Gerrymandering should be outlawed and the Electoral College repealed

Today, a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law finds that extreme partisan bias in congressional maps account for at least 16-17 Republican seats in the current Congress –a significant portion of the 24 seats Democrats would need to gain control of the House in 2020 – and that only a small number of swing states account for the vast majority of this partisan skew.

Extreme Maps, the first in-depth report to use data from the 2016 election as well as the 2014 and 2012 cycles, focuses on the most egregious map-drawing abuses. The congressional maps in question have high levels of “partisan bias” – the degree of systematic advantage one party receives over another in turning votes into seats – under at least three widely accepted statistical measures.

Among the findings:
This decade’s congressional maps consistently benefit Republicans: In the 26 states that account for 85 percent of congressional districts, Republicans derive a net benefit of at least 16-17 congressional seats in the current Congress from partisan bias – significantly more than previously thought.

Extreme maps have proved remarkably durable: Typically, the impact of biased maps drawn by state legislators lessens over the years as voters move, populations change, and legislators retire. But this time, the maps’ high levels of partisan bias have persisted through both pro-Republican and pro-Democratic elections.

Just six swing states and Texas account for almost all the bias: Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania consistently have the most extreme measures of bias, accounting for at least 7-10 Republican seats in each election since the 2011 redistricting. Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia jointly account for most of the remaining extra Republican seats. All these states had one-party control of the process.

Maps drawn by independent commissions, courts, or split-party state governments had less bias: There is strong evidence that less partisan redistricting processes have led to less biased maps; no maps drawn since 2011 by these means had high level of bias across all three election cycles since. Conversely, maps in each of the seven states with the worst gerrymandering abuses were drawn under single-party control.

“Gerrymandering can mean many things to many people,” said Michael Li, senior counsel in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program and co-author of Extreme Maps. “Among the most dangerous forms of gerrymandering is when redistricting locks in an unfair share of seats for one party. Courts have struggled in the past to stop this sort of abuse because it’s been hard to measure. But the last three elections show clear, measurable evidence that pernicious map-drawing abuses are a feature in a few key states – giving the courts the impetus and information they need to act. ”

“Gerrymandering has been a problem since our nation’s founding,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. “But today, maps in a few states are so egregiously biased in favor of one party that they can be rightfully called ‘extreme.’ These extreme maps in only a handful of swing states completely warp the composition of Congress. They are the product of a flawed, undemocratic process, which usurps the basic power of voters to choose their representatives.”

Read the full report, Extreme Maps.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

From here: New Report: Extreme Partisan Maps Account for 16-17 Republican Seats in Congress

Excerpt:


We just elected a PotUS who lost the popular-vote by a significantly large margin (2%), the sixth time in the nation's history when the popular-vote has been overturned. This is a travesty of democratic justice. Trump was elected by an Electoral College which is non-proportional; that is, based upon "one winner takes all, despite the respective popular-vote amounts".

Yes, everybody has an excuse for what has been happening in American politics since the 14th Amendment was instituted in 1803 and gerrymandering began in the very beginning of the nation (but earned its name in 1812 in Boston). A just nation needs neither if it believes in electoral voting that is fair and honest - one person, one vote and only the total determines the elected winner.

Both mechanisms, along with unlimited money donations, have corrupted American democracy; and in this latest election allowed a wholly inept PotUS to inhabit the White House.

The US is on the wrong path for as long as Americans refuse to take action, by fixing the nation's archaic electioneering mechanism ...

Click to expand...

AliHajiSheik said:

14th Amendment in 1803? You are just randomizing facts!

Click to expand...

RetiredUSN said:

Popular vote overturned? WTF?

The "popular vote" is a non starter to begin with.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

I keep telling you to get a dictionary. The popular-vote is "an act of voting by the electorate of a country or area, and thus the choice expressed through the votes cast by said electorate".

So, yes, when an electoral-college "overturns" the popular-vote then democracy has failed. The popular-vote, like it or not, is the only real means of voting in a democracy.

And, if you don't like that an entire state votes popularly (for instance) for an ex Klu-Klux-Klan leader who wins, then that's just too bad. Such is the voice-of-the-people in a genuine democracy.

Like it or not. I'm not saying its infallible - nonetheless it is more fair than a winner-take-all electoral-college "vote" ...

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

From here: New Report: Extreme Partisan Maps Account for 16-17 Republican Seats in Congress

Excerpt:


We just elected a PotUS who lost the popular-vote by a significantly large margin (2%), the sixth time in the nation's history when the popular-vote has been overturned. This is a travesty of democratic justice. Trump was elected by an Electoral College which is non-proportional; that is, based upon "one winner takes all, despite the respective popular-vote amounts".

Yes, everybody has an excuse for what has been happening in American politics since the 14th Amendment was instituted in 1803 and gerrymandering began in the very beginning of the nation (but earned its name in 1812 in Boston). A just nation needs neither if it believes in electoral voting that is fair and honest - one person, one vote and only the total determines the elected winner.

