A couple random notes to add: 1) Things have changed in Louisiana such that Louisiana just elected a governor of Indian (as in India) heritage. It's hard to imagine that happening 20 years ago despite the fact that the governor's political philosophy dovetails nicely with Louisiana-at-large. 2) There's (almost) always an exception – that one unique amazing extraordinary person who breaks bounds and is seen differently than everyone “like her” previously. But one can't manage society only for the extraordinary. The average Joe needs to have a fair shot, too. Or in this example, the average politician.

Anyway, geography alone for districting seems to have its benefits and drawbacks, as everything. If a state were to be 60% Democratic and 40% Republican and the people were spread out evenly geography-wise, one could theoretically end up with a 100% Democratic legislature, which doesn't represent the true opinions of the state.

Things like political beliefs however seem much more fluid and one can imagine allegiances shifting as politicians put together varying coalitions and voter blocks. The weird gerrymandered districts only seem like (possibly) a good idea when the electorate is stuck in a rutt and systematically deprives a large block of the citizens any representation in government. Moreover, to justify gerrymandering you likely would also want to see evidence of important problems the imbalance in representation has created — easy and apparent in the case of African-Americans in Louisiana.

I must say, I never thought of it taht way. That sounds like an affirmative-action kind of maneuver, though, something that might draw fire in itself, if openly debated.

In the meantime, Obama is not the only inspirational black man in the country. The young and black mayor of Newark, NJ (a poor, minority city) lights any room he speaks in on fire with his inspirational and successful ideas on education reform and crime fighting. He would have no trouble getting white votes in any district, with any racial composition.
Or am I being too idealsitic?

HMMMMMMMM. Something to ponder.

For instance, I grew up in Louisiana in the 70s and 80s (yes, I'm in my 30s now) and we had a couple completely gerrymandered districts that wove from area to area through-out the state, specifically selecting parishes (a parish is a county) or just pieces of parishes that had majority black voters. The district made absolutely no geographical sense. It was racially driven. But there was a good reason for it.

Blacks make up some 30-40% of the electorate and yet historically there were virtually no black representatives, because people very much voted along racial lines. It's no accident that there have been black members of the House, based on local districting, but zero black Senators since Reconstruction from the South.

Clearly, in the best world, we would change people's hearts so that they chose who they thought was the best candidate based on some combination of character and policy, but in the more practical world, if you wanted 40% of your population to have any representation (because the white reps who should represent all their citizens did not need to do so in fact since they could rely on the 60% white vote), you had to gerrymander.

If you go to geographically based districting, wouldn't we lose a lot of minority representation?

Living in NY, I don't always agree with Bloomberg. He is a bit too market driven, and someitmes forgets 'quality of life' and affordabitliy issues. However, he is willing to compromise and deal with realities, not just ideology.

In comparison to NY City and State Legislatures, he is a thousand percent more effective.