BS: Gerrymandering

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: MarkS
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:09 PM

Elbridge Gerry is also known for his observation:

"A standing army is like an erect penis. While it may insure domestic tranquility, it is an unfortunate temptation to foreign adventure."

For some odd reason this quote never makes it into the history books!

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: pdq
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:17 PM

I would still like to see a map of John Burton's Congressional district as drawn by his brother Philip Burton, a real old "big daddy" politician.

Phil Burton called the boundries "my contribution to modern art".

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 06:04 PM

PDQ posted a link to an article which contains a map of California Congressional districts. I suppose it looks gerrymandered, but I think that each district is a fairly distinct area. The divisions really aren't as outrageous as they may seem.

I'm in the far southern area of the Fourth Congressional District, and my area is far more densely populated than the vast, open areas of the northern part of our district. I sometimes resent the power this gives to rural forces, but I'm sure rural interests think it's fair. But as a result, my vote for Congress will never, ever make a difference. I'm doomed to be represented by a Tea Party Congressman for the rest of my days. And although my Congressman was elected only be voters from this district, I don't think the Congressman has ever actually lived in this district - he comes from the other side of Sacramento.

Redistricting takes place in California every three years. Since I was investigator-in-charge of a Federal agency in Sacramento for twenty years, I had the chance to observe redistricting fairly closely three times. At redistricting time, many political offices had maps plastered all over. It was an interesting sport to watch. And yes, I'm sure that almost-imperceptible tweaking by pros like Willie Brown, had a lot to do with the balance of the California Congressional Delegation.

The United States is in an era of partisan politics, where one's political party affiliation has far more importance than one's geographical location. Maybe it would be more fair for states to elect members of Congress on a statewide basis, with proportional representation according to the number of votes cast for each party.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:59 PM

If you colorize gerymandering maps you have some incredible art that looks like Miro or Kandinsky.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:30 PM

The objective in a democratic system of drawing electoral boundaries ought to be to ensure, as closely as possible, OMOV. - By which I mean that the number of voters eligible to vote for each Senator or Congress man should be the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: pdq
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:41 PM

I was trying to find a map of John Burton's Congressional district in California as mutated in the early 1980s.

It was the width of the Golden Gate Bridge and took in all the Democrat-friendly voters possible.

I can't find such a map at this late date, but I believe Nancy Pelosi now hails from that area. Here is the story...

                                                               http://whalen.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/gerrymandering-revisited/

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM

True.

from the link BillD posted:

"When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander. The exact author of the term gerrymander may never be definitively established. It is widely believed by historians that Federalist newspaper editors Nathan Hale, Benjamin and John Russell were the instigators, but the historical record gives no definitive evidence who created or uttered the word for the first time.[1] Probably, someone in the Federalist group said, rather than describe it as salamander "call it a gerrymander, after Governor Gerry." Appearing with the term, and helping spread and sustain its popularity, was a political cartoon depicting a strange animal with claws, wings and a dragon-type head satirizing the map of the odd shaped district. This cartoon was most likely drawn by Elkanah Tisdale an early Nineteenth Century painter, designer and engraver who was living in Boston at the time.[2] In addition, Tisdale also had the engraving skills to cut the woodblocks which printed the original cartoon.[3] These woodblocks survive and are preserved in the Library of Congress.[4] The word gerrymander was reprinted numerous times in Federalist newspapers in Massachusetts, New England and nation wide during the remainder of 1812.[5] This suggests some organized activity of the Federalists to disparage Governor Gerry in particular and the growing Democratic-Republican party in general. Gerrymandering soon began to be used to describe not only the original Massachusetts example, but other cases of district shape manipulation for partisan gain in other states. According to the Oxford English Dictionary institutionalization of the word became complete with its first appearance in a dictionary (1848) and first appearance in an encyclopedia (1868).[6]"

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: framus
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

Further to Bearded Bruce, I understand the mandering part of the word comes from the shape of one of the constituencies afterwards looking like a salamander.
We used to quite like it here in Northern Ireland too!

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 12:40 PM

>>While I have seen lots of complaints about gerrymandering over the years, I have never seen a set of rules or principles designed to guide someone who wants to AVOID gerrymandering.

If you could erase all the boundaries of, say, the congressional districts in your state and start over, how would you do it?<<


You know, nowadays we have computers. Write an program that minimizes the travel time by road to each community in the district and live with the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:32 PM

Bruce: re: I fail to see support for your claim ". ....if you go look at the examples on the page I linked to in my opening post, you will SEE classic examples...all favoring Republicans except one. That is a basic support. Now....must I go do several hours of research and find MORE, when you'd just deny or explain away anything I found?
You post ONE example of what you think are Democratic flaws, and ask me why I didn't note it first!

