One solution to gerrymandering - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14890408
I proposed this on another site and only the Europeans liked it.

1st a fact, the US Constitution allows the Congress to tell the states how to run their system of electing their Representatives. I looked it up.

My solution is for Congress to demand that all the states whenever possible have districts with more than one Rep.
1] The ideal number is 4 Reps. per district.
2] 7 states get just 1 Rep., so they can't be gerrymandered now. Leave them as they are now.
3] Some states get 2 to 5 Reps., so they would all be elected from 1 district.
4] Etc. See below.

Each voter would still gets just 1 vote, but they could split their 1 vote into fractions. All they need to do is vote for more than 1 Rep. and the computer counting machine would auto-split their vote *evenly* between those they voted for.
The votes of all the candidates running are totaled and the top vote getters would be elected to the set number of seats for that district.
Political parties should run the right number of candidates to maximize their winning candidates.
Minor parties would run just 1 candidate and he or she would get the *whole* vote of all the voters who voted for that party's candidate.

Getting back to the questions of how many districts would a state have --
. . continuing where I left off.
4] Some states now get 6 to 11 Reps., so they would have 2 districts. Each district would have 3, 4 or 5 Reps.
5] Some states now get 12 to 15 Reps, so they would have 3 districts. Each district would have 4 or 5 Reps.
6] Some states now get 16 to 20 Reps, so they would have 4 districts. Each district would have 4 or 5 Reps.
7] Larger states would be split into enough districts so that each district has 4, 5 or maybe 6 Reps.
8] Currently Calif. has 55 Reps., so it would have 13 districts. Ten districts would have 4 Reps and 3 would have 5 Reps.

This is just an example. Congress could probably improve my thoughts.

What are my thoughts on the effect this would have?
1] There would still be wasted votes, but their number would be much smaller. In later years before the next re-districting changes in voter preferences would change some of the wasted votes to the other party.
2] It would be much easier for minor parties to get a foothold in the House of Reps.
3] Most voters could get a Rep. in Congress who represents them fairly well simply by voting for just that 1 candidate. The weaker major party would usually get at least 1 seat from each district. [But not in the smaller states with only 1 or 2 Reps.]
4] I selected 4 as the ideal size of a district because I want to encourage the major parties to fight for a 3-1 split instead of always settling for a 2-1 or 3-2 split.
5] The biggest objection to this for Americans is their assumption that all districts must have just 1 Rep.
. . a] I propose that the main reason that the Founding Fathers set it up that way was -- that travel and communication were very slow then and so small compact districts made a lot of sense then.
. . b] This is no longer true. So, why not gain the advantages for representative democracy that multi-Rep. districts can provide?
. . c] This might hurt one party or the other at first but in the long term both parties would gain sometimes and the 2 major parties should not be able to lockout minor parties.

Other thoughts --
1] Illinois used a similar system with 3 Reps per state Rep. for decades.
2] The system could be extended to the Senate, but this would require major changes.
. . a] Have 3 Senators per state. [Maybe 4?]
. . b] Have them all be elected in the same year in the same election.
. . c] This would be the same as treating the whole state as a district with 3 Reps., i.e. Senators.
. . d] This is more of a change because now it is common for a state to have both its Senators be from 1 party. So, the current 2 parties have more to lose.
3] This can be combined with other anti-gerrymandering rules.
. . a] Use a commission to do re-districting with compact districts.
. . b] Weight the votes in Congress for/by each Rep. according to how many votes they got. Give them # of votes they got/1000 when they vote on bills or for all votes.
#14890456
The drawing of congressional districts to provide for 'fair' representation of the citizens is not possible if the present system is to be retained. If the lines include truly proportional statewide distribution of, say, Republican and Democrat voters, they will not be truly proportional with respect to, say, ethnic minorities or racial divisions. Or rural and urban dwellers. Or ... .

Add to that the turf-protecting mindset of the two major political parties who must be involved in any significant change.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America may, from time to time, agree to hear a case on the subject. Their decisions will be based in the narrowest possible interpretation of the specific issue. Hard and fast guidelines will not be given.

'Nuff said.
#14890459
You know what might actually clean up politics a little?

Increase the pay in Congress by about 10x.

That would attract qualified people to run commensurate to the pay.

