Why is Republican Gerrymandering any different than Democratic gerrymandering? Are you trying to tell us that Democrats don't gerrymander? Gerrymandering is all about the entrenched party trying to remain entrenched, and given the current President's propensity to advocate policies which are good for the Democratic Party, yet harmful to the country, I am not sure why you would be upset by the other side doing what your side is doing, and with little condemnation from your side, I might add.
I guess there have to be voter districts. What do you suggest? I suggest straight Township/Range/Section boundaries.
Without Democrat gerrymandering, people with the IQ of potato salad....like Maxine Waters....could never have a chance at political office.... and that would be discriminatory to the IQ challenged.
Of course Democrats have gerrymandered. For either party to do it is a direct frontal assault on democracy. Another system has to be found. Better?
Districts aren't mandatory. A state has the freedom to set up an "at-large" system if it wants to. Most don't, but that's because of the perceived advantage it gives to urban areas. I would argue this effect would be far less prevalent with an at-large system if we had a voting system like the following: 1) Allow voters to vote for the same number of candidates as there are open positions in the House. For example, NC has 13 Representatives. Instead of being assigned a district, you could vote for 13 candidates you liked the most out of a much larger pool. 2) Candidates in a system such as this would campaign across the state rather than focusing on one area. This leads to less of a singleminded approach in trying to favor one area's interests over the state or the nation as a whole. Some say that this means more people would go after the big cities, but if you think about it, this is only true of some candidates. If you have 13 open positions for a job, and roughly half of your state's population is clustered in 5 main cities, then about half of your pool of candidates will focus on these areas. The other half will pursue rural areas for 2 reasons: 1) less competition for a given rural area, 2) it's generally cheaper to campaign in rural areas than urban ones. So, we'd see wealthier candidates aim at the urban areas (like we already do), but at the same time, the proportion of representation would be more accurate with respect to actual population distribution. Under our current district system, it's mostly dependent on however the state legislature wants to favor one party or another. Lines are mostly arbitrary. In an "at-large" system, it would function more like a market, so to speak. Demand and interest would be purely generated by voter activity -- which is more of an accurate view of what a constituency desires.
Probably because it's the Republicans who are most guilty at the present time. In fact, without the likes of DeLay, you folks wouldn't be controlling the House right now.
Balancing the interests of the urban and rural areas has always been a challenge. It's what led to the Senate.
Well, let's be clear here. It's more a republican thing right now. True, Maryland and Illinois are gerrymandered to the democrats' favor, but there's something like 8 states, several of them battleground states, where republicans need half the votes of democrats to pick up seats in the house.
In Indiana in 2011, we blew away all the gerrymanders and installed compact geometrically regular shaped districts that always broke on county or township lines. Result: a lot of dead Democrat gerrymanders. At-large districting is what makes European parliaments such madhouses.
I wouldn't say that most parliaments are "madhouses." Granted, the UK one is rather "lively." It definitely requires the PM to have a thicker skin than our presidents have.
Bottom line: Politicians need to cease engineering elections; instead, they should figure out what the will of the people is and promote the same (in word and deed).
