4 ms·

Personally I wish my state would enact a law that says representative districts must be drawn to cross as few county lines as possible. Yes, some manipulation

Personally I wish my state would enact a law that says representative districts must be drawn to cross as few county lines as possible. Yes, some manipulation would still be possible, but it would be greatly diminished.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
As possible given what constraints? There's no requirement that they have equal population; it seems like your rule would always require districts to cross zero county lines.
- bluetwo 9y ago
  If it could be drawn while crossing zero lines, then yes. But even then it is likely several different options would exist, and each party would try to pick one that favors them. I'm OK with that as a solution.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    > If it could be drawn while crossing zero lines, then yes What would prevent this?
  - s73ver 9y ago
    Then why not make the county the de facto district, and subdivide the county as needed when populations rise?
s73ver 9y ago
Take the power to create districts away from the legislature. Give it to a non-partisan commission. 1/3 Democrats, 1/3 Republicans, and 1/3 other/no party. We did that in California, and almost none of the legislators were happy with it, which means it probably did a good job. The state still wound up with mostly Democratic representation, but that's more a product of California being heavily Democrat. I'd imagine that if you did the same thing in Texas, even if the districts were much less gerrymandered, you'd still have mostly Republicans.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Woo! Enshrining the current two party system in legislation. What could possibly go wrong?
  - s73ver 9y ago
    So don't include them by name. Just say the two major parties. Doesn't matter, doesn't change a thing.
    - kesselvon 9y ago
      first two parties to finish in the last election would be just as good
      - s73ver 9y ago
        Sure. I figure if we ever get to the point where there aren't two major parties, it can either be fixed then, or we're under one party autocratic rule and it won't matter anymore.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    You're objecting to one example of an implementation when you should be focused on the idea. You can clearly define it in such a way as to not rule out multi-party representation as needed. Many other countries have cracked this nut (see Elections Canada). Of course, the history of the US political system seems to be one of NIH...
- bumblebeard 9y ago
  Iowa's redistricting commission is truly non-partisan: no politicians are allowed to participate. Seems to work fairly well for them just looking at the maps and variety of results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa's_congressional_districts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa's_congressional_districts
  - s73ver 9y ago

thaumasiotes 9y ago

As possible given what constraints? There's no requirement that they have equal population; it seems like your rule would always require districts to cross zero county lines.

bluetwo 9y ago
If it could be drawn while crossing zero lines, then yes. But even then it is likely several different options would exist, and each party would try to pick one that favors them. I'm OK with that as a solution.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > If it could be drawn while crossing zero lines, then yes What would prevent this?
- s73ver 9y ago
  Then why not make the county the de facto district, and subdivide the county as needed when populations rise?

s73ver 9y ago

Take the power to create districts away from the legislature. Give it to a non-partisan commission. 1/3 Democrats, 1/3 Republicans, and 1/3 other/no party. We did that in California, and almost none of the legislators were happy with it, which means it probably did a good job. The state still wound up with mostly Democratic representation, but that's more a product of California being heavily Democrat. I'd imagine that if you did the same thing in Texas, even if the districts were much less gerrymandered, you'd still have mostly Republicans.

Spivak 9y ago
Woo! Enshrining the current two party system in legislation. What could possibly go wrong?
- s73ver 9y ago
  So don't include them by name. Just say the two major parties. Doesn't matter, doesn't change a thing.
  - kesselvon 9y ago
    first two parties to finish in the last election would be just as good
    - s73ver 9y ago
      Sure. I figure if we ever get to the point where there aren't two major parties, it can either be fixed then, or we're under one party autocratic rule and it won't matter anymore.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  You're objecting to one example of an implementation when you should be focused on the idea. You can clearly define it in such a way as to not rule out multi-party representation as needed. Many other countries have cracked this nut (see Elections Canada). Of course, the history of the US political system seems to be one of NIH...
bumblebeard 9y ago
Iowa's redistricting commission is truly non-partisan: no politicians are allowed to participate. Seems to work fairly well for them just looking at the maps and variety of results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa's_congressional_districts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa's_congressional_districts
- s73ver 9y ago