Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence

Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cloudboy -> Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/26/2013 8:27:54 AM)
In 2010 the Republicans roiled up by the passage of Obamacare and TARP pressed on to win big gains in the mid-term elections of that year. They won new seats in Congress and they won majorities in several state legislatures. State Republicans then they took to gerrymandering the districts in their home states to further insure a stronger grip on Congressional and State elections. One result of this move is OH. Obama won the state with 51% of the vote, but 75% percent of the Congressional representatives from OH are Republican. Although this looked rosy for the Republican Party, it had one unintended consequence. It opened up incumbent Republicans to strong, right wing primary challenges and the new ever present Republican fear of being "primaried." Because the new gerrymandered voting districts are not really representative of the broader electorate -- the super right wing has an undo influence during the primary races. So, this is one systemic reason why we've seen such nutcase, right wing Congressmen in DC completely out of step with mainstream USA.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/26/2013 10:08:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy In 2010 the Republicans roiled up by the passage of Obamacare and TARP pressed on to win big gains in the mid-term elections of that year. They won new seats in Congress and they won majorities in several state legislatures. State Republicans then they took to gerrymandering the districts in their home states to further insure a stronger grip on Congressional and State elections. One result of this move is OH. Obama won the state with 51% of the vote, but 75% percent of the Congressional representatives from OH are Republican. Although this looked rosy for the Republican Party, it had one unintended consequence. It opened up incumbent Republicans to strong, right wing primary challenges and the new ever present Republican fear of being "primaried." Because the new gerrymandered voting districts are not really representative of the broader electorate -- the super right wing has an undo influence during the primary races. So, this is one systemic reason why we've seen such nutcase, right wing Congressmen in DC completely out of step with mainstream USA. Are you , for sure, that gerrymandering is what changed the landscape? I mean, the landscape changed in 2010, right? Yet, Congressional Districts weren't finalized until early 2012. 2008 Ohio HoR Map 2010 Ohio HoR Map 2012 Ohio HoR Map 2010 Ohio Population Density Map [image]http://troyeconomicdevelopment.com/images/maps/Ohio-2010-census700x531.jpg[/image] 2012 Ohio Presidential Results Map [image]http://media.cleveland.com/politics_impact/photo/11831938-large.jpg[/image] ETA: The areas Obama won were in the more heavily populated areas. That the Democrat voters are in those areas isn't a result of gerrymandering, as County lines aren't changed, and that's how results are tabulated for the General Election. Also, I want to note that in the 2008 House elections, 10 of the 18 Delegates were Democrats. In 2010, 5 of 18 were Democrats, and in 2012, 4 of 16 were Democrats. Since redistricting didn't happen until 2012, the major losses in Democrat delegates was really in 2010, losing half their seats. The 2012 elections saw both parties losing one seat to reapportionment.

eulero83 -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/26/2013 10:41:36 AM)
just a question: is there a reason why districts are more or less of equal area instead of equal population like it is for the congress?

mnottertail -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/26/2013 10:43:58 AM)
Those aren't districts, those are counties. Districts are of a rather equal population, not area or other sensible divisions of commonality, by constitution.

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/26/2013 10:53:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are you , for sure, that gerrymandering is what changed the landscape? I mean, the landscape changed in 2010, right? Yet, Congressional Districts weren't finalized until early 2012. 2010 was a turnout issue. Remember all the talk of the "intensity" gap? That was what that was all about.

TheHeretic -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/26/2013 6:40:02 PM)
Gerrymandering districts is one of those practices I really despise. As we sit currently, each member of the House is the Representative for about 700,000+ people, and the lines of the districts do need to be redrawn from time to time to reflect population shifts. What we get though is flat fucking ridiculous, to the point that even someone with no discernable sense of humor would laugh out loud at some of the contortions that are come up with. It isn't a practice restricted to either party, either. I'd encourage anyone interested in joining the conversation to Google up most gerrymandered districts, and look at some of the images that will be offered. I believe the correct phrase is "holy shit." Primarying, on the other hand, I can certainly get behind. I've mentioned Congressman Buck McKeon of California recently, regarding Syria. He did one hell of an about face on that issue, precisely because he would have been taken out of his "safe" seat in the primary if he hadn't. It's a damn effective threat, and can be a damn effective tactic. It happened to a lot of Democrats, back in '06. It can backfire though, as Joe Lieberman illustrated when the Democrats turned on him over Iraq, and he came back to win the general election as an independent. Seriously though, when it comes to unintended consequences of tampering with elections and election rules, it's impossible to top Teddy Kennedy and co. pushing to change the Massachusetts rules for filling a vacant Senate seat, to prevent Romney appointing a replacement if Kerry had won the '04 election, only to create the opportunity for Brown to run for and win the seat Kennedy held when he died.

