NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that the Democratic Party has an inherent, fundamental disadvantage compared to Republicans, and that disadvantage is only growing.

First, let's assume that the average Democrat is a socially liberal progressive, one that supports reform, the environment, minority rights, etc. Let's also assume that the average Republican is a white Christian traditionalist, who's in favor of the war in Iraq, greater religious freedom, and laws against flag-burning and gay marriage.

I know these definitions are very broad and by no means exhaustive, but we're speaking in general terms here.

Now, I think it's safe to say that most Democrats choose to live in urban areas, while Republicans live more in the outlying areas. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the county-by-county electoral map for the 2004 election:

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/1796/countymapredbluelargeamyf1.png

The so-called "heartland" is entirely red, even traditional blue states like California and Illinois. The only Democratic strongholds are in the large cities and towns. This makes sense, in a way; in most cases progressive, liberal, educated people tend to congregate in cities, with their universities and museums and tolerant multicultural atmosphere, while religious fundamentalists and social conservatives choose to live in out the country, in the suburbs and small towns dotted with churches and farms.

Normally, this would be great for the Democrats. City-dwellers outnumber suburbanites by something like four to one. In terms of sheer numbers, Democrats should be in solid control of the country.

But the cities have an inherent problem -- they're concentrated. Despite the fact that cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat, their overwhelmingly Democratic population -- the Democratic population that far outweighs the rural Republicans -- are confined to the district or two that covers that city. The suburbs and hinterlands, though more sparsely populated, have more districts to their name. And because this plurality of sparsely populated districts votes Republican, the Republicans continue to win.

Courts have tried to remedy this by ruling that districts must be of equal size and population, but Republican governments in most states get around this with gerrymandering. Take the Texas city of Austin, for instance.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9187/800pxtraviscountydistricn5.png

It is solidly Democratic -- but gerrymandering has diluted its power. Basically, the city has been split into thirds, with each section spreading far out into the outlands, so that the rural population of that rural section outnumbers the urban population in the one-third of Austin it includes.

By carving up the Democratic populations in and around the cities in this way -- by dividing and conquering, so to speak -- the Republicans diminish the Democratic advantage even further. In the end, what was once a striking population advantage for the Democrats has been reduced to a barely break-even electorate that continues to lose.

What do you think about all this? Is it right that the majority population should be overruled simply because they choose to live in cities? Should rural areas be allocated so many more districts (and thus more voting power), even though the population is much lower? Can this be fixed?

You're right. The cities, where the VAST majority of the people live, do tend to lean more to the left than urban areas where, comparitively, almost no one lives. When you factor in the populations of the states and the areas in question you get a map that looks more like this:

http://www.ninjamonkies.net/images/uploads/carto-pure_pop.png

Just like Will Rogers said: " I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a democrat."

Who's to say what the "right" way to divide a district is? There's no objectively correct method to form any particular district, and I don't see anything wrong with dividing a city into thirds.

You're right. The cities, where the VAST majority of the people live, do tend to lean more to the left than urban areas where, comparitively, almost no one lives. When you factor in the populations of the states and the areas in question you get a map that looks more like this:

http://www.ninjamonkies.net/images/uploads/carto-pure_pop.png

That map makes New Jersey look fat.

There's no objectively correct method to form any particular district

Impartially.

(Not "objectively correct," no, but the best method nevertheless.)

I think that the Democratic Party has an inherent, fundamental disadvantage compared to Republicans, and that disadvantage is only growing.

The problem is, it's in both parties best interests to gerrymander. A GOP member cannot win in Chicago and urban CA. A DNC member will get killed in TX.

Get rid of both parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander

A "News Scan" article in the November Scientific American summarizes work by Edward Glaeser and Bruce Ward, who find that the red states are not becoming redder nor are the blue ones getting bluer. Here's a link (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2006papers/HIER2100.pdf) to their paper, which I warn you is very dry.

In 2004, 12 states accounted for 25% of the electoral vote, and those twelve states were decided by margins of less than 5% (Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado (kudos to us), Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

On some economic issues, Americans agree, for instance, nearly 2/3 in both color states think big corporations have too much power. Substantial majorities want to protect the environment. On abortion, the survey info cited says 20% want it legal in all cases, 20% want it illegal in all cases, and the other 60% are somewhere in between; it may be important but it's not a fighting issue.

