- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Should we draw Congressional districts to be as competitive as possible?
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:25 pm
Should we draw Congressional districts to be as competitive as possible?
We do it the opposite way now. This is why we have a Congress with piss poor approval ratings but high reelection rates.
What if there was an algorithm that could be used to draw as many competitive Congressional districts as possible in a state? Would you rather have the law use that algorithm to re-district than state legislatures gerrymandering all the competitive districts away?
We do it the opposite way now. This is why we have a Congress with piss poor approval ratings but high reelection rates.
What if there was an algorithm that could be used to draw as many competitive Congressional districts as possible in a state? Would you rather have the law use that algorithm to re-district than state legislatures gerrymandering all the competitive districts away?
11
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:30 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Should we draw Congressional districts to be as competitive as possible?
i don't know if that's possible, but i hate gerrymandering. the VRA basically guarantees this in the south
quote:
Would you rather have the law use that algorithm to re-district than state legislatures gerrymandering all the competitive districts away?
yes
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:30 pm to SpidermanTUba
Gerrymandering is done by both parties.
Republican won in 2010 and in that win they sured up state legislatures along with governors. Those bodies create the districts. Democrats have done well in Senate & Presidential elections. If the Dems want to win the House again they need to win local elections in 2020. Changing how we cut those districts up now is changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Republican won in 2010 and in that win they sured up state legislatures along with governors. Those bodies create the districts. Democrats have done well in Senate & Presidential elections. If the Dems want to win the House again they need to win local elections in 2020. Changing how we cut those districts up now is changing the rules in the middle of the game.
This post was edited on 10/8/14 at 9:31 pm
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:34 pm to TOKEN
quote:
Gerrymandering is done by both parties.
It is done by whichever party wins a state's legislature, essentially. Though I think the biggest problem isn't that the districts are titled towards one party or not - but that its tilted away from competitiveness.
I think it might be enough just to have an algorithm that created districts without regard whatsoever to party balance in each district - neutral on competitiveness. Such an algorithm would create districts with the smallest perimeter possible (the most compact), and it should prefer to use existing political subdivision boundaries (parish/county lines, and city lines).
This is the kind of issue that politicians on both sides sweep under the rug because both parties lose if we start to care about it. Its seriously fricking up our system.
I also think we should have MORE Representatives but they should be PAID less. Presently each Representative has about 600,000k constituents - making it prohibitively expensive for the little known moderate politician to have a chance at winning. The House should really be about 5X bigger - (with each member making 5X less).
This post was edited on 10/8/14 at 9:38 pm
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:35 pm to SpidermanTUba
i think california has a similar system
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
Don't they use a panel of retired judges?
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:46 pm to SpidermanTUba
The dumbass dems were all for the gerrymandered districts for black majorities but then they realized each one creates 2 or 3 weighted the other way because they have to be gerrymandered to match.
Oops!
Oops!
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:53 pm to SpidermanTUba
Why not just throw out the CD idea and just give do one of the following three:
1) Give everyone X votes (they can vote for any candidate any number of times, but only a total X votes where X is the former number of CD). The top X vote getters are now in congress
2) Everyone gets 1 vote and the top X vote getters are now the congressmen.
3) When you register to vote, it doesn't matter where, you are assigned a number 1-X at random (or maybe divide the state and the closer you get to a "boundary" you could get placed in one of the other essentially blurring the line). Your number would then correspond to which "District" you could vote in. You would divide the population evenly and wouldn't have to worry about gerrymandering at all. The campaigning would be pretty cool to see too.
Not related to CD but:
3) Repeal the direct election of Senators and let the States decide if they want appointments or general elections.
Is the above "legal"? I honestly don't know, but if we did something like that we wouldn't have gerrymandering talks for the most part.
ETA: The only reason I say these is because no matter what, so long as you have people drawing the lines, there will be gerrymandering. Making them 50/50 would end up when some weird arse shaped districts but it would be overly complicated in a place that is heavily R or D (think about trying to draw lines to get 50/50 in a place like San Francisco or Seattle or Detroit). Maybe you could figure out a way to divide evenly based on party registration, but that would just further the whole "we only have 2 parties" thing which I HATE.