dcnovice -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/26/2013 6:45:00 PM)
quote: Gerrymandering districts is one of those practices I really despise. As we sit currently, each member of the House is the Representative for about 700,000+ people, and the lines of the districts do need to be redrawn from time to time to reflect population shifts. What we get though is flat fucking ridiculous, to the point that even someone with no discernable sense of humor would laugh out loud at some of the contortions that are come up with. It isn't a practice restricted to either party, either. Agreed. I think the job should be done by nonpartisan (international if necessary) geographers.

TheHeretic -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/26/2013 7:56:16 PM)
My preference, though it would take an amendment to do it, would be to get rid of the districts entirely, and shift to a multi-party system of proportional representation for each state. Nothing in our Constitution enshrines the two party thing we have settled into.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/26/2013 8:42:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Gerrymandering districts is one of those practices I really despise. As we sit currently, each member of the House is the Representative for about 700,000+ people, and the lines of the districts do need to be redrawn from time to time to reflect population shifts. What we get though is flat fucking ridiculous, to the point that even someone with no discernable sense of humor would laugh out loud at some of the contortions that are come up with. It isn't a practice restricted to either party, either. Agreed. I think the job should be done by nonpartisan (international if necessary) geographers. If this was done in Maryland, a Bluest of Blue Blue States, as it stands now, the likely make up in US House would be 3 R and 5 D. That is, if the Congressional lines were draw, strictly on population and geographic cohesiveness. However, currently, the Maryland Delegation in the US House is 7 D 1 R. It gets worse in the State House. Why on earth would the Democrat powers that be, draw the lines that would favor the opposition party when they currently have a virtual free reign to govern anyway they wish? Not to mention that if a representative political districts were drawn on population and geographic cohesiveness the overwhelming winners would be the Maryland Hispanic population, which would likely get one of the Congressional seats outright and at least six but as many as ten combined state senate and house of delegate seats. Of course this would come at the expense of the current black delegations. Now, how do you think this plays within the political power structure of the Maryland Democrat Party? Maryland is 3.5-1 Democrat but there are strong Blue Dog and independent white voting blocks that could not be counted on within election a number of districts based on population and geographic cohesion. to maintain what is now a super lock on the governing of this state by Democrat Party fiat.

dcnovice -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 6:51:29 AM)
quote: If this was done in Maryland, a Bluest of Blue Blue States, as it stands now, the likely make up in US House would be 3 R and 5 D. That is, if the Congressional lines were draw, strictly on population and geographic cohesiveness. How do we know this? quote: Why on earth would the Democrat powers that be, draw the lines that would favor the opposition party I imagine that, across the U.S., both parties would resist giving up the ability to gerrymander. I'm sure it's just coincidence that you focused solely on a blue state (which had a Republican governor as recently as 2007). quote: Democrat Party Alas, hack-speak displaces English yet again.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 7:13:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I imagine that, across the U.S., both parties would resist giving up the ability to gerrymander. This is likely the sad truth of the matter.

eulero83 -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 7:29:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic My preference, though it would take an amendment to do it, would be to get rid of the districts entirely, and shift to a multi-party system of proportional representation for each state. Nothing in our Constitution enshrines the two party thing we have settled into. we have this in Italy for senate (for the "deputies' chamber" it's on national base but with a majority prize) and it's quite a problem it ends up with a draw between the two major coalitions and political instablity.

