CA redistricting system

[dawp]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cal...zens-picked-to-draw-political-boundaries.html

I'd like to see this kind of system through out the country. have the voters draw the districts instead of politicians who are only interested in staying in office. It may improve our political system. We'll just have to see how it works out in CA.

 

[Vette73]

Depends who is picked and how long they have till we can cut them off and just draw it by court order.

Republicans love the idea for places like CA but try and do the same in Texas and watch them pitch a fit. i.e. see Tom Delay and what he did in Texas the last time this came up, let alone his legal trial.


I think on paper its good. But only if every state has to do it. If not then 1 part will try this in only the states they are weak in and leave the old system in their states.

 

[matt0611]

That does sound pretty cool. Wish they would do that here in MA as well.

 

[Craig234]

The big flaw in the system is that it gives 50-50 seats to Republicans and Democrats, regardless of the voters - who might be, say, 2/3 Democrats.

So, this makes the Republicans have a lot more say than they have under Democracy by the voters (and vice versa in Republican states).

No system is perfect; fix that, and you get a commission where 51% of the seats might mean one party gets 100% of the say.

Under the traditional system, the elected party can tend to get pretty extreme in gerrymandering - especially with computers now helping.

I'd like to see a solution that is both Democratic, but fair to the minority too.

It is also an issue that when a state of one party gives up the 'partisan edge' of gerrymandering, and another (coughtexascough) doesn't, it gives an edge to the opposing party in the national balance of seats, overrepresenting the party that continued to gerrymander. That hurts the state that does this, but it can't be forced nationally.

 

[alphatarget1]

The big flaw in the system is that it gives 50-50 seats to Republicans and Democrats, regardless of the voters - who might be, say, 2/3 Democrats.

BS. CA will probably always be a deep blue state now that a lot of its productive middle class has moved out.

 

[alphatarget1]

Republicans love the idea for places like CA but try and do the same in Texas and watch them pitch a fit. i.e. see Tom Delay and what he did in Texas the last time this came up, let alone his legal trial.

Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering, not just Republicans. Those in power just want to accumulate even more power- equal representation be damned.

 

[Circlenaut]

Err a better solution would be to split the democratic/republican divide according to the proportion of registered voters in the state. If the state is 66% democratic then 2/3 of the 12/14 seats would be democratic and 1/3 of the 12/14 seats would be republican. I like the idea of reserving 2 seats or more to non-affiliated voters.

 

[drebo]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cal...zens-picked-to-draw-political-boundaries.html

I'd like to see this kind of system through out the country. have the voters draw the districts instead of politicians who are only interested in staying in office. It may improve our political system. We'll just have to see how it works out in CA.

California redraws their districts every election cycle.

I would be in favor of NOT redrawing them ever again. Waste of money at a time when CA doesn't have any.

 

[Moonbeam]

The big flaw in the system is that it gives 50-50 seats to Republicans and Democrats, regardless of the voters - who might be, say, 2/3 Democrats.

So, this makes the Republicans have a lot more say than they have under Democracy by the voters (and vice versa in Republican states).

No system is perfect; fix that, and you get a commission where 51% of the seats might mean one party gets 100% of the say.

Under the traditional system, the elected party can tend to get pretty extreme in gerrymandering - especially with computers now helping.

I'd like to see a solution that is both Democratic, but fair to the minority too.

It is also an issue that when a state of one party gives up the 'partisan edge' of gerrymandering, and another (coughtexascough) doesn't, it gives an edge to the opposing party in the national balance of seats, overrepresenting the party that continued to gerrymander. That hurts the state that does this, but it can't be forced nationally.

It makes no difference if it gives an advantage to Republicans so long as the lines are drawn with integrity and fairness. The notion that a winning party gets to set the lines every ten years is disgusting and criminal, in my opinion. You either win by being a better party or you don't. Win respect and votes by achievements.

Stand up and tell people to their faces that they can't vote for more and more benefits and less and less taxes or lie and destroy the state and country. Lets also insure that California gets back from the Feds what we pay in Fed taxes proportionately with other states so the fuck heads that benefit from our money can shove their attitudes toward our liberalness up their asses.

 

[fskimospy]

BS. CA will probably always be a deep blue state now that a lot of its productive middle class has moved out.

You do realize that a heavy majority of the richest and most productive states in the US are blue states, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

Not only that, but the most productive citizens tend to be located in cities, which are overwhelmingly blue as well.

As to the idea here, it's dumb. California has been trying to give political power to regular citizens for a long time now, and it's proven itself to be a pretty horrible idea in practice. Do we really want to extend the wonders of the proposition system to redistricting?

 

[CycloWizard]

Someone should draft a bill forcing districts to be rectangular, except along rivers or state borders. That would solve most gerrymandering issues straightaway. This wouldn't have been feasible while still getting equal representation years ago, but it is definitely doable now. Otherwise, we end up with stuff like

 

[fskimospy]

Someone should draft a bill forcing districts to be rectangular, except along rivers or state borders. That would solve most gerrymandering issues straightaway. This wouldn't have been feasible while still getting equal representation years ago, but it is definitely doable now. Otherwise, we end up with stuff like

It would solve problems in some places, and cause really big ones in others. Population centers are frequently not rectangular, but congressional districts have to have approximately the same number of people in them, and you have an exact number of districts you have to work with. It's not really feasible.

