Non-partisan Redistricting

[grandy]

Why hasn't this happened yet on a national scale? Both sides have been guilty of gerrymandering in the past, drawing up districts based purely on math seems to be the most logical choice here. Is this just a case of neither party wanting to give up power or am I missing something else?

 

[tsmith7559]

Why hasn't this happened yet on a national scale? Both sides have been guilty of gerrymandering in the past, drawing up districts based purely on math seems to be the most logical choice here. Is this just a case of neither party wanting to give up power or am I missing something else?

There are several variables. I did one for Michigan after 2010 census and submitted to my congressman. What criteria do you follow? I tried to preserve county lines as much as possible. MI 1, 2,3,4,6,7 had full counties out of the 14 districts

 

[grandy]

I was mainly curious because of a Duke article I read recently

http://today.duke.edu/2014/10/mathofredistricting

 

[tsmith7559]

I was mainly curious because of a Duke article I read recently

http://today.duke.edu/2014/10/mathofredistricting

Sure u can redistricting after the fact and get different results favoring either party. The problem Dems have is the concentration of their voters,ie, black voters.

 

[grandy]

Sure u can redistricting after the fact and get different results favoring either party. The problem Dems have is the concentration of their voters,ie, black voters.

Not sure how that's relevant.

I'm talking about taking a mathematical approach based on census data in order to draw up new districts. I don't agree that the current party in power should be able to draw up these districts. Some states have a non-partisan or bipartisan commission that does this, but it has yet to catch on everywhere.

It makes sense to me as we don't have to deal with gerrymandering accusations and lawsuits that arise every election.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I would love to see an algorithm developed that minimized border length or something like that. Nobody would ever agree to it though.

 

[Sbee]

Not sure how that's relevant.

I'm talking about taking a mathematical approach based on census data in order to draw up new districts. I don't agree that the current party in power should be able to draw up these districts. Some states have a non-partisan or bipartisan commission that does this, but it has yet to catch on everywhere.

It makes sense to me as we don't have to deal with gerrymandering accusations and lawsuits that arise every election.

I'd love to see this, you'd have more competitive districts which is key.

Gerrymandering (i e cheating) is key for republicans. either they do it more or they're much better at it

example, in 2012 democrats won 50.59% of the votes for the house but only won 201 seats, compared to the republicans who won 235 seats.

 

[Michchamp]

 

[Michchamp]

 

[Michchamp]

ohio is pretty bad as well:

 

[Michchamp]

LOL:

 

[Sbee]

it pays to cheat

 

[Michchamp]

from teh wiki on congressional apportionment:

In 1921, Congress failed to reapportion the House membership as required by the United States Constitution. This failure to reapportion may have been politically motivated, as the newly elected Republican majority may have feared the effect such a reapportionment would have on their future electoral prospects.[9][10] Then in 1929 Congress (Republican control of both houses of congress and the presidency) passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the House at 435 (the then current number). This cap has remained unchanged for more than eight decades. Three states ? Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota ? have populations smaller than the average for a single district.
​

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'd love to see this, you'd have more competitive districts which is key.

Gerrymandering (i e cheating) is key for republicans. either they do it more or they're much better at it

example, in 2012 democrats won 50.59% of the votes for the house but only won 201 seats, compared to the republicans who won 235 seats.

50.59% of the vote got 46% of the seats? That's actually not bad.

 

[Sbee]

50.59% of the vote got 46% of the seats? That's actually not bad.

not when you only need a simple majority to pass legislation

 

[Michchamp]

I would love to see an algorithm developed that minimized border length or something like that. Nobody would ever agree to it though.

would be funny to see the media try to explain why the Democrats easily took back the house in 2016, without letting on how screwed the system has been for the last couple decades.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Y'all are looking at these maps and getting bent out of shape over issues of population density. Stick to comparing voting % to elected official %. Some skew is expected and some places go too far, but pulling up red/blue maps of the US says more about rural/urban voting dependencies than gerrymandering. Not that maps can't say anything, but mostly it's "look at the crazy shape of this district."

 

[Mitchrapp]

Bummer.

 

[Gulo Blue]

not when you only need a simple majority to pass legislation

Some amount of skew is built into the system on purpose. I'm surprised it came in under 5%.

 

[Sbee]

Some amount of skew is built into the system on purpose. I'm surprised it came in under 5%.

Reverse that and we'd have a lot more laws pass, but then again maybe not since bills get killed in the Senate since they only have 58% of the vote