Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/26/2013 8:27:54 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
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.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/26/2013 10:08:14 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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


2012 Ohio Presidential Results Map


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.

< Message edited by DesideriScuri -- 9/26/2013 10:15:40 AM >

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/26/2013 10:41:36 AM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/26/2013 10:43:58 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Those aren't districts, those are counties. Districts are of a rather equal population, not area or other sensible divisions of commonality, by constitution.


< Message edited by mnottertail -- 9/26/2013 10:44:45 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to eulero83)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/26/2013 10:53:47 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/26/2013 6:40:02 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/26/2013 6:45:00 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/26/2013 7:56:16 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/26/2013 8:42:24 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 6:51:29 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 7:13:54 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 7:29:41 AM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 9:19:07 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to eulero83)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 9:51:17 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 11:33:48 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 12:51:21 PM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline 		maybe it was not due to the gerrymandering but that they candidated one jerk too much

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 12:54:31 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
maybe it was not due to the gerrymandering but that they candidated one jerk too much





_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to eulero83)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 2:40:46 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 2:58:04 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence - 9/27/2013 4:18:11 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141