I'm all for taking the responsibility for redistricting out of the hands of those who benefit most from it, but my idea would be more similar to Arnold's, getting a panel of retired judges to do it. Everyone has the possibility to be partisan, but that seemed to be the best choice out of a bad lot.

 

[Slew Foot]

It makes no difference if it gives an advantage to Republicans so long as the lines are drawn with integrity and fairness. The notion that a winning party gets to set the lines every ten years is disgusting and criminal, in my opinion. You either win by being a better party or you don't. Win respect and votes by achievements.

Stand up and tell people to their faces that they can't vote for more and more benefits and less and less taxes or lie and destroy the state and country. Lets also insure that California gets back from the Feds what we pay in Fed taxes proportionately with other states so the fuck heads that benefit from our money can shove their attitudes toward our liberalness up their asses.

Damn, I actually agree with the clown.

 

[alphatarget1]

You do realize that a heavy majority of the richest and most productive states in the US are blue states, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

Not only that, but the most productive citizens tend to be located in cities, which are overwhelmingly blue as well.

As to the idea here, it's dumb. California has been trying to give political power to regular citizens for a long time now, and it's proven itself to be a pretty horrible idea in practice. Do we really want to extend the wonders of the proposition system to redistricting?

Blue states have the most budget troubles. I may not agree with everything Texas does, but the Texas model seems to be working better economically. Soon Texas will take over California economically as biggest economy amongst all states, IMO.

I think there are fundamental differences between redistricting and putting crap on ballots that nobody actually knows how it'd affect things.

 

[CycloWizard]

It would solve problems in some places, and cause really big ones in others. Population centers are frequently not rectangular, but congressional districts have to have approximately the same number of people in them, and you have an exact number of districts you have to work with. It's not really feasible.

It is feasible. I could write a computer program in an hour or so which would objectively solve the problem. The same kind of program is used to optimize the location of cell phone towers and such using genetic algorithms.

 

[fskimospy]

Blue states have the most budget troubles. I may not agree with everything Texas does, but the Texas model seems to be working better economically. Soon Texas will take over California economically as biggest economy amongst all states, IMO.

I think there are fundamental differences between redistricting and putting crap on ballots that nobody actually knows how it'd affect things.

The budget trouble thing is far more complicated than I'm willing to go into here, but even if what you said was true it would be irrelevant.

You said that states would become more blue as more productive citizens left. That appears to be directly contrary to reality, as the bluer a state gets, the more productive it is economically. (as a general rule) I mean, China's model works best of all, as their growth rate dwarfs that of Texas.

I think that the people of California (or any state for that matter), lack the requisite expertise to make intelligent political decisions about specific issues. They have proven that over and over again, unfortunately.

 

[fskimospy]

It is feasible. I could write a computer program in an hour or so which would objectively solve the problem. The same kind of program is used to optimize the location of cell phone towers and such using genetic algorithms.

Which would give an enormous amount of power to whoever made the program, and lead to endless fighting over whose set of data, etc the program used.

That would also probably lead to a whole bunch of scenarios where things were split up incomprehensibly between two districts that shouldn't be, creating a bunch of collective action problems that don't need to exist.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Blue states have the most budget troubles. I may not agree with everything Texas does, but the Texas model seems to be working better economically. Soon Texas will take over California economically as biggest economy amongst all states, IMO.

I think there are fundamental differences between redistricting and putting crap on ballots that nobody actually knows how it'd affect things.

Despite huge productivity advantages, Blue states absolutely suck at balancing their checkbook....go figure.
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/State_budget_issues,_2009-2010

 

[CycloWizard]

Which would give an enormous amount of power to whoever made the program, and lead to endless fighting over whose set of data, etc the program used.

That would also probably lead to a whole bunch of scenarios where things were split up incomprehensibly between two districts that shouldn't be, creating a bunch of collective action problems that don't need to exist.

What things shouldn't be split between districts? The only thing districts should exist for are representation and voting purposes. "Bringing home the bacon" for your district via earmarks isn't a desirable feature of the current system. The data used for the program would be data from the US census. You obviously don't quite grasp how such a program would work (since you previously claimed it wasn't even feasible), or else you'd know that it could be used to arrive at objectively derived districts. It's not a perfect solution, but it is definitely less biased than any other approach. The only reason to oppose this approach, as far as I can see, is support for the status quo: using gerrymandering as a tool to defeat the will of the voters.

