Is gerrymandering destroying America?

[xeemzor]

Do you belive that the gerrymandering has gotten out of control, and is denying the ability for Americans to vote for whom they truely want? If you voted yes, then please post what you think should be done to correct it. If you voted no, please explain why you feel that the current system is working.

I think, as your probably can tell from the question, the gerrymandering by politicans has essentially made it impossible for there to be any serious races for the House Seats. There is no incentive to not be corrupt in the house, with 98% of all the reps who run for reelection get reelected. I do not consider a country whose representatives are determined by men in smoke filled rooms to be a true republic. The districting should be done by independant, non-partisan groups, or else we will contine to have districts like this.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: xeemzor
Do you belive that the gerrymandering has gotten out of control, and is denying the ability for Americans to vote for whom they truely want? If you voted yes, then please post what you think should be done to correct it. If you voted no, please explain why you feel that the current system is working.

I think, as your probably can tell from the question, the gerrymandering by politicans has essentially made it impossible for there to be any serious races for the House Seats. There is no incentive to not be corrupt in the house, with 98% of all the reps who run for reelection get reelected. I do not consider a country whose representatives are determined by men in smoke filled rooms to be a true republic. The districting should be done by independant, non-partisan groups, or else we will contine to have districts like this.

It does not help that is for sure.

I think the answer is more voting districts and more congresscritters in dc.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: xeemzor
Do you belive that the gerrymandering has gotten out of control, and is denying the ability for Americans to vote for whom they truely want? If you voted yes, then please post what you think should be done to correct it. If you voted no, please explain why you feel that the current system is working.

I think, as your probably can tell from the question, the gerrymandering by politicans has essentially made it impossible for there to be any serious races for the House Seats. There is no incentive to not be corrupt in the house, with 98% of all the reps who run for reelection get reelected. I do not consider a country whose representatives are determined by men in smoke filled rooms to be a true republic. The districting should be done by independant, non-partisan groups, or else we will contine to have districts like this.

It does not help that is for sure.

I think the answer is more voting districts and more congresscritters in dc.

I agree.... there was a posting a few months back that indicated that we have one of the fewest reps per capita out of any Democracy.

 

[filterxg]

It hurts, but what you going to do. Democrats and Republicans love it...it makes their own elections much easier. Sure one party may complain from time to time when they loose a lock or two but end of the day both parties benefit. Also I have yet to see a perfect system.

More representatives doesn't make much sense to me, because it doesn't fix the problem. Another idea is mixed panels, which also wouldn't do anything since both parties carve up the pie for the easiest elections.

Another good idea, although the most controversial (and requires a constitutional amendment) is use a state by state parliamentary style election. Of course this defeats the original purpose of the "People's House" and would (like in parliamentary systems) make it very hard to break from your party. So we are trading problems.

The simplest solution may be using political boarders. It get complicated in areas with very dense populations...probably resulting in gerrymandering...but fixes the problem in most of the country.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's a dandy, for sure. But it doesn't stretch over 200 miles to split the Austin vote into three districts, like this map of Texas...

http://congdistdata.tamu.edu/USCongressionalDistricts.pdf

Sweet, huh?

I very much support the establishment of bipartisan committees to define districts- it would very much encourage competition among politicians, and parties, since neither side would be able to completely have their way with the minority in this matter. In the marketplace of ideas, meaningful competition is always a good thing, and a valuable element of true democracy.

 

[glenn1]

Gerrymandering is only a minimal cause. The true cause is the complete obliviousness of some Congressional district voters in sending the same assclowns back to DC for decades at a time. That voter stupidity crosses party lines and knows no geography, for every Ted Kennedy the right can point out as being a hemorrhoid on the body politic, I can give you a Tom Delay to match.

To me, the solution would be two-fold: modify the 24th Amendment to allow a "poll tax" of a voter literacy test. There's no reason why someone who doesn't even know what they're voting on should be allowed to have a say in the process, unless you think it's a good idea that people like Bubb Rubb ("the whistle goes whooooooooooooooo....") are the ideal people to choose who runs the joint. Second, have the elections for a state decided by the votes of a different state chosen at random. That way we don't have the morons in certain states sending the same moron politicians to DC over and over.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your "solution", glenn1, reminds me of Shades' kind of solution- one that won't happen, so it's no solution at all, and merely preserves the status quo.

The use of independent and bipartisan commissions or committees is, otoh, used by several states, and can serve as a model for the rest. That's possible, at least, and doesn't fall into the realm of Peter Pan's Never-never land...

The use of literacy tests is illegal for many good reasons, and the simple fact is that there are pretty much as many mental incompetents on one side of any issue as on the other. They balance out. The immense number of misinformed or disinterested voters is another matter entirely, and not really on topic for this thread...

 

[xeemzor]

Do you think voters will support the passage of ammendmants that would allow bipartisan groups to define districts? I know the one proposed in California got shot down.

 

[dannybin1742]

i think this is one thing that people from both parties can agree on. both parties do it, and its really destorying the idea of democracy. personally I really think they should take each state and divide it up on a grid, not based on party lines like most are now, it needs to be completely random, that way we can dislodge some of these incumbents from either party that have been in government too long.

i also feel there needs to be term limits for the house and senate, 3 terms for the house, 2 terms for senate, that way turn over will be higher and ideas should start ruling how people get elected again

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Heavens, people still think this is a Democracy? In name only. You get either the DNC or RNC's selected pic and that's that.

American Democracy is an illusion. Yeah you can vote for someone else, but without the Party Machine behind them, they will lose.

You take what they offer. The End.

 

[ntdz]

I'd be totally for a 2 term limit for Reps and Senators, as well as every other political office.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: xeemzor
Do you belive that the gerrymandering has gotten out of control, and is denying the ability for Americans to vote for whom they truely want? If you voted yes, then please post what you think should be done to correct it. If you voted no, please explain why you feel that the current system is working.

