Why GOP will probably keep the House: Gerrymandering

Post Reply New Topic

In 2010, the GOP swept the state legislatures, letting them redraw the Congressional districts for the 2012-2020 elections the way they wanted them drawn, giving the GOP an advantage. Despite the Democrats receiving more votes in 2012, the GOP kept their majority, keeping the government divided:

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/22/yes-the ... newsletter

In Pennsylvania in 2012, for example, the Democrats won by 100,000 votes, but the Pennsylvania delegation was still 13 to 5 in favor of the GOP. In addition, the legislative districts in many states have also been drawn to benefit the GOP, which could make taking control of the legislatures in 2020 to redraw the maps for the 2020 Census challenging.

Some states head off this problem by using independent redistricting commissions to draw the Congressional districts, preventing Gerrymandering from occurring, but at least 37 still keep Gerrymandering an option for politicians:

https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_ ... procedures

Gerrymandering, named after 19th century Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry who approved maps drawing Congressional districts supporting his party,--one of which resembled a salamander--is drawing Congressional districts in a way to give your party an advantage, so that even if the opposing party gets more votes than your own your party can still win a majority of Representatives sent to the House.

So if you wanna talk about elections being rigged, look away from Trump's whining and toward the will of the people being subverted in 2012 and probably again this year, keeping the government divided and the GOP in control of the House.

That's cause democrats are urban people so then tend to pile up in few cities. Which means their lager vote in those states are piled up in a single district.

In my state pretty much all the democrats are in only 3 cities(Salem, Portland and Eugene)

Wouldn't it be nice if someone could invent an electoral system where this wasn't possible?

I honestly wish politics in USA wasnt such garbage.

Dems vs reps shouldn't be "us vs them" mentality... but sadly it likely always will be. So many huge issues in USA that honestly need to be fixed but these brats/corrupt/greedy politicians don't want to compromise. I feel that the next 4 years will likely not achieve much. Most of them don't like Trump and his ideas are garbage. Clinton is somewhat better- but seeing as house reps will control house (and possible senate), they will just turn their little noses up at just about anything.

USA should be united in my view. Crime, gun control, homeless, people struggling to get by- paycheck to paycheck, the road system (and much more) should be dealt with better.. on both a local and federal level. Locally- I think some places will improve, but federally.. I doubt it. So sickening and unfortunate that ADULTS can't help the actual citizens they are supposed to be serving.

IMO, if people are starting to vote by party and ideology, rather than personality (which was how it was done historically), then our system should be changed to reflect that. We should become a parliamentary republic, or at least a semi-presidential one, so people can vote by party and then once the election is over, if no party has a majority, then enough of them must form a coalition that possesses a majority of seats. This would allow people to vote by what they believe without worrying about "throwing their vote away" or giving the election to their opponents.

Of course, becoming a parliamentary republic is impossible under our current Constitution, as in a parliamentary system the Government's ministers must generally also be members of Parliament (prohibited by U.S. Const. Art. I § 6 Cl. 2) and be able to advise the Head of State to dissolve Parliament and hold new elections (a power not granted to anyone in the U.S. Constitution). But it might be worth thinking about.

Otherwise, I think it's best that we have independent redistricting commissions to minimize the problem of Gerrymandering. It's clear the nature of politics is changing in this country, as this article I think shows pretty well:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... -transfers

The GOP Governor of Maine has called for us to move to a parliamentary system:

Going back to the point in the OP. Essentially, by drawing Congressional districts as they did, the GOP is ensuring more of this:

- Attempting several times each Congress to repeal the health care law that was validly passed, even though such repeals are likely to fail.

- Preventing fixes to Obamacare providing relief to poor people in states refusing to expand Medicaid.

- Threatening default if the opposite party, which at times controlled one house of Congress and the whole time the Presidency, didn't cave to their demands regarding taxes and budgeting.

- Trying to invent new conventions for their convenience, for example that if the President has less than one year to go they shouldn't get to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court.

A lot of people mention a decline in civility in politics, but I think there's a reason why politics has gotten like it has: people of color are starting to gain real influence on our politics, meaning white people will no longer always be centered in policy discussions. A lot of this obstruction has come from a single faction in the GOP that has been the tail wagging the dog, the alt-right who with their support of someone like Donald Trump could now also be termed the white supremacist faction, illuminating the real issue for us: white supremacists are trying to drive this country into the ground to prevent people of color from obtaining true equality. And it isn't the first time they've tried this (see Civil War). This is why they've questioned even Obama's eligibility to serve (and still question it, in the face of proof of said eligibility). This is why we've been seeing this racist nastiness lately.

For white supremacists, America has always been about a country with the elite on top, lower-class whites who benefit from the system in the middle (accompanied by a chance to move to the top), and the people of color on the bottom. To them, the American dream was really only ever meant for these white people. The white supremacists' loyalty to this country hinges upon the continuance of this system; if it goes, then as far as white supremacists are concerned this country is no longer worth their loyalty: it's sabotage time. And indeed, since 2008 this system has begun to fail...

You are so correct about that! It is true a class of white people exists, especially in the south and mid America who virtually ignore the African American middle class which has been steadily expanding for quite some time. Instead they focus on crime statistics and little else. However, African Americans make up a very small portion of the population. Hispanics and those of mixed ethnicity are the fastest growing population groups where I live and this scares white supremists more than anything. This is why they focus so much on topics like illegal immigration and scapegoating immigrants putting an unreasonable burden on this particular issue while ignoring the fact health insurance will continually drive up the cost of health care until many are uninsured because they can't afford it, the national debt and subprime lending will consume more and more money to the point most of every dollar will be consumed by interest on various loans, the debt driven economy is a huge threat to national security. You don't hear much about the real threats.

None of the politicians except for Bernie Sanders address these prime issues and even Bernie doesn't go far enough in validating the insidious nature of debt, both private and otherwise. Far right politicians only choose to focus on government debt but subprime lending in the private sector is worse.

This is what Conservatives in the UK are doing as well currently. They're inviting outside commentary, but safely ignoring them in the end... oh, and the committee doing it, appointed by the cabinet, is not at all associated with said cabinet...

I view gerrymandering as a form of moral hazard, one of those things people will do if it's allowed because it would be stupid not to.