Comments on: New Boss, same as the Old Boss – Redistricting

By: George Sorwell

George Sorwell — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:06:12 +0000

Great catch, Paul. I missed this article.

In my opinion, so-called safe seats undermine our democracy. This type of reform is long overdue, whatever the consequences for a few (or even a lot of) elected officials.

By: jjc

jjc — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:43:14 +0000

Seems like it ought to be possible to come up with an algorithm that creates districts starting at one corner of a state and working towards the other, creating districts as compact as possible until total number of districts to which the state is entitled is achieved.

Only fair way to do it. Probably could only be done by a Constitutional amendment, if it could even be done that way.

By: University Update

University Update — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:34:43 +0000

New Boss, same as the Old Boss – Redistricting…

…

By: Mikef

Mikef — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:33:13 +0000

I’m all for taking redistricting out of the hands of politicians, but the most recent proposal I saw was Arnold Schwartzenegger’s attempt to take it away from the legislature and give it to himself (via a group of judges he would select). That doesn’t depoliticize the process, and the Legislature is right to oppose it.

The problem with redistricting is that both parties know how to play with the boundaries so that all the opposition’s voters are concentrated in a few districts (letting them win with overwhelming majorities in those places). The remaining districts are drawn so that the dominant party wins narrow victories. There is virtually no set of mapping rules you can come up with that could not be subverted in this way, and far from being independent, appointed judges are guaranteed to be selected for their partisan views (bi-partisan is not the same thing as non-partisan).

The closest tamper-free system I can think of would randomly assign voters to districts independent of their residence.

By: Ashen Shard

Ashen Shard — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:35:31 +0000

Republicans do it in order to grab power, why shouldn’t the Democrats so they can actually compete?
/devil’s advocate

Seriously though, I think the past election shows how irrelevant redistricting can be to either party maintaining power. The problem I see is that it gives a temporary boost to the party that can take advantage of it, which is detrimental to our system I think. This also raises the question (when added to the totality of structural problems in our political system) of whether or not part of our political system, if not all of it, needs an overhaul.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a multi-party system in our country … would be more representative.

By: domajot

domajot — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:33:26 +0000

Yea, the gerrymandering of district boundaries erodes the electoral process. Unfortunately, to change the rules in any state, it requires voting on an initiative and the public, which elected those in power, is likely to vote to support that power.

If I remember correctly, when the disgruntled minority’s complaints have reached the Supreme Court, it has ruled in favor of the voters (Colorado, Texas), i.e. the ‘in’ crowd.

If ever the party in power institutes a fairer method, like districts drawn by an impartial panel, they would be my heroes.