1) Give everyone X votes (they can vote for any candidate any number of times, but only a total X votes where X is the former number of CD). The top X vote getters are now in congress
2) Everyone gets 1 vote and the top X vote getters are now the congressmen.
3) When you register to vote, it doesn't matter where, you are assigned a number 1-X at random (or maybe divide the state and the closer you get to a "boundary" you could get placed in one of the other essentially blurring the line). Your number would then correspond to which "District" you could vote in. You would divide the population evenly and wouldn't have to worry about gerrymandering at all. The campaigning would be pretty cool to see too.
Not related to CD but:
3) Repeal the direct election of Senators and let the States decide if they want appointments or general elections.
Is the above "legal"? I honestly don't know, but if we did something like that we wouldn't have gerrymandering talks for the most part.
ETA: The only reason I say these is because no matter what, so long as you have people drawing the lines, there will be gerrymandering. Making them 50/50 would end up when some weird arse shaped districts but it would be overly complicated in a place that is heavily R or D (think about trying to draw lines to get 50/50 in a place like San Francisco or Seattle or Detroit). Maybe you could figure out a way to divide evenly based on party registration, but that would just further the whole "we only have 2 parties" thing which I HATE.
This post was edited on 10/8/14 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:55 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Would you rather have the law use that algorithm to re-district than state legislatures gerrymandering all the competitive districts away?
I'd rather not have them.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:55 pm to SpidermanTUba
Your friends in the Federal Courts see to it that districts are designed to maintain the status quote.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:00 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Would you rather have the law use that algorithm to re-district than state legislatures gerrymandering all the competitive districts away?
is the algorithm similar to the one used produce Tuba's 101?
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:03 pm to gthog61
I personally went through 2 reapportionments in the 80's. One for the 80's and one for the 90's. I can tell you the truth about it. The Black groups combined with the unions and trial lawyers and demanded more majority Black districts. A leader from each town in the Black community that did that, usually became the newly elected official. The result was when the blacks were moved together in a Democrat district, it left the remaining district white and Republican. I warned them in private that would happen. They didn't care, they wanted Black and Dem. districts for themselves and their friends and the resulting jobs and retirements, etc. This has happened in the House in Washington. It has happened in the state legislatures also.
This post was edited on 10/8/14 at 10:08 pm
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:10 pm to SpidermanTUba
Might be the first time I almost agree with you. Something needs to change. I think congress should be a part time job so congressman have to earn their money in the real world and spend a majority of their time working in their districts.
Perhaps we should stipulate that districts must be defined by a regular polygon whose number of sides is not to exceed 5 (except for the sides on bordering states can not be a straight line).
Perhaps we should stipulate that districts must be defined by a regular polygon whose number of sides is not to exceed 5 (except for the sides on bordering states can not be a straight line).
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:12 pm to TupeloTiger
quote:
The result was when the blacks were moved together in a Democrat district, it left the remaining district white and Republican.
which left both district electing shitty representatives....
Posted on 10/8/14 at 10:53 pm to SpidermanTUba
Do you mean the way we currently gerrymander it to where we give minorities the majority? Do you not see the irony?
Posted on 10/8/14 at 11:53 pm to gthog61
quote:
durr dee dur dur I'm a dumbass
FIFY
Posted on 10/8/14 at 11:56 pm to carbola
quote:
Is the above "legal"?
No.
However it would be legal to have an at-large election where everyone gets a number of votes equal to the number of Representatives. A 5 Congressman state would select the top 5 vote getters from votes cast by voters that get to vote for 5 different candidates.
Some states did it this way in the 19th century.
quote:
3) Repeal the direct election of Senators and let the States decide if they want appointments or general elections.
Let's not go backwards.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 11:57 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
is the algorithm similar to the one used produce Tuba's 101?
The same one in fact.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 11:57 pm to TupeloTiger
quote:
I personally went through 2 reapportionments in the 80's
Jesus frick that must have hurt.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 11:57 pm to John McClane
quote:
Do you mean the way we currently gerrymander it to where we give minorities the majority?
When did Congress become majority minority? I must have missed that one.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News