NationStates Jolt Archive

i was just looking at a map of the local congressional districts. if you go a mile south of my house you are in another congressional district. if you go 2 miles east the same. if you go a half mile north the same, but if you go 5 more miles north you are back in my district again. and 15 miles east you are again back in mine. this is all in a county of 43,000 people.

HOLY CRAP!!!

its all done to keep the current party in power IN power for the next 10 years ( until the next census then they redraw the boundaries)

EVERY congressional district looks about the same

HOLY CRAP!!!
that is a disturbing mental image :?

:shock:
stupid politics.

Hrmmph, at least you have a big enough state to gerrymander.

but both congressmen are republicans :roll:



http://factfinder.census.gov/leg2/12/31296612.gif

Not every congressional district. Iowa's congressional districts look like this:
http://www.mapresources.com/congress/thumb_ia_congress-1739.gif

And even better, look at the rules for redistricting here. (http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/June2001report.htm)

Basically, their rules are to divide the districts by population and make them as compact and contiguous as possible. This is done by a nonpartisan commission and results in more competitive seats every two years than almost any other state. I'd love to see this happen in every single state in the union, regardless of the fact that I'm a partisan Democrat.

You should all be kicked for discussing these things.

http://factfinder.census.gov/leg2/50/31296650.gif


http://factfinder.census.gov/leg2/76/31296676.gif

Not every congressional district. Iowa's congressional districts look like this:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:lTD9cAFBW1QJ:www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/plan2cong.jpg

And even better, look at the rules for redistricting here. (http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/June2001report.htm)

Basically, their rules are to divide the districts by population and make them as compact and contiguous as possible. This is done by a nonpartisan commission and results in more competitive seats every two years than almost any other state. I'd love to see this happen in every single state in the union, regardless of the fact that I'm a partisan Democrat.

I'm sure there are thousands of Texans who would agree with you as well.

yeah incertonia it woudl be nice if that were the law in every state
gerrymandering is a national disgrace and a threat to democracy

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I'm as partisan and competitive as they come, and I want to win control of Congress and the White House, but I'd rather go head to head over a battle of ideas and come up short because I didn't do a good enough job convincing than win because the game was rigged in my favor.

im betting youre not in congress now

i think we were included in phil english's district which includes the somewhat politically split city of erie to make it more solidly republican. at least that's the best theory i can come up with. but it pretty much insures that warren county has no sway at all in washington since were are solidly republican and therefore not a contest and our measely 43,000 is divided in half.

im betting youre not in congress nowAnd probably never will be--I'm too much of a true believer, an idealist. :lol:

politics is way too corrupt for good people to be able to get into office

gerrymandering is a national disgrace and a threat to democracy

but it is also the inevitable outcome of having single seat districts, particularly when the holders of those seats get to draw the borders for them. but it doesn't even require the second part. seat holders will gerrymander to stay in power. if you put others in charge those others will probably do so for other reasons - for example, they might draw up ethnic minority districts to save them from not having any representation at all.

the problem is with the system of representation.

ideally you want to gerrymander so that your party can win its seats with some comfort, but the seats your opponents win are by a landslide. you don't want to waste any of your voters in a loosing district, but you want to nuetralize as many of the other guys as you can.

the problem is with the system of representation.It's deeper than that. The problem is that both major parties are willing to work together to consolidate power at the expense of everyone else. That's the reason there hasn't been a real third party threat in the US for many many years. And there won't be, as long as both parties have anything to say about it.

Not every congressional district. Iowa's congressional districts look like this:
Basically, their rules are to divide the districts by population and make them as compact and contiguous as possible. This is done by a nonpartisan commission and results in more competitive seats every two years than almost any other state. I'd love to see this happen in every single state in the union, regardless of the fact that I'm a partisan Democrat. I like the idea, but the practice is unfortunetely flawed. My state drew up redistricting on the Iowa model and wound of effectively disenfranchising people. For instance the town accross the river got rolled into the district with my town, a fine concept until you realize the nearest bridge across the river is 20 miles away (and not easy to get to), to get to the polling place in my town they would have to drive over two hours round trip (four if they live on a back road) and vice versa. Even worse districts were created in the mountains, where towns next to each other on the map may be over half a day's travel by road.

There's no way to put a polling place in the town across the river? That seems a bit far-fetched to me. I'm not doubting you, mind you, just saying there seems to be an easy fix to that kind of problem.

It's deeper than that. The problem is that both major parties are willing to work together to consolidate power at the expense of everyone else. That's the reason there hasn't been a real third party threat in the US for many many years. And there won't be, as long as both parties have anything to say about it.

that certainly doesn't help matters. but if you have single member districts with plurality voting, the best you can really hope for is a couple regional parties. it's sort of a general tendency across the world. it's even got a name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Gerrymandering's bad, and obviously both parties do it.

There's no way to put a polling place in the town across the river? That seems a bit far-fetched to me. I'm not doubting you, mind you, just saying there seems to be an easy fix to that kind of problem. Under the state law each district has one polling place. That works out to one polling place/2500 people (not voters, people) which under reasonable districting is a sufficient number. Even if it were legal, why should we go to all the trouble and expense and risk of fraud to set up a seperate polling place for the 600+ people across the river? Since this remote polling place would have to be monitored and coordinated by the main polling place we are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 people to run this remote polling place, for about 200 votes of we get a 50% turnout.

Besides why should be lumped together with them, we have next to nothing in common, except some of us wave to some of them accross the river occasionally.

Ah--so are we talking about state districts or congressional districts? If we're talking about state districts, then your example makes a lot more sense.

Gerrymandering and partisan politics is the reason the courts just drew the new district lines in my state - and screwed over a number of incumbents. They got what they deserved as far as I am concerned. But then again, they did some negotiations and the guy from my hometown who was definitely going to get voted out managed to get out of the nasty situation he was in (ie being a fundamentalist written into a district with a more liberal incumbent that everybody loved).