5 ms·

I find it really interesting that there's no political will in the US to create a non-partisan body like the UK's Boundary commissions in the US. Even if just f

I find it really interesting that there's no political will in the US to create a non-partisan body like the UK's Boundary commissions in the US. Even if just for congressional districting, it would be a huge improvement over the current state of affairs. (I get that the US is huge, and in general there is a tendency to delegate these sorts of things to states for various reasons both political and practical, but it would seem to be a a straightforward if not easy solution to this issue.)

emodendroket 9y ago
The party in power gets to set the districts which then keep them in power, so from a purely self-interested perspective such a thing would enjoy support mostly from people in no position to implement it.
- sukilot 9y ago
  Most states have a system for citizen initiatives, though.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I am not super hip to every state's politics but from what I have seen in Massachusetts ballot measures seem more like "strong suggestions."
s73ver_ 9y ago
Districting is left to the States, so it would have to be a State thing. That said, California does have such a commission for setting districts. Given that most of the state legislators were upset at their results, and that they ended up having incumbents have to go against one another, I think they did a decent job.
r00fus 9y ago
There is at a state level - see how California moved to non-partisan primaries (jungle primaries) and non-partisan redistricting board. The party in power (Democrats) agreed to this several years ago despite being the majority. The result ended up being that they got a subsequent supermajority, because I guess CA is really progressive/liberal in aggregate.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The party in power (Democrats) agreed to this several years ago No, they were both adopted by citizen initiative, and the California Democratic Party opposed both (the Republican Party supported the redistricting one, all six of California’s ballot-qualified parties opposed the jungle primary, which got put on the ballot as part of a deal to pass a budget back when the supermajority budget requirement made holding the budget hostage a regular occurrence.)
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I find it really interesting that there's no political will in the US to create a non-partisan body like the UK's Boundary commissions in the US. Several US states have bodies like that (nonpartisan, of course, doesn't mean the members and the people setting criteria don't have political preferences that influence what they do, and there is no non-distorting way to assign single-member districts.) The US as a whole does not because the US is a federal and not unitary state, and there is little appetite for transferring the detailed regulation of elections to the federal government.

emodendroket 9y ago

The party in power gets to set the districts which then keep them in power, so from a purely self-interested perspective such a thing would enjoy support mostly from people in no position to implement it.

sukilot 9y ago
Most states have a system for citizen initiatives, though.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I am not super hip to every state's politics but from what I have seen in Massachusetts ballot measures seem more like "strong suggestions."

s73ver_ 9y ago

Districting is left to the States, so it would have to be a State thing. That said, California does have such a commission for setting districts. Given that most of the state legislators were upset at their results, and that they ended up having incumbents have to go against one another, I think they did a decent job.

r00fus 9y ago

There is at a state level - see how California moved to non-partisan primaries (jungle primaries) and non-partisan redistricting board. The party in power (Democrats) agreed to this several years ago despite being the majority. The result ended up being that they got a subsequent supermajority, because I guess CA is really progressive/liberal in aggregate.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The party in power (Democrats) agreed to this several years ago No, they were both adopted by citizen initiative, and the California Democratic Party opposed both (the Republican Party supported the redistricting one, all six of California’s ballot-qualified parties opposed the jungle primary, which got put on the ballot as part of a deal to pass a budget back when the supermajority budget requirement made holding the budget hostage a regular occurrence.)

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I find it really interesting that there's no political will in the US to create a non-partisan body like the UK's Boundary commissions in the US. Several US states have bodies like that (nonpartisan, of course, doesn't mean the members and the people setting criteria don't have political preferences that influence what they do, and there is no non-distorting way to assign single-member districts.) The US as a whole does not because the US is a federal and not unitary state, and there is little appetite for transferring the detailed regulation of elections to the federal government.