Ranked Vote: How To Reform Redistricting And End Political Gerrymandering?

Quit throwing up links, if you have something to say then just say it.

Its called debating.

I am not going to read a novel to respond to every one of your posts.

 

Ignored by our OP of course.

He doesn't see a problem with results he wants to waste time and money on fixing a system that will produce the same results.

 

Not what I meant. I was talking about the amendment process. For an amendment to pass, the support of one state is not even close to sufficient. Why do you keep restating the same thing over and over?

 

I'd be interested in seeing the constitutional language that would allow the general government to impose such restrictions on the governments of the several states.

 

Ah, yes, I agree. Amending the constitution to allow the general government to interfere with how any state chooses its house members would indeed depend on a 3/4 majority of the states to approve said amendment.

 

Thank you for the consideration


Question: Should A Black District, such as that held by Representative Maxine Waters be gerrymandered in for fairness or should we rely on a more arithmetic, computerized grouping of people into a district, or some other idea that gives no credit to race or party registration?


Please don't make me ask for a synopsis.
Gracias.


BTW I have family in Eureka California. And I detest the 2nd Congressional district.
A majority in the Bay Area, so far away from the interests of people in the northern 90% if not more, parts of the district.
A better way might have been slices from West to East across the northern most part of the State to keep people of similar economies in a district.
The southern part of the 2nd is high density, suburb with too little in common with the northern 90%+ of the district.

Prior to redistricting by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission of 2011, the 2nd district encompassed much of the far northern part of the state, from Sacramento to the Oregon border. It was the largest district by area in California.
Wiki.
Obviously, citizen's committees is not the solution.

​

 

Why over-complicate it? Just get rid of districts. The fact that the district system is so complicated is one of it's issues. This can easily lead to lines drawn that are unfair and undemocratic for the state as a whole.

 

Then what area votes for a Congressman?
Districts might be in the Constitution but I am not sure.
So the State will vote for all Congress representative on State wide elections?
I guess I don't comprende your upload.

 

There are no areas/districts, just counties. I know that how many seats a state gets, is in the constitution, but I don't think that how the states assign them, ie districts is in there.

https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/redistricting-and-the-united-states-constitution/
"Well, for hundreds of years now, we’ve had districts, but as Sean said, there’s no constitutional requirement that we have it."

Anyway, you get a ballot, the same way you would in any other election. You vote, or you vote at your local county clerk. Counties tally the votes, then they are tallied up at a the state level. So yes, except it's proportional. There are many methods of doing a proportional vote. A simple one is this (party proportional):

The state gets a total of 10 seats in congress.
There are 10 parties on the ballot. Party 1 gets 30 percent of the vote. 3 seats in congress go to that party.
And so on... You can read up on the calculations for it when for example a party gets say 5 percent of the vote.

There are others that include ranked and/or a constituency vote, meaning candidate gets preference to party, but the one I described is probably simplest (not necessarily the best).

 

Sounds a bit European, if not
The popular vote dictating how many you get for your party.
No Thank YOU!
Warning: I may have misread. I'm having a stoopid day.

The American way!
The best way.


​

 

Lol, I won't judge your bias against Europeans or Canadians. Oh wait... did I? Oh well. Anyways like I said the example I gave is the simplest and I wouldn't agree the best. Single candidates can be given priority over party seats.

 

How except by a geographical representation.

 

Any other way...

Nominees are chosen by the party (using whatever their statewide method is) and then in turn placed on the ballot.

Assuming our example state has 10 seats. Voters are given two votes, one for a party, and one for a candidate. If party A wins 3 seats, and Bob Jones from party A got 1/10 of the vote then he automatically is granted one of those 3 seats. At least that's how I understand it. For a better understanding see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

That's still one method. You are assuming there is no other way. Of course you can get rid of the party system entirely...

 

Thank you sir, it was a pleasure as always.

My best to you and your own.

 

No thank you.

It will just rob rural folks of theirs.
Just as the California 2nd District does.
Yes the Congressman lives in the southern 10%
As discussed earlier.

 

As said before, why exactly should rural folks get a greater percentage of seats just because they are rural in a democracy? Maybe we should just have 2 districts then. Rural and not rural. The rural folks get a certain number of seats based on population. Both districts do a proportional vote and problem solved. I don't think relative majority/majority elections are a problem though.

I like proportional voting but at the same time I see the merits of electing candidates locally (though for the reasons described the methods of doing the splitting is going to cause issues), so I'm split. No status quo for me though.

 

In the United States, the "one person, one vote" principle was invoked in a series of cases in the 1960s. Applying the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court majority opinion in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures needed to redistrict in order to have congressional districts with roughly equal represented populations. In addition, the court ruled that, unlike the United States Congress, both houses of state legislatures needed to have representation based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses.

Drawing districts to ensure that the man in the rural county has as much say as the man in the urban county is and has been upheld in the Supreme Court.

 

Only YOU Can Prevent Mantra Arguments!



​

 

Oh god, not this again MOI. Democracy can be a bitch can't it?

 

Umm, that says absolutely nothing about rural populations having an equal say to non rural populations. What it does say is that all districts need to have roughly equal populations. So, in effect geographically rural districts are going to be larger (geographically).

 

You Lose, Buckwheat




The founding fathers recognized representation of rural populations.

​

You can have the last word as you must.

 

And so do I. Equal representation, based on population, not affirmative action representation. But I still lose by fiat. Even Whitmore can't win against Jefferson.

 

What it says is that one district cant have more say over another district, that's how we draw the lines.

When you delve into how the state legislatures draw them its taken ever further by districting around needs.

The elderly are isolated, the farmers are, minority populations are and this ultimately gives them representation in congress.

Saying that a state has a population of lets say 5 million so they get five districts of 1 million each isn't adhering to the needs of the state whatsoever.

How do the needs of this 1 million compare to the needs of the next 1 million?

They may be completely opposite and both need their representation.