An interesting perspective on things, and perhaps debunking the rallying cry of "culture war!"

I guess a PR system might combat that effect, but it does lead to lots of small parties in charge, instead of a few big ones, so effectively nothing gets done with all the squabbling.

yup

gerrymandering is as big a problem as campaign finance and is as likey to ever get fairly dealt with by men and women whose best interest lies in gerrymandering

The problem is, it's in both parties best interests to gerrymander. A GOP member cannot win in Chicago and urban CA. A DNC member will get killed in TX.

Get rid of both parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander

That's the problem though -- Chicago may be a lost cause for the GOP, but that blow is softened in that the Democratic population of Chicago is isolated in the handful of districts that cover that area. Rural Texas, on the other hand, has literally hundreds of districts to its name, greatly amplifying the electoral power of the much smaller Republican population spread throughout it.

So basically, the true majority is having their voting power quarantined, while the minority's power is unfairly strengthened by being dispersed across many sparsely-populated rural districts. It's like the electoral college, but at the local level, and it needs to be addressed.

That's the problem though -- Chicago may be a lost cause for the GOP, but that blow is softened in that the Democratic population of Chicago is isolated in the handful of districts that cover that area. Rural Texas, on the other hand, has literally hundreds of districts to its name, greatly amplifying the electoral power of the much smaller Republican population spread throughout it.

So basically, the true majority is having their voting power quarantined, while the minority's power is unfairly strengthened by being dispersed across many sparsely-populated rural districts. It's like the electoral college, but at the local level, and it needs to be addressed.

Chicago consists of over 3 million people. About a third of the populain of illinois and nearly a dozen districts. That's just one example.

You're right. The cities, where the VAST majority of the people live, do tend to lean more to the left than urban areas where, comparitively, almost no one lives. When you factor in the populations of the states and the areas in question you get a map that looks more like this:

http://www.ninjamonkies.net/images/uploads/carto-pure_pop.png

That map makes it look like the U.S. is getting sucked into a black hole.

Seriously, though, there's really no way around gerrymandering. The only thing we could do is have each state set up its districts via independent councils of some sort, but politics might even get into that as well. Maybe we need space aliens with no political affiliation to draw up districts.

That map makes it look like the U.S. is getting sucked into a black hole.
Kinda like when the Republicans get too much power? :p

Let's also assume that the average Republican is a white Christian traditionalist, who's in favor of the war in Iraq, greater religious freedom, and laws against flag-burning and gay marriage...

I disagree with the 'greater religious freedom' part of this definition. The Republican Party is the antithesis of religious freedom. They are one step from trying to set up a christian theocracy.


By carving up the Democratic populations in and around the cities in this way -- by dividing and conquering, so to speak -- the Republicans diminish the Democratic advantage even further.

The same is done to increase the Democratic advantage in the South. Districts are gerrymandered to include mostly African-American neighborhoods, virtually ensuring a Democratic victory, for instance. This is by no means a simple case of Republicans taking advantage- both parties are guilty of it.

Kinda like when the Republicans get too much power? :p

Good point...and some of those states look like they're about to burst...Florida, in particular, looks rather uncomfortable. Someone go drop some much-needed Ex-Lax in California...

That's the problem though -- Chicago may be a lost cause for the GOP, but that blow is softened in that the Democratic population of Chicago is isolated in the handful of districts that cover that area. Rural Texas, on the other hand, has literally hundreds of districts to its name, greatly amplifying the electoral power of the much smaller Republican population spread throughout it.

It doesn't work that way. Congressional districts are set up to have about the same number of people in them. They average 630,000 people per district. The reason Texas has more congressional districts (32 districts, not hundreds) than Illinois (19 districts) is because Texas has more people. TX= 20,851,820 IL = 12,419,293

That map makes it look like the U.S. is getting sucked into a black hole.
I prefer this representation:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartredblue.png

Makes it look like the country's being constricted to death by a giant red weed...

Seriously, though, there's really no way around gerrymandering. The only thing we could do is have each state set up its districts via independent councils of some sort, but politics might even get into that as well. Maybe we need space aliens with no political affiliation to draw up districts.
You know how the GOP has all sorts of special demographic software that lets them pinpoint potential voters? I read somewhere that somebody's turned it against them. Basically, it draws districts based on the population's political affiliations to make all areas maximally competitive. Too bad no one will implement it...