cloudboy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 9:19:07 AM)
Thanks for all the responses. Democratic gerrymandering has not led to any kind of extremism, whereas with the republicans it has led to more influence for the far right. -- a group unhinged from mainstream America. It is a very ideological group averse to compromise and pragmatic problem solving. Mainstream republicans and business republicans are under threat from this group, a problem compounded for them by gerrymandering.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 9:51:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Thanks for all the responses. Democratic gerrymandering has not led to any kind of extremism, whereas with the republicans it has led to more influence for the far right. -- a group unhinged from mainstream America. It is a very ideological group averse to compromise and pragmatic problem solving. Mainstream republicans and business republicans are under threat from this group, a problem compounded for them by gerrymandering. Uh huh. It's only evil when the GOP does it. You are half right. It is evil when the GOP does it. But, it is also evil when the Democrats do it.

BamaD -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 11:33:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Thanks for all the responses. Democratic gerrymandering has not led to any kind of extremism, whereas with the republicans it has led to more influence for the far right. -- a group unhinged from mainstream America. It is a very ideological group averse to compromise and pragmatic problem solving. Mainstream republicans and business republicans are under threat from this group, a problem compounded for them by gerrymandering. Uh huh. It's only evil when the GOP does it. You are half right. It is evil when the GOP does it. But, it is also evil when the Democrats do it. After the 2000 census the Democrats gerrymandered to see to it we (Alabama) sent more black Democrats to congress. Turned out that while they did get one more black Democrat it got them one less Democrat overall, love it when this stuff backfires.

eulero83 -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 12:51:21 PM)
maybe it was not due to the gerrymandering but that they candidated one jerk too much

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 12:54:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 maybe it was not due to the gerrymandering but that they candidated one jerk too much [:D]

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 2:40:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy In 2010 the Republicans roiled up by the passage of Obamacare and TARP pressed on to win big gains in the mid-term elections of that year. They won new seats in Congress and they won majorities in several state legislatures. State Republicans then they took to gerrymandering the districts in their home states to further insure a stronger grip on Congressional and State elections. One result of this move is OH. Obama won the state with 51% of the vote, but 75% percent of the Congressional representatives from OH are Republican. Although this looked rosy for the Republican Party, it had one unintended consequence. It opened up incumbent Republicans to strong, right wing primary challenges and the new ever present Republican fear of being "primaried." Because the new gerrymandered voting districts are not really representative of the broader electorate -- the super right wing has an undo influence during the primary races. So, this is one systemic reason why we've seen such nutcase, right wing Congressmen in DC completely out of step with mainstream USA. Gerrymandering districts is no home base for Republicans. They didn't invent it....trust me.

cloudboy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 2:58:04 PM)
DS and others are missing the point. Pointing out that democrats gerrymander misses the subject entirely. The subject is how and why the Republican Party is lurching further to the right, far, far from mainstream America while deomonizing moderates and attacking business and pragmatic incumbents. This group is willing to risk the usa's credit rating because it failed to win either the senate or the presidency. It is willing to burn the house down for its own ideological principles. Centrist republicans call the uber-right's tactics - a recipe for failure and voter backlash.

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 4:18:11 PM)
You're right. The right has created its bed by promising the extreme crazies ideological purity and that they will actually deliver on all the crazy dumbass shit they've promised (ending all entitlements, cutting taxes even more, locking up even more black men and throwing all the brown people out of the country to name a few). They've driven off, turned off or simply suppressed the vote of any more moderate people who might balance out the extreme right in a primary. Couple that with a few outside groups, AFP, Club for Growth etc., willing to dump money in these races it makes it way to easy to defeat an incumbent who does not toe the extreme right's ideological purity standard. Not only is it hurting them in Congressional districts by sending lunatics who actually think defaulting on the debt is an acceptable bargaining point these same primary voters keep picking Senate candidates who have no chance of winning state wide general elections, Mourdock, Akin, Angle etc.. It can even be argued that if a more moderate candidate with some personal charisma had run and been able to stay closer to the mainstream during the Presidential primaries last year that candidate could have at least put up a good fight against Obama instead Romney and the rest of the field had to go to the extreme right and there was no coming back from that.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875