Gerrymandering is a pretty fascinating discussion, especially on Reddit, mainly because there`s a lot of misinformation on the subject. Let me briefly clarify a few points. First, redistricting is highly illegal, but redistricting is an essential part of the political system. Second, redistricting is defined as the illegal use of the redistribution process to gain an unfair advantage or to create a disadvantage for certain political groups. Third, because in a given state there are many voters and only a few seats in the House of Representatives, it is not possible to have a complete and perfectly “equitable” distribution of seats in relation to votes. Let me now explain this in more detail. What makes you say that gerrymandering was “accelerated” in the 2000+ period? Ah, thanks for that. But this seems strange to me, why should it be left entirely to the legislator who profits from the manipulation of districts? They can use the power to draw lines to prevent them from being removed from office. Is there a reason why the courts have not been given the power to prevent abusive districts? Wasn`t gerrymandering planned by the editors? Technically, partisan electoral boundaries, which I assume you are talking about, are unconstitutional.
It violates the 14th Amendment. This was done in Davis v. But the court never really clarified what exactly partisan gerrymandering means or how to know when it happens. This is what Gill v. Whitford tried to make do with his measure of the “efficiency gap”, but the case was dismissed for lack of quality to proceed. The reason for this is that district formation is an inherently political process, so only political branches should be involved in drawing up district plans. There is no incentive for a legislator to ban gerrymandering rather than establish county plans that benefit his party, and the courts are largely apathetic on whether it is only illegal if it is done for racist reasons. I apologize for not searching this subtitle or online for this question. When I looked at the table of election results in Ohio, I noticed that the blue part was fragmented, while the red parts were essentially whole. My father briefly explained to me that it was due to gerrymandering.
There is a good argument that gerrymandering has a negligible effect. The real problem that gerrymandering is often blamed for is the unequal distribution of Democratic and Republican votes: why is gerrymandering legal and why don`t we just do MMP? The answer to these two questions is simple: “The people who have been brought to power by the current system support the system from which they have benefited.” The Constitution also directs the federal government to ensure that the states maintain a republican form of government. In the past, gerrymandering was, but it got worse with the use of computers to tweak it. In addition, the counties were redrawn after the recount, but after Texas Republicans redrew them when they took control of the legislature, the courts approved it. I think there is a reason to ask the courts to reconsider their decision to allow gerrymandering for political purposes. Thus, although only half of one of the three branches of government is affected by gerrymandering, partisanship has increased in all three branches, suggesting that bias is not caused solely by gerrymandering. Is there anything that can be done to correct gerrymandering? If I were you, I would publish the video in fairvote. He explains everything. Post it here in this thread, in r/videos and other subreddits. It`s pretty subjective what gerrymandering is and what isn`t.
Sometimes you see examples of “I know when I see it,” but it would be difficult to establish an objective standard against which to make a law. I never understood why gerrymandering is even possible/a problem. Why and how does anyone have the power to create such stupid regions? Why aren`t all regions as close to rectangles/squares as possible? In this way, with a sufficiently large sample, each bias would make it possible to obtain an average. Once we start “shaping” the area, there are so many ways to cheat, and people really have to work really hard to make sure that doesn`t happen, but why even let that happen? On money. It should also be noted that both parties like to use gerrymandering to their advantage. In Davis v. Bandemer, gerrymandering was challenged in the Indiana state legislature on the basis of the same protection. The plaintiffs lost, but the court ruled that gerrymandering was suable. Subsequently, in Vieth v.
Jubelirer, the court concluded that gerrymandering was not judicial, but left the door open that it could be with the appropriate standards. Partisan gerrymandering in the United States is generally legal because the Constitution gives states — through its legislators — broad discretionary powers to draw districts, and both parties have used that power to protect their majorities. However, there are some limitations. Which brings us back to the initial discussion: gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is used when the map is used to create districts that intentionally disenfranchise them or give an advantage to a particular group. For this reason, creating one or two safe districts is not gerrymandering, or why strange lubricants are not gerrymandering. Both are the inevitable by-product of finding a solution to a very complicated problem. How fucking gerrymandering is legal, it`s incomprehensible to me. It should be a federal law that all counties in every state are drawn equally, regardless of party. Gerrymandering is undoubtedly a problem, and I can`t really argue that it isn`t. But the claim that this is the biggest problem baffles me.
Mass inequality, poverty, senseless war – all this can only happen because gerrymandering brought the wrong people to power. Please do not dismiss this idea without thinking about it: let us say that we allow the minority party to draw the boundaries of the counties. I am not familiar with the laws regarding redistribution. It was a pure brainstorming idea born out of thinking about the way to a fair division – you make the cut, I choose the piece. I know it is not the same concept. And if you read your answer, it is clear from the legal case you quote that the system is “fair.” But impartiality seems to be a problem. A moderate and compromising MP is threatened by her own party because many of us would do the job – the party might disagree. Since re-election is naturally the first task (can`t get the job done unless voters fire you), it has to play into everything. I think allowing the minority party to draw the lines within the legal boundaries could provide an interesting dynamic that could give us a better-functioning Congress. Tell me it`s stupid – but not without giving you an idea for a few minutes of your time. If you really tried to draw a state`s counties in such a way that the partisan composition of the congressional delegation closely matched that of the state electorate, the counties would still look terribly rigged, full of unintuitive groupings.
They should divide major cities (with Democratic majorities) into parts, with each room grouped with surrounding rural or suburban areas oriented toward Republicans. The only justification for this is an explicit program to develop a “fair” congressional delegation. But this is no more justified than gerrymandering in the first place. I read over and over again that the Republicans should have lost the majority in the House of Representatives, but won thanks to expert gerrymandering. I looked for gerrymandering, and it seems to redraw constituencies to favor a political party. This sounds outrageous and should be illegal. Why are politicians allowed to determine districts, shouldn`t it be done by a neutral 3rd party? It`s like letting them choose their own salary. Shouldn`t that be one of the things that the other branch of government does for checks and balances? I am baffled by politics. It is illegal and there is protection against it.
Davis v. Bandemer (1986) concluded that gerrymandering violated the equality clause of the Constitution, allowing people to bring an action for redress in the federal court system. Adjacent as in a central divider of a highway also seems legal It is generally illegal to draw districts in such a way as to deliberately keep racial minorities out of power, or to draw districts solely by race. If it is easier to vote for small parties and represent more parties, the problem of gerrymandering would not be as important, would it not? Ultimately, these types of gadgets fly when you have an apathetic, underinformed, or highly partisan electorate.