 

[fskimospy]

What things shouldn't be split between districts? The only thing districts should exist for are representation and voting purposes. "Bringing home the bacon" for your district via earmarks isn't a desirable feature of the current system. The data used for the program would be data from the US census. You obviously don't quite grasp how such a program would work (since you previously claimed it wasn't even feasible), or else you'd know that it could be used to arrive at objectively derived districts. It's not a perfect solution, but it is definitely less biased than any other approach. The only reason to oppose this approach, as far as I can see, is support for the status quo: using gerrymandering as a tool to defeat the will of the voters.

No, I understand exactly how it works. What I said before was that mandating rectangular districts was stupid and infeasible, and it still is. And anyway, if you were using computer algorithms to create these districts, why bother requiring them to be rectangular? It's ridiculous. You seemed to have taken my contention that mandating a shape was silly and turned it into 'computers can't arrive at objective results'.

As for what shouldn't be split between districts, districts are supposed to represent contiguous areas with shared interests. Now I'm sure you're saying to yourself: 'but they don't do that now!', and you're right. An algorithm would likely create the same problems however, which is why I prefer, as mentioned before, a panel of retired judges.

 

[CycloWizard]

No, I understand exactly how it works. What I said before was that mandating rectangular districts was stupid and infeasible, and it still is. And anyway, if you were using computer algorithms to create these districts, why bother requiring them to be rectangular? It's ridiculous. You seemed to have taken my contention that mandating a shape was silly and turned it into 'computers can't arrive at objective results'.

As for what shouldn't be split between districts, districts are supposed to represent contiguous areas with shared interests. Now I'm sure you're saying to yourself: 'but they don't do that now!', and you're right. An algorithm would likely create the same problems however, which is why I prefer, as mentioned before, a panel of retired judges.

Except that it is feasible, and you have made no explanation as to why it would be stupid. You have made no argument as to why they should not be rectangular. And no, a district is not meant to represent anything with respect to its inhabitants' interests: it's simply a construct by which representation is determined based on a criterion of its boundaries enclosing a population equal to that of other districts within the same state. Your unsupported contention that mandating a shape is silly, coupled with your claim that such a feat is infeasible, are ignorant at best and malicious at worst. Unless you can say why it's a silly/stupid/infeasible idea, you're far better off keeping your mouth shut.

 

[fskimospy]

Except that it is feasible, and you have made no explanation as to why it would be stupid. You have made no argument as to why they should not be rectangular. And no, a district is not meant to represent anything with respect to its inhabitants' interests: it's simply a construct by which representation is determined based on a criterion of its boundaries enclosing a population equal to that of other districts within the same state. Your unsupported contention that mandating a shape is silly, coupled with your claim that such a feat is infeasible, are ignorant at best and malicious at worst. Unless you can say why it's a silly/stupid/infeasible idea, you're far better off keeping your mouth shut.

This is obviously untrue. For example, districts that have been designed to overwhelmingly concentrate racial minorities have been declared unconstitutional in the past. If it were based solely upon population, so long as the numbers added up this would not be an issue. Also, if it were based solely upon population, gerrymandering wouldn't be an issue either, as the population numbers are roughly equal. Hell, by that logic if population is all that matters we could take one person from each house in the whole state and make that a congressional district, and then take the second person from each house, make them another district, and so on. Geography doesn't matter, right?

My argument for why they should not be rectangular is that it impedes the ability to make congressional districts with no commensurate benefit. Of course anyone who disagrees with you must be either stupid or evil, because I'm totally working to keep the system in power from an internet message board. Grow up, man.

 

[CycloWizard]

This is obviously untrue. For example, districts that have been designed to overwhelmingly concentrate racial minorities have been declared unconstitutional in the past. If it were based solely upon population, so long as the numbers added up this would not be an issue. Also, if it were based solely upon population, gerrymandering wouldn't be an issue either, as the population numbers are roughly equal. Hell, by that logic if population is all that matters we could take one person from each house in the whole state and make that a congressional district, and then take the second person from each house, make them another district, and so on. Geography doesn't matter, right?

My argument for why they should not be rectangular is that it impedes the ability to make congressional districts with no commensurate benefit. Of course anyone who disagrees with you must be either stupid or evil, because I'm totally working to keep the system in power from an internet message board. Grow up, man.

The difference is that you actually said my suggestion was stupid without offering any rationale as to why it was stupid, but I never said anything about you being stupid or evil. I think the irony in your "grow up" statement is therefore evident to everyone here. I'm simply suggesting the simplest rational way of constructing districts. I don't see any parallel between my suggestion and unconstitutional gerrymandering, which my suggestion is clearly designed to prevent. The counterposition, which you seem to support (though please correct me if I'm wrong on this), is that districts should be designed to facilitate benefiting from earmarks.

 

[shira]

Blue states have the most budget troubles. I may not agree with everything Texas does, but the Texas model seems to be working better economically. Soon Texas will take over California economically as biggest economy amongst all states, IMO.

I think there are fundamental differences between redistricting and putting crap on ballots that nobody actually knows how it'd affect things.

Texas if facing a $11 to $17 BILLION budget deficit in 2011.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/

 

[Patranus]

LOL - These "voters" simply become "politicians".

Now if the people were picked on a 100% random basis then you might have a point.