A facinating look at redistricting and what the GOP wave means for both parties: GERRyMANDERING 101 Gerrymander: It’s a dirty word. Everyone knows it’s a political insult, but not everyone understands exactly what it means. And even many of those who know what gerrymandering is don’t fully grasp how it completely dominates American politics. Welcome to Gerrymandering 101. Pundits across the political spectrum are now noting that the 2010 Republican tsunami was bigger and more significant than it might appear on the surface, because the Republicans not only won a record number of federal races, they also utterly crushed the Democrats in local races, winning at least 675 seats in state legislatures. This spells doom for the Democrats because next year the states will re-draw the congressional district lines to accommodate the results of the 2010 census: When the 2010 Census results are announced next month, the 435 House seats will be reapportioned to the states, and state officials will draw new district lines in each state. … Republicans look to have a bigger advantage in this redistricting cycle they’ve ever had before. “Advantage”? Advantage in what? Isn’t drawing little squiggly lines on a map the most boring and least consequential job imaginable? Think again. Remember this motto: He Who Draws The Lines Determines The Winners. Yes, it’s that simple. If you can’t quite visualize how gerrymandering can possibly succeed — after all, the number of voters stays the same no matter how you group them, and if you exclude opposition voters from one district, you necessarily must include them in an adjacent district — keep reading. This essay explains in no uncertain terms how manipulating district boundaries can lead to a complete subversion of true representative government. ... Read the rest
You should see maps of some of the districts in Illinois. They make the one in your post look reasonable. Remember, it's the Incumbent Protection Program and it makes no difference which party is in power because they both do it. And yet, Americans are stupid enough to believe that it's "the bums" and not the broken political system (including the apathetic, ignorant populace) that is the problem.
Is it Iowa that has an independent commission draw its map and thus has reasonable looking districts?
Well here are the 10 ten: http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010...stricts-in-the-united-states/?singlepage=true Here's my favorite, a true work of art:
Man, I thought my section of Pennsylvania was bad! The 12th was drawn like it is by Republicans to get rid of Murtha. It went 0 for 5 or thereabouts. The 18th was redrawn to give a district to a Suburban Republican. It belongs to a recently re-elected Suburban Democrat.
We do now, in California. We'll see how it works out. Regarding CA-23, it's obvious that the folks who live on the coast all the way from Santa Barbara to SLO (aka rich people) have more in common with each other, than with the folks who live inland (aka not-as-rich people). If they put them in more normal-looking geographic districts, the less rich people would outvote the rich people, and then who would represent the poor, rich people in Congress?
The links appear to be broken but I saw the pictures in the thread. What am I supposed to be looking at?
In addition, part of the problem is that the immigrants refuse to all stay together within reasonably drawn boundaries, so there is a need to adjust the districts in order to keep them all together, to ensure that they don't get too much power. Of course, depending on the particular situation, it might make more sense to keep them apart and disperse them among districts. You guys need to appreciate all the thinking and effort that goes behind the drawing of districts.
What's the story behind Barney Frank's MA-4th district? The New Bedford/Taunton thing makes sense, but then you have this random, thin one town necklace from Foxboro up to Brookline.
You actually have this backwards. If your goal was to make sure that immigrants don't get too powerful, then you'd divide them up into as many different districts as possible, thereby diluting their votes. If you want to make absolutely certain that they have power through their votes, then you'll concentrate them all together into one district. Anyway, CA-23 actually makes perfect sense to me. It looks funny only until you look at a geographic relief map and a map of Highway 1.
Gerrymandering works both ways. It can break apart a bloc or it can create and even bigger one. Cracking and packing. Packing is more common nowadays. It allows the creation of safe districts for the two main parties.
Good point. But sometimes there is so many of them that it's better to put them all in one district, in order to minimize the damage. See Orange County.
Hence Sakatei's "cracking" post above. But that only works if the divided up minority can play a decisive voting role. You'd have to look closely at the district demographics in Orange County to know if that's even potentially the case.
Is having to put up with one annoying Loretta Sanchez worth giving a bunch of white guys job security in Sacramento? Probably yes, from their point of view. Anyway, as much as i hate propositions, maybe the propositions we passed this time will help.
It's working for me now... very strange. Like the other fella said, I kinda always assumed you used some form of boundary commission, the same as we do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commissions_(United_Kingdom) It certainly makes for prettier patterns than the rather odd ones you seem to end up with. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/11.stm Anyway, there was something in the article that rather confused me... Adding to the craziness: There are federal rules in place to ensure that ethnic minorities don’t get completely disenfranchised by racial gerrymandering, so states often have to also incorporate race into the mix, going to extreme lengths to create districts populated mostly by this-or-that racial group — federally mandated “packing.” Surely, if constituencies are altered to keep all the Black, Latino, Korean, (or whatever), people in one area, doesn't that mean that they're NOT in other areas and doesn't THAT mean their interests in those areas can be safely ignored? At least when areas are drawn from a wider element of the community even the odd percentage point or two of a small part of the electorate can make the difference. IOW doesn't it lead to this kind of thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter#Homes_for_votes_scandal Of course, many of the people effected were black and asian, (that's our asian... not yours). It sounds like you're doing as a matter of principle.