This idea seems grossly counterintuitive to most of those in the popular discourse.

So instead elected officials have to use graft and corporation ala India to run rackets to make the office pay (and make the office pay they sure due).

However obviously the interests system is vested in things as they are.
#14890465
Torus34, I realize that it will take a major change in American politics to do this.
You seem to think this is impossible.
I'd like to point out that in 1858 the chances of an Amendment to forbid slavery would be sent to the states in 1865 would have seemed outlandish. Yet, it happened.
I'm expecting that something similar is going to happen in the next 8 to 16 years.
I'll be dead by then, so I need to get my ideas out there now.

To others, why not comment on the idea itself forgetting the impossibility of it happening as you see things now, instead of using my post to say something about something *else* that you want to say?
#14890507
Hi! I don't think that better representation is impossible, but I'd put the probability for the next decade or so south of 10% by more than a little. There may well be small adjustments based upon a couple of cases presently before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The present imbalance of red/blue rural/urban is of sufficient import to the Republican Party for them to oppose major changes. They have many means at their disposal to do so.
Regards.
#14890518
The problem is not Gerrymandering but the two party system. Those that support the two party system shouldn't be allowed to get with whining about it. The two party system gave you Obama and Trump. The two party system gave us over ten years of Thatcher and could easily give us Jeremy Corbyn.

We should have zero tolerance for 2Partyiers whining about the results of their system. So for example in Britain the labour party rallied to defend the Tory party and keep UKIP out. Where they had no chance of wining they should not merely have not voted Tory but should have gone out and voted UKIP. Once UKIP was established as a viable party on the right, Labour could easily have come in and won a host of constituencies on split right wing vote. In the same way that the Tories in Scotland have benefited from the SNP /Labour split in Scotland.

The two party system could be broken by wither right or left. All you've got to do is in areas where you have no chance of winning support the most extreme / loony candidates on the other side.
#14890561
Rich: In response to your statement, "The two party system could be broken by wither right or left. All you've got to do is in areas where you have no chance of winning support the most extreme / loony candidates on the other side.
"
It's been tried and done. Your Honor, I place in evidence the Presidency of Donald Trump. [Rim shot.]
#14890563
Don't forget that Hilary beat Trump. She lost the electoral college but in 2016 Republicans did significantly better in the House and Senate races than in the Presidential election.
#14890610
No one line posts.

Oxymoron, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you man that the will of the American voters needs to be obstructed because the voters are just a bunch of barbarians?

On another forum I suggested that people put sarcasm and irony in green color text. It seemed to work well. But, the color choices are not as good here.
#14891653
Gerrymandering isn't the problem Democrats make it out to be (and only because they're currently the major losers when it comes to control of the states). Still, it is something that reduces people's trust in the fairness of elections and should be dealt with. Steve_American, I think your system is too complicated. Instead, I think Congress should require that, where possible, the states have to draw districts with borders that a) have some point within from which a line can be drawn to all points of the boundary without leaving the district, b) have all habitations connected by an internal road network, and c) does not break up discrete communities. Within those restrictions, let the states do what they will.
Rich wrote:Don't forget that Hilary beat Trump. She lost the electoral college but in 2016 Republicans did significantly better in the House and Senate races than in the Presidential election.

No, Hillary did not beat Trump. She lost in the Electoral College, and when it comes to the presidency that is the vote that matters.

Steve_American wrote:Rich, I think that one reason the Repuds did better in the House than Trump did for President is that House districts were heavily gerrymandered to favor Repuds after the 2010 election.

The best estimate I've seen is that from 7 to 10 seats of the Republican majority can be explained through gerrymandering, nowhere near enough to have given Democrats control of the House if the districts were drawn more fairly.
#14891662
Steve_American wrote:I proposed this on another site and only the Europeans liked it.

1st a fact, the US Constitution allows the Congress to tell the states how to run their system of electing their Representatives. I looked it up.

My solution is for Congress to demand that all the states whenever possible have districts with more than one Rep.
1] The ideal number is 4 Reps. per district.
2] 7 states get just 1 Rep., so they can't be gerrymandered now. Leave them as they are now.
3] Some states get 2 to 5 Reps., so they would all be elected from 1 district.
4] Etc. See below.

