4 ms·
There are very few independent, non-partisan human beings. Simply changing who does the redistricting and the means bu which they are chosen to do so doesn't so
by Amezarak 9y ago
There are very few independent, non-partisan human beings. Simply changing who does the redistricting and the means bu which they are chosen to do so doesn't solve the problem, because the people who are interested in and chosen to do the task are always going to have political views.
Even having bipartisan commisions doesn't solve the problem. Parties will work together to secure incumbents.
It basically comes down to a who watches the watchers issue.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoNo, it actually works. When California went through with it, the “other side” actually gained seats. It takes the drama out of redistricting, and districts are of a much regular shape. Of course, isn’t perfect, but a sucks way less solution is much better than a sucks way more one.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> It takes the drama out of redistricting, The California process may produce better results on average by some measure (and is emphatically more transparent) compared to legislative redistricting, but it emphatically vastly increased the drama associated with redistricting.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoHow so? Californians seem really happy with it, all things considered.
- dragonwriter 9y agoLargely, the transparency, which meant public hearings with lots of involvement from interest groups, with accusations (which turned out to be true) that both major political parties were actively working behind the scenes to coordinate those groups to bend the process to their partisan advantage, and all kinds of related drama that didn't happen with legislative districting. But, yes, I think people are mostly satisfied with the results, which is a separate issue from drama in the process.