Is Gerrymandering Unconstitutional?

[J842P]

As far as I know there is no constitutional right to proportional representation.

 

[Derec]

I'm taking it you're still in 2nd, then?

You really love insulting people with a different opinion lately.
What's the matter, did somebody piss in your corn flakes this morning?

 

[Derec]

The problem are single member districts and that cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment. Best bet would be to have a state change to proportional system for their legislature as an experiment.

 

[zorq]

I'm taking it you're still in 2nd, then?

You really love insulting people with a different opinion lately.
What's the matter, did somebody piss in your corn flakes this morning?

Turnabout is fair play in my book, Derec.

Various cities throughout the US Including New York tried Proportional Representation in the 20th Century, Only Cambridge Mass. Retains it today. PR was regarded as a major improvement over the first past the post systems that it replaced and it effectively broke up Political strangleholds and reduced corruption by weakening political bosses.

In New York City, fear of communism proved the undoing of proportional representation. When the Cold war rolled around Democrats in New York hyped the fear of commies to push a repeal of proportional representation. You can't trust a commie. They are here to destroy America!

*Other cities that tried PR include Wheeling, Long Beach, Yonkers, Boulder, Kalamazoo, Sacramento, West Hartford, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and Hamilton among others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem isn't so much with gerrymandering although its a bitch to live in a district where my vote is worth less than that of some dude in Wyoming. The real problem is with apportionment. Imagine a country of 90 million where each representative is beholding to 210000 citizens in 1913, but in 2013 is beholding to 670000 citizens. Put another way citizens in 2013 have lost 2/3 of their voice compared to 1913 in the house. In practice that translate sto business have a greater voice now than they did in the bad old days when cartels and monopolies were all the rage.

Doesn't feel right does it. Yet its true. Not only is the individual voter with less voice in populous states in the Senate every voter is with less voice in the federal government. If one pause to check out the states they'll find similar power loses of their votes. When was the last time your state legislature increased the number of members? 50 years, one hundred years? In the same time how much has population increased? 100%, 200%, 400%?

Just as founding fathers worried about too few voters per representative they also saw problems with too many voters per representative. It was in the early 20th century when government officials secured power by constraining membership to their clubs.

So suggest land is important for determining representation. I agree. There should not be more than 100 votes per acre.

If it makes you feel better a person in Wyoming's vote is worth approximately zero.

They have two senators. Same as California, despite having a little bit of a smaller population.

 

[Bronzeage]

So why does Texas have 36 Congressional districts and Alaska only has one?

Be patient, they'll cover that in 3rd grade.

I gave you a chance to clarify your incorrect statement. Perhaps you meant "geographical boundaries" when you said area. Boundaries are a factor when drawing a district, in that all districts must have boundaries which do not allow overlap. Beyond that, population, not area are the basis of representation.

 

[Bronzeage]

As far as I know there is no constitutional right to proportional representation.

Proportional representation is not recognized in the Constitution, and neither are racial groups or political parties.

The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection" for all citizens, so if a Congressional district were drawn with the intention of reducing or denying representation to a particular group or community, that would be unconstitutional. The problem with intent is, it's a very vague concept. Unless a State Representative stood up and said, "Our new district lines were drawn to insure no Democrat will be elected to Congress for the next 10 years," it would be difficult to prove such an intent.

 

[Derec]

As far as I know there is no constitutional right to proportional representation.

Proportional representation is not recognized in the Constitution, and neither are racial groups or political parties.

The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection" for all citizens, so if a Congressional district were drawn with the intention of reducing or denying representation to a particular group or community, that would be unconstitutional. The problem with intent is, it's a very vague concept. Unless a State Representative stood up and said, "Our new district lines were drawn to insure no Democrat will be elected to Congress for the next 10 years," it would be difficult to prove such an intent.

Actually gerrmandering for partisan purposes is legal, so it would not matter if he said it.

Some of the justices were skeptical of this argument because they’re struggling with, was this done because of race or was this done to achieve a partisan advantage? The Supreme Court has said that it’s not unconstitutional to draw lines for partisan advantage.

Supreme Court Considers Line Between Racial And Partisan Gerrymandering
The problem is that since 90%+ of blacks vote Democratic, it is difficult to separate race and party affiliation when gerrymandering urban areas.

 

[Derec]

I gave you a chance to clarify your incorrect statement. Perhaps you meant "geographical boundaries" when you said area. Boundaries are a factor when drawing a district, in that all districts must have boundaries which do not allow overlap. Beyond that, population, not area are the basis of representation.

It is pretty easy to understand what he meant, i.e. area as in "defined geographical area" rather than "equal sized areas".

 

[Derec]

Turnabout is fair play in my book, Derec.

What turnabout?

Various cities throughout the US Including New York tried Proportional Representation in the 20th Century, Only Cambridge Mass. Retains it today. PR was regarded as a major improvement over the first past the post systems that it replaced and it effectively broke up Political strangleholds and reduced corruption by weakening political bosses.

Very interesting. May be a time to renew such efforts given that there is much dissatisfaction with major parties and communism is no longer a threat.

 

[Bronzeage]

I gave you a chance to clarify your incorrect statement. Perhaps you meant "geographical boundaries" when you said area. Boundaries are a factor when drawing a district, in that all districts must have boundaries which do not allow overlap. Beyond that, population, not area are the basis of representation.

It is pretty easy to understand what he meant, i.e. area as in "defined geographical area" rather than "equal sized areas".