Each voter would still gets just 1 vote, but they could split their 1 vote into fractions. All they need to do is vote for more than 1 Rep. and the computer counting machine would auto-split their vote *evenly* between those they voted for.
The votes of all the candidates running are totaled and the top vote getters would be elected to the set number of seats for that district.
Political parties should run the right number of candidates to maximize their winning candidates.
Minor parties would run just 1 candidate and he or she would get the *whole* vote of all the voters who voted for that party's candidate.

Getting back to the questions of how many districts would a state have --
. . continuing where I left off.
4] Some states now get 6 to 11 Reps., so they would have 2 districts. Each district would have 3, 4 or 5 Reps.
5] Some states now get 12 to 15 Reps, so they would have 3 districts. Each district would have 4 or 5 Reps.
6] Some states now get 16 to 20 Reps, so they would have 4 districts. Each district would have 4 or 5 Reps.
7] Larger states would be split into enough districts so that each district has 4, 5 or maybe 6 Reps.
8] Currently Calif. has 55 Reps., so it would have 13 districts. Ten districts would have 4 Reps and 3 would have 5 Reps.

This is just an example. Congress could probably improve my thoughts.

What are my thoughts on the effect this would have?
1] There would still be wasted votes, but their number would be much smaller. In later years before the next re-districting changes in voter preferences would change some of the wasted votes to the other party.
2] It would be much easier for minor parties to get a foothold in the House of Reps.
3] Most voters could get a Rep. in Congress who represents them fairly well simply by voting for just that 1 candidate. The weaker major party would usually get at least 1 seat from each district. [But not in the smaller states with only 1 or 2 Reps.]
4] I selected 4 as the ideal size of a district because I want to encourage the major parties to fight for a 3-1 split instead of always settling for a 2-1 or 3-2 split.
5] The biggest objection to this for Americans is their assumption that all districts must have just 1 Rep.
. . a] I propose that the main reason that the Founding Fathers set it up that way was -- that travel and communication were very slow then and so small compact districts made a lot of sense then.
. . b] This is no longer true. So, why not gain the advantages for representative democracy that multi-Rep. districts can provide?
. . c] This might hurt one party or the other at first but in the long term both parties would gain sometimes and the 2 major parties should not be able to lockout minor parties.

Other thoughts --
1] Illinois used a similar system with 3 Reps per state Rep. for decades.
2] The system could be extended to the Senate, but this would require major changes.
. . a] Have 3 Senators per state. [Maybe 4?]
. . b] Have them all be elected in the same year in the same election.
. . c] This would be the same as treating the whole state as a district with 3 Reps., i.e. Senators.
. . d] This is more of a change because now it is common for a state to have both its Senators be from 1 party. So, the current 2 parties have more to lose.
3] This can be combined with other anti-gerrymandering rules.
. . a] Use a commission to do re-districting with compact districts.
. . b] Weight the votes in Congress for/by each Rep. according to how many votes they got. Give them # of votes they got/1000 when they vote on bills or for all votes.


I think your system is too complicated. One system I heard the other day was to go by the scrupulously non-political zip codes that the Post Office has drawn.

Put the zip codes into 5 categories based on their populations. Then have a lottery where the representative is assigned one zip code at a time until they are all gone. For example and to make it simple lets take a state with 10 reps. In it, you have

10 zip codes with 5 people These would be the big cities
20 zip codes with 4 people
30 zip codes with 3 people These may be the suburbs
40 zip codes with 2 people
50 zip codes with 1 person This would be the rural areas.

Each rep ends up with 35 people to represent; some are from rural areas, suburban areas, urban spaces... There are no divisions by voting histories, color, etc..
#14891664
Doug64, thanks for your on point reply.
I think your numbers of Gerrymandered districts are way off.
For example, PA now has 18 Reps.; 5 Dems and 13 Repuds. Since the state was split just about 50-50 for Pres. in might be expected to be split 50-50 for Reps. too. If so then, that would be 9 Dems and 9 Repuds. So, in PA along the Repuds lose 4 seats if gerrymandering is eliminated.
And I don't like gerrymandering in any state at any level. My system could be extended to the state legislatures over time once people get used to it.
#14891665
4cal, thank you for your on point reply.
However, your reply is confusing. Can you clarify it some?
. . . Maybe the problem is here. You wrote, "Each rep ends up with 35 people to represent; ...".
. . . Maybe you meant to type, "Each rep ends up with 35 zipcodes to represent; ...".

