6 ms·

Oregon just got a new House Rep member, and if you look at the new maps it has created, its pretty obvious this isn't a one party problem.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Gerrrymandering indeed has a long history, and it's a bit like nukes - if the other side is already using them, it's hard to hold off on your side. In 2018, North Carolina saw 50% of the vote go to Republicans, but they received 77% of the Congressional seats. A couple rounds of that is a recipe for a permanent minority for the other party.
- justaman 5y ago
  Should the region/counties that have a smaller population but different work forces or geographical makeup not have representation? Population alone cannot dictate the house of representatives.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    Why should empty land get a vote? Why should the majority of the populace be beholden to an even-dwindling minority?
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      It's required for keeping the country intact. All the low population states would leave if they had no say at the federal level.
  - scelerat 5y ago
    But that is how the House is explicitly defined in the US constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." Part of the problem is that the number of Representatives in the house has been fixed at 435 since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. There would be no "small/rural/unique regions aren't represented without drawing crazy district lines" argument if the number of people represented per US Rep were lower. And, as we see now, the lines of districts are simply not drawn according to regional peculiar needs. They are drawn by party affiliation, by the parties themselves. Which is insane.
  - qqqwerty 5y ago
    That is what the Senate is for. A minority party should never get control of all three branches of government with only 46% of the popular vote. Control of one branch of government is sufficient to exert influence on the legislative process. In our current setup, the minority party has zero reason to appeal to the median voter. This results in increasing polarization as the two parties are no longer competing against each other for voters, but instead are trying to drive turnout.
- angelzen 5y ago
  The ability of the partisan brain to consistently be outraged by the perceived foul play of the other side, while never bothering to check how one's own side is measuring up, is a fascinating phenomenon. This is really easy to sanity check. For example CA, the best known blue state in the nation. 2020 elections, 79% of the Congressional delegation is D, while only (edit) 66% of the popular vote went for (edit) Ds. But, but, but, the other guys are even worse than us. We won't stand for truth, fairness or justice, obviously the correct course of action is to out-foul them whenever we can. And then we wonder why the country is on the brink of an ugly divorce.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. That said, 50-77 versus 63-79 seems like a different order of magnitude worth of gerrymandering.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      The 63-79 isn't apples to apples - it's comparing Congressional representation to Presidential votes. We should be comparing number of seats assigned to each party and % of vote cast for each party.
      - angelzen 5y ago
        I could not find the Congressional vote totals on the Wikipedia page. If you have a source with the Congressional vote totals, please share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Congressional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Re...

ceejayoz 5y ago

Gerrrymandering indeed has a long history, and it's a bit like nukes - if the other side is already using them, it's hard to hold off on your side. In 2018, North Carolina saw 50% of the vote go to Republicans, but they received 77% of the Congressional seats. A couple rounds of that is a recipe for a permanent minority for the other party.

justaman 5y ago
Should the region/counties that have a smaller population but different work forces or geographical makeup not have representation? Population alone cannot dictate the house of representatives.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Why should empty land get a vote? Why should the majority of the populace be beholden to an even-dwindling minority?
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    It's required for keeping the country intact. All the low population states would leave if they had no say at the federal level.
- scelerat 5y ago
  But that is how the House is explicitly defined in the US constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." Part of the problem is that the number of Representatives in the house has been fixed at 435 since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. There would be no "small/rural/unique regions aren't represented without drawing crazy district lines" argument if the number of people represented per US Rep were lower. And, as we see now, the lines of districts are simply not drawn according to regional peculiar needs. They are drawn by party affiliation, by the parties themselves. Which is insane.
- qqqwerty 5y ago
  That is what the Senate is for. A minority party should never get control of all three branches of government with only 46% of the popular vote. Control of one branch of government is sufficient to exert influence on the legislative process. In our current setup, the minority party has zero reason to appeal to the median voter. This results in increasing polarization as the two parties are no longer competing against each other for voters, but instead are trying to drive turnout.
angelzen 5y ago
The ability of the partisan brain to consistently be outraged by the perceived foul play of the other side, while never bothering to check how one's own side is measuring up, is a fascinating phenomenon. This is really easy to sanity check. For example CA, the best known blue state in the nation. 2020 elections, 79% of the Congressional delegation is D, while only (edit) 66% of the popular vote went for (edit) Ds. But, but, but, the other guys are even worse than us. We won't stand for truth, fairness or justice, obviously the correct course of action is to out-foul them whenever we can. And then we wonder why the country is on the brink of an ugly divorce.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. That said, 50-77 versus 63-79 seems like a different order of magnitude worth of gerrymandering.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    The 63-79 isn't apples to apples - it's comparing Congressional representation to Presidential votes. We should be comparing number of seats assigned to each party and % of vote cast for each party.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      I could not find the Congressional vote totals on the Wikipedia page. If you have a source with the Congressional vote totals, please share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Congressional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Re...