Posted: 11/13/2012 7:17:58 AM EDT
|
How much of an effect did partisan redistricting have on this year's elections?
Should redistricting be a partisan process? |
|
Just look at the maps and you can see who jacked up it is. the boundaries should follow roads and be in shapes that you would see in geometry class.
Thanks to Gerrymandering we have wonderful Sheila Jackass Lee in houston for like 20 years. 
ETA: added pic. basically they threw every strong minority area into her district. |
|
In Iowa redistricting is done by the non-partisan Legislative Servies Bureau. They do it strictly by numbers, and never split counties. The legislature votes yes or no, but cannot change it. If its voted down LSA does another one. After the thrid vote their plan goes into effect. As a result, Iowa's districts are very straright forward and easy to follow.
Due to population decline we lost one of our reps, going to four instead of five. The two eastern Iowa districts are safely democratic and it had no real effect there. In western Iowa we had one very conservative rep, one conservative rep and one moderate democrat. The two reps ended up in the same district but one simply moved to the democrat's district, and won. The process works amazingly well. Even on the state level they try to keep districts as compact as possible, using existing political boundary lines to the maximum extent. |
|
Quoted: Here is a GOP member districtJust look at the maps and you can see who jacked up it is. the boundaries should follow roads and be in shapes that you would see in geometry class. Thanks to Gerrymandering we have wonderful Sheila Jackass Lee in houston for like 20 years. She represents two of the wealthiest suburbs in TN, Germantown and Brentwood They have NOTHING in common culturally or geographically. It is just a collection of employed folks that will vote R Pure power play. Both sides do it.   |
|
Quoted:
In Iowa redistricting is done by the non-partisan Legislative Servies Bureau. They do it strictly by numbers, and never split counties. The legislature votes yes or no, but cannot change it. If its voted down LSA does another one. After the thrid vote their plan goes into effect. As a result, Iowa's districts are very straright forward and easy to follow. Due to population decline we lost one of our reps, going to four instead of five. The two eastern Iowa districts are safely democratic and it had no real effect there. In western Iowa we had one very conservative rep, one conservative rep and one moderate democrat. The two reps ended up in the same district but one simply moved to the democrat's district, and won. The process works amazingly well. Even on the state level they try to keep districts as compact as possible, using existing political boundary lines to the maximum extent. That is the way to do it |
|
Short answer?
It allowed the GOP to keep the House. More complicated answer? At the time of redistricting after the census, most states were in the control of the Republicans. The new districts reflect this. If you add all the votes for all the house seats, there were more Democratic votes than Republican ones. Don't kid yourselves, this election was worse than it looks. |
| Gerrymandering has effectively killed local politics in many states. Both sides support it of course, because it makes campaigning cheaper and safer, particularly for incumbents. Given the way Congress handles seniority, it's pretty important (to the parties) for 'key' congresscritters to not have to worry about re-election. Most really brutal state campaigns mysteriously coincide with redistricting. |
