Would ending gerrymandering really fix the house?

[bradt99]

I hear a lot of liberals say ending gerrymandering would tame the extremes in each party? Are you really sure about that? Because their is always going to be deep blue and deep red districts across the U.S. I will say you will get more toss-up districts, but by how many districts would turn into toss-ups? Is ending gerrymandering really a power grab by the democrats? If you end gerrymandering, no party should have an advantage.

 

[Helix]

it's a good start. i support banning the practice nationwide.

 

[washunut]

I hear a lot of liberals say ending gerrymandering would tame the extremes in each party? Are you really sure about that? Because their is always going to be deep blue and deep red districts across the U.S. I will say you will get more toss-up districts, but by how many districts would turn into toss-ups? Is ending gerrymandering really a power grab by the democrats? If you end gerrymandering, no party should have an advantage.

Would change things around the edged only IMO. The extremes will not be tamed until voter participation vastly increases in primaries. Low voter turnout helps the extremes in both parties. Extremists are the most passionate and therefore turnout in higher percents.

 

[bradt99]

Would change things around the edged only IMO. The extremes will not be tamed until voter participation vastly increases in primaries. Low voter turnout helps the extremes in both parties. Extremists are the most passionate and therefore turnout in higher percents.

Well, I would give anything to have moderates in both parties again, bi-partisanship led to the great 90s economy and a balanced budget. My professor in one of my classes last week said bi-partisanship is now a bad thing and I believe her.

 

[washunut]

Well, I would give anything to have moderates in both parties again, bi-partisanship led to the great 90s economy and a balanced budget. My professor in one of my classes last week said bi-partisanship is now a bad thing and I believe her.

Again bi-partisanship is dangerous for politicians because due to low turnout in primaries,not because the average American on either side is more radical than previously. Would be curious to her her opinion.

BTW- the 90's were also partisan. Remember the Clinton impeachment. The 90's had the internet boom/bubble.

 

[bradt99]

Again bi-partisanship is dangerous for politicians because due to low turnout in primaries,not because the average American on either side is more radical than previously. Would be curious to her her opinion.

BTW- the 90's were also partisan. Remember the Clinton impeachment. The 90's had the internet boom/bubble.

Well, the democrats are doing it now just like the republicans did back then all for partisanship.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I hear a lot of liberals say ending gerrymandering would tame the extremes in each party? Are you really sure about that? Because their is always going to be deep blue and deep red districts across the U.S. I will say you will get more toss-up districts, but by how many districts would turn into toss-ups? Is ending gerrymandering really a power grab by the democrats? If you end gerrymandering, no party should have an advantage.

Drawing districts should be done by non-partisan committees created by nominations by both major parties.

As it is, the majority party currently is allowed to draw districts specifically designed to dilute the voting power of the opposition party and even minorities.

Here is a map of the Houston area. If you look closely, you will see that the inner city of Houston is divided up into several congressional districts. Each district takes a portion of urban Houston and then incorporates a large portion of suburban and rural Texas. You will notice that it sort of resembles a flower with each petal beginning near the center and spreading out into the rural landscape. The net effect of this is to make each district a white middle class majority. People of color and poor urban whites are not equitably represented in any district. Consequently, even though Texas is over 50% registered Democrats, Republicans control 24 of 36 congressional districts.

Further, of those 24 red districts, 23 of them have representatives that are white men. Not a single Hispanic or African American among them. The remaining red district has a white woman.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Make gerrymandering a federal crime as it should be. But also put in term limits on Congress and SCOTUS.

 

[Glitch]

I hear a lot of liberals say ending gerrymandering would tame the extremes in each party? Are you really sure about that? Because their is always going to be deep blue and deep red districts across the U.S. I will say you will get more toss-up districts, but by how many districts would turn into toss-ups? Is ending gerrymandering really a power grab by the democrats? If you end gerrymandering, no party should have an advantage.

How, exactly, do you propose to end gerrymandering? The one political party is always going to accuse the other political party of seeking an unfair political advantage.

 

[Drawdown]

Districts should be drawn by the Vegas bookmakers :lol:

 

[jimbo]

Drawing districts should be done by non-partisan committees created by nominations by both major parties.

As it is, the majority party currently is allowed to draw districts specifically designed to dilute the voting power of the opposition party and even minorities.

Here is a map of the Houston area. If you look closely, you will see that the inner city of Houston is divided up into several congressional districts. Each district takes a portion of urban Houston and then incorporates a large portion of suburban and rural Texas. You will notice that it sort of resembles a flower with each petal beginning near the center and spreading out into the rural landscape. The net effect of this is to make each district a white middle class majority. People of color and poor urban whites are not equitably represented in any district. Consequently, even though Texas is over 50% registered Democrats, Republicans control 24 of 36 congressional districts.

Further, of those 24 red districts, 23 of them have representatives that are white men. Not a single Hispanic or African American among them. The remaining red district has a white woman.

I've long been a proponent of establishing districts by computer based on population only without regard to any party or ethnic considerations. Let the chips fall where they may.

As it is we now use gerrymandering to cure gerrymandering, which makes no sense to me.

 

[jnug]

thread title: Would ending gerrymandering really fix the house?

No, but its a step in the right direction. Its not just the House any longer. The Senate is now just as much a partisan snake pit as the House.

Moscow Mitch has done everything in his power to even keep Republican and Democrat Senators from meeting ANYWHERE. No longer is there the bi-partisan farewell dinner for Senators retiring or Senators having been voted out. While an argument can be made that in some ways Dems have also contributed to the polarization on the Hill the Repugs have pursued it steadfastly and ruthlessly since at least Newt Gingrich.

We now elect 2 year partisans in the House and 6 year partisans in the Senate. How does that make any sense AT ALL!

 

[Dayton3]

You can't eliminate gerrymandering as long as voters tend to move into clusters of like minded people.

 

[JackA]

You can't eliminate gerrymandering as long as voters tend to move into clusters of like minded people.

Gerrymandering is the unfair practice of manipulating clusters of like minded people. Ending that practice would increase fairness in state elections.

Ending primaries would go a long way toward ending stupidity in national elections.