[Torus34]

We've at least one case slowly working its way through the various courts which, in essence, declares gerrymandering for political advantage as unconstitutional. At present, Pennsylvania's top court has ruled the present voting district lines unacceptable and ordered that they be re-drawn. The Republicans have opposed this.

The state's Democrat/Republican voter distribution's 49%/39%. The state's lower house is 60% Republican. The upper house is 67% Republican. At the Federal level, the Republicans hold 71% of the House of Representative's allotted seats. The Senate's split 50/50 -- one each.

One of the problems inherent in opposing gerrymandering's that of standing. One must show injury in order to bring suit. There are others.

So much for background.

Should the Supreme Court agree to hear such a case, the effect on our two major political parties can be upsetting more than somewhat.

[Suntzu]

Will there be any more Black districts? I wonder how many member of congress will be Black if every district is 13% Black?

[Torus34]

It can be argued that given unbiased district lines -- say districts determined by a 'minimum boundary length' algorithm -- the make-up of a large body such as the US House of Representatives can serve as an index of such cultural phenomena as racism. It's my guess that the US would not fare very well.

Regards.

[Suntzu]

Every district should be balanced, 50% men, 50 women, 65% White, 12% Black, etc.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Should the Supreme Court agree to hear such a case, the effect on our two major political parties can be upsetting more than somewhat.

Yes.

But unless harm can be demonstrated, the right of the state to redraw it lines by its own determination, will be seen as absolute.

That the redrawing of the lines would benefit the party in power at the time is not only hard to prove, but hard to argue as being wrong unless it was done to intentionally infringe upon the rights of individuals.

The right of the state to draw its own lines, and the fact that certain parties tend to dominate a state's politics, implies such "gerrymandering" as an almost foregone conclusion, and it is done by BOTH parties. The Supreme Court will rule, invariably, for the right of the state legislatures on this issue. In my honest opinion.

[Torus34]

VS: I'm inclined to agree with you. It will be interesting to read the Supreme Court opinions if the case is heard.
Suntzu: Such balancing would be impossible for our states because they do not reflect the nationwide percentages of certain groups. Some states, for instance, have far larger black populations than others, stated as percents.

[Suntzu]

True, so will it be O.K. to gerrymander to create majority minority districts?

[Torus34]

That's another complicated issue. It's also the reason I suggested drawing lines based on a single specific requirement which, in itself, is independent of intentional bias.

[Suntzu]

A computer can easily created districts with nearly equal population. The losers will likely be minorities of some flavor. Folks with similar characteristics tend to cluster together, Blacks, Demokrapts, Koreans, etc. It is unlikely a computer generated district would keep those folks together.

[The Immortal Goon]

Davis v. Bandemer in 1986 already found extreme gerrymandering for political purposes to be unconstitutional (in the mentioned case it was found to not be extreme).

However, there was no way to measure it so it was put onto a shelf.

Currently the push is going to be maintaining that only a reasonable percentage of wasted vote is permissible. It is something that can be measured.

Though it would be a victory for Democrats in the short term, in the long term both parties do this for the same reason. It's unlikely to affect that much.