Both mechanisms, along with unlimited money donations, have corrupted American democracy; and in this latest election allowed a wholly inept PotUS to inhabit the White House.

The US is on the wrong path for as long as Americans refuse to take action, by fixing the nation's archaic electioneering mechanism ...

Click to expand...

Fletch said:

Someday, you will get over the last election. Someday...

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

Brilliant rebuttal! Brilliant ... !

Click to expand...

RetiredUSN said:

WWhy don't you try being honest for once, and admit that you just want to see the "union of states" wiped out, and have the USA renamed the " The Federal State".

The USA isn't a democracy, it is a constitutional democratic republic. You need to learn the difference before before you make these claims of democracy being "over turned"

Click to expand...

Fletch said:

I would take your complaints seriously if you had stated them BEFORE the last election. You know, back when Hillary supporters and the media were describing that 'Blue Wall" (aka the Electoral map) that made it difficult for a republican to beat her. Now that the "Blue Wall" has crumbled, you libs suddenly hate it. But when republicans get to draw the lines, you are outraged.

Click to expand...

Fletch said:

Same with gerrymandering. If dems held control of state houses and were drawing the districts, you wouldn't make a peep.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

From here: New Report: Extreme Partisan Maps Account for 16-17 Republican Seats in Congress

Excerpt:


We just elected a PotUS who lost the popular-vote by a significantly large margin (2%), the sixth time in the nation's history when the popular-vote has been overturned. This is a travesty of democratic justice. Trump was elected by an Electoral College which is non-proportional; that is, based upon "one winner takes all, despite the respective popular-vote amounts".

Yes, everybody has an excuse for what has been happening in American politics since the 14th Amendment was instituted in 1803 and gerrymandering began in the very beginning of the nation (but earned its name in 1812 in Boston). A just nation needs neither if it believes in electoral voting that is fair and honest - one person, one vote and only the total determines the elected winner.

Both mechanisms, along with unlimited money donations, have corrupted American democracy; and in this latest election allowed a wholly inept PotUS to inhabit the White House.

The US is on the wrong path for as long as Americans refuse to take action, by fixing the nation's archaic electioneering mechanism ...

Click to expand...

Gerrymandering should be outlawed

Click to expand...

and the Electoral College repealed

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

A CIRCUS ATTRACTION



Blah, blah, blah.

You may make what ever electioneering analysis you want. It is nevertheless meaningless. Why?

Because our nation has one of the most unfair presidential-election processes on earth, made so by an anachronistic Electoral College that turns the popular-vote result into a "winner take all" disproportionate to the voter's actual will and intent as described in the popular-vote.

We have a flawed democracy, and I am not the only one to think so. Go to the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index, then select "United States" and see the result.

You aint gonna like it ...



No, silly. I am not as shallow as you.

Gerrymandering is the "name-of-the-game" in American politics and has been since the early 19th century along with its entirely antiquated cousin the 12th Amendment (since 1804) instituting the Electoral College - which (along with gerrymandering) that also has been "fixing" elections for two centuries.

Both were devised and employed at about the same time in the nation's history - and (silly people that we are) we've done nothing to update the electoral process into modern times.

Only a fool cannot recognize the evidential faults of America's "democracy". We are in dire need of another Amendment to the constitution - one that defines the electoral process as:
*Uniquely a matter of the popular-vote of all citizens, and
*Defines "who is a citizen" by means of an official lifetime Identity Card, with voting rights initiated at the age of 18-years,
*After having taken Civics Instruction in high-school.

Americans need to "grow up" about politics, which has become a circus attraction ...

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

THE ECONOMIST'S "DEMOCRACY INDEX"



Bollocks to that notion.

The US is not yet a TRUE DEMOCRACY because its voting of the highest office in the land is rubbish. Once again, here is the Economist's evaluation of the US by means of its Democracy Index.

Just enter "United States" and see what comes up as an evaluation. (Flawed Democracy)

And look what it produced this time around as a PotUS! One would have to be fool not to want Hillary given Donald Dork's already proven incompetence.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

That (bolded above) says it all. You would not be the least bit upset about "the EC system" had your prefered candidate for POTUS won.

Click to expand...

Fletch said:

Again, had you taken this stance PRIOR to the last election when it appeared as if your candidate had the clear electoral advantage, you would have some credibility on the issue. Since you didn't, you don't.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

You'll never get rid of gerrymandering so long as you have senators and congressmen. It's a part of the system.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

As for the "travesty of democratic justice" bit....well...we don't live in a democratic society. We live in a Republic society. Learn the difference.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

Which means it is "fate" and we are obliged to accept it?

Not in any real democracy ... !

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

All peoples want to live in a democratic society where their vote means only one thing - the outcome as a result.

We have "doctored" that result 220 years ago (with the 12th Amendment) and it is high-time we correct that serious error to our democracy ...

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

No, it means that you can't get rid of gerrymandering in the type of system that we have. You can try all that you want. And I encourage such. But you will never fully get rid of it

I don't. I like the electoral college. It gives everyone a voice and not just the mob. That is what democracy is. A mob mentality form of government in which the majority overrules the minority each and every single time. That's a good way to get peoples Rights taken away. No thank you. I'll stick with what we have now.

