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

Just get rid of district voting entirely for congress. Congress is supposed to be voted on by the people of the entire state, not some "arbitrarily"(in the best case scenario) defined districts. It's stupid beyond measure and defeats the purpose of a pluralistic democratic vote. And instead assign the states reps proportional to the vote. Even better if the vote were ranked that way every candidate in the running gets an equal chance. I'm assuming this is already in the list sort of, I just don't know what is the closest. I'll take a guess and say the closest on the list is mixed party proportional representation.

Virtually every other first world country already does this besides the US.

 

Here is a picture of how Oregon voted in the 2016 presidential election.


The major population center, Portland, is that blue area at the top. That large blue county at the south end of the blue counties contains another population center, the city of Eugene.

The state has 5 congressional districts. How would the Ring Method work in this state?

 

I believe our representatives are a reflection of the people who voted for them. I don't like our politicians so I think voters are doing a very poor job.

 

Portland has a metro area of 1.8 million people and a combined statistical area of 3.1 million. Oregon has a population of 4.1 million. Most of those red areas have almost no people.

 

No, thats not how gerrymandering works. Gerrymandering isn't for the retirees, Cubans, or blacks specifically, its for the dominant party. If the retirees belong to the dominant party then they get twice the vote. If they don't then bad luck they get screwed.

 

I still have yet to hear what results you guys don't like that requires changing the system.

I keep hearing that the system is flawed, its unfair but in order for that to be true there must be results you don't like.

Lets put this simply.

Say you change all the gerrymandering laws and congress remains the same...….will you still say the system is flawed or will you accept the results?

Or do you think that changing the rules will automatically change the makeup of congress...….is that your ultimate goal?

Do you feel your current congressmen are not representing you and that putting other people in there will somehow be more effective?

 

Lets take the state of Minnesota.

Lets say that based on their population they are given 5 representatives.

What I am hearing here is that the state has no different needs, the entire population should vote for their representatives.

What this essentially means is that Minneapolis and St. Paul will pick those five representatives to decide all issues regarding the state because they constitute the majority of voters.

Currently we have one district that represents those major cities, we have one that represents people in the ore mining community we have one farther north that represents native American tribes and one on the southeast that represents trade because that's what most of them do.

Their entire economies are designed around trucking imports/exports throughout the state....they have little in common with the people that live in the North who are more concerned with things like fishing regulations but you guys want to change all that by letting one high population center decide what's important for everyone.

That is just wrong.

What you do is see some district in northern Minnesota that always votes democrat and think its flawed because they always vote that way.

Well they vote that way because the democrat has been representing them and their needs for the last 30 years in congress. He adds items to bills in regards to fishing and native American needs, whatever the issues are for that district.

Because he is getting constantly elected isn't the problem yet you guys think it is.

You come in here, look at a map, and say, "well here is the problem, this district always votes for the incumbent".

No that isn't the problem, they are voting for him because they like him.

 

Tell me how that works.

When people go into the voting booth is there a switch that says "dominate party" on it that they select?

What the hell is the dominant party even.....is that based on the state, who has congress..who has the WH?

Do you guys even think this **** through before you type it?

 

My point is that how any states chooses its representatives is not specified in the constitution. It is not a responsibility of the general government but of your state government.

 

The dominant party decides the state lines and in states that allow gerrymandering it draws the lines so that it stays in power even when the majority is voting against it. This is a violation of the equal representation clause and the whole idea of representative democracy and has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for good reason.

 

Yes, I know all that. Oregon has 5 congressional districts. 4 are held by Democrats, 1, who represents eastern Oregon, is a Republican. My question is, if the districts were determined by the Ring method, how would that look in a state like Oregon?

 

The problem is that state legislatures if controlled by a certain party will draw lines so that this party stays in power. Do you support this? Some states use bipartisan commissions but others are made completely by politicians why select their voters to stay in power.

 

That is a question only for the people of that particular state to answer. It's exclusively a state matter.

 

Over half of the state legislatures are run by democrats.

They draw their own lines, the republican congress doesn't.

 

Wrong, only 42% of them are democrat. And being democrat isn't an excuse for rigging elections with gerrymandering.

 

No, its a national matter and should have been banned by the constitution outright.

 

So you are saying that 42% of our elections are rigged for democrats?

Good to know.

Now we understand why California won't flip.

 

As congress represents the entire US, I disagree. Gerrymandering should be banned. The states are not free to be entirely undemocratic. You are right that it is currently legal and that's what we are discussing. Most of us would agree it should be illegal.

 

No, not all states are gerrymandered but yes a lot of states are rigged for democrats and even more for republicans. With computers, rigging elections has become an art-form where politicians can now use to stay in power for a life-time.

 

I think that saying certain groups of people shouldn't have representation in congress is more undemocratic.

You want high populated areas to decide what's best for everyone.

That's just wrong.

 

So now you are in agreement? Gerrymandering is bad for everyone. It's a bipartisan issue.

 

No we want the people to decide what's best for the people, not arbitrary districts. The problem is that you are saying certain people should have more representation in congress because they are minorities (There votes should be worth more). That's wrong. Proportional voting gives everyone representation, including minorities.

 

The chances of the states ratifying such an amendment are slim to none.