Republican file federal lawsuit for more minority districts in California.

[MotF Bane]

Here's how gerrymandering works. Let's say party 1 has the majority and gets to determine the districts.

They want as large a margin in the legislature as possible.

Now, if they put too many party 1 people in a district, they're wasted. A district that votes 80% for their guy is the same one vote as the district that votes 60% for him.

If they put too few party 1 people, they run the risk of losing the election.

On the other hand, they WANT to waste the non-party 1 vote - so they want to put as many of those people in the district as possible. If they could get 100% of a district to have party 2 people, then they'd be getting party to have no benefit from the voters above the 51% needed to win the election.

So instead of, say, a 20-16 legislature of balanced districts, they might squeeze those 16 districts into 12 and get a 24-12 balance.

One thing though, the more they concentrate party 2 in a district, the more the winner is likely to be not 'in the middle' appealing to 'both sides'.

A 90% 'party 2 district' probably doesn't elect the same type of person as a 55% 'party 2 district'.

That's pretty much all there is to it. There's no such thing as an 'official minority district', but there can be a district with as many minority voters put in it as possible.

Pretty good description of it. :thumbsup:

Welshbloke, Craig's answer is more accurate and overall better than cybrsage's.

 

[SagaLore]

Get rid of the districts and just have a state-wide popular vote.

 

[Craig234]

Get rid of the districts and just have a state-wide popular vote.

That's a bad approach. Then the same 51% of the people would get 100% of the legislators, and the minority would get none.

Geography is far from an ideal way to determine groups, but at least it's something.

I'm not sure what better way there is to have fair representation.

Of course I've previously supported other reforms from taking out the bribery campaign donations to having ranked voting.

 

[WelshBloke]

Here's how gerrymandering works. Let's say party 1 has the majority and gets to determine the districts.

They want as large a margin in the legislature as possible.

Now, if they put too many party 1 people in a district, they're wasted. A district that votes 80% for their guy is the same one vote as the district that votes 60% for him.

If they put too few party 1 people, they run the risk of losing the election.

On the other hand, they WANT to waste the non-party 1 vote - so they want to put as many of those people in the district as possible. If they could get 100% of a district to have party 2 people, then they'd be getting party to have no benefit from the voters above the 51% needed to win the election.

So instead of, say, a 20-16 legislature of balanced districts, they might squeeze those 16 districts into 12 and get a 24-12 balance.

One thing though, the more they concentrate party 2 in a district, the more the winner is likely to be not 'in the middle' appealing to 'both sides'.

A 90% 'party 2 district' probably doesn't elect the same type of person as a 55% 'party 2 district'.

That's pretty much all there is to it. There's no such thing as an 'official minority district', but there can be a district with as many minority voters put in it as possible.

Cheers that makes sense.

It's just politicians dicking around with the electoral boundaries. What criteria do they have to change them? Can the party in power do it when ever they want?

 

[3chordcharlie]

As another voice, I'm for any districts in which their representative actually represents the overwhelming majority of their constituents. 51%/49% (of any factor) doesn't qualify, as that disenfranchises nearly half the people.

That's the exact type of district that would lead to well-argued elections, and quality candidates.

Since about 10-20% of voters are 'in play' in an election (this is probably being generous...), it is preferable to have public opinion within this margin, so that elections mean something.

As for '49% being disenfranchised', that's very inaccurate - there are numerous elections, at predictable intervals. The idea is to hold government accountable, and have them re-apply for their jobs at regular intervals.

Closer voter splits within districts make this work better, not worse.

 

[DCal430]

No, it was divided up between Democrats and Republicans and a declined -to -state-party and an unnamed party. They then chose the rest of the commission. Non-partisan? Is that a joke? You are kidding about that right?

Do you have reason to believe the decline to state, non registered, or 3rd party people were more left leaning? What about the republicans who voted for the districts were they left leaning republicans?

 

[monovillage]

That's the exact type of district that would lead to well-argued elections, and quality candidates.

Since about 10-20% of voters are 'in play' in an election (this is probably being generous...), it is preferable to have public opinion within this margin, so that elections mean something.

As for '49% being disenfranchised', that's very inaccurate - there are numerous elections, at predictable intervals. The idea is to hold government accountable, and have them re-apply for their jobs at regular intervals.

Closer voter splits within districts make this work better, not worse.

That's just gerrymandering for a different purpose. Districts should be as fairly decided in the interests of the constituents as they can be. The people elected are supposed to be the representatives of the people in their districts not some number picked to make an evenly decided vote based on polling.

 

[3chordcharlie]

That's just gerrymandering for a different purpose. Districts should be as fairly decided in the interests of the constituents as they can be. The people elected are supposed to be the representatives of the people in their districts not some number picked to make an evenly decided vote based on polling.

I didn't districts should be manipulated to create that situation. I was responding directly to someone who thinks districts should all be heavily one-way or the other.

I think districts should be as 'blind' as possible. I mean follow city and county borders as needed, but otherwise less screwing around means less screwing the voters.

 

[monovillage]

Do you have reason to believe the decline to state, non registered, or 3rd party people were more left leaning? What about the republicans who voted for the districts were they left leaning republicans?

The final commission was 5 registered Democrats, 5 registered Republicans and 4 decline-to-state or no party affiliation.
Can I prove that the commission was more left leaning? No.
Is it my opinion that they did an unfair and biased job during the redistricting? Yes.
Did you sign the petition for the Proposition to pick a new commission? No.

It's biased and unfair, but since the Democrats have a majority in the State it was pretty much what I expected, it's the way that a representative democracy works. I just get a little peeved when a dedicated Democrat tells me it's fair and balanced and that it's only the evil Republicans that ever gerrymander districts for advantage.

 

[DCal430]

The one thing I didn't like too much about the commision, was i didn't feel it trully reflected the people.

The people on the commision had Ph.Ds, Law degrees, one was a former mayor, one had been other government commisions in the past. It didn't seem reflected of the population, were few people have law degrees and Ph.Ds.

 

[monovillage]

The one thing I didn't like too much about the commision, was i didn't feel it trully reflected the people.

The people on the commision had Ph.Ds, Law degrees, one was a former mayor, one had been other government commisions in the past. It didn't seem reflected of the population, were few people have law degrees and Ph.Ds.

I agree, but it could have been worse.

 

[cybrsage]

I think the solution to our government is a multi-tiered voting style (not sure the name of the style).

Basically, in round 1 you vote for whoever you like. Out of those people, the top 5 are kept and the rest dropped. Another round of voting provides the top two, the bottom three are dropped. Final round of voting determines the winner.

People will not feel like their vote is wasted if they vote third party, since they can revote if their candidate is dropped. It will allow someone like Ron Paul (just using a well known example) to actually have a chance at winning the election.

 

[Craig234]

Cheers that makes sense.

It's just politicians dicking around with the electoral boundaries. What criteria do they have to change them? Can the party in power do it when ever they want?

I don't know the exact limits, but my impression is that they have a lot of latitude but at some point of absurdity the courts might take issue - especially on racial issues.

It's a moot point for California now though, because the politicians no longer draw the boundaries, now it's that 'citizen commission'.

And Republicans, unsurprisingly, decided that fair is terrible for them.