If "easy to understand" means interpreting factual errors as correct, I suppose it was easy.

 

[Davka]

As far as I know there is no constitutional right to proportional representation.

Proportional representation is not recognized in the Constitution, and neither are racial groups or political parties.

The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection" for all citizens, so if a Congressional district were drawn with the intention of reducing or denying representation to a particular group or community, that would be unconstitutional. The problem with intent is, it's a very vague concept. Unless a State Representative stood up and said, "Our new district lines were drawn to insure no Democrat will be elected to Congress for the next 10 years," it would be difficult to prove such an intent.

It would be pretty difficult to posit any other motive for the way Republicans have drawn district boundaries in North Carolina. Democrats make up at least 50% of the electorate in any given election, yet Republicans win 2/3 of the seats. I'd like to try to force the GOP to defend their redistricting on logical grounds. Better yet, I'd like to challenge the law that allows the winning party to draw those boundaries in the first place - that's an insane concept on the face of it. Districts should be drawn according to an impartial algorithm.

 

[Davka]

What turnabout?

Seriously? Dismal tries a juvenile slam against Bronzeage by saying "they'll cover that in 3rd grade," I respond IN KIND with "I take it you're still in 2nd," and you honestly cannot see how the phrase "turnabout is fair play" applies?

And you wonder why I disparage your apparent intellectual acumen based on the content of your posts.

 

[Derec]

Seriously? Dismal tries a juvenile slam against Bronzeage by saying "they'll cover that in 3rd grade," I respond IN KIND with "I take it you're still in 2nd," and you honestly cannot see how the phrase "turnabout is fair play" applies?

If it was Bronzeage who came back with that line it would have been understandable.

And you wonder why I disparage your apparent intellectual acumen based on the content of your posts.

Because you are a mean spirited person?

 

[Derec]

It would be pretty difficult to posit any other motive for the way Republicans have drawn district boundaries in North Carolina. Democrats make up at least 50% of the electorate in any given election, yet Republicans win 2/3 of the seats. I'd like to try to force the GOP to defend their redistricting on logical grounds.

Even without gerrymandering first past the post single member district voting can skew results significantly from the actual voter preferences. That is because there is no difference between a squeaker and a landslide - a won seat is a won seat. So if urban areas are more reliably Democratic than rural areas are Republican there will be a skew in favor of Republicans even if no gerrymandering occurs. Not that there isn't gerrymandering but it merely enhances the effect, rather than creating it.

Better yet, I'd like to challenge the law that allows the winning party to draw those boundaries in the first place - that's an insane concept on the face of it. Districts should be drawn according to an impartial algorithm.

The law would have to be changed, not challenged, as SCOTUS has already ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a-ok. Note that I agree with you for once on the matter of impartial redistricting.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Even without gerrymandering first past the post single member district voting can skew results significantly from the actual voter preferences. That is because there is no difference between a squeaker and a landslide - a won seat is a won seat. So if urban areas are more reliably Democratic than rural areas are Republican there will be a skew in favor of Republicans even if no gerrymandering occurs. Not that there isn't gerrymandering but it merely enhances the effect, rather than creating it.

Why would urban vs rural be relevant? If each district gets X number of voters then a ten square mile urban district should be as reliably democratic as a thousand square mile rural district would be republican if the districts are drawn up solely on the basis of population and not taking demographics into account.

 

[Derec]

Why would urban vs rural be relevant? If each district gets X number of voters then a ten square mile urban district should be as reliably democratic as a thousand square mile rural district would be republican if the districts are drawn up solely on the basis of population and not taking demographics into account.

That doesn't follow. If a bigger percentage of rural voters is Democratic than percentage of urban voters is Republican you will get a more Republican legislature than popular vote totals would suggest.
It thus has everything to do with how voters are distributed in urban, suburban and rural settings.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm taking it you're still in 2nd, then?

You really love insulting people with a different opinion lately.
What's the matter, did somebody piss in your corn flakes this morning?

Really. Wasn't the insult with the one who mentioned the third grade relative to a point.

All Davka did was take a humorous shot on that shot.

Aren't you taking your self appointed job as conservative political forum cop just a little too too seriously?

Besides Davka's response seems to me to be on topic and really funny. Your comment on the other hand is ad ham.

 

[ksen]

If it was Bronzeage who came back with that line it would have been understandable.

And you wonder why I disparage your apparent intellectual acumen based on the content of your posts.

Because you are a mean spirited person?

 

[fromderinside]

Proportional representation is not recognized in the Constitution, and neither are racial groups or political parties.

The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection" for all citizens, so if a Congressional district were drawn with the intention of reducing or denying representation to a particular group or community, that would be unconstitutional. The problem with intent is, it's a very vague concept. Unless a State Representative stood up and said, "Our new district lines were drawn to insure no Democrat will be elected to Congress for the next 10 years," it would be difficult to prove such an intent.

It would be pretty difficult to posit any other motive for the way Republicans have drawn district boundaries in North Carolina. Democrats make up at least 50% of the electorate in any given election, yet Republicans win 2/3 of the seats. I'd like to try to force the GOP to defend their redistricting on logical grounds. Better yet, I'd like to challenge the law that allows the winning party to draw those boundaries in the first place - that's an insane concept on the face of it. Districts should be drawn according to an impartial algorithm.

I don't think there is a constitutional limit on the notion 'to the victor go the spoils'. One just can't carry away the women anymore according to the 14th.