I don't think my plan is confusing. But, who is it confusing for in your opinion?
The staff at the legislature who will be drawing the lines are going to be smart enough to understand it.
The voters don't need to understand all of it. They just need to know how many candidates their party wants them to vote for. The ballots would still label all the candidates by party affiliation. After a few elections everyone would understand how to use it.
The vote counting would need to be done by machine, though. I think that this would not be a problem. Especially if every state used counting machines from 2 different companies, one selected/approved by Dems and 1 by Repubs. The 2 systems should always give the same results; if they don't then there is a problem somewhere. [Note that I don't see the long term benefit in saving money on vote counting which lets the wrong people get to decide how the people's money gets spent.]
#14891667
Steve_American wrote:Doug64, thanks for your on point reply.
I think your numbers of Gerrymandered districts are way off.
For example, PA now has 18 Reps.; 5 Dems and 13 Repuds. Since the state was split just about 50-50 for Pres. in might be expected to be split 50-50 for Reps. too. If so then, that would be 9 Dems and 9 Repuds. So, in PA along the Repuds lose 4 seats if gerrymandering is eliminated.

You’re assuming that everyone voted straight ticket, they didn’t. While Clinton beat Trump 65.8 million to his 63 million, nationwide House Republicans got 56.3 million votes while Democrats got about 53.2 million.

And I think the plan I suggested is both easier and would pretty much eliminate gerrymandering as well.
#14891669
Steve_American wrote:4cal, thank you for your on point reply.
However, your reply is confusing. Can you clarify it some?
. . . Maybe the problem is here. You wrote, "Each rep ends up with 35 people to represent; ...".
. . . Maybe you meant to type, "Each rep ends up with 35 zipcodes to represent; ...".

Well, the zip codes were simplified so that the math would be easier. If there are, for the sake of argument, 500 zip codes in a state and 10 representatives, each rep would get 50 zip codes to represent. Currently, they are assigned a territory by whoever is drawing the lines and the lines are drawn to disenfranchise as many people from the other party as possible. Nobody denies that. In my system, the 50 zip codes are at random. You may have a zip code outside of Dallas and another one in downtown Laredo and a 3rd along the coast in Galveston. The only determinant is population. The 50 that Rep A gets will have roughly the same number of people as the 50 zip codes that Rep B gets.




Steve_American wrote:I don't think my plan is confusing. But, who is it confusing for in your opinion?
The staff at the legislature who will be drawing the lines are going to be smart enough to understand it.
The voters don't need to understand all of it. They just need to know how many candidates their party wants them to vote for. The ballots would still label all the candidates by party affiliation. After a few elections everyone would understand how to use it.
The vote counting would need to be done by machine, though. I think that this would not be a problem. Especially if every state used counting machines from 2 different companies, one selected/approved by Dems and 1 by Repubs. The 2 systems should always give the same results; if they don't then there is a problem somewhere. [Note that I don't see the long term benefit in saving money on vote counting which lets the wrong people get to decide how the people's money gets spent.]


Excellent point.
#14891677
Gerrymandering is only feasible when districts have unequal distributions of population. I think a better solution to gerrymandering would be to cap districts at about 100,000 inhabitants per district, with the rule adopted being that they must be located in as compact an area as possible. The US Congress is general is far too small for the size of the nation, and gerrymandering is just an extension of that as politicians try to guarantee their seats from stiffer and stiffer competition.
#14891753
Fasces wrote:Gerrymandering is only feasible when districts have unequal distributions of population. I think a better solution to gerrymandering would be to cap districts at about 100,000 inhabitants per district, with the rule adopted being that they must be located in as compact an area as possible. The US Congress is general is far too small for the size of the nation, and gerrymandering is just an extension of that as politicians try to guarantee their seats from stiffer and stiffer competition.

While I don’t think reducing the size of the districts will help prevent gerrymandering, just the opposite actually, I do agree the House is too small for the size of the country. But I’de rather have the size of the districts set by the smallest state rather than a set number.

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]

...Which Hamas refuses and wasn't ordered by the […]

@skinster so you confess that Hamas committed ma[…]