

Marginalizes rural areas and states not named New York City, Chicago, Miami, LA, Philadelphia, Houston, etc..

Population density will dominate candidate's attentions.

That sounds like a better spread that we have now, with Ohio and FL accounting for just 10% of the US population.

Ohio and Florida have a big influence due to their ability to vote either way, not just due to size. Not a reasonable comparison. Ohio's influence is far less than California or Texas. We just know that CA will always go blue and Texas will always go red, so there is no suspense and little need to campaign.