A time-series on gerrymandering.

[rubato]

An interesting followup to last week's wonkblog post about gerrymandering (linked here for those interested in politics):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ooks-like/

"... But in many states, if not most of them, districts have become consistently less and less compact over time. And it doesn't seem like these changes in compactness can be explained away by changes in population or overall seat allocation, which tells me that something else is happening in those states.

I have a hard time looking at the evolution of districts such as Maryland's 3rd (above) or Pennsylvania's 7th (below) and concluding that whatever's happening in there is the result of a healthy democratic process.

What's at stake, after all, is citizens' representation in Congress. Partisan gerrymandering undermines the whole notion of a representative government. For proof, just look toward the lopsided seat distribution in the current Congress.

see link for full article. It is interesting that NY is LESS gerrymandered after legislative pressure was brought to bear. Calif. has de-politicised the districting process, I'd be interested to see what the effects of that have been.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

This should be quite enlightening for all those folks here who have expressed the view that gerrymandering is a good thing, or have been unaware of its existence, or who don't understand what it is...

[Lord Jim]

Here's some thoughtful and intelligent analysis on the subject, posted by someone here about nine months ago, that I stumbled across:

Why not simply get rid of the opportunity to gerrymander, by handing it over to some non-partisan group?

Or a bi-partisan independent commission made up of respected former politicos from both parties, or even a computer program...

Anything but having it in the hands of the very people most directly affected by the way the districts are drawn....(the state legislators, interested in having their own districts protected and "safe" congressional districts available to move up to)

Gerrymandering has always been a problem, but the level of sophistication that modern analysis tools make available has refined it to the point that it has become extremely corrosive to our form of government and nearly caused the decision making process of the federal government to grind completely to a halt...

This is how bad it's gotten:

The number of ‘turnover’ or ‘split’ districts has hit a low point compared to recent elections at 26: 17 Republicans in the House are in districts carried by Obama and 9 Democrats are in districts carried by Romney.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/5606

Think about those numbers for a moment...

What this means is that out of 435 members of the House of Representatives, only a small hand full on both sides of the aisle have to be more concerned about losing a general election then they do about being knocked off in a low turnout primary by an opponent who makes a successful pitch to the party base. (Those voters who are most likely to be motivated by ideology and single issues, and least likely to support compromise)

What this does of course, is electorally incentiveize ideological intransigence, and dis-incentivize the sort of horse trading compromising that is essential for a government like ours to function...

The gerrymandering process has placed way too much power in the hands of a minority of ideological voters on both sides of the political divide, at the expense of both the vast majority of the citizenry, (poll after poll after poll shows that by wide margins, Republicans, Democrats and Independents all want their elected representatives to work together to get things done) and the ability of the legislative process to work in even a minimally functional way.

This situation must be fixed.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9957&p=126375&hilit ... er#p126375

But rube, it's good to see you becoming aware of the subject. Always nice when someone decides to broaden their horizons by learning about new things.

[rubato]

And there is a technological solution to the gross distortions of gerrymandering; for those who care about honest democratic representation:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... pare-time/






yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

In Maryland, they need to redraw the Chesapeake Bay to optimize compactness.

[Sue U]

The solution to gerrymandering is a system that provides proportional representation within congressional districts. Simpler, more fair, and ensures that a greater diversity of perspectives are given a voice in government. We are foolishly hanging on to a system that by its design inevitably results in hyper-partisanship and gridlocked government with no agenda other than to thwart the other party.

[rubato]

The solution to gerrymandering is a system that provides proportional representation within congressional districts. Simpler, more fair, and ensures that a greater diversity of perspectives are given a voice in government. We are foolishly hanging on to a system that by its design inevitably results in hyper-partisanship and gridlocked government with no agenda other than to thwart the other party.

If we did that on a national level wouldn't it result in even worse legislative gridlock as all the fringe groups hold out for "ideologically pure" solutions?


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Most of the proportional representation proposals I have read give even more power to the parties--some even suggest voting for parties, not candidates, and letting the parties appoint the "winners"--which could well lead to the ideological alignment rubato suggests. Somehow, I doubt moderate and left leaning repubs (or moderate and right leaning dems) would get appointed by their party masters--now popular candidates who buck the system may win, if rarely). Independents would have even less of a chance.

I imagine a system could be designed to minimize this, but the systems I have seen discussed just replace one problem with another.

[rubato]

The example I think of is Israel where extremist orthodox groups have exercised power out of proportion to their numbers to the disadvantage of the whole.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

The example I think of is Israel where extremist orthodox groups have exercised power out of proportion to their numbers to the disadvantage of the whole.


yrs,
rubato

I think that's as much a consequence of the parliamentary system and the deals that have to be made to get a majority as anything else.

Indeed, it's likely these groups could be elected using a districted system, depending how the districts were drawn, since many of the ultra orthodox tend to live in clustered geographic areas.