Gerrymandering Thread


#142

Ya, gerrymandering has been a thing he’s crusaded against for a while now.


#143

I posted earlier over in the Voter ID thread about some of the ads against Michigan’s proposal 2, which would establish an independent redistricting commission. Those folks are still going strong, even buying Google search ads for anything related to Michigan Prop 2. Here’s a couple more mailers that showed up over the last few days:

I almost admire the craftsmanship of the messaging. Blame liberals. Invoke that terrible blue hellhole, California. Play on the fear of “bureaucrats” controlling your vote. And most of all, claiming that voting against the proposal will “Stop the Political Gerrymandering” - literally exactly what voting yes is intended to do.

Fortunately the good guys are mailing, too.


And best of all, polls have both prop 2 and 3 (which makes it easier to vote) leading by double digits.

Hopefully the ad bombardment won’t change those numbers for the worse.


#144

Hopefully the legislature won’t directly ban the propositions, as the Texas legislature has for some in Austin.


#145

This is an interesting approach: 2 delegates per district with weighted votes based on the percentage of vote they receive.


#146

Catching up on this thread, I’m happy to see your Michigan proposal passed!


#147

I’ve been banging this drum for years!
Though I prefer a 3 seat district apportionment, otherwise most seats would be 1-1 splits, requiring 75%+ to be otherwise. A 3 seat district is also harder to gerrymander.

As for single rep states we could go super regions, say Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho as one, or just leave it as a single seat district.


#148

This is a different proposal. The seats would always split 1-1, but the seats would not be equal. If the vote splits 60/40, one of the candidates would have 0.6 votes and the other would have 0.4 votes.


#149

Sure would make whipping votes more interesting.


#150

Any change that would disadvantage the GOP will never, ever get past a filibuster in the Senate.


#151

I seem to recall the No campaign stating whether Michigan wanted to be like liberal California in spring this measure.

California only has the independent commission because the Republicans put it on the ballot as an initiative!


#152

And what about independents or possible third parties?? I know, lol at third parties in the USA, but this would make the two parties system actually law


#153

No surprise to most of us here, but it’s nice to see the data.


#154

Some threshold would have to be used. Maybe 10%? (just spitballing)

But yeah, the idea is each party with a good chunk of votes would get a representative.

Edit - I would also include ranked choice voting as well


#155

Jesus Christ, Ohio.

I hope their redistricting reform works.


#156

I’m not hopeful, but even if it does it won’t take effect until 2021.

The graphs in that article are damning. There’s a lawsuit which could speed up the timeline of redrawing districts, which was responded to by the Lt Gov.-elect with “Sure, they may be unfair, but why did you wait so long to sue us?”


#157

That quote belongs in the “Decline to Moral Bankruptcy” thread…


#158

Yeah, the full statement was:
“Why did they wait six years to file a lawsuit challenging the maps? These groups should respect the will of Ohio’s voters who overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment earlier this month that established a new, bipartisan process for drawing congressional districts starting in 2021.”

Of course, the voters didn’t have an option of “Do this right @#$%ing now!” - it was yes or no for 2021, only. Husted is a disingenuous prick.


#159

Yeah, reading more closely, it’s not really an anti-gerrymandering reform at all. All it does is make Republicans re-do the map every 4 years instead of every 10.


#160

Ouch, so basically they can adjust their gerrymandering on a more frequent basis? Scary.


#161

The Ohio plan had overwhelming bipartisan support in the state legislature when lawmakers approved it for the May ballot. It reaches a middle ground between giving lawmakers control over redistricting and letting independent commissions draw congressional lines ― a step some states have taken in an effort to limit political redistricting.

Under the new process, lawmakers still have initial control of mapmaking, but they can only pass a map with a 60 percent supermajority in the legislature, including the votes of 50 percent of the minority party. If lawmakers can’t agree on a map, the process goes to a seven-member bipartisan commission, which can only adopt a plan with the support of two members of the minority party in the legislature.

Should the commission fail to agree on a plan, lawmakers will get a second chance at redistricting. They’ll still need a 60 percent supermajority to pass a new congressional map, but they would need the support of just one-third of the lawmakers in the minority.

If lawmakers still can’t reach an agreement, they will be allowed to pass a congressional plan by a simple majority vote, but it would only be in effect for four years instead of the usual 10. According to the measure, a map passed under these conditions can’t “unduly favor or disfavor” one particular party or its incumbents, and lawmakers can’t “unduly split” localities. Legislators would also have to provide a justification for their map ― making an illegal one easier to challenge in court.

So no, it won’t just let them gerrymander it again, or if they do, it will be after a much longer process, and will be easily challenged in court.