The Gerrymander That Ate America

[Drake Tungsten]

Just so you know...before the republicans had a chance to gerrymand, my district in Texas had the republican guy getting 92% of the vote...with the only other guy running being the libertarian candidate. After the republicans gerrymandered, a democrat actually runs in the race.

That's a smart gerrymander. You don't want districts where your party's candidate gets 92% of the vote; it's a waste. You're better off spreading those loyal voters through several districts so that you can get several of your party's candidates elected with around 55%-60% of the vote.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Doesn't that by definition mean the districts are more in play and competitive?

[Apocalypse]

Oh I know it is. I'm just giving an example of how the Dems crammed all the republican voters into one district so they wouldn't be as many to vote against Dems.

That's how DeLay's highly conservative district was created in the first place.

[Drake Tungsten]

Doesn't that by definition mean the districts are more in play and competitive?

Not really, save for extreme circumstances. In most cases, a district made up of 60% reliable party voters is just as secure for said party as a district made up of 90% reliable party voters. Occasionally you'll get elections like the ones in '94, where the public is so fed up with a party that they'll toss them out despite the gerrymandered advantage, but those instances are few and far between. Better to spread your voters out and get as many seats as possible for as long as possible than to pile them up in super-safe districts in preparation for the next revolution...

[Imran Siddiqui]

.. and better to shove the other party into super-safe districts so they get one Congressman with 90% of the vote rather than 2 or 3 with 60%.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Doesn't that by definition mean the districts are more in play and competitive?

Not really, save for extreme circumstances. In most cases, a district made up of 60% reliable party voters is just as secure for said party as a district made up of 90% reliable party voters. Occasionally you'll get elections like the ones in '94, where the public is so fed up with a party that they'll toss them out despite the gerrymandered advantage, but those instances are few and far between. Better to spread your voters out and get as many seats as possible for as long as possible than to pile them up in super-safe districts in preparation for the next revolution...

2006 maybe another 1994 after all is said and done.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe



2006 maybe another 1994 after all is said and done.

Individual congressional representative approval ratings for the republican party aren't anywhere near as low as the general approval rating.

[Patroklos]

So what do you want, districts that are highly segregated or ones that have a mix like Apolcalypse said?

There really isn't another option.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How many signatures would you need for a national refendum question? Man... that'd have to be certified pretty damned early too.

Though of course it runs foul of the US Constitution (only Congress can pass laws after all).

constitutional convention perhaps. Everyone likes their guy, its those other bastards they hate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, like a Constitutional Convention is really an option. Usually we just propose amendments .

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Doesn't that by definition mean the districts are more in play and competitive?

No. In the one case you have one district going 90-10 and 3 going 50-50, in the next you have four going 60-40

60-40 is still not a competitive race. All you've done is ensured that more races are non-competitive.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Oh I know it is. I'm just giving an example of how the Dems crammed all the republican voters into one district so they wouldn't be as many to vote against Dems.

Not necessarily. It's possible to have a district go 90-10 by chance. One district doesn't prove a gerrymander. An overall pattern does.

[Patroklos]

No. In the one case you have one district going 90-10 and 3 going 50-50, in the next you have four going 60-40

60-40 is still not a competitive race. All you've done is ensured that more races are non-competitive.

Sorry guys, but you can't have all the districts be 50-50 all the time. It not like we are going to have a vote before the vote, then redraw the districts before every election so you can manufacture close races.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not necessarily. It's possible to have a district go 90-10 by chance. One district doesn't prove a gerrymander. An overall pattern does.

There is a pattern It had been like that in every election for a few decades. All thanks to the Democrats. The district is also shaped quite odd.

This is what the Dems had set up before the Republicans had control. The only geographical borders that these go by are drainage ditches if anything. Seriously.

http://www.comdig2.de/test/images/planC01151_MAP1928356439before.jpg

I'm from the 8th district.

My district is like many in Texas. All those republican voters also lead to large amounts of people going for military academy nominations. While many districts give out nominations to people who eventually don't get accepted, there are many districts in Texas that have been different. Hundreds of people apply just for each academy.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

There is a pattern It had been like that in every election for a few decades. All thanks to the Democrats. The district is also shaped quite odd.

I believe you. I also believe that gerrymandering to that extent shouldn't be tolerated. There will always be some gerrymander in the system, but it seems as though leaving it to political control has had the obvious effect...