The Gerrymander That Ate America

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil


4 in some places - Regional governments (ie Waterloo Region)

I'm not familiar with it. Technicallly, what I'm saying only applies in QC

[Colon™]

Technically we've got 6 tiers of gov't. Federal, regional/communal (they're at the same level but...), provincial, agglomerational (discretionary, only used once and abolished again), municipal, and district (again, discretionary, only used in antwerp for the moment).

[KrazyHorse]

No wonder they put the EU there. You guys are bureaucratic experts

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
There are rural parts of Canada too

"Municipality" is just some lines drawn on a map. The less people around, the bigger the area is.

Municipal means city around here. Therefore it (Municipal government) only encompasses incorporated city limits. The County government is on top of municipal and unincorporated areas.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
There is a pattern It had been like that in every election for a few decades.

Well over a century, in fact, for the Demo's gerrymandering in Texas, and boy did they scream like stuck pigs and throw tantrums when the Repubs got their first chance at since Reconstrcution. Untill that job, the Demo's were still getting about 65% of the congressional seats, with the vote being about 65% the other way.
Gerrymandering and related districting tricks have naother more perverse dimension , however, in Texas. In state goverment and multi county special districts, there is a tremedous effort to favor rural vote over urban vote.

[Sandman]

A question. Does the suburban sprawl common to America help the gerrymandering? If there are fewer traditional or historic communities to base voter areas around, then it'll surely be easier to redraw the map whenever possible.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I'm not familiar with it. Technicallly, what I'm saying only applies in QC

Yeah, Ontario is full of Regional Municipalities. They are essentially counties. Ontario also has normal counties. I think they exist in other parts of the mainland too... Quebec must be different.

Also, as far as the US is concerned, the importance of counties really varies. Like in New England, for example, counties are meaningless and are pretty much historical relics and don't have much power... we used what is called the New England town system. Whereas I know in other parts of the US counties are very important.

[KrazyHorse]

They are essentially counties

We call them regional municipalities too. The difference is that they don't really overlap with another level of local government. I think the closest QC comes is in Montreal, where there are still "boroughs" in the megacity. These boroughs don't have an elected council, though (AFAIK). Instead, they just have appointed officials to run local services within a certain budget handed to them by the municipal government.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon™
Technically we've got 6 tiers of gov't. Federal, regional/communal (they're at the same level but...), provincial, agglomerational (discretionary, only used once and abolished again), municipal, and district (again, discretionary, only used in antwerp for the moment).

How snobbish of yours :q

We have only four to five: National, regional, departmental and communal. Large communes have districts.

Fortunately, we're adding new compliocated layers
intercommunal ftw, and town citizen councils might end up having actual force

[DanS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's a sort of archaic system.

Your description of this is rather unsatisfactory.

Federal, state, county, and township demarkations are fixed and do not change. Each of these levels of government provides certain services.

A city is a geographically-described planned real estate speculation (a special corporation) that can grow or shrink based on criteria set by the state. The city is there to provide the services necessary for a city, and to collect taxes accordingly, with the goal to drive real estate values higher. For instance, if the city brings water service to a residential development outside the city, it often can annex the development.

Because a city can grow or shrink, it may be smaller than a county or it may take in several counties over time.

There's nothing archaic about this system. Rather, it is a system that came into being to manage planned growth.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

They are essentially counties

We call them regional municipalities too. The difference is that they don't really overlap with another level of local government. I think the closest QC comes is in Montreal, where there are still "boroughs" in the megacity. These boroughs don't have an elected council, though (AFAIK). Instead, they just have appointed officials to run local services within a certain budget handed to them by the municipal government.

The ones in Ontario overlap several smaller communities. Waterloo Region is Kitchener/Waterloo, Cambridge and some smaller towns.

The Region looks after stuff like police and fire. The cities do libraries, sports fields, etc.

Eventually one can see the demise of the smaller groupings over time as their duties decrease (in my above example the cities used to look after transit locally - now it is Regional). In the meantime it is a fourth level of government.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


Your description of this is rather unsatisfactory.

That's because I don't understand it too well. It seems to me to be one of those things which made sense at one time, but then stopped making sense as some cities grew...

[DanS]

I think it's a rather flexible system, since the services can be shuffled among the governments as seems to make sense. Ad hoc authorities can be created to apportion government authority over particular services. At a minimum, it ain't broken in most circumstances, and there's no value in fixing it.

[mrmitchell]

Arkansas (which is a lot simpler case than Texas) has four districts that are pretty geographically clear: District 4 (mine, south, full of yellow dog democrats), the central one (Little Rock - full of urban liberals), the northeastern one (pretty much like the south), and the northwestern one (Fayetteville, Fort Smith, Springdale, Rogers - full of wealthy Republicans). As far as I can remember it's always been like that, to the same electoral result, at least as far back as matters. No gerrymandering goes on, yet there's always a clear majority for one party and usually few or none of the races are contested. For example in the last election IIRC my Representative ran unopposed.

This isn't a sign of political apathy either, because state level politics are very much alive. If there was opposition to Ross, someone would've gladly challenged him, I'm sure.

But anyway, yeah, the district maps in Texas look like a mighty mess.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
I think it's a rather flexible system, since the services can be shuffled among the governments as seems to make sense. At a minimum, it ain't broken in most circumstances, and there's no value in fixing it.

That's fine with me. I don't think it's a major issue. I do have to wonder if multiplication of local authority in cities and towns ends up costing a bit more than if you only had one local authority.

The major issue for me is that it's confusing.