EDIT: Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Shortest_splitline_algorithm) it is.

It doesn't work that way. Congressional districts are set up to have about the same number of people in them. They average 630,000 people per district. The reason Texas has more congressional districts (32 districts) than Illinois (19 districts) is because Texas has more people. TX= 20,851,820 IL = 12,419,293

Just so. The politics comes in when the state legislature sits down to draw the district boundaries after a census shows that state has a change in its representation.

Who's to say what the "right" way to divide a district is? There's no objectively correct method to form any particular district, and I don't see anything wrong with dividing a city into thirds.
Gerrymandering is wrong because it perverts the representation of the people. Austin is a large city of Democrats, and should be allowed to elect someone to represent them. But by jigsawing district lines and splitting up the city, their solid Democratic majority is divided and diluted by the Republican lands beyond. This is inherently unfair -- but of course you don't see it that way, because it benefits your position.

It doesn't work that way. Congressional districts are set up to have about the same number of people in them. They average 630,000 people per district. The reason Texas has more congressional districts (32 districts, not hundreds) than Illinois (19 districts) is because Texas has more people. TX= 20,851,820 IL = 12,419,293
I already mentioned this. Yes, the districts are of equal population, but gerrymandering abuses the fact that cities are densely populated by slicing them into strips that, beyond the city limits, immediately widen out into the hinterlands, effectively drowning out the voting power of said city.

I'll render the OP down to a single sentence: the republicans are winning because they cheat!

The system is disfunctional because of too much self-interest in the population. Most people want to win (and want their party to win), and don't care if they have to cheat, bend the rules, and generally trample upon other people in order to do so. 'The cause' is everything. If it is legal (or if you can get away with it, even if it isn't) they are willing to do it in order to win.

This mentality is pervasive in both of the major political parties. They both 'cheat' as much as they can get away with, in other words. Neither side is willing to take a risk on 'playing fair', they are instead focusing their energy on trying to out maneuver each other. At present the republicans seem to be winning the battle of political maneuvering. Which ever side is losing at the moment always complains that the other side is 'not playing by the rules'. Never mind that they don't either when they are in power.

It is therefore, in my opinion, rather pointless to argue about it.

I already mentioned this. Yes, the districts are of equal population, but gerrymandering abuses the fact that cities are densely populated by slicing them into strips that, beyond the city limits, immediately widen out into the hinterlands, effectively drowning out the voting power of said city.

Yes, I agree gerrymandering is a huge problem. It has been since the founding of the republic. It just sounded like you were saying that TX had more districts simply based on geographical size and not on population in that last post.

In TX the dems fled to neighboring states for several days to prevent the repubs from gaing a quorum to butcher the state like they did. But sadly, in the end, there was nothing they could do.

Why not just have first-past-the-post instead of this Electoral College stuff, which is utter crap?

I'll render the OP down to a single sentence: the republicans are winning because they cheat!
Well, partly. Mostly I was trying to say that the problem is inherent in the way Democrats choose to live -- in big cities, close together, making their voting power easy to limit. So, it's partly the Republicans part for exploiting that, but partly an intractable problem in the Democratic lifestyle.

Just a tiny nit to pick, but...

The OP said that the "Heartland" is all Red States. As a former (and hopefully future) Minnesotan, I would like to point out with great pride that my home state has been an island of Blue in the sea of Red. We're smack dab in the middle of the "Heartland," but that doesn't stop us.

Of course, we also pour money into a federal tax system that screws us over in favor of our Red neighbors. We also provide abortion services and health care for neighborind Red residents who can't get the care they want in their own states, but who don't want their neighbors to know that they secretly want these freedoms. Meh.

I think that the Democratic Party has an inherent, fundamental disadvantage compared to Republicans, and that disadvantage is only growing.

First, let's assume that the average Democrat is a socially liberal progressive, one that supports reform, the environment, minority rights, etc. Let's also assume that the average Republican is a white Christian traditionalist, who's in favor of the war in Iraq, greater religious freedom, and laws against flag-burning and gay marriage.

I know these definitions are very broad and by no means exhaustive, but we're speaking in general terms here.