   I not only showed the trend, I explained why Republicans do this. You simply will not see the basic tendency of the current Republicans, fueled by "Tea Party" reactionaries, to distort, lie and maneuver anything possible, including the Supreme Court, in order to grab and maintain power. It has gone WAY beyond the general partisan politics I grew up with where there were just 'differences of opinion', and has become a nasty, hateful movement. Sadly, vaguely moderate Republicans, (as I assume YOU to be) have either succumbed to it or pretend not to notice because they see some of their pet polices riding in on the coat tails of the really weird candidates...and control of Congress if they are lucky.
   Is it really worth 'winning' to have Rand Paul and Sharron Angle and Tom Tancredo and a dozen other off-the-wall wing nuts having a serious say in running this country?

(Yes...this IS a bit off the precise stated topic of this thread, but Gerrymandering is a prime example because this IS a census year, and redistricting is just around the corner, and you know....or ought to know... that the Karl Rove goal of 'adjusting' the entire system to favor Conservatives forever is still in play! Really frustrating to have that darned Obama fellow delay it for 2 years, huh? Five conservative Court justices making rulings like the "One corporation, one vote" travesty got it rolling again, though! You KNOW that is stupid and wrong, but it helps get more Republicans elected...using money from...????)

Ah, well....I shouldn't type when I'm steaming...but I am sick & TIRED of watching the country head down this path where Congress is deadlocked and corporate money is funding politics and hateful, evil campaign ads by 'anonymous' sources (yes, WORSE than usual) are being thrown like mud at anything 'Democratic' that moves!

...and no, I'm NOT gonna do those hours of research to 'prove' what everyone knows about who does the most Gerrymandering......

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:43 PM

Well yeah, Capt'n... The entire campaign by the Repubs is based on lies... They tried a few early on and found that the dems weren't going to challenge them and far be it for the media to challenge them so they said, "Sheet fire!!! Let the lies fly".... And it's been a steady stream of outright lies...

I mean, even here, where Obama reduces the annual budget defcit by $100B the righties say, "Bobert is a liar"??? This is the culture of the right... Lie, lie and load up another batch of lies for tomorrow...

The problem with outright lieing to the elrctorate is that bills will come due... The programs will need to get funded... I mean, you might lie yer way into office once but that ain't gonna keep you there 'cause at some point the voters are going to go "What's up and why ain't you fixin' anything???"

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: kendall
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:33 PM

We have a rare campaign here, the lies fly thick and fast and so far they are all coming from the right.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 08:11 PM

"Elbridge Gerry...in 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican party..."

First, the Republican Party was not even conceived until about 1848 and did not really become official until 1852 when they ran candidates.

The older party was called Democratic-Republican but the named was eventually shortened. I believe Andrew Jackson was the first president to win under the new name: Democratic Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM

BillD,

What did I say?

"More cases right now in Illinois"


Note the word MORE- that means that the most examples at the present time are from there. I fail to see support for your claim "In **general** it is used/supported more **in the country in general** by Republicans"

I think it is pretty much dependent on who has control of the State government- and NOT which party it is.

Glad you want it stopped- so would I, IN ALL CASES.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:57 PM

The most rediculous example of partisan gerrymandering in recent memory occured in Texas when the Dems were required to be in the state when it was done so they camped out in Louisana and Dick Armey (I think it was) used the sate police to track the dems down and then they were tricked into entering the state and... bango!!!

But seriously, gerrymanderin' only insures that folks, right or left, can be as outrageous as they want and the more extreme they are they better chances are that they will be re-elected??? So when they get to Washington it's gridlock...

Tell ya'll what... Fair disrticting where each party has a reasonable chance to win will end the extremes and end the gridlock in Washington... Right now there is no incentive for anyone to compromise if they know that by not doing so means they will keep their job???

Purdy messed up...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:48 PM

Bruce...what did I say? In **general** it is used/supported more **in the country in general** by Republicans.

*IF* it is used by Dems in Illinois, I want it stopped.

Spin THAT!

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM

BillD,

More cases right now in Illinois. Never knew that was a Republican stronghold.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

Right now, BOTH parties use/support/maneuver the lines to suit at times. It is much MORE used by Republicans, as they are more concerned about reducing minority voting...why? because they rely on a host of single-issue, special interest groups to promote their base.
I want NO party...even my own... to use those tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:11 PM

Kendall,

"The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette newspaper on March 26, 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈ¨Àɛri/; 1744¨C1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican party. "

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:43 PM

The system of single member constituencies with first past the post is the root cause of these problems.