Click to expand...

Are there alternatives? (ti gerrymandering)Unlike in Australia, Canada, or most European countries, anti-gerrymandering reforms have failed to gain much political traction in the United States due to entrenched political interests, however alternatives do exist. The most commonly proposed tactic for eliminating gerrymandering is the creation of an independent and objective commission to draw the boundaries of electoral districts rather than leave this task to the legislature; the United Kingdom and Australia have specially designated commissions for this purpose. These commissions, in the few places where they have been implemented in the United States, are usually made up of relatively apolitical members, selected with the aim of achieving equitable representation of Republicans and Democrats.

Where there's a will, there's a way. There is little will in the US because of a lack of Civics Education in the country over the past three/four decades. See this piece from the Atlantic: Ignorance Does Not Lead to Election Bliss

While there surely are many varied causes for the current American political situation, one among those is the relative ignorance of basic American history, scientific, technological knowledge, and what some refer to as “civics” among a large sector of our population. It is testimony to the failure of the country’s education system that a high percentage of the voting-age population is simply ignorant of basic facts—knowledge that is necessary to act reasonably and rationally in the political process.

This void isn’t limited to those with little education or those without significant professional achievements. It is telling, for example, that in 2009, 89 percent of those who took a test on civic knowledge expressed confidence they could pass it; in fact, 83 percent would have failed.

Without addressing how to remedy this situation, consider some of its manifestation and possible causes—a few illustrations of the problem as reported in The Atlantic in 2010:
*Americans were more able to identify Michael Jackson as the composer of a number of songs than to know that the Bill of Rights was the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
*When asked in what century the American Revolution took place and whether the Civil War, the War of 1812, and the Emancipation Proclamation preceded or followed the Revolution, more than 30 percent of respondents answered that question incorrectly.
*And more than a third of Americans did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to a trial by jury. Meanwhile, 40 percent mistakenly thought that it secures the right to vote.

Things have not gotten better more recently. In a study of historical knowledge carried out in 2015 for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), more than 80 percent of college seniors at 55 top-ranked institutions would have received a grade of either a D or F.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

That (bolded above) says it all. You would not be the least bit upset about "the EC system" had your prefered candidate for POTUS won. Not a peep about the "super delegate" process used to (s)elect that candidate - that was all fair and square on your personal "democracy" index. Also not a peep about "big money" or "dark money" in politics since your preferred candidate had that in spades. The EC system is not perfect with its winner take all allocation of electors but it does make it possible for a "swing" state (or two) to make a difference - the pure popular nationwide vote alternative would have nobody giving a damn about anything except major (big blue?) cities.

Click to expand...

As seen above, contributions given by physical persons to one or more candidates for a specific election are authorized only during the year preceding the election. With regard to contribution amounts, a distinction is made between contributions below or equal to €150, (referred to as “cash contributions”) and contributions of more than €150.

Contributions of more than €150 must be paid by check or online, with the donor duly identified. A physical person duly identified is allowed to contribute up to €4,600. Cash contributions cannot exceed €150 per donor. The total amount of cash contributions to a candidate cannot exceed 20 percent of the authorized campaign expenditure amount when such amount is equal to or more than €15,000.

Nor is a legal entity allowed to finance political parties or political groups. Financing is not allowed in any form whether direct, e.g., by donating money or properties, or indirect, e.g., by rendering services, providing products below regular market fees or prices, or granting favors or advantages to political parties, groups, their financial representatives, or associations.

The intent of Parliament was to cut any link between the economic world and the political world. To compensate for this loss of funding, it sensibly increased public funding.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

It is a necessity to rid our so-called democracy of gerrymandering.

Such a mechanism does not exist in any other democracy on earth. All that is necessary is the will to do so. See here: Gerrymandering - Proving All Politics Is Local

Excerpt:

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

And what is to stop this special commission, which would have to be implemented by each and every single state, from taking under the table bribes or promises of "good will" later on down the road? Nothing. I have an old saying, "what was made by man, can be destroyed by man".

And again, we do not have a democracy. We have a Democratic Republic.

GL on your endeavor though. It's not going to happen in either of our lifetimes though.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

Look, my wife votes here in France. Here the country is called "La République de France". (Got it? If so, STOP with the semantics. It is of no consequence whatsoever in this discussion!)

You go to the voting place, show your Identity Card, and are given a ballot - and you vote! (Of course, if you are of age.) You vote for people who will serve in your conscription, which is a state entity defined geographically. Not by some "Election Commission".

Nothing could be simpler, except to notify the authorities of when you change address - because then you belong to another voting conscription.

The above is more-or-less how ANYONE votes in Europe. Why is it that you (plural) insist on making it so effing difficult in the US?

Moreover, is it because it is sooooo effing difficult that you have the lowest voter turnout of any developed nation on this planet? See here.

Click to expand...