Now, I think it's safe to say that most Democrats choose to live in urban areas, while Republicans live more in the outlying areas. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the county-by-county electoral map for the 2004 election:

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/1796/countymapredbluelargeamyf1.png

The so-called "heartland" is entirely red, even traditional blue states like California and Illinois. The only Democratic strongholds are in the large cities and towns. This makes sense, in a way; in most cases progressive, liberal, educated people tend to congregate in cities, with their universities and museums and tolerant multicultural atmosphere, while religious fundamentalists and social conservatives choose to live in out the country, in the suburbs and small towns dotted with churches and farms.

Normally, this would be great for the Democrats. City-dwellers outnumber suburbanites by something like four to one. In terms of sheer numbers, Democrats should be in solid control of the country.

But the cities have an inherent problem -- they're concentrated. Despite the fact that cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat, their overwhelmingly Democratic population -- the Democratic population that far outweighs the rural Republicans -- are confined to the district or two that covers that city. The suburbs and hinterlands, though more sparsely populated, have more districts to their name. And because this plurality of sparsely populated districts votes Republican, the Republicans continue to win.

Courts have tried to remedy this by ruling that districts must be of equal size and population, but Republican governments in most states get around this with gerrymandering. Take the Texas city of Austin, for instance.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9187/800pxtraviscountydistricn5.png

It is solidly Democratic -- but gerrymandering has diluted its power. Basically, the city has been split into thirds, with each section spreading far out into the outlands, so that the rural population of that rural section outnumbers the urban population in the one-third of Austin it includes.

By carving up the Democratic populations in and around the cities in this way -- by dividing and conquering, so to speak -- the Republicans diminish the Democratic advantage even further. In the end, what was once a striking population advantage for the Democrats has been reduced to a barely break-even electorate that continues to lose.

What do you think about all this? Is it right that the majority population should be overruled simply because they choose to live in cities? Should rural areas be allocated so many more districts (and thus more voting power), even though the population is much lower? Can this be fixed?


Why the hell is there a district that snakes its way trough Texas ranch land 300 miles from Austin to McAllen? How the hell do they justify that?

Why the hell is there a district that snakes its way trough Texas ranch land 300 miles from Austin to McAllen? How the hell do they justify that?

Incumbant protection.

Just like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illinois_District_4_2004.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AZ-districts-109-02.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:California_District_38_2004.png

Why the hell is there a district that snakes its way trough Texas ranch land 300 miles from Austin to McAllen? How the hell do they justify that?
They don't justify it, they just do it. The idea was to take Austin, a consistently Democratic city, and, rather than give it the Democratic seat it deserved, split it in three. Each of these pieces was then drawn so that it meandered far out into the Texas backcountry, encompassing many rural Republicans. In this way, they created three strip-like districts, each with a piece of Austin, but designed so that the rural area that made up the majority of each strip would outvote the democratic part at the end.

And that's not even the worst of it... check out this Republican district from Arizona:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/AZ-districts-109-02.gif

Yes, that's all one district. How are they connected, you ask? Well, see that little squiggle connecting the two regions, the one just above Coconino? That squiggle is a very thin, 200-mile long strip of land running along the Colorado River at the base of the Grand Canyon. I guess there were a lot of voters living at the bottom of the canyon that needed to be counted...

Well, you know, they needed to make sure they had the cactus and gila monster vote. :rolleyes:

They don't justify it, they just do it. The idea was to take Austin, a consistently Democratic city, and, rather than give it the Democratic seat it deserved, split it in three. Each of these pieces was then drawn so that it meandered far out into the Texas backcountry, encompassing many rural Republicans. In this way, they created three strip-like districts, each with a piece of Austin, but designed so that the rural area that made up the majority of each strip would outvote the democratic part at the end.

And that's not even the worst of it... check out this Republican district from Arizona:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/AZ-districts-109-02.gif

Yes, that's all one district. How are they connected, you ask? Well, see that little squiggle connecting the two regions, the one just above Coconino? That squiggle is a very thin, 200-mile long strip of land running along the Colorado River at the base of the Grand Canyon. I guess there were a lot of voters living at the bottom of the canyon that needed to be counted...

That, my friends, is gerrymandering at its best! :p

Somebody once told me that if you want to see who is going to be the next US president just consider this: Who would Homer Simpson vote for?

It's an unerringly accurate prediction machine - make your own assumptions :)