Electoral systems involving multi-member constituencies and proportional representation can eliminate the worst of them, and make it extremely hard to effectively gerrymander so as to cause unfair outcomes.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: kendall
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:19 PM

Eldridge Gerry was a republican, was he not?

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Joe_F
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:08 PM

Ideally, a unique algorithm for districting would be written into the constitution. It would no doubt sometimes produce silly results, but it would have to be pretty bad to produce sillier ones than are now perpetrated by legislatures & federal judges.

A compromise that would leave some room for undignified wrangling but might remove most of the temptation and the resulting damage would be the following: A district shall be bounded by at most four contiguous segments each of which shall be one of the following: a state boundary, a parallel of latitude, a meridian of longitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM

Gerrymandering is the cornerstone of gridlock... And it is preventable... First, the redrawing of districts should never be done by either party... It should be done by an independent commisssion like BillD mentioned that uses a combination of factors, including past voting results, demographics and voter registartion...

Now the rub is in getting such a commission that is fair and I would think that that might mean truning it over to folks who are not US citizens, don't live here and have no dog in the race...

But, good luck...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:44 PM

Well... isn't that better than artificially designing a strange non-district? The purpose of congressional districts in not to make the party representation exactly equal, but to provide each general area with a way to be represented in Congress. We KNOW some will vote Democratic and some Republican.... different areas do that.
*I* don't want lines drawn in MY state that group ME with some distant county just to get more Democrats in Congress. As a matter of fact, since I live in an urban area, (MD-8) that is unlikely....but rural areas sometimes find that their area is shaped like a dumbbell, with 2 blobs connected by 20 miles of narrow highway.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:11 PM

So you wouldn't pay any attention to the demographics, then? If one district turned out to be divided 80/20 between two parties and another 48/52, that would be OK with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 03:36 PM

Yes...I should not have suggested the US Congress does this..

"Does anybody know of an alternative?"

Sure...a simple division along the most obvious geographic boundaries that provides an approximately equal population balance. Counties in some instances, cities in others.

Yes, I know that in some areas, ethnic 'neighborhoods' make this a bit awkward, but the worst cases of Gerrymandering are blatant, self-serving nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM

Congress doesn't draw any boundaries (except the state boundaries, which were drawn long ago). State legislatures do it.

Giving power to a nonpartisan group sounds good, but still, what principles are they supposed to follow? What methods? What procedures? What goals? Whoever does the dividing, there are billions of ways it could be done. I assume some ways are better than others, but how do you tell the difference?

There's only one principle I ever see in operation: Whatever method confers an advantage on MY party is a good one. (Or, whatever confers an advantage on YOUR party is a bad one.)

Does anybody know of an alternative?

If I were on a nonpartisan committee, and I wanted to do my best to be fair to both parties (not to mention third parties), and there were two proposals before me—call them Plan A and Plan B—how should I decide which plan to vote for? Flip a coin?

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:47 PM

Bill, take a look at this:

Lawrence Lessig at his TED talk in San Antonio, TX, Oct. 16, 2010. Makes you wonder if anything will ever get done again.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:41 PM

The article I linked to says :"Some countries, such as the UK and Canada, authorize non-partisan organizations to set constituency boundaries in an attempt to prevent gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is most common in countries where elected politicians are responsible for defining constituency boundaries. "

Thus, it is possible to minimize instances of Gerrymandering by taking direct authority away from Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:28 PM

Go to the One Party System?


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM

While I have seen lots of complaints about gerrymandering over the years, I have never seen a set of rules or principles designed to guide someone who wants to AVOID gerrymandering.

If you could erase all the boundaries of, say, the congressional districts in your state and start over, how would you do it?

It seems that, no matter what you do, your new scheme would confer an advantage on one party or the other, compared to the old scheme, and the OTHER party would then accuse you of gerrymandering.

How do you avoid this?

Subject: BS: Gerrymandering
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:31 AM

As US elections draw near, it is instructive to learn a bit about how many races for House seats may be decided.

Gerrymandering with examples. You may notice that most of the examples are Republican drawn districts designed to 'pack' or diminish minority voters so that the effect of Black or Hispanic votes is limited. In one case...in N. Carolina... it actually allowed there to BE a Black member, while assuring it would be hard to have more than one.
In other cases, it just makes rural/city divisions more obvious.