I think, as your probably can tell from the question, the gerrymandering by politicans has essentially made it impossible for there to be any serious races for the House Seats. There is no incentive to not be corrupt in the house, with 98% of all the reps who run for reelection get reelected. I do not consider a country whose representatives are determined by men in smoke filled rooms to be a true republic. The districting should be done by independant, non-partisan groups, or else we will contine to have districts like this.

It does not help that is for sure.

I think the answer is more voting districts and more congresscritters in dc.

I agree.... there was a posting a few months back that indicated that we have one of the fewest reps per capita out of any Democracy.

We also have the 2nd largest population of any democracy, so that is bound to happen.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Gerrymandering is only a minimal cause. The true cause is the complete obliviousness of some Congressional district voters in sending the same assclowns back to DC for decades at a time. That voter stupidity crosses party lines and knows no geography, for every Ted Kennedy the right can point out as being a hemorrhoid on the body politic, I can give you a Tom Delay to match.

The sad, sad truth. Most people are too stupid to be allowed a say in running the country.

 

[Thump553]

Having elected politicians (collectively) determine the boundaries of their voting districts-which is the system in the vast majority of states today-is inherently unworkable. It is a system whose principal function is to preserve the incumbency of the majority party.

Perhaps in 1780 the practical remedies were limited and a bad solution was better than none at all. In the 21st century with the vast array of computer modeling, etc. available to us there is absolutely no legitamite excuse to accept this status quo anymore. The only artificial boundaries that must be accepted these days are the state boundaries. Otherwise, ALL congressional districts, countrywide, should be redistricted into regular shaped districts where the only factors considered should be population distribution and state boundaries. Anything less is a mockery our politicians's so-called allegiance to democracy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your "solution", thump553, is like Shades' from a previous thread, and glenn1's above- can't, won't, and will never happen, so you're just perpetuating the status quo. It ignores political reality and geographical distribution of population.

The founders saw districting as inherently political, I just don't think they quite understood the lengths to which partisanship could be employed and fair play ignored in the process... They were flush with their revolutionary victory, and a greater sense of common cause than we seem to have today often guided their decisions.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your "solution", thump553, is like Shades' from a previous thread, and glenn1's above- can't, won't, and will never happen, so you're just perpetuating the status quo. It ignores political reality and geographical distribution of population.

The founders saw districting as inherently political, I just don't think they quite understood the lengths to which partisanship could be employed and fair play ignored in the process... They were flush with their revolutionary victory, and a greater sense of common cause than we seem to have today often guided their decisions.

The only solution is the make the districts smaller to reduce the effects of politics in drawing up voting districts.

 

[MadRat]

I don't like the idea of putting term limits on Congress since my little state hasn't a chance of picking up important jobs in Congress without the ability of a locally elected leader staying in for several terms. The term limits for larger states is not much difference for them perhaps, but it makes it an even more uphill battle for representation in the little states.

If we want more elected positions then I think we should look for them in the Judicial and Executive branches of government. The President should have a cabinet of power peddlers that are powerless, unlike what we have today. Agencies like FEMA should of never had political appointees. We could make important jobs, like the Secretaries of the executive branch into elected positions and that alone would give everyone a huge boost in what their individual votes will mean. A concept like that would sure curb this "winner takes the spoils" mentality we've seen the past two presidents.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: xeemzor
Do you belive that the gerrymandering has gotten out of control, and is denying the ability for Americans to vote for whom they truely want? If you voted yes, then please post what you think should be done to correct it. If you voted no, please explain why you feel that the current system is working.

I think, as your probably can tell from the question, the gerrymandering by politicans has essentially made it impossible for there to be any serious races for the House Seats. There is no incentive to not be corrupt in the house, with 98% of all the reps who run for reelection get reelected. I do not consider a country whose representatives are determined by men in smoke filled rooms to be a true republic. The districting should be done by independant, non-partisan groups, or else we will contine to have districts like this.

The foundation of a house is the most important part, if it is not right then the rest of the house is not right. I see many here complaining about the politicians in washington (the roof,windows,walls,etc.), yet the local politics (the foundation) is where many learn their ways. Very few people get involved in their local politics and this is the place that gives birth to the state and national politicians and their ways.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I don't like the idea of putting term limits on Congress since my little state hasn't a chance of picking up important jobs .

then move. there is 49 other states to pick from

I think there should be term limits. Congressman get to cushy with their positions, and end up being bought off by the highest bidder ie: lobbiest

 

[zephyrprime]

gerrymandering sucks. They should just throw a population density map into a computer and run the expectation maximization algorithm on it to get districts.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
gerrymandering sucks. They should just throw a population density map into a computer and run the expectation maximization algorithm on it to get districts.

But they already do something like that which is why you have urban and rural districts carved like so. The states should be setup in north-south and east-west grids - each line on the grid being based on separating equal populations - and then balanced out so that the design is mathematically based upon a balance of the two.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: MadRat
I don't like the idea of putting term limits on Congress since my little state hasn't a chance of picking up important jobs .

then move. there is 49 other states to pick from

I think there should be term limits. Congressman get to cushy with their positions, and end up being bought off by the highest bidder ie: lobbiest

Senators, perhaps, but not the Reps from the House. The latter has to work alot harder to get into a coalition due to the fact that every state has a total representation based on the population of their state. The Senate has a pair from each state and that means it takes far fewer bought votes to peddle influence.

 

[miketheidiot]

the house should be elected through single district proportional representation in each state. Im not sure if it would be easier to vote party list or just give each voter a list of everyone running and let them vote for as many people as there are seats.